Aqsa Parvez
We here at Loon Watch have documented many of the perverse and reprehensible statements of those in the Islamophobic blogosphere. However, sometimes these loons take their disgusting behavior and rhetoric to another level. It is safe to say that these loons have a burning hatred in their hearts for Muslims and the religion of Islam, despite their hollow claims to the contrary (Pamela Geller claiming that she “loves Muslims” or Robert Spencer being pushed to say that Islam molds its followers to be moral and upright individuals).
Previously, Geller and Spencer attempted to exploit the Rifqa Bary incident to their advantage. However, their ridiculous claims that the girl’s life was in danger were dispelled by law enforcement who told all sane individuals that the parents were cooperating and posed no threat to young Rifqa. Despite the police’s claims to the contrary, the loons continued to use Rifqa’s situation to promote their hate fest against Islam and Muslims.
So it is nauseating to read that bigots like Geller and Spencer have decided to “honor” a Muslim girl named Aqsa Parvez who was murdered in 2008 by her father for not practicing her faith the way her father wanted. Geller used the opportunity to exploit the murder of this young Muslim girl for her anti-Muslim agenda by creating a “memorial” in Aqsa’s honor. In reality, it is nothing but a monument symbolizing “everything that is wrong with Islam” in the mind of Pamela Geller. She is weaponizing a young girl’s grave site.
Geller raised money, asking her anti-Muslim fans to support the erection of a headstone at the site of Aqsa Parvez’s grave in Canada. “All was going according to plan,” says Geller, until Aqsa’s family refused to use such a headstone from her. What is amazing is that Geller didn’t seem to anticipate this, and instead raised $5,000 from her supporters anyways. One wonders why she is so incredulous: does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why a Muslim family wouldn’t want to erect an anti-Muslim headstone on their daughter’s grave site? A headstone funded by people who absolutely hate their religion?
Says Geller further: “The family (yes, the family that murdered her) had refused to ‘sign off’ on the headstone.” The family didn’t kill Aqsa Parvez. Her father and brother did. They are both serving life sentences for her murder. I seriously doubt they had any legal say in what is placed on Aqsa’s grave. It was likely the mother who decided against using such a headstone. One could hardly expect her to do otherwise, considering she is Muslim herself.
It is even doubtful that Aqsa Parvez herself would support the headstone. It is quite possible, even probable, that Aqsa would renounce her self-proclaimed benefactor Pamela Geller. Based on what we know, Aqsa was most likely still a Muslim, and never renounced her religion altogether. Why would she want to associate herself with people who vilify her own religion and all its adherents? Like many young Muslims, she might simply have been rebelling against a strict interpretation of Islam–a firebrand, conservative form of it. Why is it a given that she rejected the entire religion of Islam, as Geller et al. would imagine?
After being rebuffed by the family, Geller shopped around for a place to erect a memorial and finally decided upon Israel. Writes Geller:
I approached the JNF and worked to plant the Aqsa Parvez Grove in American Independence Park in Jerusalem, Israel, where the plaque before the grove will read: “In Loving Memory of Aqsa Parvez and All Victims of Honor Killings Worldwide.
The irony of the location perfectly encapsulates the absurdity of the whole thing. The JNF, the Jewish National Fund, is a quasi-governmental organization in Israel that does not sell land to non-Jews, certainly not to Muslims. Indeed, the JNF has been at the forefront of stripping Muslims of any land rights in the state of Israel. Quite literally then, the “memorial” for Aqsa Parvez is built on land that she herself could never own. She could not own her own “memorial.”
But of course that was the point. The choice of Israel was intended to be especially inflammatory. With very good reason, no country earns the ire of Muslims more than Israel, which illegally occupies and oppresses its Muslim population. Choosing Israel as the site for this “memorial” is meant to give the Muslim world the middle finger. It would be like the KKK selecting apartheid-era South Africa as the site to erect a “memorial” to honor victims of black-on-black violence during the 1960′s. Nobody would take the KKK’s “memorial” seriously, and everyone would know that they don’t give two damns about the black victims. The point would be to vilify black people, not honor them. Likewise, the “memorial” for Muslim victims is not meant to honor them but vilify Muslims.
The idea of career anti-Muslim bigots creating a “memorial” for Muslim victims is truly a laughable notion and people should see through the thin fog of bigotry on display. This faux memorial is a sadistic propaganda attempt by Geller and Spencer to exploit the death of a young girl for their agenda to link a disgusting crime to Islam and Muslims.
September 3rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Any links to the Israeli embassy in the US? Emails?
We need to email and let our feelings be known
September 3rd, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Glad to see the israelis ready to accommodate Islamophobia from their Zionistmiscreants overseas. Somebody ought to use that headstone on Geller’s plastic face.
Great video :
September 3rd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
These people are no better than nazis, I’m sure they dream of a holocaust against Muslims. The same demonic force that drove hitler drives spenser, geller, wilders etc and their followers. If I were them I would be extremely worried about my place in the afterlife, but on the bright side they’ll never be cold again.
September 3rd, 2011 at 3:26 pm
This is such an awful insult to the family and memory of Aqsa Parvez. Geller doesn’t hesitate to exploit anyone, as long as it servers her evil agenda.
http://www.dnainfo.com/20100911/downtown/911-anniversary-rallying-cry-for-both-sides-of-mosque-debate#ixzz1VcavkW39
I can’t imagine what it must be like to grieve for a family member, and deal with someone exploiting the tragedy to promote hate. Grrrr.
September 3rd, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Hugh Fitzgerald has clearly said that people should “secretly rejoice” at the deaths of Muslims, including innocents and civilians. He did this in an article that’s still on JihadWatch.
September 3rd, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Can you get your facts right about the aqsa murder case
YOU CAN FIND THIS ON THE INTERNET THE REFRENCE THAT SHE WAS MURDERED BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS REASONS WAS TO A WIRE ARTICLE WHICH CLAIMED TO INTERVIEW A PERSON WHO KNEW HER OR FREIND WHO THOUGH SHE **MIGHT** HAVE BEEN KILLED BECAUSE SHE WEARS THE HEADESCARF,
THIS ABSLOUTLY REFUTED BY HER UNCLE WHO SAID THIS WAS NOT THE CASE
THE STORY WAS BASED ON HEARSAY SOME PERSONS SUGGESTIONS WHO COULDNT BE VERIFIED HOW CLOSE THEY WERE TO HER BUT CERTAINLY NOT A CLOSE FRIEND
IF YOUR A MUSLIM YOU WILL KNOW EVEN THE MOST STRICTEST OR FUNDAMENTALIST WONT HARM SOMEONE NEVER MIND KILL OVER SOMETHING LIKE HEADSCARF, THIS MAKES NO SENSE MOST LIKLY IT WAS FAMILY PROBLEMS AS THE UNCLE SUGGESTED JUST LIKE THE COUNTLESS FAMILY MURDERES IN THE US VERY YEAR
September 3rd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/allcaps.htm
September 3rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
i know but when i have to speak out on a lie that has been so comprehensively used to support the agenda of taking away my humen rights as a muslim but when this lie is again stated by people on a website that have struggled against this agenda it realy shows how far the current ignorance of islam and the agenda against us has progressed.
September 3rd, 2011 at 4:00 pm
wow so once again pam uberbitch geller is showing us her “compassion” to muslims by using human life to villify them, and anything else on the jnf I should know about they sound they sound like a swell group of guys.
September 3rd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Despite the CAPS, Redz is being truthful. Aqsa Pervez was not murdered over hijab, her older sister didn’t wear one either so why the father go after Aqsa? Some other issue(s), none of which justify her murder.
Let me restate, that headstone belongs on Geller’s ugly plastic face at impact speed. Filthy Zionist whore deserves nothing less.
September 3rd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
No surprise that LoonWatch is attacking Aqsa Parvez just like they did Rifqa Bary.
September 3rd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
^hey dumbass! Note that LW described as a horrific crime and said that she was a victim. They’re attacking Pamela “Soup Jihad!” Geller, your secret crush.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
I’m so-so sick of hearing about this hate-fill, brainless, heartless, aging, genocidal w-re.
Did anyboby ever thought about investigating and digging her life, to find out what went wrong with her, maybe one of her parent was an addict and abused her, or was she raped as child by a relative, i mean something have had to happened to her in order to have such a passionate hate for human rights and lives, this person hate life itself, that’s why she is so genocidal against others.
This is hitler reincarnated, knowing what we know today, we could have stopped hitler rhetorics before the killing, wouldn’t we. So then why after all we know now, are the authorities turning a blind eye to its reincarnations.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Now if this was a muslim guy what ever his issue was we all can guess what Pam ( link to Norway Killer) Geller would say and link it to
===============================================
TURLOCK — The toddler who was beaten to death on a dark country road
Saturday night was killed by his father, authorities said Monday.
The father, Sergio Aguiar, 27, of Turlock was killed with a single
shot to the forehead fired by Modesto police officer Jerry Ramar, who
was dropped on the scene in rural Stanislaus County from a helicopter
as Aguiar kicked and stomped the small boy’s head.
Two days after the attack that has gained national notoriety,
neighbors wrestled with hard questions without answers. Was Aguiar on
drugs? Mentally ill? Most only seemed to know the man was quiet and
worked at FoodMaxx on Fulkerth Road.
On Saturday night, a different picture emerged.
Aguiar had parked his gold 2002 Toyota pickup in the eastbound lane,
into traffic, and viciously attacked the motionless child as passers-
by frantically dialed 911 and tried to stop him. Aguiar seemed calm
and spoke of “demons” in the boy. He has no criminal history,
authorities said.
The 2-year-old boy later was pronounced dead at Emanuel Medical Center
in Turlock.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Better Article of same story…
—————–
TURLOCK, Calif. (AP) — A 27-year-old man was fatally shot by police as he kicked, punched and stomped a young toddler to death in front of horrified motorists who tried to stop the attack on a dark country road, authorities said.
Investigators on Sunday were trying to establish the relationship between the suspect and the child they say he killed Saturday night. The Stanislaus County coroner said the boy appeared to be between 1 and 2 years old based on his size, according to county sheriff’s deputy Royjindar Singh.
“It’s been a long night of wondering, ‘Why?’ — not only for the officers and the passersby who stopped and tried to help out, but for anyone. Why would somebody do this?” Singh said.
Singh said the coroner does not plan to confirm the identities of the suspect and victim until Monday. Because his injuries were so severe, the child will have to be identified through a blood or DNA test, he said.
The suspect had a child’s car seat in the back of his four-door pickup. The truck caught the attention of an elderly couple at 10:13 p.m. Saturday because it was stopped in the two-lane road facing the wrong direction, Singh said.
As they got closer, the couple saw the man brutally beating the toddler behind his truck and throwing the child on the ground, according to Singh. Two or three other cars stopped, an unusual number to be passing through the remote area surrounded by a dairy, a cow pasture, a cornfield and a farmhouse, he said.
“What we got from witnesses is he was punching, slapping, kicking, stomping, shaking,” Singh said. “They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn’t have an effect. The suspect was engaged in what he was doing. He just pushed them off and went back to it.”
A sheriff’s helicopter responding to emergency calls from the area landed in a cow pasture at 10:19 p.m. carrying a Modesto police officer who shot the man to death after he refused an order to stop beating the child, Singh said.
Paramedics tried to resuscitate the toddler, who was not breathing when they arrived. The boy was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
@rocky load
yeah where in this article was the writer attacking the victim of a horrible murder this is about geller exploiting her death to villify muslims by puting her in a place where they can’t own land.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:28 pm
“Let me restate,that headstone belongs on Geller’s face ugly plastic face at impact speed. Filthy Zionist whore deserves nothing less.”,came out from a human heart so eloquently and rarely matched.
And I humbly concur.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Rocky lore do you enjoy making an ass out of your self? Everyone knows hitler and her fat himmler friend hate this girl as do their inbred scumbag fans.
September 3rd, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Remember the article on loonwatch couple of months back, when a sick person from jewish descent murder a young boy, decapitaded him and his boby pieces was discover in a fridge by the authorities.
Well-well if we had a muslim loon-geller, she could have, just to give a taste to geller-link-Norway-terrorist her own medicine, she could have made a memorial shrine for that kid in Saudi-Arabia, to prove how the savage jews murders and decapites children…geller-link-Norway-terrorist think she is sooo smart in her hate..Disgusting
September 3rd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Rifqa Bary was exploited by Pam ( Link Norway Killer) Geller and Rob (2x link to Norway Killer) Spencer and her Lawyer
The Truth came out and we all had a good laugh…..
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/fathima-rifqa-bary-update-no-abuse-found/
The case is being resolved and more and more facts are coming out. The anti-Muslim blogsphere lead by the wacky Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been casting the family as fanatical, abusive, wanting to kill their daughter. They have cast unsubstantiated allegations on the local Mosque in Columbus, Ohio saying it is a haven for terrorists, even when it has been proved a bastion of moderation.
Now Mike Kruse of the St. Petersburg Times reports that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) have reported that there is “no evidence whatsoever of alleged abuse or threats of death made by the girl’s parents.”
=================
Honor killings have been reported in northern regions of ME, Africa,Asia, and South Asian in places like India, mainly in the Indian states of Uttarakhand, Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, as a result of people marrying without their family’s acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion
Few examples
Gurmeet Singh Ubhi, a Sikh man who, in February 2011, was found guilty of the murder of his 24 year-old daughter, Amrit Kaur Ubhi in 2010.[28] Mr. Ubhi was found to have murdered his daughter because he disapproved of her being ‘too westernised’. Likewise he also disapproved of the fact that she was dating a non-Sikh man
In May 2008, Jayvirsingh Bhadodiya shot his daughter Vandana Bhadodiya and struck her on the head with an axe
Asha Saini and Yogesh Kumar were in love and wanted to get married. But Saini’s family did not approve of Kumar: As a taxi driver, they said, he did not have the right kind of job. But more importantly for them, he was from a lower caste
July 22, Savita and Beena stood before a court in Gurgaon, India, and became the first lesbian couple to be legally married, defying their disapproving families and strict laws banning same-sex marriage. Now, the newlyweds seek police protection following death threats from 14 of their family members and local villagers
There is some evidence that homosexuality can also be perceived as grounds for honor killing by relatives.
This includes Brazil,Turkey, Jordan among rural regions but even in the metropolis, non-heterosexual children, specially boys or transgirls, can be killed if disclosed
I am not saying this is the fault of the religion of these people Just showing you that Honor killing is not religion is culture and its on 1 group of people or county it happends all over the world what is funny is
When I came across a article where the person who did it was muslim the article said ” THE MUSLIM FATHER OF _____” but when it was non muslims it only gave names
September 3rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Aqsa Parvez was killed in Canadian city with 734,000 residents. Does Pamela Geller seriously want people to believe that she wasn’t able to find any place in Mississauga to put that headstone?
Seriously, she could have easily contacted the city’s administration via-via and asked to buy a square meter plot in some park to put that headstone. Maybe they would’ve refused if they found out who Geller was and that she wanted to make a political point out of the unfortunate killing of this young girl, but Geller makes a much wilder claim:
According to her, the Islamic Society of North America owns every plot of land in this city of 734,000 residents.
“..when we inquired as to purchasing a plot near Aqsa’s body, we could not. Not a tree. Not a rock. Not a bench. All the plots were owned by the Islamic Society of North America.”
See the suggestion there? She builds on the fact the Islamic section of the cemetery is owned by ISNA (who quite rightly doesn’t think it very tasteful that Islamophobes should capitalize on the death of a poor young woman on an Islamic burial ground) to slyly impart the suggestion that ISNA owns all the land in an entire Canadian city of more than 700.000 people. Subtext: Muslims are slowly taking over Canada.
Is there no depth to which these people will stoop? At long last, mrs. Geller, have you no decency?
September 3rd, 2011 at 6:14 pm
something for “What if they were Muslim section”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eL9rdsftMc&feature=player_embedded
(Orthodox Jewish man smacking his daughter around)
September 3rd, 2011 at 6:31 pm
By the way, could posters here get a hold of themselves and refrain from calling Pamela Geller an ‘uberbitch’, a ‘whore’ and sharing their violent cartoonfantasies about what they’d like to see done to her face? I can understand the emotions, heck, I get incensed about it too (and I’m not even a Muslim), but it only supplies the people at Jihadwatch and Atlas Shrugs with fodder to smear Loonwatch and Muslims who speak out against islamophobia. That is to say: unintelligent name-calling and violent fantasies hurt the cause.
I’m told both Jesus and Muhammad taught self-restraint and to refrain from calling people names when being insulted and vilified, so please, try to keep it civil.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
“She is weaponizing a young girl’s grave site.”
And I thought she couldn’t sink any lower. And building Aqsa’s “memorial” on land owned by an organisation that would never have sold to her…wow, just wow.
“Quite literally then, the “memorial” for Aqsa Parvez is built on land that she herself could never own. She could not own her own “memorial.””
Let all Islamophobes who are feeling good about themselves by taking part in Geller’s insane plan know that they have truly made things worse.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Is she TRYING to get people to hate her?? Using a murder victim to make a point is as low as you can get
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:37 pm
@Jack
I don’t see anything wrong in calling a filthy Zionist whore like Geller what she really is. I have worse words but I’m restraining myself. Nor do I care if the scum who congregate on her hate site read this and are offended at the “violent rhetoric.” Rather sensitive for criminal scum who regularly cheer lead the slaughter of Muslim men, women and children anytime, anywhere. Civility goes out the door when they defile and exploit the memory of our dead. Heck, civility went out the door years ago.
Third time’s the charm : That headstone belongs on Geller’s ugly plastic face.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:42 pm
No no we LOVE THE MUSLIMS we just hate their beliefs, their way of life, their prophet, their god and everything they stand for. We don’t want to integrate with them, speak to them or let them freely practice their religion either…
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“I don’t see anything wrong in calling a filthy Zionist whore like Geller what she really is.”
I’m a bit of a stickler for words and you’re stretching the word ‘whore’ to a point beyond absurdity. Look it up in the dictionary: a ‘whore’ is a pejorative word for a prostitute, meaning someone who has sexual intercourse with other individuals in return for some kind of payment.
So unless Geller actually had sex with David Horowitz or some other fat cat to get him to finance her projects, she’s not a whore (and unless you can prove she did in fact do so, you should refrain from calling her a whore).
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Let’s not get too technical here. Anyone who sells her soul for money is a whore. In fact, whores might be insulted being compared to her because that witch Geller is evil!
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
[snipped]
Comment from Danios: Halal Pork, please refrain from calling people’s mothers whores. For that matter, let’s not call anyone a whore, even Pamela Geller. I agree with Jack that even in your religion of Islam it’s not a good idea to call a woman, even one as hateful as Pamela Geller, a whore. Plus, let’s not give a bad name to whores. A whore doesn’t hurt anyone or incite hatred in people, which is what Pamela Geller does.
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:56 pm
DrM, BRAVO, I second that, WELL SAID
@Jack..she’s more than a WH-RE, SHE IS A GENOCIDAL WH-RE, AND YES-YES-YES she WH-RES AROUND with her ISLAMOPHOBES-ilks scums bags that FINANCE her GENOCIDAL-HATE-FILL projects..
@Jack, i understand were you’re coming from, but this trashy-scum-loon does NOT deserve our respect..So please dont push-it
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
LOL..look at porky playing the voice of “reason”
But yes i agree, wh-res are way too decent, humane and good for genocidal geller-link-Norway-terrorist..So sorry to have compare you to a unhuman phychopath genocidal-loon..
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
What’s sad is that the family of the girl refuse to admit any wrongdoing and continue to blame her for the father’s actions:
“Almost more chilling than the crime itself was the family’s willingness to defend it in statements to police. The teenager’s siblings agreed Aqsa deserved violent retribution for her disobedience; Aqsa’s mother, Ms. Jan, suggested it was acceptable in Pakistan to kill children for such behaviour.
In breaks from the police interview, the visibly distraught mother was recorded lamenting aloud: “Oh God, oh Aqsa. You did not listen — you died … Oh God … broken legs and arms … said will break legs and arms — has killed her straight away. What should I do?”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Father+must+serve+least+years/3163941/story.html
Does anyone here find this disturbing that the entire family think their daughter should be held responsible instead of the father and brother? Personally I think the whole family should be locked up along with Geller and Spencer for exploiting the victim for their own nefarious agenda. However, there are some people who will immediately come to the defense of the family and claim the daughter deserved it for being a “whore” as well (because some Desi parents be they Muslim, Hindu, or Sikh freak out at their daughter wanting any semblance of a normal life that doesn’t consist of being at home 24/7 all the time).
BTW JD, do you have anything to say about this loony family’s justification for murdering their daughter? Or is it also Islamophobic to criticize the father’s abhorrent actions for murdering his daughter?
And yet I’m sure people like AJ and Sahra will defend them as “good Pakistanis”, even though they are nothing but idiotic jahil paindoos who shouldn’t have been let in to Canada in the first place.
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:51 pm
yeah thinking about it my “uberbitch” may have been a bit immature especially since islamaphobes love to look for something to bust this site about considering they did that before if anyone remembers infamous cancer comparison to spencer that he tried to use to label loonwatch as a hate site.
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:53 pm
@Jack: Well you know, from the way she dresses…
September 4th, 2011 at 12:31 am
Dan,
Why would I defend a murderer as a “good Pakistani” or a good anything? Do you hallucinate a lot?
Google “murder girlfriend” and see how many American “Jahil Paindoos” have murdered (or tried to murder) their women in JUST the past few days? Since they are not Muslim or Pakistani, their religion or nationality wouldn’t matter to you, right?
BTW on a side note, I know a couple of Ahmadis from well-off families in Pakistan that have taken asylum in USA citing religious persecution in Pakistan. One of them was a well ranked Air Force officer in Pakistan before he came for an official visit and disappeared in the USA. You sure you are not one of those, right? I have a strong feeling that you are.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:35 am
I have a good idea. How about for every moronic Muslim that kills his daughter or wife or whoever, Pamela should erect a memorial tombstone in her backyard? When that gets filled up, she can move to the front yard.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:48 am
@corey…If you still think, after all the misery, insult, hate and what-not, even rejoicing at the butchering of muslims women, men, children, elderly, or even calling for a wholesome genocide on the entire muslim population, if you still think after all that, that genocidals geller/spencer-link-Norway-terrorist are sane enough to dare to judge the people who are responding to their hatefull propaganda, and that they still deserve kind words and respect from our part, then sorry but you must be out of your mind…
September 4th, 2011 at 12:59 am
@Dan you’re pathetic, just as your comments shows, get a grip on reality..
September 4th, 2011 at 1:01 am
@Skhan; Like they say: If you’ve got it, flaunt it! Like her or not, Geller looks pretty toned for a fifty-three year old. There’s a video of her in a bikini, made three years ago, in which she looks absolutely ripped (in a good way). Selling your soul to the devil pays off apparently, although the botox and surgery is beginning to take it’s toll on her face.
@Dan; Lawmakers should consider devising laws that allow for families who conspire to have a daughter killed to be deported to their country of origin. If it can be proven the entire family was ‘in’ on it, tacitly condoned it, or knew something was about to happen but didn’t alert the authorities, it would be fitting to send them back to whatever backwater town they came from.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:13 am
Jack,
If they were conspiring to have a daughter killed, wouldn’t they belong in jail? You are basically giving them a free ticket home to freedom, right?
September 4th, 2011 at 1:13 am
“Jack, i understand were you’re coming from, but this trashy-scum-loon does NOT deserve our respect..So please dont push-it”
It’s not so much a matter of respect for her, but respect for yourself and about the loss of your own dignity. Suppose a bus full of right-wing Christian neocon crazies rode to a mosque and videotaped themselves ‘mooning’ it, and then putting the video on youtube, just to show off their ‘lack of respect’ – who, do you think would end up looking like an ass?
There are plenty of intelligent and creative ways to convey that you find someone utterly despicable for their actions, without resorting to name calling. Calling someone a ‘whore’ and a ‘bitch’ and what-not just makes you look stupid and hateful. And it makes Loonwatch look bad.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:23 am
@AJ; you could send them to jail first and deport them later. You could even give them a reduced sentence to even things out with regular convicts in similar situation.
The point is that Western countries should start sending a message to immigrant families that whatever honor code applied in their home countries, it is rendered null and void here. If you want to live that way: fine, go do it in Iraq or Pakistan or Eastern Turkey or whatever. We don’t want that crazy shit around here.
You start sending a few families like that home after a family conspiracy to commit an honor killing, and the rest will think thrice about doing the same, because in doing so, they’re effectively throwing away the future of their children and grandchildren – which is why they came to Europe or the US in the first place.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:30 am
Jack,
You are assuming these are pre-meditated murders. They are not. I don’t think anyone in their right mind tries to kill a person specially in this country where you can’t really bribe police and get away from it. Sending them back home, where they have more chances to be free, would increase dishonorable (you call them honor) killings than reduce them, IMHO.
September 4th, 2011 at 2:35 am
@sahra
I think you misunderstood me I am in no way shape or form saying that pam and friends don’t deserve the criticism or insults that come because of there blatant stupidity that comes from them I am just agreeing with jack said but well if it makes you feel better if I was trapped on an island and the choice ally to help me survive was between geller and a coconut I choose the coconut only because if tom hanks survived four years there with one so can I. (I hope)
September 4th, 2011 at 2:56 am
“Filthy Zionist Whore” is both anti-semitic and misogynist, and I think that kind of insult reveals a mindset not dissimilar than that of Geller herself, just with the hate in a different direction.
That being said, I don’t think we should refrain ourselves from insulting her, just not in that particular way. For example, we can say she is an extremely disgusting human being for the way she, as Rousseau very aptly put it, weaponizing the death of an innocent girl. We can also call her a disingenuous hypocrite and a mentally deficient idiot.
@Jack, deportation seems like a quaint punishment for those who conspire to kill an innocent young woman, even after jail. I would prefer a much, much harsher jail sentence to begin with.
September 4th, 2011 at 2:59 am
I must say that in all the comments Jack seems to be the voice of reason, well said sir.
I think that the Muslims especially that are making such vile comments, even if it is about a vile person, should step back and take a look at yourselves in the light of how the Prophets would have acted in such a situation. They went through far worse in terms of everything, insults especially, and didn’t resort to anything like name calling. Think about this and reflect, also remember that the internet has a very long memory. I won’t name names but some are far worse than others, don’t let such evil people get to you, it’s what they want! Again, reflect on what the Prophets did and ordered and also remember that you are ambassadors for 1.57 billion other Muslims.
That is the other; you ‘become what you hate’ very easily. A lot of the comments above could sadly have come from Atlas Shrugs or Jihadwatch. Granted, the spelling and grammar are largely better than either of those two sites but the sentiment is there. You really don’t want to be going down that road.
September 4th, 2011 at 3:18 am
Dr.M ;How dare you call Pam Gellar a Whore and the Zionists who happen to be Jewish whores as well.You are a Paki Muslim with low Intellect.You are foul mouthed because your prophet also had a foul mouth.He told one adversary:Go and bite your father’s cock and another to go and bite your mother’s cunt.You should be ready to receive what you give because you are the most despicable creatures on the face of this earth.
September 4th, 2011 at 4:03 am
THE SO called HONOUR Killing goes on in the Muslim countries daily but It should not be allowed to creep into the Civilised Christian West.Our values are completely opposite to the Muslim/Mohammad’s values.He is a perfect model for uncivilised way of life.No wonder the Muslim world is so vicious ,wicked and backward.The West has come to realise now that MULTICULTURALISM with Islam is dangerous and Impossible.Hence all the Muslims from the West MUST be expelled without reservation.The Snakes only deserve hell holes of Islamic countries with rampant murders,rapes,poverty,disease and HONOUR KILLING by these dishonourable Creeps.
September 4th, 2011 at 4:31 am
Really now? Islamic values are the opposite?!?! So, I guess rape, incest, adultery, excessive drinking, domestic violence, murder, are all western values then, eh porKKK? You ‘re Muslim, though.(remember last forum where khushboo converted you, much to jack cope’s dismay. If you deny it, I know it’s TAQIYYA!)
September 4th, 2011 at 4:34 am
@porKKKthenewmuslim: as a new Muslim, you should understand that shariah law forbids honor killings(they’re seen as vigilante justice)
September 4th, 2011 at 4:45 am
Loon Watch
I think Haram Pork and DrM should be banned, both bring a particularly vile form of hatred, which does this website a big disservice. One only has to take a look at DrM’s blog to see his sick mind, he is the Muslim version of Geller and Spencer
September 4th, 2011 at 5:25 am
So how WOULD LoonWatch have done a memorial to Aqsa Parvez?
September 4th, 2011 at 5:47 am
rocky lore why dont do you memorial to all the countless people who die because of family issues, just type in daughter killed by father or son killed by father, you will get dozens
actually why not a memorial anders BREAVIK victims he was the same scum like you thats something that has a direct realtionship
September 4th, 2011 at 6:17 am
Redz, since when did you care about Scandanavia? You wanted a Muslim takeover of that area because of cartoons. All you do is criticize, but offer no solutions. If I’m like Andres Brevik, then you’re in the same boat as the 9/11 hijackers or the thugs behind the Beslan massacre.
September 4th, 2011 at 6:25 am
“…Go and bite your father’s c*** and another to go and bite your mother’s c***…” ~ Halal Pork
Maybe it is time to ban Porky?
September 4th, 2011 at 6:28 am
^i concur. That’s just plain gross. All in favor of banning PorKKKy say”Aye”.
September 4th, 2011 at 7:07 am
@Jack: why are you defending Pamella Geller? She IS a whoe. Maybe not a sexual whore, definitely a political prostitute. Stop being so uptight about semantics. She is a disgusting vile creature, a cretin that calls for the deaths of innocent Muslims daily and weaponises their funerals for her personal gain and monetary funds. I agree with DrM. There are worse words to attribute to someone like her. We are indeed restraining our tongues.
September 4th, 2011 at 7:09 am
Now if people would look at Mr Pork and then look at my comment that you become what you hate I think you will find a perfect example.
September 4th, 2011 at 7:09 am
I can’t say I would complain if Pork and DrM are unceremoniously dumped..
September 4th, 2011 at 7:51 am
Let’s not act like wolves howling for each other’s blood. Everyone agrees that hpork has not contributed anything useful, and DrM needs to tone down his rhetoric.
Calling people names, no matter how convinced you are of your cause, is not cool man, not cool.
September 4th, 2011 at 9:26 am
”Like many young Muslims, she might simply have been rebelling against a strict interpretation of Islam–a firebrand, conservative form of it. ”
I strongly disagree with this. Those that carry out honour killings have nothing to do with how religiously “conservative” they are.Its nothing more than a mixture of their own ignorant backwards culture & mixing it with Islam.
September 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Wow, so many comments, so little time.
First off, Pamella Geller is disgusting and I have no qualms about calling her a whore. While it may be a tad misogynistic, I should point out that in the colloquial usage, to ‘whore’ oneself can also mean to sell out one’s principles or group for financial benefit. If the shoe fits…
As for Dan, just shut up. Every other post you make is criticizing Asians. Like I’ve said before, you sound more like a western missionary or a convert. I love Pakistan. I love Desi culture. That doesn’t mean that I condone so-called ‘honour killings.’ I don’t see any contradiction in that position either. If you hate Pakistan, don’t go there. Easy enough.
Same goes for halal porker. This poor Muslimah’s death is being used by Islamophobes to focus their hatred. Well fuck them, and fuck Geller too. This sort of violence is by no means exclusive to Islam or the third world by any stretch of the imagination. I live in Chicago, and the suburbs have had a whole spate of spousal and child murders in the past couple years. Almost all of which were carried out by white Protestant males (the two exceptions were a black guy in NW Indiana and a Hindu).
One of the more infamous ones involved a former police Sargent whose wife went ‘missing.’ During the investigation of that, they found evidence that he also may have killed one of his previous wives, and that he was abusive to the others. So… what does that tell you? Had he been Muslim, or even just Arab, this would have been used as an indictment against our entire culture. But because he is western, and from a privileged class, it is ignored altogether.
In the case of Dominic Strauss-Khan, the charges against him were dropped ENTIRELY because of who he was, and how much influence he had. When a French Jew (albeit likely a non-practicing one) does something, it is ignored. Oh who am I kidding. Anti-semitism is widespread enough in France that he likely WOULD have been called out on it, were it not for his wealth and power. Had he been a poor Jewish immigrant from Algeria or Morocco, does anyone believe that the French would be so supportive of him?
September 4th, 2011 at 10:05 am
@ Haram Pork Pies
The West does have honour killings of a sort, but they’re called “crimes of passion.”
September 4th, 2011 at 10:34 am
@ Amy:
Exactly. There is an implicit double standard. Western, white Protestant men have even been acquitted for killing their spouses and partners on several occasions. And relatively few people will even bat an eye at it. Fortunately just as many of them get convicted. Google scumbags like Hans Reiser and Scott Peterson and you’ll see what I mean.
September 4th, 2011 at 11:20 am
“Honor Killings” are a perfect example of how anti-Islam polemicists try to spin every violent crime a Muslim does, as being a product of Islam, without any actual proof. Either ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty precludes them from understanding the fact that “Honor Killings” are entirely cultural and are against Islam, as are the Muslims who practice it.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
The only filth here is what comes out of a pig. Ban this hate monster calling himself pork.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@kosher porky,
Did I hurt your feelings by calling plastic Pam a wh_re, o Talmudic teabagger? Appears so. Poor little islamophobic poodle is bent out of shape over Pam being called a name. Nor am I a “Pak Muslim,” as for low intellect, your single digit IQ threatens no one. Tell me, are your parents siblings, cyclops?
@BMD aka 1001 trolls aka anticipated shill etc,
I see you’re still hurting from the numerous times I’ve exposed and humiliated you. I’ve shown you’re not a Muslim and challenged you to prove otherwise, and you run off with your tail between your legs only to repeat the same lies in a different thread. The only ones offended at my blog and comments are racist Zionist pigs in heat, like you. Your petty desperation in trying to get me banned is delightful. Keep dreaming.
I propose a registration process for all users, so trolls who use multiple names are permanently banned? What do you say? Oh wait, that would be the end of your hasbaRat hijinks here…
September 4th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
@HGG
How is calling Geller a “filthy Zionist w_ore” antisemitic and misogynist? Get over yourself.
September 4th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
@ Sam:
I resent that; it’s an insult to pigs! Come to think of it, calling Geller a ‘whore’ is an insult to whores. I mean, considering what I know about prostitution and the international sex trade, it’s not like many of those women (and men for that matter) have much choice in selling their bodies.
September 4th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Some suggestions for Loonwatch:
1. Add a reply button.
2. We should begin an option to register readers, with username and password. Of course we can still allow people to comment without registering but there are some advantages to registering:
Advantage: If you are registered when someone replies to your comment you get notified via email or any other way that you prefer. if you are not registered you do not get this option. Many times I have clicked on a recent comment and replied to it without checking the title of the article. When I want to check if the comment has been replied to it becomes difficult because I dont know the name of the article. You can also include PM and inbox for registered users as well as updates sent directly to email.
(optional) Advantage #2: user profile. Allow users to create and maintain a user profile. This will keep people here longer.
3. if you can add an automatic moderator that cleans up certain posts by identifying words that aren’t fit for a clean honest and intellectual discussion (guess that means Islamophobes wont be able to post anymore LOL) no seriously, let it target the curse words and racist words for example.
4. Allow the “recent comment” section to go back further. Again sometimes you post a comment and its lost forever.
just a thought
September 4th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Just call her what she is: a genocidal fascist MORON! A WITCH! An excretion from Hell! The SCUM of the Earth! Evil incarnate! The personfication of evil. May her NAME CEASE TO EXIST and may her descendants be cursed for thousandf generations to come!
September 4th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Contrast the Aqsa Parvez story with the Avi Kostner story: Avi Kostner News – The New York Times – Narrowed by ‘KOSTNER, RYAN’.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/avi_kostner/index.html?query=KOSTNER,%20RYAN&field=per&match=exact
Kostner was motivated at least in part by anger that his ex-wife intended to raise his children as Christians and not as Jews. It took the NY Times three years to mention this critical factor in the murder even though Rabbi Feldman circumspectly alluded to the religious issue in the June 29, 1994 report (Parents of Slain Children Had Bitter Disputes in Court: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E3D8143CF93AA15755C0A962958260 ).
September 4th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
I don’t know why people want DrM banned just for saying the W word. We all get emotional at times with these Islamophobes and it’s understandable. It’s good to have others give us a reality check for our own good but to say that he should be banned is unfair. He brings much info. to the site and is on OUR side, unlike Porky who spews nothing but repetitive garbage full of hate and nonsense. He should be banned!
September 4th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I would welcome a LoonWatch Forum. Please make one!
September 4th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
@AbdulMajid: what if Allah (swt) was listening when you said that…
September 4th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
^Allah subhanahu wa talaa knows the seen and unseen, there is no what if, but I understand ur point
. Skhan is right, as Muslims we must speak softly and carry a big intellectual stick. Our atrenght should come from reasoned, polite, and honest intellectual debate. And humor also (sometimes lol). Yeh, whatever u may think she is keep it out of the comments section, and whoever has anything beneficial to say then say it otherwise refrain from using foul language and insults even if emotions do run high. Oh and humor also (clean jokes pls)
September 4th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Look Dinesh( aka DAN) what JD posted give you 3 examples of crimes committed in India the real question or what should be answered first is what is your opinion on that and stuff that goes on in Indian
September 4th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
^Aha! I knew he wasn’t Pakistani!
September 4th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I don’t know if calling someone who is not even a member of the LoonWatch community a “whore” warrants getting banned. On the other hand, the vile person known as Porky, HaramPork etc. definitely should be banned. All he does is use vile rhetoric and never actually tries to discuss as a civilized person. And using sexual insults, like the one he hurled at DrM, should be the last straw. This is my opinion.
Now, concerning honor killing, one does not need to be a genius to realize that there is nothing in the Islamic texts which teach such a concept. Idiots like Porky know this for a fact (and they are certainly not geniuses LOL). Ironically, there is a holy book which actually calls for honor killing. It’s called the Bible. You know that book that Jews and Christians read? Let us read Leviticus 21:9-
9 “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.
Given this verse in the Bible, one finds it hard to understand how ignorant Christians like Porky have the gall to attack Islam? This is not meant to insult Christians and Jews in general, but like Danios’ articles, are meant to show that hate-filled vagabonds like Porky are standing on thin ice when they attack other religions.
September 4th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
“How is calling Geller a “filthy Zionist w_ore” antisemitic and misogynist? Get over yourself.”
I’m not here to teach you basic human decency. And based on your comments here and in that pathetic and sorry website you have, it would be a fool’s errand anyway.
September 4th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
@Solid Snake:
“just a thought”
And pretty good ones, too. Using a system with collapsed replies like those used elsewhere, it could solve the problem between those who are against replying to trolls and those who want to stay strictly on topic.
September 5th, 2011 at 2:28 am
@HGG said :
“I’m not here to teach you basic human decency. ”
I didn’t ask you about teaching anyone human decency, sunshine, but your claim that calling Geller a filthy zionist w_ore is “antisemitic and misogynist.” If you can’t back up what you’ve said, admit your mistake, be quiet and learn from your betters. It also saves you from humiliation.
It’s good to see plenty of others here agree with my characterization of Geller. I don’t like using such language but Geller has earned it.
“And based on your comments here and in that pathetic and sorry website you have, it would be a fool’s errand anyway.”
Oo I’m so hurt. My website was exposing the like Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel, Tarek Fatah, Daniel Pipes etc long before there was a Loonwatch. Only Zionist hasbaRats, Islamophobes and uninformed idiots who can’t handle hard facts have a problem with me, I’m very pleased to see I haven’t lost my charm. Either state your case, or shut both ends of your mouth. No apologies from this Muslim.
Go about your fool’s errand of trying to get me banned.
@Solid Snake,
Excellent suggestions. Anybody who posts under multiple identities should be banned outright.
@Khusboo,
The only one who wants me banned is BMD aka 1001 schizo trolls. This particular troll has a serious grudge against me since I exposed his numerous lies over the last couple of years. He can’t debate me and would rather I was out of here. It would be an early Christmas for this troll if I was gone, that’s why he’s trying to lump me in with Kosher Porky.
His desperation makes me pleased.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:48 am
*Yawn*
Go fart on a TSA worker, as you’re prone to do. You do little to hold my interest.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:56 am
one does wonder if this memorial in Isreal actually exsists or is just an excuse for Mrs MacBeth to pocket the money or give it to her friends in Isreal.Or was the money used to finance her latest holiday in Isreal . She could equally say it was going to be put on the moon frankly . In fact she may as well say it is as there is about as much chance as anyone who knew this girl seeing on the moon as in Isreal .
September 5th, 2011 at 4:57 am
Can we have DrM debate Spencer? I think that would be fun.
There is no comparison between DrM and porkchops. Yeah, DrM is quite a few notches “up there”, with his eloquent speech
, but you have to compare intentions. What’s DrM’s intention? To expose Islamophobes. What’s pork’s intention? To troll.
September 5th, 2011 at 5:16 am
Apparently, in American Independence Park, there’s a site (or a grove, if you will) that has memorial walls, that are plastered with colored tiles, and if you pay up you can have your own tile with an inscription to your liking. So you could have your name on the tile, saying that you dedicated the tile to all the good people of Sderot, or the people who died in the bus attack in Eilat.
Obviously, it’s a site for wealthy Americans who want to make a show of piety towards the Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism.
So Pamela Geller is being somewhat disengenious when she gives the impression that contributors to her cause made it possible to have an entire grove dedicated to Aqsa Parvez American Independence Park. It’s more accurate to say, they now have their own Aqsa Parvez Memorial Tile, plastered on one in a dozen walls, littered with hundreds, if not thousands, of similar tiles.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/08/it-was-a-glorious-day-and-the-dedication-to-aqsa-parvez-and-all-of-the-brave-and-courageous-young-honor-killing-victims-who.html
It’s all a big hoax, really. The only ones there were her, Roberts Spencer and the person holding the camera. Just watch the movie. It’s a hoot.
(Oh, and do you know why she was there, on August 24? Because she was attending the Glenn Beck rally. So her memorial thingee was not even an event on it’s own).
September 5th, 2011 at 5:21 am
It’s especially funny in the video, where you see both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer giving a five minute speech, as if adressing a crowd of at least dozens, when you realise no-one is there but Geller and Spencer and guy holding the camera.
It’s all for show, it’s all for the Internet.
September 5th, 2011 at 5:24 am
mmmm how many tiles does $5000 buy I wonder and where does the money go ?
A morman ie Glen Beck has a rally in Isreal?
I do hope he took copies of the book of morman with him written in its origional language on tablets of gold .
September 5th, 2011 at 5:47 am
The tile even has a number to identify it between the thousands and thousands of other tiles (apparently they keep a registar): 55909.
Now, if those numbers are consecutive that would mean there are almost 56.000 similar tiles on those walls. That seems a bit much, but who knows? I’m sure they are double sided; why waste the space?
What would placing the tile and having it etched in cost? Why, let’s ask the JNF?
“To provide people around the world with the opportunity to forever memorialize loved ones in Israel, Jewish National Fund (JNF) has established The Wall of Eternal Life at American Independence Park in Jerusalem.
For $1,800, a garden of 360 trees will be planted in Israel, and a permanent inscription with the name of the departed will be etched on the wall. In addition, donors will receive a beautiful mounted garden certificate illustrated by artist Leif Nelson, and the name of the memorialized will be inscribed in the Book of Gardens housed in JNF’s office in Jerusalem.” – JNF website – 2007
That was in 2007. Maybe prices went up since then, but I doubt they went up as high as $5000,-
September 5th, 2011 at 5:59 am
“What’s DrM’s intention? To expose Islamophobes. What’s pork’s intention? To troll.”
I’m sure Pork believes he has equally lofty goals. In reality, there is very little difference between them. They are both petty little bigots.
September 5th, 2011 at 6:10 am
A garden of 360 trees ? so they bought an olive grove for some illeagal settler ? Pure evil .
Just a thought
Is there a case for embezelment here ?
September 5th, 2011 at 6:34 am
This is a good article on the JNF. It basically uses forestation as a cover for ethnic cleansing.
For instance, in the Negev desert, it plants forests, but it also expels Bedouins from their homes (some 150.000 Bedouins are going to have to make way for new generations of Jewish Israeli’s and become a source of cheap labour for them).
More information can be found at stopthejnf.org
So ironically, and assuming the memorial tile for Aqsa Parvez did come with a grove (and assuming Geller paid $1,800 or a little more for that tile, why would she waiver on the forest); a young Canadian-Pakistani victim of an honour killing will now have 360 trees planted in her name to facilitate ethnic cleansing.
Maybe they should rename it the ‘Aqsa Parvez Zionist ethnic cleansing memorial grove’
September 5th, 2011 at 7:22 am
“…there is very little difference between…”
Little difference between DrM and Porky? Are you kidding?
I’m usually against banning anyone, but Halal Pork has said some absolutely vile things, using the worst imaginable language. You may not like everything DrM says, but there is no comparison between him and PorKKK.
September 5th, 2011 at 8:10 am
Jack
Thanks for the Link . Interesting stuff.
September 5th, 2011 at 8:35 am
It’s funny that the same people defending DrM are the same ones who think all liberal Muslims, Ahmadis, homosexuals, and anyone who dares to criticize Salafi nutjobs should be executed, have a serious victimization mentality where they think criticizing Muslim extremists is akin to treason, as well as those who worship Zaid Hamid and indulge in pathetic conspiracy theories, just like AJ and Khushboo often do.
Furthermore, it’s hilarious that DrM goes off on Pamela Geller, yet defends a terrorist apologist woman like Yvonne Ridley, who referred to Zarqawi as her “brother in Islam”, called Shamil Basayev (the architect of the Beslan massacre) as a “shaheed”, and defended the 7/7 bombings and refused to criticize Anjem Choudary. Let’s be reality, if Pamela Geller was a Muslim woman who goes off on the West and hatred of the “kuffar”, DrM would be out to defend her simply because she’s a Muslim. I’m sure DrM freaks out every time he sees a Muslim woman not wearing a hijab like most people here do I’m sure.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:39 am
It seems that the commenters are doing the same thing that Pam Geller did to the victim…using it to express anger at ‘the other’
We expect the haters to do it, but not the Muslims. I expected from us…a little self reflection that…even though honour murders are not Islamic, and are forbidden in Islam, they do tend to happen where Islam is the most common religion.
Remember…the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the messagner fought to change things like this in the places where he had influence…especilly fratricide and the rights of women in those societies. This murder, even though it happened in Canada shows that the culture the murder came from ‘accepts’ this kind of behavior as ‘normal’. As Muslims, we need to change that perspective.
What Pam Geller (and others like them) has to say about it is really moot here. They cater to an audience that…if Muslims disapper right now, would turn on Jews…simply because it is not Islam they are opposing, but immigration, diveristy, and the freedom to choose something they dont like. They side with Zionists (not Jews as a people or religion) because they like the ethnic cleansing polcies the Israelis have imposed on the Palistinians to steal water and land for an ideological utopia
September 5th, 2011 at 10:25 am
“Remember…the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the messagner fought to change things like this in the places where he had influence…especilly fratricide and the rights of women in those societies.”
Considering the pervasiveness of honor-related violence in Muslim societies, the curtailment of womens rights and the efforts of religious scholars to keep it that way (instead of them championing women’s rights and lambasting violence) is a cleared indicator that he failed. Miserably.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Nur, you’re assuming that this is “honor killing” instead of an individual act done by individuals. Instead of simply attacking the father and son for MURDER, these bigots are taking advantage of this tragic news and attacking our religion instead. We all know that Islam forbids killing anyone, unless self-defense.
There were non-Muslim parents who’ve killed their kids for disobeying but it was not called “honor killing” but simly a MAD individual killing his/her child(ren). It was simply called “Murder”. Why can’t we say the same about Muslims?
Why attack the religion instead of the individuals?
September 5th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Khusboo, if I’m assuming the murder of Aqsa Parvez was an honor killing, it’s because it has every trait of an honor killing (the brother luring her in his car and killing her together with his father) and because statements made by her family confirm she was killed because of her behavior as a girl and how it affected family honor.
There’s a current story of a Libyan father who’s daughters got raped by Gaddafi thugs. He subsequently killed them. What do you think that is. An “individual act done by individuals”? No, it’s an honor killing, perpetrated by an individual because he had certain values, principles and attitudes towards women and what gives them value ingrained by his community and society.
When such individuals come over to the West they take these attitudes with them. Some manage to dilute them. Others force their daughters to hide relationships with boys from them, force a marriage with someone “of good standing” on them, or in extreme cases: end up killing them.
The point is not so much that this is Islamic. It’s not. Islam teaches otherwise, sure. But in 1400 years, it has also failed miserably at stamping out these misogynistic, patriarchal attitudes towards women. Surely if Islam had been truly divinely inspired to Enlight human beings, it would have fared much better in eradicating the kind of thinking that leads men to beat or murder their daughters, sisters and nieces for conducting themselves ‘improperly’.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“Surely if Islam had been truly divinely inspired to Enlight human beings, it would have fared much better in eradicating the kind of thinking that leads men to beat or murder their daughters, sisters and nieces for conducting themselves ‘improperly’.”
Ah, and interesting point but here is the thing; Islam enshrines humanities right to free will as one of it’s central tenements. Why? Because mankind must save itself, in effect Islam is the manual and it’s up to man to read it and act upon it. If God could just sit there and make us do everything He wants then what is the point of existence? It would render the whole of life a scripted play. (And may I add that while He does ‘interact’ with human affairs for various reasons, when this happens we have no idea of it so it is, in effect, as if He had not). It’s all down to mankind. That is the reason why but a fair question anyway.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Also, would it be fair that I ask why my comments are being held in moderation? Is it a continuation of what we all know to be happening around here? Get a grip of yourselves and if you wish, please feel free to discard this comment as going against whatever ‘rules’ you have here. I expect it to be treated as such.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Jack,
Do you have any evidence or statistics to prove that the Muslim women that get murdered as part of honor killings are higher in number than the numbers of non-Muslim women that are murdered (by boyfriends, husbands) in USA or Europe or any other place that has a majority of non-Muslim population?
If not, then stop your propaganda and stop blaming everything on Islam.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“The point is not so much that this is Islamic. It’s not. Islam teaches otherwise, sure. But in 1400 years, it has also failed miserably at stamping out these misogynistic, patriarchal attitudes towards women. Surely if Islam had been truly divinely inspired to Enlight human beings, it would have fared much better in eradicating the kind of thinking that leads men to beat or murder their daughters, sisters and nieces for conducting themselves ‘improperly’.”
Like AJ said before me, lets see the murder stastics for Women in the Muslim and Western world and lets so who “failed. Miserably.”
Lets just compared ALL the murders in the Muslims world with ONLY the ones in the US that are male on female violence and the Muslims WORLD will still be less or compareable.
As far as attitudes towards women go, when the US has as many women in Congress as Pakistan then we can have this discussion.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Though since some go through and some don’t, I assume that it could be a system error. Regardless, the moderation policy here is, to put it bluntly, odd. When Mr Pork and bob in all his incarnations can post all over the shop but other regular and constructive commentators are put on hold then we must question what is going on.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“There were non-Muslim parents who’ve killed their kids for disobeying but it was not called “honor killing” but simly a MAD individual killing his/her child(ren). It was simply called “Murder”. Why can’t we say the same about Muslims?”
Look at this statistic:
“Almost every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent. In half (56% on average) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect.”
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html
If this statistic was from Pakistan, all we’d hear about is how “Ever week a ‘Person who doesn’t understand his Religion’ did a Jihad (honor killing) on their kid.” Yet if it happens here, its because these people are insane.
Imagine living a world with that level of insanity.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
@Hgg said
“You do little to hold my interest.”
I’m not interested in holding “your interest,” I’d rather talk to vegetables at the supermarket. Your claimed that calling Geller a filthy zionist W_ore is “antisemitic and misogynist,” yet you can’t seem to explain how so, in fact you’re being evasive.
I accept your surrender, islamophobe.
@Danny boy
Still flapping your back cheeks with the same old failed garbage. Either produce proof of your BS claims or shut your septic sewer of mouth, anti-Muslim troll.
Don’t you have a Bollywood flick to download somewhere?
September 5th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
@Snoman
My God those are some horrifying statistics. But I’ve soon gotten over the “imagine if this was in (insert mid eastern or Muslim majority country)” thing, we know what the reaction will be, even if it has nothing to do with those countries or Islam or Muslims we know the reaction ie Norway Terrorist. Somehow Islam and Muslims are involved. But yeh I think LW should do an article on those Stats snoman presented.
September 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Humour….Simple equation here:
If a muslim break wind = islamic fart, and its stink hoorribly
If 10 non-muslim break wind = stink, but not as bad as that 1 atomic islamic fart.
sorry for the expression, but
September 5th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Snowman, thanks for confirming what I said with statistics. All this nonsense blaming Islam for why Muslims do “honor killing” just bugs me when there are more non-muslims killing their own but we don’t blame Christianity for not doing a good job “in eradicating the kind of thinking that leads men to beat or murder their daughters, sisters and nieces for conducting themselves ‘improperly’”(Jack’s quote re. Islam).
September 5th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
When a Muslim commits a crime, especially a foreign-born Muslim living in a western country, or even really one of Arab or Desi descent, it becomes more conspicuous. If a white guy commits a murder, then it is just assumed to be another murder and ignored. In our case, the media and ‘experts’ immediately use it to villify our entire culture…
September 5th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
“Little difference between DrM and Porky? Are you kidding?”
No, I’m not. Sure, DrM may restrain here a bit as well as possessing better grammar and is capable of punctuation, as well as knowledge of the Enter key, but they are both vile and prejudiced and do their best to spread Anti-Muslim sentiment, only Dr.M does it unwillingly.
That being said, I’m not calling for a ban for either of them. I just said it wouldn’t bother me at all.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
I guess the Muslims missed my point.
So first I will make my point to the Muslims. ALTHOUGH honour killing and fratricide are forbidden in Islam (this seems to be missed by the haters who comment here), it is still pervasive in societies where Islam has a good number of worshipers. Where Muslims are a main source of influence in a society…we must help to continue to help bring the rights of women to the forfront, and help to stop it.
Now for the haters of Islam.
We know it is a cultural thing…because it is ‘pre Islamic’…because although Christian societys call them ‘passion killings’ and the offender is a dishonoured lover or husband, rather than the parents…it is EXACLTY THE SAME THING.
The way women are treated in a society is a guage on how that society will be viable in the future. As you are cheering on dominionists in dresses and heels taking away the rights of women to this ‘submissive wives syndrome’…taking them out of the workplace, putting ideological minders in the bedrooms and doctors offices…while taking away thier oppurtunity for highter education and equal pay…you are creating a society like that of Saudi Arabia.
So…while you haters are pretending to care for this young woman, or Rafa Bary, or any of the women who die at the hands of evil…you are ignoring the fact that Christian Shari’a is putting your women in the same place. The bad thing is…some of the blind ideological followers wear skirts.
So…How has Jesus stopped the passion killings, beatings, denial of oppurtunities and education for women in Christian lands…since Muhammad supposedly did a poor job in Muslim lands.
When Jack…Porky pig and others going to address your own faults?!
September 5th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“So first I will make my point to the Muslims. ALTHOUGH honour killing and fratricide are forbidden in Islam (this seems to be missed by the haters who comment here), it is still pervasive in societies where Islam has a good number of worshipers. Where Muslims are a main source of influence in a society…we must help to continue to help bring the rights of women to the forfront, and help to stop it.”
I thought this happened in the US?
September 5th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Women here in the US get assaulted every 2 seconds. Where is Pamela Geller and her concern for women’s rights in this country?! Oh wait…they have to be Muslims to count!
September 5th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
People get this:
In America, more than 3 WOMEN and 1 MAN are MURDERED everyday by their intimate partner.
Some statistics from the following website:
Domestic Violence Resource Center
http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/
One in four women (25%) has experienced domestic violence in her lifetime.
Between 600,000 and 6 million women are victims of domestic violence each year, and between 100,000 and 6 million men, depending on the type of survey used to obtain the data.
Nearly 2.2 million people called a domestic violence crisis or hot line in 2004 to escape crisis situations, seek advice, or assist someone they thought might be victims.
Nearly three out of four (74%) of Americans personally know someone who is or has been a victim of domestic violence. 30% of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.
On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Intimate partner homicides accounted for 30% of the murders of women and 5% percent of the murders of men.
The health-related costs of intimate partner violence exceed $5.8 billion each year.
Thirty-seven percent of women who sought treatment in emergency rooms for violence-related injuries in 1994 were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.
Approximately one in five female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.
In a national survey of American families, 50% of the men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children.
Studies suggest that between 3.3 – 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.
Three in four women (76%) who reported they had been raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 said that an intimate partner (current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date) committed the assault.
One in five (21%) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
Annually in the United States, 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate partner.
One in 12 women and one in 45 men will be stalked in their lifetime, for an average duration of almost two years
Seventy-eight percent of stalking victims are women. Women are significantly more likely than men (60 percent and 30 percent, respectively) to be stalked by intimate partners.
Eighty percent of women who are stalked by former husbands are physically assaulted by that partner and 30 percent are sexually assaulted by that partner.
Seventy-six percent of female homicide victims were stalked prior to their death.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Is Pamela Geller purchasing land for building memorials for the 1095+ (one thousand and ninety five) women murdered in America by their initmate partners, every year?
Jack how about sending the families related to the 1095 women to where-ever they came from, EVERY YEAR?????
September 5th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
“Between 600,000 and 6 million women are victims of domestic violence each year, and between 100,000 and 6 million men, depending on the type of survey used to obtain the data.”
Thats about the number of Muslims that live in America!
Think about it!
/loon mode off
September 5th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
“Women here in the US get assaulted every 2 seconds. Where is Pamela Geller and her concern for women’s rights in this country?! Oh wait…they have to be Muslims to count!”
Its because she loves Muslims !
September 5th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
@ A.J,Dr.M can not debate with a scholar like Robert Spencer.Dr.M can only BARK, real S.O B.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
According to the FBI in 2009,
609 wives were murdered (by husband)
141 husbands were murdered (by wife)
472 girlfriends were murdered (by boyfriend)
138 boyfriends were murdered (by girlfriends)
And 201 daughters, 247 sons, 35 sisters, 94 brothers and 281 other family members were murdered.
That is a grand total of 2218 murders just in the family in 2009.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
And adding just the women (ignoring the other 281 family member number which could have women too);
1317 women were murdered in 2009 by their men according to FBI.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Nur Alia; actually, being an atheist I have no qualms about making the same argument for Christianity. I’d prefer living in Finland, Sweden, Norway or Iceland any day of the week over the US, which is still very bible believing.
AJ: your logic is deeply flawed: you assume that honor killings substitute regular domestic violence. But of course, they don’t. Honor killings and honor violence comes on top of regular domestic violence. So you can just add up honor related violence on top of regular domestic and child abuse.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, estimates that about 2,500 to 3,000 people get killed in honor killings each year in Pakistan, about 25% of which gets reported. And that’s just the killings, not counting the mutilations, and the rapes.
So comparing to your own numbers, Pakistan has about 2,5 to 3 times as much honor killings as the US has domestic murders. And we haven’t even taken in to account that with 312 million people, the US population is about four-and-a-half times as large as that of Pakistan (70 million).
So if we take the different size of the population into the equation, somewhere between ten and thirteen-and-a-half times as many women per x amount of the population are being murdered in Pakistan because of honor alone as are killed in the US for a whole range of reasons relating to the domestic sphere.
Plus, domestic violence is generally frowned upon in Western countries. Less so in Muslim countries. This is a difference in value system.
Do you really think if you go to the police in Egypt and Pakistan and show your bruises, they’ll arrest your husband? You’re more likely to get raped by the police. Hell, I’ve even heard reports of police officers groping girls’ breasts. And what was the name of that reporter again, who practically got gang-raped on Tahrir Square? That’s no coincidence. Women getting groped on the street is prevalent in Egypt.
Could you imagine a female reporter getting gang raped while covering a mass demonstration in Washington or New York? It’s inconceivable.
And did you know that in Norway, rapes have skyrocketed along with immigration from countries like Pakistan, Somalia and Irak. Contrary to what people think, most women who get attacked are immigrants themselves, but so are the perpatrators: they are mostly Muslim immigrants from said countries.
And we’re not just talking about violence against women stemming from patriarchal attitudes about honor and shame: the other day I read a report about a Palestinian family in Germany. The daughter of sixteen had a Lebanese boyfriend of nineteen. The family disapproved of the relationship and the father had one of his sons make the point to the boyfriend. He did so with his knife, and the boyfriend ended up in hospital. He’s lucky to be alive.
To avoid charges, the family sent a broker to mediate. In the end the father agreed for his daughter to be married to the boyfriend if he would drop charges and lied to the police about what happened. This is becoming quite customary among Muslim communities, and people are compelled to go along with such brokerage, certainly if the family who runs the risk of having one of their members being convicted is larger and/or more engaged in criminal activities. Researchers are warning for parallel justice systems.
All these things are varieties of the same phenomena, which is that Muslim communities bring with them from their home countries certain patterns of cultural attitude which are clearly inferior to the values of Enlightenment Humanism. Islam has failed, still fails and will keep on failing to address and correct those values, in fact often the religion is co-opted by these communities into enabling and sanctioning these patterns of behavior.
All this supplies the islamophobes with enough fodder to last them a lifetime. And unfortunately, people like you don’t want to face this reality, because it would force them to question their own cultural identity.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
@porkkky
it’s already been established on this site that robert spencer is only an expert in bullshit, generalisations of entire people, selective hearing, and hatemongering,
September 5th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Jack,
Do you have a link to the actual study than to the Indian news link?
Why do the American wives and girlfriends have a higher murder number as opposed to the husbands and boyfriends?
In America, husband walks in, finds his wife in bed with another man, he shoots them both – domestic violence.
In a Muslim society – husband walks in, discovers wife in bed with another man, kills them both – Honor Killing.
American men don’t care who their daughters are in bed with but they sure do care who their wives (and their girlfriends) are in bed with, that’s the only difference between American men and men from other cultures including non-Muslim Indian men or men from non-Muslim African cultures.
Your mind is just biased (as apparent from your disgust for Muslims calling their God, Allah) so for you any crime done by a Muslim is related to his faith.
If you were a non-bigoted person, you would be discussing how we can reduce violence against women all over the sphere and not trying to stigmatize Islam.
Seriously the only difference between you and Halalpork is that he is not a hypocrite. He doesn’t hang around here like Dan and you to pay lip service to Islam but then vilify it at any opportunity they get.
September 5th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
In fact, a few weeks ago Kashif Parvaiz had his South Indian Christian girlfriend murder his wife Nazish Noorani and loons like yourself had the audacity to even present that murder as honor killing – I mean come on the husband is a serial cheater and he wants his wife out of the way, it’s not that as if the wife was having an affair and the husband would have killed for some honor related purpose. It was the husband having affairs and even then the stupid Zionist propagandists on websites such as Huffington Post were trying to color it as an Islamic honor killing. Thankfully majority of the commenters who were aware of their own Scott Petersons didn’t buy the propaganda.
September 5th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
“Do you have a link to the actual study than to the Indian news link?”
I think they may be found here:
http://www.hrcp-web.org/archive.html
September 6th, 2011 at 12:11 am
Okay so according to the HRCP report for 2008:
“At least 1,210 women were killed for various reasons, including at least 612 killed for honour.
In 2008, HRCP noted 808 sexual harassment cases of which 350 were rape cases, 445 gangrape
cases and 13 cases of stripping. At least 221 victims were minors.”
How did the Indian report come up with the estimated 2500 – 3000 honor killings number when the HRCP report explicitly sets it at 612 ????????
Also, also there are about 808 rape cases for 2008. According to the US statistics 21% of American women are rape victims. According to infoplease, the number of American women is 157.2 million which would place the number of rape victims at 33 million. If you add up all the numbers for rapes for all years is Pakistan, it doesn’t approach 33 million. Pakistan has more population density, its population is 170 million. Shouldn’t it have more rapes? I hope now you don’t say its not reported. You want to quote HRCP when you want to but you want to ignore it when it suits you.
And USA is called a developed country, the leader of all nations. So who is more hungry for assaulting women, Jack?
September 6th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Hey Jack,
“The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, estimates that about 2,500 to 3,000 people get killed in honor killings each year in Pakistan, about 25% of which gets reported. And that’s just the killings, not counting the mutilations, and the rapes.
So comparing to your own numbers, Pakistan has about 2,5 to 3 times as much honor killings as the US has domestic murders. And we haven’t even taken in to account that with 312 million people, the US population is about four-and-a-half times as large as that of Pakistan (70 million).
So if we take the different size of the population into the equation, somewhere between ten and thirteen-and-a-half times as many women per x amount of the population are being murdered in Pakistan because of honor alone as are killed in the US for a whole range of reasons relating to the domestic sphere.
Plus, domestic violence is generally frowned upon in Western countries. Less so in Muslim countries. This is a difference in value system.
Do you really think if you go to the police in Egypt and Pakistan and show your bruises, they’ll arrest your husband? You’re more likely to get raped by the police. Hell, I’ve even heard reports of police officers groping girls’ breasts. And what was the name of that reporter again, who practically got gang-raped on Tahrir Square? That’s no coincidence. Women getting groped on the street is prevalent in Egypt.
Could you imagine a female reporter getting gang raped while covering a mass demonstration in Washington or New York? It’s inconceivable.”
All of the stats and acts you have mentioned are disgusting and should be condemned by everyone. But when analyzing what you have presented one must take into account the many factors that have influence on Pakistani society. For example when comparing the US and Pakistan one has to take into account the absence of a corrupt government in the US while one is present in Pakistan, one has to take into account the years of social and political stability that is present in the US while Pakistan’s social and political spheres are volatile and unpredictable. One should take into account education, income,unstable region etc etc etc. My point is there is more to it than just “their value system is inferior to ours”. Also Islam is free from what those who claim to follow it do. Islam has guidelines, when someone goes against those guidelines then they are not following Islam. Rape is a punishable by death in Islam,and no you do not need four witnesses to prove rape occurred. Even a security camera is enough to convict a man of rape. There is no concept in Islam that is honor killing. Islam does not even encourage it as some might claim.
“And did you know that in Norway, rapes have skyrocketed along with immigration from countries like Pakistan, Somalia and Irak. Contrary to what people think, most women who get attacked are immigrants themselves, but so are the perpatrators: they are mostly Muslim immigrants from said countries.
And we’re not just talking about violence against women stemming from patriarchal attitudes about honor and shame: the other day I read a report about a Palestinian family in Germany. The daughter of sixteen had a Lebanese boyfriend of nineteen. The family disapproved of the relationship and the father had one of his sons make the point to the boyfriend. He did so with his knife, and the boyfriend ended up in hospital. He’s lucky to be alive.
To avoid charges, the family sent a broker to mediate. In the end the father agreed for his daughter to be married to the boyfriend if he would drop charges and lied to the police about what happened. This is becoming quite customary among Muslim communities, and people are compelled to go along with such brokerage, certainly if the family who runs the risk of having one of their members being convicted is larger and/or more engaged in criminal activities. Researchers are warning for parallel justice systems.
All these things are varieties of the same phenomena, which is that Muslim communities bring with them from their home countries certain patterns of cultural attitude which are clearly inferior to the values of Enlightenment Humanism. Islam has failed, still fails and will keep on failing to address and correct those values, in fact often the religion is co-opted by these communities into enabling and sanctioning these patterns of behavior.
All this supplies the islamophobes with enough fodder to last them a lifetime. And unfortunately, people like you don’t want to face this reality, because it would force them to question their own cultural identity.”
That is unfortunate regarding the crime and rape rates. Again this is against Islam and I hope the perps are caught and are punished. Regarding the Germany story, I know many many people who have the same mentality as the family. this is based on a mixture of culture and a “you have to prove that you are a man” mentality. Of course lying to the police and attempting to circumvent the set of laws of your host country goes against Islam.
regarding your statement that Islam has failed in correcting those values is incorrect. Islam has laws against rape, lying to the police, beating your wife, stabbing another person, etc etc. It is not the fault of Islam but those who claim to be adherents of Islam.
And to end I would like to say that we as Muslims do have a huge problem with some of our coreligionists. Their actions go against Islam when they do any of the above mentioned. We as Muslims should strive to change them and correct their behavior whenever we can. Strive to help your brothers and sisters inshallah.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:30 am
Solid Snake,
As I have presented, Jacks’ numbers are all incorrect. He even presented Pakistan’s population at 70 million when it’s 170 million. 808 rapes for a 170 million population for 2008 as opposed to American women getting raped every few seconds? It’s a big difference.
I am not defending Pakistan but if he has to vilify Islam based upon numbers in Pakistan then he should do his homework.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:38 am
@hgg,
Funny, that’s the only difference I see between you and Danny boy : you can type without being overly abusive and delusional(Danny boy believes Zakir Naik = Geert Wilders, lol), but at the end of day both of you are ignorant, evasive, and cowardly bigots who can’t debate.
Either put up or shut up.
@kosher porky
Projecting again I see. Spencer can’t debate his way out of a paper bag. Neither can that filthy Zionist w-ore aka your high priestess. The only ones remotely impressed by either of these gutter snipes are Zionists and their brain dead followers. The average Geehad watch fan has an IQ lower then my shoe.
You’re an even smaller fry then them, fido. Go back to overdosing on Spencer’s feces before I neuter you, again.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:40 am
In fact, I would request Danios to do a series on violence against women in Muslim cultures as opposed to non-Muslim cultures in the same manner as he did his report on the violence in Quran vs. the old and new Testaments. Let’s find the truth and see who is more violent against women.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:42 am
@AJ
Its unfortunate that he would get his numbers wrong. yes it is a big difference.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:42 am
@AJ,
Good foot work. Keep the setting on your your BS radar high.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:48 am
DrM,
Thanks. Yup, the BS has gotten so high that I have to sacrifice my sleep but I am seriously, seriously tired of the tirade against Islam and all the lies that go into it. May Allah be our protector, Amin.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:50 am
I hope some of the people above me are not trying to say women are treated better or just as well in Islamic countries as in “the West.” The Global Gender Gap Report last year rated Iceland has having the lowest gender gap, followed by Norway, Finland, Sweden and New Zealand, all western countries which are a lot more liberal than the US, for the most part. The country with the highest gap was Yemen, followed by Chad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Mali and such. Most of these are Muslim majority countries, some ruled by Islamic governance in fact. The US is in the middle of the report, in case you were wondering.
September 6th, 2011 at 12:53 am
Couldn’t find any report supporting the 2,500-3,000 number given by that article, this Amnesty International report gives similar numbers to the HRCP.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA33/018/1999/en/952457dd-e0f1-11dd-be39-2d4003be4450/asa330181999en.html
Every report says that number is higher, as there are obviously many cases that aren’t reported or get hushed by the communities, though I don’t think they give any estimates about what that number may be.
None of the reports mention Islam as a cause, by the way.
September 6th, 2011 at 1:00 am
In case anyone is interested in the Global Gender Gap report Durendal mentioned:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2010.pdf
September 6th, 2011 at 3:50 am
Can we get back to the point above rather than how bad violence against women is . Violence against anyone is wrong and unfortunetly happens in every community . Arguing how much there is or if its cultural or based on religion is never going to make it right!
So far it appears that Mrs MacBeth AKA Pammy has collected $5000 from verious people and spent about $3000 on some trees and a plaque in Isreal . So what did she do with the rest of the money ?
Embezzlement is a high scoring word in scrabble . Can someone in the USA drop a line to the FBI? I am not sure if collecting money under false pretences on the internet is a federal crime or a local crime.
She obviously doesnt need the money herself so who could she have given it to?
My first guess is Bobby , but then having sold your soul he dosent really need it either.
But note she dosnt say who she gave it too. Could it be that she gave it to an organisation that she is not allowed to mention? An organisation deemed to be terrorist ? What irony if that was the case.
September 6th, 2011 at 4:27 am
@ Sir David Frost;Instead of Informing FBI about Pam.I think,It is time the Inland Revenue of Britain look into your financial affairs.It is quite common that those who live in glass houses ,tend to throw stones at others.These cheep shots by you degrade the people who wrongly gave the knighthood which you never deserved.You should have been a Khalifa of some backward Muslim country.You are a disgrace for Great Britain.
September 6th, 2011 at 4:34 am
Thanks for that idea Porky I wonder if she declared it as income . Can someone inform the IRS Remember it was income tax that got Al Capone.
September 6th, 2011 at 5:21 am
Of course, we really should ask IRS to take a looky, thanks Mr Pork! Heck we could probably even do it ourselves if we wanted, such things are not that hard if you know what you’re doing. See, being Muslim isn’t that bad is it, it just means that you have to do the right thing when you see wrong. You’re learning well my child.
September 6th, 2011 at 5:47 am
“Can we get back to the point above rather than how bad violence against women is . Violence against anyone is wrong and unfortunetly happens in every community . Arguing how much there is or if its cultural or based on religion is never going to make it right!”
Entirely, my point.
September 6th, 2011 at 6:46 am
AJ: “How did the Indian report come up with the estimated 2500 – 3000 honor killings number when the HRCP report explicitly sets it at 612 ????????”
Because, as the newspaper notes, “the report states that a good number of such cases still go unreported or are passed off as suicides and only 25% of these are brought to justice.”
Since the article dates from 3 september 2008, we may assume it refers to a report put out around that time. It quotes HRCP chairwoman Asma Jahangir as saying the government should step up bringing these crimes to justice, so probably she held a press conference of some kind.
Anyway: do you really believe the estimate that only one of three honour killings in Pakistan is recognized and booked as such is an exaggeration? Or are you just digging your heels in the sand?
September 6th, 2011 at 6:56 am
I saw a documentary called ‘The Ground Zero Mosque’ on Channel 4 last night here in the UK, it featured a hideous monster with a melting face (Pam Geller) and a bearded bloke shouting at a crowd of protestors just as he did in Germany. I kinda felt queezy when looking at Pam’s face(too much facelift)and the way she was screaming at everyone.
Then there was the bearded guy called Spencer, he was patronising anything that moved. These are the demons people hellbent on distruction and making money at the expense of Muslims. Sick minds think alike.I never knew about this woman or Robert Spencer until I came to this site, thankyou Loonwatch for exposing these rabid hatemongers.
September 6th, 2011 at 7:18 am
DrM(urtad) you don’t have the courage to call out hatemongers that call for murdering Ahmadis and Shias, but then again you support oppression as long as it is “Islamic” in your mind. Which is why retards like AJ (who thinks criticizing the Taliban and Muslim countries is “Islamophobic) and Khushboo (who thinks criticizing Pakistani society for being intolerant is “unfair”) as well as Sam Seed (who thinks it’s okay to refer to Westerners as filth and deserving to be attacked) often come to your defense all the time. You upset that Amir Liaquat is exposed for the sham “doctor” that he is? Wonder how long before someone exposes you for the fake “doctor” that you are. I’m sure you would deny treatment to Ahmadis given your blatant hatred and not giving a shit when they are murdered by your beloved brethren. The fact that you have a hard-on for Islamic extremists such as Jamaat-i-Islaami and refuse to point out the fact that your precious Yvonne Ridley has a penchant for defending child murderers (you were probably supportive of Beslan since the dead were just dead Russian kaffir kids so you don’t care for them) shows what a hypocrite you are when it comes to blindly defending Muslims even when they do wrong.
September 6th, 2011 at 7:24 am
“I hope some of the people above me are not trying to say women are treated better or just as well in Islamic countries as in “the West.” The Global Gender Gap Report last year rated Iceland has having the lowest gender gap, followed by Norway, Finland, Sweden and New Zealand, all western countries which are a lot more liberal than the US, for the most part. The country with the highest gap was Yemen, followed by Chad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Mali and such. Most of these are Muslim majority countries, some ruled by Islamic governance in fact. The US is in the middle of the report, in case you were wondering.”
Well you do have people who post here who think it’s acceptable to oppress others as long as their version of Shariat is established, like AJ. They will always claim Muslim societies are superior to Western societies, and then you have people like AJ defending Muslim miscreants all the time by posting some false equivalences. People here will often pull the “Islamophobia card” to silence any dissent about their precious Muslim societies that they constantly gloat about. They think there is nothing wrong with Muslim societies and that it’s all fake propaganda.
Some people here have a serious siege mentality where they will downplay any problems with Muslim societies and will not hesitate to condemn the West because they are usually the ones that freak out when they see Muslim women not wearing the hijab. They often claim everything is a war on Islam while shamelessly reaping the benefits their “kaffir” Western hosts provide them with.
September 6th, 2011 at 9:02 am
@sam
anything about the documentary that is notable besides the bullshit that is usually peddled out by them, and few have the courage to look at pams face and not be traumatized by it.
September 6th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Jack…
If you were just an athiest…and not an anti Islamic apologist, you would not single out the abuse and oppression of women by thier religion.
It seems to me that you are siding with the Islamophobes as a means to an end here…someone to cheer you on.
I am a woman…a Muslim woman. Regardless of who the abuser and the victim is, regardless of where they are from, or what they belive, I am against the abuse and the oppression…and I think most women would be…because women have a vested intrest in seeing the behavior end that has nothing to do with religion.
I cant take a side in this issue based on religion because women are the same in every religion.
Why am I not seeing this from you…as a supposed nutreal party?
September 6th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Wow! I missed alot! Good work AJ and Solid Snake! I need not say more except:
We all condemn the crimes Muslims have committed whether it’s called “honor killing” or “murder” but let not’s blame religion. I was merely pointing out the double standard here where if a husband kills his wife for adultery it’s called “crime of passion” where there’s more leniency and when a Muslim man kills his wife for adultery, it’s “honor killing” and therefore, life in prison. No way am I defending either crime but just pointing out the double standard where the former is just madness and the latter is religion-related. We all know that Islam and Christianity has nothing to do with either. The husbands can call it “unChristian like” or “UnIslamic” to justify their murders but we know our religions forbid these crimes.
Also, Dr.M, your wit is truly needed here! I’m glad you’re a part of LW. Keep up the great work!
Okay, carry on…
September 6th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Based upon the FACT that a lot of rapes in USA go unreported, I would like to proclaim (because I feel like it) that 21% times 3 meaning 62% of US women get raped. Any official reports are irrelevant.
Jack, give it up, already!
Khushboo, Thanks.
September 6th, 2011 at 10:33 am
63% i.e.
September 6th, 2011 at 10:38 am
^5
September 6th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
honour killing is just a term used to denote the person killed was due to some violation of hounour including adultery, rape etc..
so a majority of the killings are just domestic killings like anywhere else
and the lawlessness and corruption of countries mean i highly doubt thge statistics realibility even from amnesty sine they never state there methodology
September 6th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
a sane person understands things when explained once, twice.
In Islam, so called ‘honor killing’ or whatever term anyone can describe it in, will be judged as any other killing, i.e., taking lives unlawfully. In other words it is CONDEMNED in Islam. Any dispute has to be settled through a court of law and through witnesses and fair trail. No one can just go and kill, and justify it in the name of Islam. Having said that, now let me expose the truth about this sick tradition of ‘honor killings’. I come from India, and I can declare without fear of contradiction, that such ‘honor killings’ are not a result of religious influence, but rather an ages-old cultural trend influenced heavily in various tribes, predominantly in the sub continent, indo-pak region.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/05/16/idINIndia-33604820080516
its a tragedy such killings happen, and its a grim reality that women and children are abused and killed across the world, be it the uneducated caste-concious folks from some states in india or pakistan, or some ‘civilised’ partners in western countries, who under drug and alcohol, beat their girlfriends/wives in most brutal manner, often causing their death.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/09/sharp-rise-women-killed-violent-partners
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16162491
now, even after this explanation, if some fool comes along rambling about honor killing attempting to associate with religion, my request to all, Let’s get that fool into a rehab and cure his mental sickness. It will be an act of charity inshaa Allah!
September 6th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
“Based upon the FACT that a lot of rapes in USA go unreported, I would like to proclaim (because I feel like it) that 21% times 3 meaning 62% of US women get raped. Any official reports are irrelevant.”
Your 21% is not the number of reports to the police, but the percentage of women who tell in surveys that they got raped, assaulted or molested during their lifetime.
I have no doubt the prevalence of rape is much higher in Pakistan. First of all, women will hardly report it because of the shame involved (it might even get them killed). Secondly, if they do report it, they might get raped again by the police. Thirdly, considering the prevalence of arranged marriages, a lot of women probably get raped by their husbands, without even realizing that’s actually rape.
You don’t have to take my word for it. According to activist Tahira Abdullah (Human rights commission of Pakistan) rape is amongst the most common crimes against women in Pakistan. Asked how often it happens, she replies “Very, very often”. But you won’t find accurate statistics, because few women report it or speak out, since it brings shame to their family.
And of course it’s not just Pakistan, which has these kinds of mores. In Egypt women report that getting harassed or even groped on the streets has become routine. Can you imagine walking on the streets of New York of Detroit of Los Angeles and getting groped by complete strangers? Or walking into a police station in New Jersey and being raped by three or four officers?
September 6th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Jack,
You couldn’t imagine an American president getting a blow job by an intern in the Oval Office (re: Lewinsky) and groping women (re: Willey) in the White House and then lying under oath either?
No matter how hard you try to twist and turn facts and figures to present rape as a Muslim phenomenon, it is not.
Now focus on the article on hand!
September 6th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“In case anyone is interested in the Global Gender Gap report Durendal mentioned:”
Thanks HGG, I didn’t post the link because I think when I do, the comment has to be approved, which some of my comments have yet to be approved.
“You couldn’t imagine an American president getting a blow job by an intern in the Oval Office (re: Lewinsky) and groping women (re: Willey) in the White House and then lying under oath either?”
To AJ:
I’m no fan of Bill Clinton, but I’m not sure what this has to do with rape. It was adultery, which is legal, and not a problem in my book, so don’t equate that to rape because you disapprove of it. Besides, what’s the problem with getting some at the work place? People are too uptight.
September 6th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Durandal,
It might have been just adultery/fun stuff for Bill but it was sexual harassment/rape for the staff that worked under him in the White House. Maybe you need to read up on workplace sexual harassment policies??
No harm getting some in the workplace but don’t do it at your company time and don’t do it with people that report to you!
September 6th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
“it was sexual harassment/rape for the staff that worked under him in the White House. Maybe you need to read up on workplace sexual harassment policies??”
Um…
“In 1998, Kathleen Willey alleged Clinton sexually assaulted her four years previously. In 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged Clinton raped her some twenty years previously. The accusations by Willey and Broaddrick were never brought before a court. The independent counsel determined Willey gave “false information” to the FBI and inconsistent sworn testimony related to the Jones allegation.[12] Willey also dodged perjury charges after Kenneth Starr granted her immunity for her testimony.[12] Broaddrick’s only sworn testimony about Clinton was a previous denial of any harassment by Clinton.[13]”
I feel odd actually defending Bill Clinton, since I hate them as much as right-wing fanatics do (of course for completely different reasons) but the idea he raped someone is ridiculous. There was also claims he murdered opponents, Jerry Falwell himself supported that claim.
September 6th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
sexual harassment, exploitation, are also a form of rape, in the sense it violates a woman’s modesty and her dignity. And if we pull a stats to show figures in terms of percentage, i’m sure america is not better than india, or any other country.
All these things are the result of the man’s low thinking and his decline in morality, not because he has a religious permit backing him to do so!
September 6th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
sadia absolutely!
It’s funny how Jack was talking about Pakistani police taking advantage of women in police centers and Egyptians groping TV newscasters and then the moment the American President is shown to be doing the same, well then there is no harm in “getting some”.
What hypocrites and liars. BTW Durandal are you from the damage control team at unit 8200?
Jack couldn’t handle it.
September 6th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
To Sadia:
“sexual harassment, exploitation, are also a form of rape, in the sense it violates a woman’s modesty and her dignity.”
Hmm, no. Exploitation for one can take several different forms and is differs according to opinion. Sexy magazines like FHM and porno is defined as exploitation by some women, and not by others (typically not by the ones participating in such activities). What you find to be exploitative will not be seen as such by some women, or men. And no where is exploitation defined as rape.
Sexual harassment isn’t automatically rape, though I guess you could put rape under sexual harassment. Someone making verbal advances towards someone else which are not welcomed can be sexual harassment, is that rape? You guys need to see the definition of rape (Wikipedia):
“Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person’s consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.[1][2][3][4] The term is most often defined in criminal law.[2][4] A person who commits an act of rape is known as a rapist.
Definitions
See also: Laws regarding rape
The definition of rape varies both in different parts of the world and at different times in history.[17] It is defined in many jurisdictions as sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration, of one person by another person without the consent of the victim.[17] The United Nations defines it as “sexual intercourse without valid consent,”[18][19] and the World Health Organization defined it in 2002 as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.”[20] Some countries such as Germany are now, however, using more inclusive definitions which do not require penetration and the 1998 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda defines it as “a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive”.[17] In some jurisdictions, the term “rape” has been phased out of legal use in favor of terms such as “sexual assault” or “criminal sexual conduct”.[21]
Some jurisdictions continue to define rape to cover only acts involvi”
Besides, I was responding to the claim that Bill Clinton raped a woman, which is a proven lie.
“All these things are the result of the man’s low thinking and his decline in morality, not because he has a religious permit backing him to do so!”
So rape and sexual harassment is just men on woman right?
September 6th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
To Sadia:
“modesty”
I almost didn’t notice this. This is strange to me, because how do you define modesty? Surely it changes depending on the person, situation and culture. And does everyone automatically value modesty? Some don’t, such as myself, probably to a fault but still.
September 7th, 2011 at 2:17 am
@Danny boy,
Repeating your lies all over again isn’t going make anyone take you seriously. What do you do for a living? You are living, aren’t you? Who is Amir Liaquat? You make no sense whatsoever, you can’t debate or back up a single one of your claims. You’re crazier then Kosher porky. Show us where I have ever called for violence on “Muslim liberals” or Ahmedis etc. You can’t because you are, in fact, lying or delusional. Or both. You have elevated the strawman argument to a trollishly hellish level. You simply pick things out of your depleted mind, and project them onto your betters without any concern for truth whatsoever.Your relentless misrepresentations indicate something very unhealthy about your mental life. You’re a broken record repeating the same retarded, refuted, anti-Muslim nonsense. That’s your M.O. because you have nothing of any value to add to any discussion.
So whats up with the takfir act, internet tough guy? Isn’t that what you often accuse “conservative Muslims” off? You’re not a Muslim but a Muslim hater, a filthy intellectually dishonest quisling (or tacciya practicing lap dog, if you prefer), Danny boy. Once again, back up your claims or kindly STFU, and piss off back to Geehad Watch where you belong, bottom feeder.
September 7th, 2011 at 8:13 am
“then the moment the American President is shown to be doing the same, well then there is no harm in “getting some”.”
When did I say that? I just think your reasoning is flawed. I agree that what Clinton did was sexual harassment, but in the end he got busted and he paid dearly for his behavior. The difference is: if you get sexually harassed or assaulted, in the US you can file a complaint and you can trust the police and district attorney will try to get the offender behind bars.
In countries like Egypt or Pakistan, if you speak out, you’re likely to get harassed by the police as well, your family will be angry with you for bringing shame on them and you can bet your ass any wealthy or connected business man or politician will be protected by the authorities. If the case ever sees court, it’s likely they’ll try to bribe the judge.
But go on, just pretend that Bill Clinton is proof Western culture is just as misogynistic as Muslim cultures are.
September 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Oh for sure it is, ever worked in a low income job with a bunch of men? Ever heard all their stories of sexual conquest, real and imagined, and their subsequent attitudes towards women? Ever been consider the ‘weak’ one becuase you don’t share these views and been browbeaten to conform (yet never given in) because of it? Ever had a woman confide in you that she is with the man she is with becuase she would beat the shit out of her if she dared speak out or go to the police? Ever tried to help said woman and had the shit beaten out of you for ‘intruding’? Ever volunteered your time in a woman’s shelter and heard the horror stories? Ever come out of your shell? Would that be a no, no, no, no, no, no and no?
Get in the real world, men are men the world over I’m afraid, western or otherwise. Heck, I’ve actually found that women are, in general, treated better since I’ve moved to the SE Asia region (predominately Muslim) since they are not objectified etc. Actual, where I live it’s the ‘Mat Rempit’ who style themselves after ‘western’ motorcycle gangs that are the real problem for women, no society at large! Google them, if you Google ‘Mar Rempit Rape’ you’ll probably even get videos from these vermin.
September 7th, 2011 at 8:35 am
Oh, and by no means am I saying ‘the west is bad’, all I’m saying is ‘shit happens everywhere’.
September 7th, 2011 at 8:48 am
I agree with Jack and I have worked in this field . Even delt with a wife of a police officer, it happens everywhere and its wrong . No need to blame a spesific culture place or religion, you just need to stand up and say its wrong period
September 7th, 2011 at 8:49 am
DrM, show us where you have equally condemned violence and bigotry against Muslim liberals and Ahmadis. Who’s to say your pathetic cesspool of a blog won’t influence a Muslim to blow up an Ahmadi mosque in America or Britain like JihadWatch influenced Anders Brevik to shoot up a youth camp? Don’t you have a Islam4Uk protest to attend with your buddy Anjem Choudary and Khalid Kelly?
Khushboo is obviously a bigot who hates Hindus and Ahmadis, yet defends Salafis all the time. At least Ahmadis aren’t out there blowing themselves up like suicidial Sunni/Salafi fanatics often do, which is whom you continue to defend Khushboo. It’s no surprise Khushboo would come to the defense of a retard like DrM. I’m sure Khushboo would defend an al-Qaeda sympathizer as long as they are “exposing Islamophobia”. Integrity does not matter to people like them.
September 7th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Yeah, it makes me so angry to see this shit, hence my crappy spelling and grammar in the above. No words can describe how horrible it is, like you say you stand up to it wherever it comes from. I think that men need to remember that the world is at the feet of the mother…
September 7th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Do you think we can we get back to ‘Pam geller possibly embezzels money to give to a possible terrorist group whilst could be evading income tax Story ‘rather than our wife beaters are not as bad as your honour killings argument?
September 7th, 2011 at 9:17 am
@Dan you lying SOB, when did I say it was ok to refer to Westerners as filth deserving to be attacked? You are such drama queen. I would never utter such filth and drop to a level of hatred that you plainly display against Pakistan and Muslims.
September 7th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Aye, we should, this is *not* a good topic for me at all.
Now, the things is about Ms Macbeth and her chummies is that… well, where does all the money go? They are a very very very low operating cost organization (websites for the most part) with a few plane tickets, hotel rooms and so on that they need to pay when they go on a little tour. They don’t seem to declare where any of this money that they get through donations goes. Mikey Weinstein of the MRRF, an honorable gentleman if there ever was one, declares all of this and, like most charities, doesn’t charge the earth. He takes $500 plus cost of transport plus lodging (the later are both normally paid with air miles or got at some discounted rate and so on) if he is ever invited to do a speech. That is fair and it is like most charities, but I see *nothing* of the sort for the band of two. Again, the MRFF, being a ‘proper’ charity rather than a hate group, actually hires people like researchers and so on to assist in it’s fight against extremism in the US military, again, where does the other lot’s ‘donations’ go?
And also, thousands of dollars for a headstone? Google says someone’s being ripped off:
http://www.everlifememorials.com/headstones-s/19.htm
September 7th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Dan, nothing you say can be taken seriously since you iied to us about who you are. You’re an Islamophobe, NOT a Muslim Pakistani as you claimed. You have no credibility nor do you have any sources to back your claims. I have nothing more to say to you LIAR! Goodbye!
September 7th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Funny coming from someone who thinks condemning the Taliban and al-Qaeda is Islamophobic and blindly defending Muslims against the “dirty kuffar”, right Khushboo? Go defend a loser like DrM(unafiq) who thinks all liberal Muslims should be executed, while you’re at it don’t try to bomb Times Square like your fellow Pakistani bro Faisal Shahzad tried to do. I guess it’s also Islamophobic to report suspicious behavior of Muslims to the authorities now? Why don’t you go move back to Pakistan since you hate America and Americans and want America to look like a dump like Pakistan? Not my fault you would die defending “pious momin” like Mullah Umar or Zaid Hamid you Ahmadi-hating loser.
And Sam Seed, can’t handle the heat you leech? Accusing others of being this and that yet you start whining when the tables are turned against you?
September 7th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Jack…You seem misogynistic yourself by downplaying to pitiful comparative argument i.e Us vs Them, the horrors that the abused women in the west suffers at the hands of men. Trust me i’ve volunteered my college years at a shelter for abused women, its horribly commen.
I’m not by any mean exusing some of the ugly criminal behaviour towards women that exist in muslim countries, but the statistics from both ends speaks for itself.
As Jack Cope put it, men are men the world over. Thats what happen when muslim men go astray from the middle ground that Islam is suppose to give them, and thats what happen when men in the West go astray from morality and humbleness, in both case spiritual bankruptcy occurs.
Again as Jack Cope said, men need to remember that the world is at the feet of the mother.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:21 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6lNou08f4&feature=channel_video_title Here’s a video that goes into some detail regarding Islamic law on the subject of rape, as practiced in Pakistan. So at least when it comes to Pakistan, this idea some users here are trying to paint of women not being more suppressed there is simply false.
September 8th, 2011 at 4:34 am
Durandal,
I think more of us here have established that you are here just for your propaganda against Islam so talking ANY numbers; think 33 million raped US women or 3 US women honor killed EVERY day by their intimate partners won’t affect you. Yeah, so carry on; try harder to make it about Islam.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
I’m not sure how linking to a video where a guy quotes Islamic law and rape statistics on this regard amongst people trying to argue that have it either better off or just the same in islamic countries vs “the west” is propaganda. Did you even watch the video?
September 8th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Well AJ, here’s another video from the same guy called “Is Islam sexist?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlHrLaV_SiI Watch it and tell me what you think. You’ll notice his videos are not full of bigotry or stereotypes, and uses primary islamic sources like the Koran, Hadiths, etc etc to back his stuff up, so why don’t you watch them before you dismiss them outright.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Durandal I don’t have time to watch your BS videos!
September 8th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
To AJ:
Lol, that video was a test, now I know you never even watched them! In fact, that video I linked to says Islam is not sexist, just certain interpretations inhibit both male and female rights :p The point being, you kinda have to watch something to label it propaganda. Do you think anything criticizing your religious is lies? In that case, you’re pretty deluded.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Durandal..lolol, you? rationally criticizing Islam? Nah! admit, you here to profess your hate for Islam/muslims.
But anyway Danios challenge you on another trent ‘the God of war’, he is still wating for you and so are we, So at least be smart enough big boy to back-up the accusations you throw against Islam.
HUM!!! Are you just here to trow accusations, and then chicken-out when you’re connered lol.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Durandal, you lost me when you start giving explicit references to rape et al. Kinda Clintonish, I would say!
September 8th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
To AJ:
“you lost me when you start giving explicit references to rape et al”
Um..the only references to rape I’ve given is the ideas of Bill Clinton raping someone that are not true. At least not the person you claimed. Most ironically it was a claim advanced by the same people who scream about Sharia law and back the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-03-23/politics/time_willey_1_julie-steele-clinton-newsweek-reporter-michael-isikoff?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Unless you mean consenting adults giving each other blowjobs is rape, in which case you probably have a very boring life…
“But anyway Danios challenge you on another trent ‘the God of war’, he is still wating for you and so are we”
Actually my comment hasn’t been approved, but I guess I could just type it up again, I guess without links which apparently more than one make it on approval, but would that be considered spam? It wasn’t anything hard or complex, just a few links from the Skeptics Annotated Quran, and his blog with some commentary. You’ll have to ask this Danios why it hasn’t been approved.
“hen chicken-out when you’re connered lol.”
I think you mean cornered…and who’s the chicken? The one who makes responses or the one who doesn’t approve the comments? Isn’t putting comments on selective approval kind of chickenish to begin with? Anyway I’m sure the dude is just busy and hasn’t gotten to approving them but if you want me to re-submit my response so badly, I can :p
September 8th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
By the way AJ, labeling videos propaganda without watching them and then justifying your dodging of further responses by a previous comment you didn’t like is so many logical fallacies and dirty tricks rolled into one it almost made my head explode, but that’s why this place seems like so much fun
You don’t even find this kind of stuff on YouTube anymore.
September 8th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Durandal you have your mind made up. Its very apparent. There is nothing to be learnt from you.
September 8th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Plus perhaps it’s very hip to utter “um” where ever you are from but it’s considered kind of juvenile here in USA.
September 8th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
To AJ:
“Durandal you have your mind made up. Its very apparent. There is nothing to be learnt from you.”
Well that statement doesn’t make any sense. One, the videos I linked to are not done by me, they’re done by some dude in Australia (I’m from California and my lineage is from Hungary) and two, even if I made up my mind on something (is that bad now? I don’t get it) why does that prevent someone from learning anything from me…? I’m not really sure what that refers too even.
“Plus perhaps it’s very hip to utter “um” where ever you are from but it’s considered kind of juvenile here in USA.”
It is? Because I’ve lived in the US my whole life and everyone goes um, hmm, ah, that kind of stuff. Come to think of it, it is annoying, especially at restaurants when people don’t make an order immediately, they go “umm…” I guess as a way to make sure the waiter doesn’t go away. So I apologize if it was annoying.
September 8th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Plus I’ve never been much for acting “hip” in fact most of my life I was a socially awkward person. I still wear polo shirts and nice pants like I’m out of some golfing club, and don’t use contractions when I talk most of the time, despite the fact I’m a poor dude who grew up in a ghetto, so I’m not trying to be cool or anything.
September 8th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
^oh wow. I dress the same way. POLO SHIRTS FTW!!!!
September 8th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Lol, thanks Skhan. Yeah they’re comfortable in the blazing heat of Orange County these days.
September 8th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Durandal.. i’ve watch the video that yu’ve recommended for Aj to watch, fine, your video talks about Islam allowing concubinage which by definition is a MISTRESS=inmarried, good, since you’re the one who gave us the link, then you won’t mind me asking you couple of questions about-it..
A. Do you think Islam allows men to have mistress?
B. What did the video meant be Islam is ‘hostile’ to both men and women?
September 8th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
I hate Polos…..button up military style long and short sleeve shirts for the win. they make you look slimmer and shoulders straighter lol also Yellow, Purple, Black, white, Red, Blue t shirts with a nice print on the front are excellent for hot days…
September 8th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
oh and i cant believe i spelled out FTW lol
September 8th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
“watch, fine, your video talks about Islam allowing concubinage which by definition is a MISTRESS=inmarried, good, since you’re the one who gave us the link, then you won’t mind me asking you couple of questions about-it..
A. Do you think Islam allows men to have mistress?”
Okay but a concubine was (and this is what Klingschor meant) a slave girl who married men had on the side, something that is still advocated by some muslims (even most bizarrely this woman in Kuwait).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Concubinage
A mistress is a consenting relationship with a married man, so there’s a huge difference there. Islam does not allow consensual sex outside marriage, but allows a master to have sex with his slaves, which you can probably guess is not consensual.
“B. What did the video meant be Islam is ‘hostile’ to both men and women?”
He means that it restricts the sexual freedom of both men and women in various ways, especially in marriage.
September 8th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
To Solid Snake:
“I hate Polos…..button up military style long and short sleeve shirts for the win. they make you look slimmer and shoulders straighter lol also Yellow, Purple, Black, white, Red, Blue t shirts with a nice print on the front are excellent for hot days…”
Yeah but I’m already too slim for my own good.
September 9th, 2011 at 12:59 am
Durandal is a sex-crazed lunatic. Everything he types or posts is about sex. I just lost a little sleep typing this but his lies need to be countered.
Islam does not allow relationship between a master and slave without marriage:
[4:3] And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.
[4:25]If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practice self-restraint. And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
[24:33] And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
[24:58] O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence): Before the prayer of dawn, and when ye lay aside your raiment for the heat of noon, and after the prayer of night. Three times of privacy for you. It is no sin for them or for you at other times, when some of you go round attendant upon others (if they come into your presence without leave). Thus Allah maketh clear the revelations for you. Allah is Knower, Wise.
If sex was already allowed with slaves; why the need to marry them [4:25]? And why is Allah asking to keep chaste if can’t find a good match when they can have sex with the slave [24:33]? And why should the slaves not be able to enter during afternoon or at night if they were sex partners [24:58]?
The only difference between free women and slaves was that the limit 4 did not apply as apparent from [4:3] but where marriage to the slave is still a requirement.
May you Durandal forever lose your ability to post lies. Amin.
September 9th, 2011 at 1:05 am
@Durandal
Yeh then a polo is good for you. I’m a bit on the thicker side, not fat, but I’ve got a wide chest and big shoulders lol that’s what happens when you workout on and off . Polos are okay if your slim or in optimal ripped or athletic shape…I don’t like being a big guy with a skin tight shirt but at the same time I don’t think a long or large wide polo would look right lol at least on me it wouldn’t.
September 9th, 2011 at 1:14 am
To AJ:
“Durandal is a sex-crazed lunatic. Everything he types or posts is about sex.”
A. That’s not true and B. I’m simply contributing to the topic and answering questions someone asked me, which are centered on sex. Sorry if that makes uncomfortable.
And besides all that, I’m not a sex freak, I’m just interested in sex :p
“Islam does not allow relationship between a master and slave without marriage:”
Uh…what? For one, I’m not sure how someone would marry a sex slave, that makes no sense, and I’ll just counter this with info from the link I posted:
“Concubinage
See also: Islamic marital jurisprudence
Slave women were required mainly as concubines and menials. A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. While free women might own male slaves, they had no such right.[61] The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history.[62] The property of a slave was owned by his or her master unless a contract of freedom of the slave had been entered into, which allowed the slave to earn money to purchase his or her freedom and similarly to pay bride wealth. The marriage of slaves required the consent of the owner. Under the Hanafi and Shafi’i schools of jurisprudence male slaves could marry two wives, but the Maliki permitted them to marry four wives like the free men. According to the Islamic law, a male slave could marry a free woman but this was discouraged in practice.[49] Islam permits sexual relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage. This is referred to in the Qur’an as ma malakat aymanukum or “what your right hands possess”.[63][64] There are some restrictions on the master; he may not co-habit with a female slave belonging to his wife, neither can he have relations with a female slave if she is co-owned, or already married.[2]
In ancient Arabian custom, the child of a freeman by his slave was also a slave unless he was recognized and liberated by his father.[65] In theory, the recognition by a master of his offspring by a slave woman was optional in Islamic society, and in the early period was often withheld. By the high Middle Ages it became normal and was unremarkable in a society where the sovereigns themselves were almost invariably the children of slave concubines.[66] The mother receives the title of “umm walad” (lit. mother of a child), which is an improvement in her status as she can no longer be sold. Among Sunnis, she is automatically freed upon her master’s death, however for Shi’a, she is only freed if her child is still alive; her value is then deducted from this child’s share of the inheritance.[2] Lovejoy writes that as an umm walad, they attained “an intermediate position between slave and free” pending their freedom, although they would sometimes be nominally freed as soon as they gave birth.[51]
There is no limit on the number of concubines a master may possess. However, the general marital laws are to be observed, such as not having sexual relations with the sister of a female slave.[2][51] In Islam, “men are enjoined to marry free women in the first instance, but if they cannot afford the bridewealth for free women, they are told to marry slave women rather than engage in wrongful acts.”[67] One rationale given for recognition of concubinage in Islam is that “it satisfied the sexual desire of the female slaves and thereby prevented the spread of immorality in the Muslim community.”[68] Most schools restrict concubinage to a monogamous relationship between the slave woman and her master,[69] According to Sikainga, “in reality, however, female slaves in many Muslim societies were prey for members of their owners’ household, their neighbors, and their guests.”[70]
In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations. The Shiite scholar Shaykh al-Tusi stated:ولا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة “It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning”[71] and the Shiite scholars al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki, Allamah al-Hilli and Ali Asghar Merwarid made the following ruling: ولا تجوز استعارة الجواري للاستمتاع “It is not permissible to loan the slave girl for the purpose of sexual intercourse”[72]
Under the legal doctrine of kafa’a(lit.”efficiency”), the purpose of which was to ensure that a man should be at least the social equal of the woman he marries, a freedman is not as good as the son of a freedman, and he in turn not as good as the grandson of a freedman. This principle is pursued up to three generations, after which all Muslims are deemed equally free.[73] Lewis asserts that since kafa’a “does not forbid unequal marriages”, it is in no sense a “Muslim equivalent of Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany or the apartheid laws of South Africa. His purpose, he states, is not to try to set up a moral competition – to compare castration and apartheid as offenses against humanity.”[2][74]”
A concubine is a sex slave. And slavery is not an equal marriage, so if you think sex between master and slave is consensual..well, you have a twisted sense of consensual.
“May you Durandal forever lose your ability to post lies. Amin.”
Well I couldn’t be a lawyer then I guess :p But no, not lies, just the facts. I’m sorry they disturb you.
September 9th, 2011 at 1:16 am
To Solid Snake:
“Yeh then a polo is good for you. I’m a bit on the thicker side, not fat, but I’ve got a wide chest and big shoulders lol that’s what happens when you workout on and off . Polos are okay if your slim or in optimal ripped or athletic shape…I don’t like being a big guy with a skin tight shirt but at the same time I don’t think a long or large wide polo would look right lol at least on me it wouldn’t.”
Yeah I’m a tig boy trying to bulk up, so they’re quite comfortable for me. Most ironically my twin is fat..don’t know how that happened.
September 9th, 2011 at 1:23 am
To AJ:
If I’m disturbing you in some way I truly apologize, what would you have me do to make my messages more amicable?
September 9th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Durandal, you do realize that wikipedia is not a reliable resource right? It can be edited by anyone – including those with little/no knowledge as well as those with extreme prejudice, preconcieved notions and bias on the subject matter. AJ provided verses directly from the Quran to support his points. You provided a wikipedia article. If that is your primary source, than it’s no wonder how you came to some incorrect conclusions about Islam.
September 9th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“The JNF, the Jewish National Fund, is a quasi-governmental organization in Israel that does not sell land to non-Jews, certainly not to Muslims. ”
There is no truth to this statement.
September 9th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Google says you’re baloney Baloney:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/high-court-delays-ruling-on-jnf-land-sales-to-non-jews-1.229946
Yes it’s an old piece (3ish years) and yes, it may have changed but, in a nutshell:
- It won’t sell land to non-Jews and wants to keep it that way
- It was forced by a court hearing to sell land to non-Jews after some Arab groups complained that they were not allowed to submit bids on JNF sales of land
- However, the court agreement states that every time it sells to non-Jews it gets an identical piece of land ‘compensated’ to it so, in reality, it’s the same
- It also receives a lot of support from the government and other high ranking officials, among them IDF chiefs like Moshe Ayalon and it’s above mentioned deal is organized by a government agency the Israeli Land Authority
Anything else?
September 9th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
There clearly is another side to this, and it can easily be found by anyone interested in the truth.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=5&x_article=39
The fact is Israeli Arabs have more rights in Israel than they would in near by Arab countries.
The thrust of this argument is that Israel is an illegitimate country, and that is simply not true.
September 9th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
a – that’s from a biased source, CAMERA, which whitewashes the whole thing
b – I frankly think that both sides are as bad as each other
c – do you deny that Israel was, in effect, made on land that once belonged to someone else? I enjoy how this article you linked trys to play it off as Israel only took ‘abandoned’ land or land that was ‘barren’
d – none of this changes the fact that the JNF trys it’s best not to lease or sell land to anyone who is not Jewish
As I say, both sides are as bad as each other; Israel sits and acts as it does but the PA and other Arab states play on the suffering of people for political purposes.
Oh and give me a break on the whole ‘rights’ thing, Israel is just the same as the other dictatorships in the region; only they spout that they are the ‘only democracy’. It, like the rest of the place, is a contry where power is in the hands of a few and the rest (Jews, Muslims, Christians, anyone) get’s trodden on. You saw the protests in Israel?
September 9th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Your original statement was that there was ‘no truth’ in the statement that the JNF doesn’t sell land to non-Jews. I in turn linked a news story, from an Israeli source. This states this is not the case, though it has grudgingly been forced to comply with a court ruling brought about by Israeli Arabs
And as for comparing Israel to the other Arab states, please tell me which of these states plays itself of as ‘the only democracy’ and will beat the crap out of you if you dare disagree with them? We *know* that the Arab states are a pile of turds, even their people agree with that hence the current revolutions. As I said, they don’t play themselves off as perfect, Israel tries to. And again, they are all as bad as each other.
I also notice that, as expected, you ignored point ‘c’ as well as failing to refute my description of Israel. Please don’t bother, we both know the answer you will give, or rather fail to give.
It is interesting that, based on lots of your statements one could say pretty much the same as you say about Loonwatch about you. I think that Loonwatch takes one side of the story a lot too, but you can hardly argue that it is aims to ‘incite, engage in grievance mongering, credulous scholarship, logical fallacy’ and so on.
No, for that you are looking for a site called ‘Jihadwatch’ which, and it can’t be denied, *does* do all of the above. I can name an example from Jihadwatch for all of your above mentioned quite easily, probably from their frontpage. And yes, Jihadwatch is ‘a completely absurd website that, quite frankly, is getting left in the dust’ is it not?
Oh and tell me, this CAIR being the face of HAMAS, do you have any evidence for that? I may not like CAIR that much since I think they make fuss over nothing at times but frankly, they are not HAMAS by a long shot.
September 9th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Gentlemen (Baloney and Jack Cope):
May I suggest that you both would be more effective if you toned down the rhetoric?
Baloney: Jack Cope seems to have conceded that due to a court ruling, or fear of one, the JNF does indeed lend land to Jews and non-Jews. (I’m fixing the use of sell, since the JNF leases land but doesn’t sell it.) Why not claim victory on your original point without engaging in an unsupported rant against this site? I have found that there is indeed incorrect information here at times, but it generally seems unintentional.
Jack Cope: You have shown much more subtlety and willingness to be even-handed in this exchange. Is it really necessary or logical to claim that “Israel will beat the crap out of you” if you don’t agree that it is a democracy, while also linking to an Israeli site that points out how a quasi-government agency is trying to limit land leases in a way that the Israeli judicial system finds biased or essentially undemocratic?
September 9th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
AJ
Islam does not allow relationship between a master and slave without marriage
You posted selective verses above. Some schools of thought believe this but not all.
Sex with slaves is permissable.
23:5-6 And those who guard their chastity Except from their wives or that their right hands possess (the captives and slaves), for then, they are free from blame
If sex was already allowed with slaves; why the need to marry them [4:25]?
See the verse above.
When posting on Islam, please make it clear that that is what you believe and that there are alternative interpretations. A man can have sex with a slave girl, she is permissable for him. However, her children don’t have the same inheritance rights as that of a free woman (wife). That’s the only difference. He is obligated to provide for, educate and take care of his children by his slaves but they don’t share in the inheritance like the children of wives do.
A woman however, can not have sex with a male slave she owns.
September 9th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
AJ and Durendal
Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/10382
Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.
A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.
This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).
Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”
[al-Nisa’ 4:3]
What is meant by “or (slaves) that your right hands possess” is slave women whom you own.
And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammaat (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khaal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khaalaat (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Ahzaab 33:50]
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).
Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.
But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]
Al-Tabari said:
Allaah says, “And those who guard their chastity” i.e., protect their private parts from doing everything that Allaah has forbidden, but they are not to blame if they do not guard their chastity from their wives or from the female slaves whom their rights hands possess.
Tafseer al-Tabari, 29/84
Ibn Katheer said:
Taking a concubine as well as a wife is permissible according to the law of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). Ibraaheem did that with Haajar, when he took her as a concubine when he was married to Saarah.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/383
And Ibn Katheer also said:
The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you” [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500
The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is permissible.
Ibn Qudaamah said:
There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one’s slave woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).
Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]
Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was the umm walad (a slave woman who bore her master a child) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and she was the mother of Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), of whom he said, “Her son set her free.” Haajar, the mother of Isma’eel (peace be upon him), was the concubine of Ibraaheem the close friend (khaleel) of the Most Merciful (peace be upon him). ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) had a number of slave women who bore him children, to each of whom he left four hundred in his will. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) had slave women who bore him children, as did many of the Sahaabah. ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad and Saalim ibn ‘Abd-Allaah were all born from slave mothers
Al-Mughni, 10/441
continued..
September 9th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Okay, we seriously need a moderator cuz this board has been taken over by loonies!
September 9th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Durendal, this is for you, read it in it’s entirety, an alternative ruling to the above,
http://www.systemoflife.com/answering-islamophobes/answering-islam-website/208-muslim-men-can-capture-infidel-women-as-sex-slave-booty
When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.
In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.
Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women ormilk al-yameenare referred to in the Qur’an as“Those whom your right hand possess”or“ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.
Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What’s more, her child would also become free.
Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife.
September 9th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Abraham also married Hagar and it is through her Muslim children over … God made an important promise to Abraham before any children were born to him …. Abraham would still keep in contact with Ishmael and visit him (Quran 37:102- 111) …
“what your right hand possesses” does not mean slaves. It means what is rightfully yours. Meaning legally yours. If you can’t treat them equally then marry just one(4:3)
Islam forbids premarital sex so of course concubines were forbidden.
September 9th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Khushboo,
Agreed.
Inventions, Hagar was a wife not a concubine.
http://unveiling-christianity.org/2008/10/10/was-hagar-abrahams-wife-according-to-the-bible/
September 9th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
^Is the imam at your Masjid, Nourideen (sp?) Durkee? I have the translations of the Quran by him. He’s so inspiring! I wish we had more Imams like him.
September 9th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Khushboo,
We don’t have an Imam yet, just Chairman of the Board. We are Insh’Allah trying to find an Imam for our community after our new mosque is completed.
September 10th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Islamic iventor…. With all due respect bro, i dont know were you got this misguided, medievally patriarchal interpretations, but that Islam somehow ‘allowed’ men to ‘have sex’ WITHOUT marriage, with captives then ‘turn slaves’ as you wrongfully putted, or that it allowed men to have women on the ‘side’ captive or not during war-time beside the four allowed for them, its distortions(by men of course) that maybe happened way after the prophet’s death, So please get better source of information, you seem to put forward a very radically wrong patriarchal interpretations ..
As Khushboo said what ‘your right hand possesses’ does NOT mean ‘slave’.
I swear when our owns put forward misguided patriarchal interpretations of our main sources (Qur’an/Hadiths), its one more score for hater of Islam…Peace..
September 10th, 2011 at 2:45 am
I dont get it. If Maria Qibtiyya(RA) was a “sex-slave”, why did Hazrat Umer lead her funeral, why did she become reclusive after the death of the Prophet(saw) and why is she referred to as ‘Mother of the believers’?
September 10th, 2011 at 3:29 am
Ahmed, concubinage is not sex slavery. Concubines are permissable, there always were.
AJ and Khushboo, can you bring Islamic rulings to show that concubinage is not permissable.
Khushboo,
Hagar was a concubine, and it’s not a dirty word. Concubines are like wives, in that men are responsible for them, and they are obliged to be faithful to their owner. Whether you like it or not, concubines were permissable at one time, the reason the practice doesn’t exist today is because slavery is encouraged to be outlawed. However if a situation occured where slavery did once again become a social necessiy, (poverty or war) then the rules are there, for how to treat slaves. Male and female slaves.
It was Chrisitan influence that put an end to polygamy in places like Egypt. Chrisitan puritanism entered India under British rule.
The monogamy and marriage being a union with God for ever, doesn’t exist in Islam. Marriage is a contract that can be broken by divorce. Divorce doesn’t exist in Christianity. That was why the Protestant movement started.
It doesn’t in the Old Testament either, which allows men to have to sex with slave girls and limitless marriage. Jews living in Christian societies were forced to abandon the polygamy practice. Nowadays there are those,in Israle calling for it to be legalised again.
The reason I mention the above, is that Muslims in Chrisitan societies, were influenced by the sexual puritanical rules (in the USA today for example) and when the British expanded their empire.
Islam encourages manumission (freeing of a slave) and the rules are there in place to safeguard the rights of slave women owned by men. Briefly: Concubinage is permissable but not encouraged, as it’s encouraged to free a slave, but if a man does have a concubine, there are rules he has to adhere to safeguard her welfare. Same if you own a male slave.
We are not going to change the laws that God gave us for Christian puritanicsim, for bleeding heart liberals, for “modern muslima’s”, and anyone else.
September 10th, 2011 at 3:39 am
Khushboo
Islam forbids premarital sex so of course concubines were forbidden.
Back up your statement with rulings and fatwa’s.
This is a Christian concept. Didn’t you say you went to a Christian convent for your education in one of the threads?
A woman has no rights to sexual exclusivity in Islam. She has rights to food, clothing, and kind treatment and not to sexual exclusivity. The only rights a husband has is for sex. Nothing else. His wife doesn’t have to cook or clean or do anything else. She can do it out of love, but she is not obligated to do anything. Her only obligation is to have sex with him.
That is a Christian concept. It’s not a Jewish one. Nor a Muslim one. A man can have 4 wives, and concubines if a situation exists where there are slaves. The same laws exist in the Old Testament. Remember, Christians gave up the Old Testament, and believe in a union of marriage being a union with God. It can’t be broken. This concept has guided their relations to sex. It’s only in recent times, that sex is not considred a sin, in Victorian times, sex wasn’t something to be enjoyed, it was a sin and only a necessity in marriage for procreation. That conecpt is alien to Islam.
September 10th, 2011 at 3:49 am
Just Stopping By, thank you for some sense. I do try to be even handed in this issue, I think it is the only way to solve it. As I said, I feel that both sides are as bad as each other, both due to extremism within the leadership that won’t let people get along.
That said, I myself and others I know have, metaphorically, had the crap beaten out of us for dare questioning Israel on any level. Even Jews or Israeli Jews in some cases are not exempt from the barrage. Granted, a lot of the barrage actually comes from Christian Zionists (who in reality have no interest in the welfare of Jews or Israel, they just want to bring about endtimes) but regardless, the whole thing stinks. As I said, this from a country that blows it’s ‘democracy’ trumpet at every opportunity.
Take this court case as an example, is it not clear that the court was heavily in favor of the JNF even though it was the JNF that was at fault but effectively not changing anything, just moving around some bits of paper? It’s come down on their side and made some new legislation that means nothing changes (in effect they get more land from what I can make out). Again, the Arab states are hardly any better but they don’t run around screaming how great they are for all the world to hear.
Oh, and an FYI, I think that the creation of the state of Israel was a bad idea done by a rapidly declining colonial power that was desperate to solve a problem as quickly as possible and then get the hell out of ther However, that is the past so we must make do with what we have and as such, Israel is set to stay. But that doesn’t mean it should be given the power to do whatever it wants by virtue of having the US to veto everything it doesn’t like coming from the UN, it should toe the line and so should everyone else.
At the end of the day, I sit on the side of the people, whether the be Jewish, Muslim, Christian or whatever, that have to live through this crap day in day out because their leadership plays them like pawns on the chess board of diplomacy and politics. People want peace and that is a fact.
September 10th, 2011 at 3:52 am
Khushboo
This link you brought Was Hagar Abraham’s wife according to the Bible?
is meaningless, because Christians look at the old testament through their own eyses. Their interpretation differs to the Jewish one. In Judaism a concubine has the same status that she does in Islam. She is a kind of lesser wife, and the children are not illegitate. That is only in Christianity.
The writer of that article (ibn anwar) is responding to fake claims, a situation that doesn’t exist, as Abraham and Hagar were not living according to how Christians interpret and understand the Bible.
Ishmael being the son of a concubine means illegitimacy in Christianity only. Not in Judaism. Nor in Islam.
As I said above, Christians have reinterpreted the Old Testament to something that is incompatible with Islam.
Didn’t you say you were from Pakistan and went to a Christian school in one thread? The reason these incompatible with Islam beliefs exist in the Indian subcontinent, is because of British rule.
September 10th, 2011 at 4:13 am
It simply cannot be denied that the earliest schools of thought in Islam did not prohibit concubinage.
September 10th, 2011 at 4:24 am
Enough about CONCUBINAGE!! Its not possible now at all because slavery is banned and you cant just enslave people according to Islam.
My interpretation is that it was allowed for the Arabs at the time. Just my opinion. Personally i dont like polygamy and would only marry 1
September 10th, 2011 at 4:25 am
To Hatethehaterz:
“Durandal, you do realize that wikipedia is not a reliable resource right? ”
On what subjects? Because studies have shown in certain fields its quite reliable. Besides, I didn’t get my info from Wikipedia, I just linked to the article because it’s quite concise and easy to read. Here’s the sources used in the articles I linked to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_marital_jurisprudence#References
Any particular problem with any?
“including those with little/no knowledge as well as those with extreme prejudice, preconcieved notions and bias on the subject matter.”
Not that Wikipedia doesn’t have issues, but this is an unfair claim thrown at Wikipedia whenever anyone doesn’t like what the article says, when all they are is a collection of sources and references. This isn’t true at all though:
Wikipedia survives research test BBC
What Wikipedia is article on Wikipedia (that’s redundant) Rules and laws governing content
Anyway the point is moot because what I was saying I didn’t get from Wikipedia, it just was an easy link with the correct info on the topic.
“AJ provided verses directly from the Quran to support his points. ”
Mmm, not really. On the other hand the videos I linked to gave verses from the Koran, from the Hadiths, and from Islamic scholars throughout history. You can check his sources on his videos and his blogs. The Wikipedia articles I linked to give historical sources as well.
“You provided a wikipedia article. If that is your primary source, than it’s no wonder how you came to some incorrect conclusions about Islam.”
Well, again, not true.
To How Islamic inventors changed the world:
Your copy and paste trying to justify why this apparently perfect religion didn’t abolish slavery (after all the Arab Islamic slave trade went on before the Atlantic one and afterwards) is bizzare, so I’ll just address a few things:
“In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. ”
Um, no. There was social movements and even religious movements against slavery long before Islam was created. Look at the folk legend of Spartacus and even the myth of Moses, both tales of..emancipation from slavery. So that’s just plain silly, especially since Islam wasn’t anti-slavery, and still isn’t. The countries that profit the most directly from slavery are muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
“Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. ”
I guess a god couldn’t snap his fingers and order people not to do it :p
“Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife.”
Sorry, but that’s really funny. It doesn’t make any sense according to any of my ideas of respect (hint: slavery is disrespectful, to say the least), and besides in Islam a wife is a slave, more or less.
Nothing in this changes the fact in Sharia Islamic law you can have sex slaves. Muslims have campaigned for its re-legalization in fact in places like Kuwait.
So what Klingschor says is true.
September 10th, 2011 at 5:14 am
Durendal…..in Islam a wife is a slave, more or less.
If a man marries his slave girl, the latter becomes free. The wife is therefore a free woman. Given that she is free, she cannot be a slave. If on the other hand, the man marries a woman who is already free, then she continues to be free while being married.
Perhaps what you are trying to imply is that a wife is a slave because she has no rights and her husband can do whatever he wants and she has no choice but to endure his tyranny? If this is your view, then you are wrong.
Durendal: I guess a god couldn’t snap his fingers and order people not to do it
Would have been impractical. Prisoners of wars became slaves because they had no one to ransom their freedom. Nevertheless, Islam gave such people the opportunity to work their way to freedom (see 24:33) among other things. While the Quran does not explicitly prohibit slavery, it cannot be denied that it encourages the freeing of slaves as an act of virtue.
September 10th, 2011 at 5:24 am
^
“If a man marries his slave girl, the latter becomes free. The wife is therefore a free woman. Given that she is free, she cannot be a slave. If on the other hand, the man marries a woman who is already free, then she continues to be free while being married. ”
So..men had slave girls, so Islam endorsed, so, you get what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koVJoIqAnJs Muslim Apologetics Debunked – Slavery
Anyway, what I was saying is wives are subservient to their husbands in a master-slave relationship.
“Perhaps what you are trying to imply is that a wife is a slave because she has no rights and her husband can do whatever he wants and she has no choice but to endure his tyranny? If this is your view, then you are wrong. ”
Which I am, and I’m not wrong.
“Would have been impractical.”
It would have been impractical for a god to do something. Right. But since no god exists and certainly didn’t create Islam, it makes a lot more sense when you factor that in.
“Nevertheless, Islam gave such people the opportunity to work their way to freedom ”
So does the Bible, and so does many other slave systems in history.
“While the Quran does not explicitly prohibit slavery, it cannot be denied that it encourages the freeing of slaves as an act of virtue.”
It can be denied because it is not true.
September 10th, 2011 at 5:38 am
“It can be denied because it is not true.”
The Qu’ran states it is an ultimate act of kindness to free a slave. In fact, freeing a slave can wipe out the major sin of not fasting for Ramadan, that’s how massive it is.
On the slavery issue, here are my two coins of whatever value you wish;
- Islam came about during a time of slavery.
- Unlike other faiths, Islam does talk about slavery.
- This is important becuase when it talks about slavery, though it permits it it makes it clear that slaves are people too. Coupled to this, the right for a slave to earn their freedom and be released after a set amount of time is detailed. Slaves are also given extra reward in the afterlife, again, they are people too.
- It also ties freeing slaves to worship, thus paving the way for eventual abolition.
- And sure, God could come and abolish slavery but what would be the point? Islam stresses free will, if God were to abolish it then it is an interference with free will. Instead, He makes it pretty damn clear that mankind should work towards removing it.
September 10th, 2011 at 6:09 am
To Jack Cope:
“And sure, God could come and abolish slavery but what would be the point?”
..To abolish slavery? I don’t mean to offend, seriously, but that’s just too funny.
“Islam stresses free will, if God were to abolish it then it is an interference with free will.”
He supports free will so much he allowed and condoned taking away other peoples free will. Also, it wasn’t a violation of peoples free will to command them to pray, eat, talk and live certain very specific ways, but he’s vague on slavery :p.
“Instead, He makes it pretty damn clear that mankind should work towards removing it.”
Except he’s not clear on how to do it, and he doesn’t. This is in contrast to attempts to abolish slavery in ancient societies, such as Julius Caesars attempt to gradually abolish slavery starting with making a law that mandated that 25 percent of all employment must be filled by freemen. It seems the Islamic attempt to abolish it according to what you say took millennium and failed, since slavery is alive and well in the Arab Peninsula, for example.
“- It also ties freeing slaves to worship, thus paving the way for eventual abolition.”
Addressed in the video I linked too, actually everything you said is addressed in it.
September 10th, 2011 at 6:35 am
Slavery is alive and well on the Arab Peninsula
It is ?
I am no fan of the rulers of that region but slavery in the Biblical owning sence ?
And your evidence is ?
September 10th, 2011 at 6:43 am
“And your evidence is ?”
For slavery still existed in the Arab lands? This:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12246979
“I am no fan of the rulers of that region but slavery in the Biblical owning sence ?”
In the Biblical sense? How about in the slavery sense? I don’t get what you mean? The Bible condones slavery, like the Koran, and was a justification of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, much like the Koran was a justification for the Arab slave trade in Africa. I hope you don’t think I believe in the Bible or that slavery came from the Bible or whatever.
September 10th, 2011 at 6:44 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
It has to be understood slavery wasn’t officially abolished in the arab lands until 1970.
September 10th, 2011 at 7:16 am
Jack Cope:
“Getting the crap beat out of you metaphorically” sounds like you lost the argument. Somehow, after reading your posts, I find that a bit hard to believe!
You are certainly right that there are supporters of Israel who find it hard to publicly acknowledge that it has any flaws and will attack anyone who suggests that it does. I guess I was fortunate that my Jewish and Zionist education was more even-handed, though certainly not truly balanced or equally fair to all sides, and treated Muslims and Arabs, depending on the context, as cousins and neighbors that we should try to get along with. I am not saying that that is the norm, so I am glad that that’s what I encountered.
I hope you are right that people want peace, though sadly there are loons within all groups that don’t.
September 10th, 2011 at 8:05 am
I’ve been following the back and forth between Durandal and others for the last few days. . . and I’m disappointed at the inability Loon Watchers to explain Islam’s position on “sex slavery” and concubinage.
Do poeple here really believe it is/was allowed, or that it is only “discouraged”? And do poeple here really don’t understand why Durandal and others would ridicule such a position?
September 10th, 2011 at 8:06 am
“For slavery still existed in the Arab lands? This:”
There is no comparison between the old slave trade and immigrant workers in Dubai. For starters, the immigrant workers are still getting paid and most of them willingly immigrated to Dubai. By your logic, the trafficking of women in Europe is also slavery. So if Islamic attempts have failed to abolish slavery because workers in Dubai are getting treated poorly, then so too have European attempts failed — by your logic that is. Otherwise, you have to admit that the slave trade that we are talking about has been outlawed throughout the Muslim world. False comparisons with poor treatment of workers in Dubai just doesn’t count.
Besides, the construction of such wasteful buildings is hardly Islamic and neither is the treatment of the workers.
Jack Cope is right about what Islam is saying. The freeing of slaves was encouraged as shown by Abu Bakr when he freed Bilal or the Prophet Muhammad when he freed all of his slaves when he died or when the Qur’an says:
“It is the freeing of a slave,
Or feeding on a day of severe hunger [famine],
An orphan of near relationship,
Or a needy person in misery”
[Qur'an 90: 13-16]
“
September 10th, 2011 at 8:23 am
I’m very disappointed in you Inventions!
(Chapter) 17: (verse)32
Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
25:68-70
Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; – and any that does this (not only) meets punishment.
(But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy,-
Unless he repents, believes, and works righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful,
24:2
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
23:1-6
The believers must (eventually) win through,-
Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
Who avoid vain talk;
Who are active in deeds of charity;
Who abstain from sex,
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess,- for they are free from blame,
24:30-31
Show in context Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.
Show in context And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty——–”
4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
September 10th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Thanks for understanding Michael Elwood for understanding
Now on to Mosizzle:
“There is no comparison between the old slave trade and immigrant workers in Dubai.”
Sure there is. Getting people from foreign lands to serve a different ethnic group so they don’t have to do the work themselves. The only real difference in this scenario is they aren’t taking them by force, they’re luring them there with promises of a better life, actually more insidious if you ask me. By the way, many are forced to stay and cannot leave, not of their own will, if you actually watched the video. So yeah, slavery.
“the immigrant workers are still getting paid and most of them willingly immigrated to Dubai. ”
In that case, the Chinese railroad laborers in California weren’t treated as slaves in your opinion. I think you’ll see how silly it is.
“By your logic, the trafficking of women in Europe is also slavery.”
Do you mean the illicit sex trade, which also exists in Dubai, and the US, and Thailand, and etc. Yeah thats slavery, the UN even recognizes it as such. It’s horrific what many of these girls from poor countries, many under 18, have to go through. Forced prostitution is indeed slavery.
“o if Islamic attempts have failed to abolish slavery because workers in Dubai are getting treated poorly, then so too have European attempts failed — by your logic that is.”
No, Islamic attempts at abolishing slavery (I’m skeptical of these existing) failed because it wasn’t abolished at its advent and didn’t even get lip-service of its abolition until the 20th century, and it still exist in muslim countries to this day and the behest of muslim leaders.
Why are you focusing on Europe with the sex trade? It’s far larger in Southeast Asia and even here in California. There’s a huge difference too, since the sex trade is typically foreigners trading in foreign women into secret locations which are heavily cracked down upon, while the migrant workers of the Arab peninsula is an open policy of the government. Again, I think you see how silly this is.
“Besides, the construction of such wasteful buildings is hardly Islamic and neither is the treatment of the workers.”
That’s your opinion though.
“Jack Cope is right about what Islam is saying. The freeing of slaves was encouraged as shown by Abu Bakr when he freed Bilal or the Prophet Muhammad when he freed all of his slaves when he died or when the Qur’an says:
“It is the freeing of a slave,
Or feeding on a day of severe hunger [famine],
An orphan of near relationship,
Or a needy person in misery”
[Qur'an 90: 13-16]
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/slavery.html
September 10th, 2011 at 8:32 am
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/slavery.html
Of course, like all the “holy” books, the Koran contradicts itself.
September 10th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had 4 women slaves, however he freed and married three of them (they became his wives) and the other he gave away. Here is a list:
Safiyyah bint Huyayy: Safiyya was captured during the seize of Bani Nadir Safiyya was a Jew who later converted to Islam [1] She had been previously divorced and widowed a the time of her conversion to Islam. The Prophet later set her free and married her as this hadith says:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah’s Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,’ Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah’s Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an ‘Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, “I invite the people around you.” So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel). (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522)
Narrated Anas: The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. .. (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524)
It is said in the Sira literature that Prophet Muhammad gave away 7 female slaves in exchange for Safiyyah.
Maria-al-Qibtiyya: Was a Coptic slave sent to Prophet Muhamamd by the patriarch of Alexandria. Prophet Muhammad freed and married her around 629-630 C.E. She later converted to Islam. [2]
Sirin: Was Maria’s sister. Sirin was also sent by the Patriarch of Alexandria to the Prophet as a gift. Prophet Muhammad gave her to the poet Hassan Ibn Thabit , and she was later freed and married by Hassan. [3]
Rayhana: Was a captive from the Banu Qurayza. She was later freed and married by Prophet Muhammad. [4]
September 10th, 2011 at 8:55 am
There you go, according to Islamic legend, Muhammad himself owned slaves, primarily for sex I can guess. That’s a pretty good justification for slavery if you’re a Muslim.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/men-should-have-sex-slaves-says-female-kuwaiti-politician?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%2006-06-2011 Here’s what I was talking about regarding sex slavery advocacy in Kuwait.
September 10th, 2011 at 8:55 am
As you wish Durandal, I don’t really have time to go back and forth over a point that, as far as I am concerned, was dead and buried centuries ago. Muslims feel that it was so, that is all that matters frankly. I also don’t much care for your video, it’s an opinion by non-Muslims and that is all, an opinion with very little relevance to me or any other Muslim. We disagree, that is that. You also completely miss the point over free will, I chose to pray etc by free will, no one forces me. Same over if God chose to abolish slavery; it is our responsibility to run this world, not His, and it is us who is judged over how we did, not Him.
Slavery was, in parts of the world, an ‘economic necessity’ though it could have been abolished if people knew how but they didn’t. As you say, there were attempts to do it but they all failed miserably until industrialization, when we placed slavery with mechanization. Coal and oil became our new slaves; it’s no coincidence that the UK banned slavery at just the time when it was moving into mechanization and when it’s main rival France still relied on labor intensive farming on it’s colonies for most of it’s GDP. In a nutshell while there was some human compassion involved it would never have happened if the UK wasn’t mechanized and had large coal deposits, the UK also got ‘permission’ to stop slave boats going to French colonies as part of it’s deal. That’s life, horrible isn’t it?
Just Stopping By; not sure if that was sarcasm but anyway
I basically get the crap beaten out when I say stuff like ‘well not all Muslims are evil’ and so on… you get the picture. People disagree, can’t come up with the evidence and then start screaming. It’s fun and I keep an album with all the death threats in.
I am also glad that your education was more even handed and I don’t mind saying that, unfortunately, I find this more common amongst Jews that Muslims. In the Muslim world there has been a lot of black propaganda that was inherited from Christianity during WWII when the Nazis tried to garner support by having lots of the old Christian rhetoric translated into Arabic. Prior to this there was very little anti-Semitic stuff in the Muslim world and this legacy lives on in our schools. It should be stamped out wherever possible, I’ve tried and will keep trying. I think the main thing that needs to be done is to separate ‘Israel’ from ‘Jews’, as in to show that one is a state and the other is a people and that neither is a monolith.
As you can possibly tell, I’m pretty critical of both sides in this matter but mostly the leadership. I do genuinely feel that people want peace, I know Palestinians and Israelis who have told me so and I believe them. Unfortunately there are those that push us towards war for their own personal gain, safe in the knowledge they will never have to fight it or even get harmed. Lots of these people are in positions of power on both sides. Your average civilian, as anywhere, doesn’t get much of a say in what goes on.
Hamas in particular basically survives because it’s the only group capable of giving people jobs, healthcare and schools as well as keeping relative law and order. Case point, a Hamas police officer earns several times the average wage and has a secure job, very few people there (in part due to the blockade) can say that about their jobs. But to get such a job you need to show party loyalty and so on… you get the picture. If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster were to turn up and offer the same I’m sure they’d do well. It’s also one of the reasons that the blockade should be lifted and secretly why Hamas etc seem to keep disrupting attempts to lift it; i.e. attacks just when Israel seems to be lifting restrictions.
Frankly I want to drag both sides kicking and screaming to a secluded island, lock them in a room and not let them out until they’ve bashed out a peace proposal then give the UN some teeth to actually enforce the damn thing. But what do I know about the world… all of the above is my view only and probably wrong
September 10th, 2011 at 9:05 am
To Jack Cope:
“As you wish Durandal, I don’t really have time to go back and forth over a point that, as far as I am concerned, was dead and buried centuries ago.”
Unfortunately not. Slavery still exist around the world. The US for example still has slavery, it’s called Chinese sweatshops, among other things.
“Muslims feel that it was so, that is all that matters frankly. ”
Huh? No. Reality doesn’t bend to the opinions of Muslims.
“I also don’t much care for your video, it’s an opinion by non-Muslims and that is all, an opinion with very little relevance to me or any other Muslim.”
It’s not an opinion, it’s a historical analysis showed in the video. I’m assuming you mean the one about slavery. It makes a very good point about the claim of the economic necessity for example. The fact is you just blew it off because it disagrees with you and that makes you seem very narrow-minded.
“. You also completely miss the point over free will, I chose to pray etc by free will, no one forces me. ”
Um, you miss my point then, that if this god was so concerned with free will, he wouldn’t condone slavery.
“Same over if God chose to abolish slavery; it is our responsibility to run this world, not His, and it is us who is judged over how we did, not Him.”
Except for in your religion a god runs the world and even sends people either into Hell or Heaven due to their actions and will eventually destroy it. Your whole life is centered around worshiping this god and you believe in a set of laws you think he created.
“Slavery was, in parts of the world, an ‘economic necessity’ though it could have been abolished if people knew how but they didn’t. As you say, there were attempts to do it but they all failed miserably until industrialization, when we placed slavery with mechanization. Coal and oil became our new slaves; it’s no coincidence that the UK banned slavery at just the time when it was moving into mechanization and when it’s main rival France still relied on labor intensive farming on it’s colonies for most of it’s GDP. In a nutshell while there was some human compassion involved it would never have happened if the UK wasn’t mechanized and had large coal deposits, the UK also got ‘permission’ to stop slave boats going to French colonies as part of it’s deal. That’s life, horrible isn’t it?”
Yes yes, but why would a god be concerned with any of that? If this god created the Earth, he couldn’t simply change the conditions with his magic powers? You like to say god created the Earth and is all powerful, but he couldn’t change simple conditions to abolish slavery? I wonder why this god would even allow slavery to exist in the first place if he was so against it.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:08 am
“As you say, there were attempts to do it but they all failed miserably until industrialization”
I never said that, in fact some were quite successful, they were just pushed back by regressive elements with an interest in slavery.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:15 am
I missed this:
““Besides, the construction of such wasteful buildings is hardly Islamic and neither is the treatment of the workers.”
That’s your opinion though.”
It’s not opinion, it’s fact; having had the misfortune to have lived in the UAE for two years prior to my move I can say that it is very very un-Islamic as is a lot of the Arab world. And guess what? Now they are bankrupt.
They don’t even pay lip service to the Qu’ran with their construction projects or mistreatment of laborers, they just do it because, unfortunately, that’s their culture.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:18 am
It exists becuase Humans created it, it is Humanities responsibility to care for the world and other Humans, not God’s. He is against it, Humans are Humans. It’s rather simple.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:26 am
“It’s not opinion, it’s fact; having had the misfortune to have lived in the UAE for two years prior to my move I can say that it is very very un-Islamic as is a lot of the Arab world. And guess what? Now they are bankrupt.”
Again, opinion. That’s religion for you, one mans pious place is another mans den of heathens. So you don’t think they’re islamic, they certainly don’t think they aren’t. Anyway I wasn’t trying to say Dubai specifically was a blueprint for an Islamic society, all I really said was in the Arab lands (predominantly muslim) still practice slavery, as other muslim societies still do around the world.
“They don’t even pay lip service to the Qu’ran with their construction projects or mistreatment of laborers, they just do it because, unfortunately, that’s their culture.”
Their culture is very much shaped on Islam? And yes you can party down there and get laid and etc, I wasn’t trying to make them out to be the Taliban, that wasn’t my point. My point is, well what I said above.
“It exists becuase Humans created it, it is Humanities responsibility to care for the world and other Humans, not God’s. He is against it, Humans are Humans. It’s rather simple.”
Wow, this god seems rather ineffective. Your way of getting around slavery not being abolished by this all-powerful god even though he supposedly hates it is…he didn’t bother too. Not his problem. Geesh
September 10th, 2011 at 9:33 am
I don’t mean to come across as offensive, I’m honestly just trying to have a decent discussion and present my position, I don’t know why you have to be all dismissive of it, just because I don’t agree with you.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:39 am
“Anyway I wasn’t trying to say Dubai specifically was a blueprint for an Islamic society, all I really said was in the Arab lands (predominantly muslim) still practice slavery, as other muslim societies still do around the world.”
Well, so what? That’s humans for you.
“Their culture is very much shaped on Islam?”
Not really, I always found many gulf Arabs to pay lip service at best for the most part with a lot of their old pre-Islamic practices still evident in daily life. Many of them get pissed on a regular basis, as they did before Islam, there was a place called the ‘hole in the wall’ where you were allowed to buy alcohol 24/7; always chock full of Arabs in their dish dashas, of course ‘buying for a freind’. The only real practicing Muslims I knew were expatriates and the workers who were, in turn, treated like crap. So no, not really based on Islam. My Mosque, even during Ramadan, had very few locals in attendance. Of course, some are different as anywhere, it’s wrong to stereotype to much.
“Wow, this god seems rather ineffective. Your way of getting around slavery not being abolished by this all-powerful god even though he supposedly hates it is…he didn’t bother too. Not his problem. Geesh
”
Pretty much, again Humans were entrusted the earth to look after, we could have abolished slavery centuries ago but didn’t (e.g. do what most villages do in Asia and use communal labour). That is man’s responsibility, not God’s. Again, simple concept.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:41 am
I’m dismissive as you don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of free will that’s all. Again, it is always a human’s responsibility, just as it is human’s responsibility to deal with climate change and feed the starving. We were give what is, in effect, a perfect home and, as residents, we should look after it. We don’t and that is our fault.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Durandal: So..men had slave girls, so Islam endorsed, so, you get what I mean.
Your assertion presupposes that the reason why men had slave girls is specifically because Islam told them to get slave girls. In other words, had there been no Islam, these people would have never taken slaves. That’s question begging. Also, don’t link to youtube videos. I couldn’t care less what random dudes on the internet have to say. If you want to make a case, do it academically. Quote a journal paper or an authority on Islamic studies.
Durandal: Anyway, what I was saying is wives are subservient to their husbands in a master-slave relationship….Which I am, and I’m not wrong.
The only way you can logically claim that wives are slaves to their husbands is by arguing that the rights and duties they posses are exactly the same as the rights and duties which slaves have. Care to take this challenge?
Durandal: It would have been impractical for a god to do something. Right. But since no god exists and certainly didn’t create Islam, it makes a lot more sense when you factor that in.
That is a red herring since we are not arguing God’s existence but Islamic stance on slavery.
Durandal: So does the Bible, and so does many other slave systems in history.
Another red herring. Doesn’t matter what the bible says or how other slave systems operate. We are discussing Islam’s stance on slavery.
Durandal: It can be denied because it is not true.
If it is not true, then there are no verses in the Quran which associate freeing slaves with virtue. However, there are verses in the Quran that encourages manumission such as 90:13, 2.177; 4.92; 58.3; 24.33, among others. Logically, therefore, it IS true that the Quran encourages freeing of slaves.
September 10th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Yes, as I said I think the whole attaching releasing slaves to worship and acts of piety was a big efing hint from God that ‘hey I really really don’t want you doing this’. Again, it was humanities responsibility to a) pick up this and b) sort it out. There was nothing to stop us doing it other than us. Same goes for things like poverty, climate change, endangered species and so on. It’s all up to us.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Michael,
4:3 and 4:25 are clear enough. They specify marriage to slave girls.
Unless they want to say Quran is wrong or bring in bogus hadiths that contradict Quran, end of story!
September 10th, 2011 at 10:25 am
“I’m honestly just trying to have a decent discussion and present my position…”
Your “decent discussion” is completely off topic and has caused another pointless flame war. Congratulations.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:48 am
^ Responses to Jack Cope and IbnAbuTalib, in no particular order. My responses keep getting longer and longer :p
“If it is not true, then there are no verses in the Quran which associate freeing slaves with virtue.
“Yes, as I said I think the whole attaching releasing slaves to worship and acts of piety was a big efing hint from God that ‘hey I really really don’t want you doing this’.
Your assertion presupposes that the reason why men had slave girls is specifically because Islam told them to get slave girls. In other words, had there been no Islam, these people would have never taken slaves. ”
Oy vey
http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/islamandslavery.html
“Quote a journal paper or an authority on Islamic studies. ”
An “authority on Islamic studies”? As in a Muslim? Not an objective source there. It’s a good source to see Muslim attitudes and beliefs, but not for a real objective look at the religion. By the way, the YouTube videos are not just from a random dude, it’s on a guy who has studied Islam for a long time and loads his videos with sources. If you’d like, I can link to his blog post which have the sources all cited on the bottom (though they are all cited in his video descriptions as well) and he half the time quotes from Muslims. You’re making grandiose reasons to ignore things that disagree with you, that’s pretty telling. Yes he’s not a Muslim so he has a more objective viewpoint on the religion, that’s actually much better than just going to what Muslims say, which are going to be biased in favor of Islam. I mean I could just easily say I don’t care what some random Muslim dude says since it’s just going to be an attempt to defend his religion despite the facts, couldn’t I?
“Not really, I always found many gulf Arabs to pay lip service at best for the most part with a lot of their old pre-Islamic practices still evident in daily life. ”
It’s odd you say pre-Islamic practices, actually for many reasons, but that’s your main justification for why Islam never abolished slavery, that it was pre-islamic and that it was necessary to keep. So you scoff at people for holding on to what you think are pre-islamic practices but then defend nasty practices within Islam as just pre-islamic stuff that was maintained for a good reason.
“The only way you can logically claim that wives are slaves to their husbands is by arguing that the rights and duties they posses are exactly the same as the rights and duties which slaves have. Care to take this challenge?”
I said they are treated like slaves. “they are slaves, more or less” Women are unequal in their relationship to their husbands and must submit to their will, they’re treated generally like property to be used by the husband (that’s why marital rape is legal in Muslim countries), sounds like slavery to me. In fact in the video I linked to, “Is Islam Sexist” covered this quite well, but I’m sure you’ll ignore this.
“That is a red herring since we are not arguing God’s existence but Islamic stance on slavery.”
Wrong, it’s not a red herring (which means to divert attention by the way), and I wasn’t trying to make it an argument about God’s existence. I was pointing out the lame excuse that a god just didn’t want to get involved for why Islam condoned slavery. A god can be so intimate in the doings of peoples personal lives and in society to the point of completely abolishing their belief systems (according to the legends of Islam regarding the people of the Arab peninsula) and making his followers do specific repetitive task to please him, while he can’t intervene in a social practice he doesn’t approve of. I wasn’t trying to say that means a god doesn’t exist (maybe I shouldn’t have injected that I didn’t believe one exists at the end, as it confused you I guess?) I was trying to argue it’s not consistent with his stated beliefs, or yours for that matter.
“Another red herring. Doesn’t matter what the bible says or how other slave systems operate. We are discussing Islam’s stance on slavery. ”
Well, no, here’s what I was responding to and what I said:
“Nevertheless, Islam gave such people the opportunity to work their way to freedom ”
So does the Bible, and so does many other slave systems in history.”
It was in response to people saying saying the Bible condones slavery (which is true) while the Koran does not, for both advocating the same thing. People should be mandated to take a logics course before trying to point out logical fallacies.
“I’m dismissive as you don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of free will that’s all. Again, it is always a human’s responsibility, just as it is human’s responsibility to deal with climate change and feed the starving. We were give what is, in effect, a perfect home and, as residents, we should look after it. We don’t and that is our fault.”
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by free will. I assumed you meant just the general idea of freedom in modern society in relation to civil rights. The actual concept of free will I reject, since I’m a determinist, but that’s beside the point. The point is if this god is so concerned with freedom, he’d had abolished slavery. :p
From the BBC:
“Muslim slavery continued for centuries
The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.
Muslim slavery was not just economic
Unlike the Western slave trade, slavery in Islam was not wholly motivated by economics.
Although some Muslim slaves were used as productive labour it was not generally on the same mass scale as in the West but in smaller agricultural enterprises, workshops, building, mining and transport.
Slaves were also taken for military service, some serving in elite corps essential to the ruler’s control of the state, while others joined the equivalent of the civil service.
Another category of slavery was sexual slavery in which young women were made concubines, either on a small scale or in large harems of the powerful. Some of these women were able to achieve wealth and power.
These harems might be guarded by eunuchs, men who had been enslaved and castrated.”
September 10th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Khushboo,
I asked you to bring rulings not your twisted interpretations of the Quran,
Don’t use your Christian influenced education to propogate a false version of Islam.
AJ
stop trying to spread a false version of Islam. Sex with concubines is permissiable. Both in Sunni and Shia Islam. For when slaves are available. However manumission is encouraged.
If you have specific rulings by ANY PROMINENT scholar, as opposed to disgruntled females like yourself, bring them or shup up.
Both of you, PUT UP OR SHUT UP
September 10th, 2011 at 10:51 am
NassirH,
This isn’t a flame war. This is Khushboo, who went to Christian Shcools in British influenced Pakistan, and probably AJ who has a similar background trying to rewrite Islamic laws to fit Christian views.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:53 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq2768LIFzY A video about slavery in Islam, though just in relation to Africans, but pretty informative. Not Safe for Work though, since it has some swearing.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Aj: 4:3 and 4:25 are clear enough. They specify marriage to slave girls.
Unless they want to say Quran is wrong or bring in bogus hadiths that contradict Quran, end of story!
You may not agree with the hadith but that doesn’t mean they are bogus. Moreover, like durendal, you are also guilty of fallacious reasoning since you have presupposed your position is true and anyone who goes against it has to be wrong since you are true. That’s called circular argumentation.
23:5-6 makes a distinction between wives and slaves. If a man cannot have sexual relations with his slave girl until after he has married her, then it is just a matter of having sex with his wife, whether the wife was already a free woman by the time they got married or a slave.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:56 am
The point to understand is that:
Durandal is on an offensive against Muslims on this website and WE are on the defensive. If he is an ordinary lawyer in South California why is he cutting and pasting hadiths or Quranic rulings or all the other stuff he has access on this website? Lawyers are quite busy people.
I mean if I am on an offensive on a Jewish website or on a Hindu website or any other religion, and have a ready to cut and paste amalgam of scriptures, I am NO ordinary citizen.
He is a paid propagandist.
To some of the other fellow Muslims like IbnAbuTalib and Inventions, I disagree with you but that’s that. I will not fall for Durandal’s tactics to divide and conquer.
So Durandal, bugger off!
September 10th, 2011 at 10:59 am
^You must’ve had me confused with someone else. I said I went to a Private Girls School in Pakistan that only taught English until 3rd grade and there were Christians there. I’m born a Muslim and know more than you about Islam. You only look at the unauthentic version of hadiths to get your info.
The interpretations are directly from the Quran. Unlike you, I’m not a propagandist like you twisting words around.
You’re slowing unraveling Inventor. Dr.M was right about you. Stop pretending to be on our side when clearly you’re nothing but a two-faced liar!
September 10th, 2011 at 10:59 am
“Your “decent discussion” is completely off topic and has caused another pointless flame war. Congratulations.”
Not really, I didn’t start the topic, I just contributed. It’s not a flame war, I’m sorry if I’m making you uncomfortable, I’m just arguing with the facts.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:59 am
^referring to Inventor!
September 10th, 2011 at 11:00 am
Durandal
I’m going to sum up your query in a paragraph. Any other queries you have, you will find them in the links and website I posted above. They are Islamic sites with prominent scholars.
The rules for how to treat slaves (kindly) are in Quran because slaves have rights in Islam. Islam is a way of life with rules for every situation, to ensure there is justice for all. The goal has always been to eradicate slavery, which has now happened, many centuries later. However, if slavery does exist there there are rules in place to ensure that slaves are not abused.
Men are permitted to have sex with female slaves (but not free women, unless they are his wives, 4 are allowed at any given time) but they also have to give them their rights, and to any children they have. Theat’s why a slave girl can only have sex with her owner. She’s like a wife, in an inferior way. That said, it has always been Islam’s goal to encourage freeing slaves.
Any further questions you have, should be asked after you have read up from the links I posted above. Your questions are stupid and ignorant.
Khushboo and AJ havn’t backed up anything they said with rulings. They are interpreting verses as they see fit and not what is understood by the Ulema for over 14oo years. These two have the arrogance to assume they know better, when they went to CHRISTIAN schools.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Inventions,
You are confusing me with Khushboo. I went to Christian schools and the link is from a Muslim website which tries to prove that although the Christians and Jews try to portray Hagar as concubine but their own scripture refutes that. You are confused but no worries.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Khushboo
You must’ve had me confused with someone else. I said I went to a Private Girls School in Pakistan that only taught English until 3rd grade and there were Christians there.
I thought you said you went to a Christian convent? If you didn’t then I retract and apologise. I’m not lying, and the only thing unraveling here is your desperation, you’ve yet to make your case, so who is unraveling?
I asked you to bring rulings and you post verses pretending that they mean what you say. THey do not. Those verses you posted don’t negate what I said.
I don’t believe you read what I posted above did you? It’s clear who is the liar here
September 10th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Durandal,
Now bring your lawyer energy to the other thread.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:10 am
I see a “comment awaiting moderation” then a very long thread with news and comments above. What’s going on here?
September 10th, 2011 at 11:18 am
^verses from the Quran and Sahih Bukhari Hadith is all I need to prove my point. You have accused our prophet of having premarital sex which is a big sin Inventor and I proved to you otherwise showing you that premarital sex is forbidden in Islam and showing you verses from the Hadith which proved that our prophet married the slaves. I have nothing else to say to you.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:28 am
IslamQA fatwas have no sensitivity beyond the narrow cultural context in which they operate.
A “concubine” (a Western term) in the Islamic sense was equivalent a legal marriage with rights and responsibilities:
“And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.” (Quran 24:32)
Muhammad Asad says in his commentary:
“The term as-salihin connotes here both moral and physical fitness for marriage: i.e., the attainment of bodily and mental maturity as well as mutual affection between the man and the woman concerned. As in 4:25, the above verse rules out all forms of concubinage and postulates marriage as the only basis of lawful sexual relations between a man and his female slave.”
September 10th, 2011 at 11:32 am
“We don’t have an Imam yet, just Chairman of the Board. We are Insh’Allah trying to find an Imam for our community after our new mosque is completed”
I hope that Imam Nourideen is still available. Maybe you guys can look into getting him? You’ll be amazed if you ever have the chance to talk to him. I wish I had info. on him. Maybe 411? Good Luck with the new mosque.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:37 am
durandal: An “authority on Islamic studies”? As in a Muslim?….You’re making grandiose reasons to ignore things that disagree with you, that’s pretty telling.
Not at all. For all I care, you can quote an atheist so long as that person is recognized as a scholar in the field of Islamic studies. This means he/she has peer reviewed published work, either in academic journals or in some other form. In this regard, the brandeis website you linked to is relevant since it is not just a random website but one owned by a university, and it contains the articles of Dr. Kecia Ali who is actually an expert in the field of Islamic Law on marriage. In what way does her scholarship support your claims that (1) the Quran does not encourage freeing of slaves and (2) that women are slaves to their husbands?
durandal: By the way, the YouTube videos are not just from a random dude, it’s on a guy who has studied Islam for a long time and loads his videos with sources
Even Robert Spencer claims to have studied Islam for a long time. Yet, he has no standing in the academic community whatsoever. Why should that guy on youtube be given any more credence than Spencer?
durendal: I said they are treated like slaves. “they are slaves, more or less” Women are unequal in their relationship to their husbands and must submit to their will, they’re treated generally like property to be used by the husband (that’s why marital rape is legal in Muslim countries), sounds like slavery to me. In fact in the video I linked to, “Is Islam Sexist” covered this quite well, but I’m sure you’ll ignore this.
Even if hypothetically women have less rights than their husbands, it doesn’t follow that the former are like slaves to the latter. Parents have more rights than their children. That doesn’t mean the latter are their slaves. In fact, the obedience that children are expected to show their parents is much greater than the obedience a wife has to show her husband.
While traditionally men are in control of the marriage contract, they do not OWN their wives, a point that has been noted by Dr. Kecia Ali. Since a slave is owned by her master whereas a wife is not owned by her husband, it is illogical to say that the Islamic matrimonial relationship is similar to that of slavery.
durendal: Wrong, it’s not a red herring (which means to divert attention by the way), and I wasn’t trying to make it an argument about God’s existence….I wasn’t trying to say that means a god doesn’t exist…I was trying to argue it’s not consistent with his stated beliefs, or yours for that matter.
Your rant boils down to the claim that the conception of an All Good God is inconsistent with the view that He permitted slavery. This is a red herring since we are not discussing the nature of God.
durendal: It was in response to people saying saying the Bible condones slavery (which is true) while the Koran does not, for both advocating the same thing. People should be mandated to take a logics course before trying to point out logical fallacies.
Did I say the bible condones slavery while the Quran does not? No. As such, you are attacking a straw man. I agree that studying logic is important, especially in your case given how fallacious your arguments are.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Khushboo,
I will let the Chairman of our board know that. Thanks. I think they were looking at the Imam (you will see him in the new mosque inauguration video under my blog) from NC but I don’t think any decision is made yet.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:53 am
@AJ
“4:3 and 4:25 are clear enough. They specify marriage to slave girls.”
“Unless they want to say Quran is wrong or bring in bogus hadiths that contradict Quran, end of story!”
I agree. I don’t think Durandal knows that I’m a Muslim, or that we’ve had this conversation about “sex slavery” and “concubines” before:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/07/asra-nomani-government-should-tell-muslims-how-to-worship/comment-page-3/#comment-82175
It’s not that I understand, or agree with his position. I just don’t understand why people are giving him confusing and ambiguous answers about slavery when the Quran is unambiguous. Slavery is not portrayed as something that is acceptable at all. When Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt, it doesn’t say it’s okay as long as the Egyptians treat him right and dangle the prospect of eventual emancipation in front of him. Generations later, when the Jews were still being held as slaves by the Egyptians, Moses didn’t command that pharaoh let them go. . . eventually. . . but immediately.
Muhammad personally emancipated Zayd ibn Haritha (whom he adopted), Salman al-Farsi, Abu Asib, Abu Bakra, Abu Muhayhiba, Maymuna bint Abu Asib, Abu Rafi al-Qibti, Abu Sallam, Abu Ubayd, Ayman, and Mariya. And his friend, Abu Bakr, emancipated Bilal. They didn’t do it eventually. . . but immediately. And they didn’t do it because they didn’t fast during Ramadan. They did it because it is a moral imperative in Islam.
Interestingly, one of Muhammad”s descendants, Ja’far as-Sadiq, freed and married a slave woman named Hamidah. Apparently, he didn’t know that Islam allows “sex slavery” and “concubinage”. No need for emancipation or marriage. Unfortunately, these people lived before illustrious men like ibn Qudaamah, ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, and the motley collection of “scholars” on YouTube and Wikipedia. Had they lived in our time, they would have “known” that Islam allows slavery and concubinage.
September 10th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Michael, so is Durandal = Jack? I know Jack has disappeared or maybe he got taken off the LW case at the cyber propaganda office and had Durandal assigned?
Can we have some sort of a registration system on Loonwatch where people from same IP addresses can not have multiple IDs?
September 10th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
To AJ:
“Now bring your lawyer energy to the other thread.”
Lol, I could never be a lawyer (except for maybe a public defender), since they lie way too much. Lawyers tend to be really scummy and I don’t trust them.
September 10th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
@Aj
No, I don’t think they are the same person. It’s just that atheists have similar beliefs about religion in general, and Islam in particular.
September 10th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“Michael, so is Durandal = Jack? I know Jack has disappeared or maybe he got taken off the LW case at the cyber propaganda office and had Durandal assigned?”
That’s extremely paranoid. I don’t think any Jack and do you think there’s some secret club where people get assigned to argue with you? Give me a break, how can you call other people “loons” and paranoid then?
September 10th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I’m leaving this one. Everyone has already articulated pretty clearly, Michael especially, that Islam is against slavery and I myself have provided the reasoning behind it not being banned outright. And here is the other thing, just because Muslims in some cases still practice or practiced slavery doesn’t mean that Islam says it is right; most of these Muslims did it for the cash, I didn’t notice them quoting the Qu’ran. If Durandal can’t or doesn’t want to get this then it isn’t any of my concern.
No, I’m not being dismissive Durandal, I just find going round and round in circles boring. I frankly don’t know why you would even care, it’s not your faith and you claim to profess none (though we all know Christians impersonating atheists is a common missionary tactic). All that does matter is that Muslims, here and now, think that slavery is wrong and against Islam. Why then run around saying ‘No it’s not!’?
September 10th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“I don’t think any Jack and do you think there’s some secret club where people get assigned to argue with you”
There are actually, but not specifically for this website.
September 10th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“That’s extremely paranoid. I don’t think any Jack and do you think there’s some secret club where people get assigned to argue with you? Give me a break, how can you call other people “loons” and paranoid then?”
Because this is not the first place its happening; non-Muslims armed with ready to use, copy/paste stuff from Quran, Hadith, Youtube and wikipedia AND ready to paint Muslims as terrorists and Islam as evil on every comment board AND ready to pounce (within milliseconds) the moment any news remotely connected to Islam comes up. I call them cyber propagandists.
September 10th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
To AJ:
“paint Muslims as terrorists and Islam as evil on every comment board ”
I never did that, I didn’t even bring up terrorism. I never said all Muslims, or most Muslims condone slavery, and I didn’t say they were terrorist.
I didn’t have them ready, the World Wide Web makes it quite easy to find things, and I’ve talked to people like Klingschor in the past so it’s why I’m familiar with his videos. He’s quite soft on Islam compared to some of the other people on YouTube actually, he even made a video criticizing Thunderf00t, a YouTuber who goes crazy over Islam and even accused “Moderate Muslims” of covering for Muslim terrorist.
To Jack Cope:
“There are actually, but not specifically for this website.”
Well, enlighten me. Is there some anti-muslim specific version of the Drudge Report or something?
September 10th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
To Jack Cope:
“No, I’m not being dismissive Durandal, I just find going round and round in circles boring. I frankly don’t know why you would even care, it’s not your faith and you claim to profess none (though we all know Christians impersonating atheists is a common missionary tactic).”
Yes I can see it’s going into circles now, and I can respect you don’t want to talk about it. I don’t care on a personal level, I just feel the need, and maybe it’s obnoxious to argue on the side of the facts on what’s basically it seems an apologist website for a religion that likes to paint it as smelling like roses while occasionally bashing other peoples religion, which seems like kind of hypocritical to me.
As for pretending to be a Christian, why yes I am pretending, I want to love Joseph Smith with all your hear..wait, wrong religion. Seriously, I’ve never heard of Christians pretending to be Atheist. All serious Christians I’ve met despise Atheist. What would they gain by pretending to be Christians?
“All that does matter is that Muslims, here and now, think that slavery is wrong and against Islam. Why then run around saying ‘No it’s not!’?”
Alright, alright I can accept that.
September 10th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
This comment section is in RUINS! Everybody’s hating everybody. Look, next time Durendal posts, just ignore him. I’ve been to his site, and he’s a total idiot. He simply rants about islam in Gaffney/Spencer fashion. For example, and somehow he’s an expert on Arabic. He said that “islam” actually means “submission” instead of “peace” on his site. The consonants of a word form its roots in Arabic. He’s an idiot who has no clue what he’s talking about. Just ignore him.
September 10th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Durendal sounds somewhat sane so…it’s probably JingoBob/Haram PorKKK on meds.
September 10th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
To Skhan:
Um..I don’t have a website…so what?
“For example, and somehow he’s an expert on Arabic. He said that “islam” actually means “submission” instead of “peace” on his site.”
Oh you mean my twitter. I barely ever mention Islam, and that was an old tweet (are you going through my old tweets?) and it was to another atheist talking to Muslims. It’s “Gaffney/Spencer” stuff (which I assume means right wing anti immigrant stuff? I don’t really know) it’s just a fact, it’s not meant to bash Islam, plenty of Muslims say that too:
“Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining.[17] In a religious context it means “voluntary submission to God”"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Etymology_and_meaning
September 10th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
^
*It’s not “Gaffney/Spencer”
Typos haunt me even here.
September 10th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
@Durandal: sorry, i meant twitter.
September 10th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
^
Well in that case I barely talk about Islam, in fact the last time I talked about it in length was when I argued with this Orthodox Christian who claimed Muslims were terrorist and obsessed with killing Orthodox Christians.
September 10th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“Yes I can see it’s going into circles now, and I can respect you don’t want to talk about it. I don’t care on a personal level, I just feel the need, and maybe it’s obnoxious to argue on the side of the facts on what’s basically it seems an apologist website for a religion that likes to paint it as smelling like roses while occasionally bashing other peoples religion, which seems like kind of hypocritical to me.”
Your posturing about how the “facts” support your “side” aside, you could only come to that conclusion if you had never read any article on this website. Danios is quite clear, saying that “I would nonetheless strongly caution overzealous Muslim readers from using these articles to stir hatred against Jews and Christians, noting that Islam has no shortage of “problematic” texts.” That’s hardly in line with your assertions.
But, yes, it’s quite obnoxious of someone to go in circles while arguing about dead letter. Funny how many loons like to claim quite often that parts of the Bible, Canon Law or Halakha are or solely descriptive or dead letter but don’t allow the same for Islam. Now that’s hypocritical. The only thing I’m “uncomfortable” with is the unadulterated pointlessness and idiocy of your flame wars. Did slavery exist in the Islamic societies of the past? Yes, but it also existed in numerous other societies and jurists considered manumission a good deed (in fact, if I remember the mukhtassar al-Khiraqi correctly, it was sometimes considered obligatory under certain circumstances). Does slavery have legal sanction nowadays? No, as by the nineteenth century various polities—both Eastern and Western—undertook efforts to curb the slave trade if not abolish outright. A civil war in the United States revolved around the issue and some Southerners are sill quite touchy about it. Furthermore, most Muslims nowadays undoubtedly abhor slavery and that’s what matters in regard to your “decent discussion.” Your pretentious attitude and chest-thumping while claiming that you’re siding with the “facts” doesn’t really matter.
September 10th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Skhan,
“Just ignore him.”
good advice!
September 10th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
It appears Durendal has no intention of stopping his trolling. Reminds me of the old troll Cassidy/Petro/Percey…
Durendal, is this your excellent commentary on the minaret ban:
loonwatch[dot]com/2009/12/uk-opinion-poll-reveals-public-open-to-minaret-bans/#comment-4176
“Maybe it’s some kind of penis complex we are witnessing here.
Some non-Muslims feel intimidated by the impressive large penis like structures and want to get rid of them, while some Muslims feel rejected for their manhood, because they cannot display it to everyone whenever they want.”
LOL. If that’s you, then it’s quite clear that reasoning with you is going to be impossible.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Mosizzle.lolol. Who ever wrote that comment had a huge inferiority complex about his #!### you know what.
September 11th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Enough with slave.
“He who has a slave-girl, feeds her, teaches her then frees and marries her will have a double reward” Sahih Bukhari.
Oh dont call it fake because its narrated 3 times under slightly different wordings
September 11th, 2011 at 1:05 am
Attention fellow loonwatchers. I am currently debating a loon on an online forum. He is spewing all sorts of crap about islam, WITHOUT ANY QURANIC PROOF, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I REMIND HIM HE HAS NO PROOF! Can any one of you Jack Cope, Danios, NassirH, etc. take a look at this page and see how its going, it goes over more than one page: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TODHRGMHN9UDAF319
September 11th, 2011 at 1:44 am
Personally, I think this is one of the best threads Loonwatch has ever had. The discussion, while heated, was mostly respectful and very interesting.
September 11th, 2011 at 2:52 am
Yes, interesting and informative this thread has been but guys, please, I now have a headache from all the reading…
September 11th, 2011 at 7:14 am
Khushboo
^verses from the Quran and Sahih Bukhari Hadith is all I need to prove my point. You have accused our prophet of having premarital sex which is a big sin Inventor and I proved to you otherwise showing you that premarital sex is forbidden in Islam and showing you verses from the Hadith which proved that our prophet married the slaves. I have nothing else to say to you.
No, you are applying your own logic.
In your arrogance you claim to know better than the Ulema. The Prophet did not sin by having concubines.
Sex with concubines is permissable. It was practiced by the Prophets
The punishment for a concubines who comits adultery is not the same as the wife of a man. That is because the punishment meted out is directly relevent to the blessings that God gives. A free woman has been blessed with freedom that is why her punishment for adultery is greater than if the slave cheats on her owner.
The punishment for adultery comitted by a mans’ concubine is in the Quran. Read it without your “desperate to please Chrisitan puritanism” eyes.
September 11th, 2011 at 7:28 am
Khushboo, doesn’t appear to know the difference between pre marital sex being forbidden with free women, and those women with whom it is permitted (concubines)
Islam Online’s discussion of the rules pertaining to slave concubinage:
Fatwa, posted 10.22.2010, from Egypt, in: Slavery and ConcubinageSocial Ethics – GENERAL
Website URL: http://www.islamonline.net
Fatwa Question or Essay Title: Islam Online’s discussion of the rules pertaining to slave concubinage:
Location: Egypt
Question: Is it true that Islam permits Muslim men to own slave women, and permits them to have sex with them without marrying them? And that this was carried out by the Prophet’s Companions with his approval? Surely, this is in contradiction of the Quran’s condemnation of zina (adultery). Could you please clarify this issue?
Answer: When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad , slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.
Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or “milk al-yameen” are referred to in the Quran as “Those whom your right hand possesses” or “ma malakat aymanukum” in Arabic; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.
Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What’s more, her child would also become free.
Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.
But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.
———————–
In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it’s something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.
September 11th, 2011 at 7:48 am
Inventor is rewriting history and is looking at inaccurate websites instead of going directly to the Quran and Sahih Hadith for info. on our prophets. How dare she accuses our prophet of premarital sex when it’s clear from the sources I showed that he married these dispossessed women to free them! I’m tired of repeating myself so I’m going to just leave it alone now because it’s obvious she has no respect for Islam nor us Muslims. She’s clearly a two-faced propagandist. I’m done!
*exits*
September 11th, 2011 at 7:52 am
Khushboo said:
premarital sex which is a big sin Inventor and I proved to you otherwise showing you that premarital sex is forbidden in Islam and showing you verses from the Hadith which proved that our prophet married the slaves. I have nothing else to say to you.
Khusbhoo yours AJ’s history revising is debunked below.
and Ahmed, was it you who asked about the below? here is the answer
This is Sheikh Al Munajjid:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/47572/Mariyah%20al-Qibtiyyah
Was Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah one of the Mothers of the Believers?
There is no doubt that Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah was the concubine of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and she bore him his son Ibraaheem. Can the title of “Mother of the Believers” be given to Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah or not?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not marry Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, rather she was a concubine who was given to him by al-Muqawqis, the ruler of Egypt. That took place after the treaty of al-Hudaybiyah. Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah was a Christian, then she became Muslim (may Allaah be pleased with her).
Ibn Sa’d said:
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) lodged her – meaning Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah and her sister – with Umm Sulaym bint Milhaan, and the Messenger of Allaah (S) entered upon them and told them about Islam. He took Mariyah as a concubine and moved her to some property of his in al-‘Awaali… and she became a good Muslim.
Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra, 1/134-135
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said:
Mariyah died during the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, in Muharram of 16 AH. ‘Umar gathered the people himself to attend her funeral, and he led the funeral prayer for her. She was buried in al-Baqee’.
Al-Isti’aab, 4/ 1912
Mariyah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was one of the Prophet’s concubines, not one of his wives. The Mothers of the Believers are the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their ownselves, and his wives are their (believers’) mothers (as regards respect and marriage)”
[al-Ahzaab 33:6]
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had four concubines, one of whom was Mariyah.
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
Abu ‘Ubaydah said: He had four (concubines): Mariyah, who was the mother of his son Ibraaheem; Rayhaanah; another beautiful slave woman whom he acquired as a prisoner of war; and a slave woman who was given to him by Zaynab bint Jahsh.
Zaad al-Ma’aad, 1/114
For more information of the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – the Mothers of the Believers – please see the answer to question no. 47072
And Allaah knows best.
——–
Khushboo and AJ, have yet to prove how their knowledge betters the Ulema.
September 11th, 2011 at 8:55 am
Inventions I am not sure how you call yourself a Muslim when you trash any other Muslim that disagrees with you. Seriously, learn some respect.
September 11th, 2011 at 9:15 am
and to speak about prophet (pbuh) in areas of uncertainty, any musljm would prefer to abstain from making statements regardjng it. The topic @inventions is elaborating on is altogether a whole new subject and can be debated well from both parties, but to argue and ridicule another muslim is certainly out of limits.
not to forget we (muslims) are here on this site to specifically counter loon-attack, and not argue among ourselves. Do not divert topics, we need to remain focussed on tackling the loonies.
September 11th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Khusboo: Inventor is rewriting history and is looking at inaccurate websites instead of going directly to the Quran and Sahih Hadith for info.
In all fairness, Inventor is not rewriting history. She quoted from two websites, one Salafi (islamqa) and one that is more traditional (islamonline), both agreeing with the view that concubinage is allowed. As a third source, consider Dr. Kecia Ali, Associate Professor of Religion at Boston University, who writes: “The Qur’an permits men to have sexual access to “what their right hands possess,” meaning female captives or slaves (Q. 23.5-6; 70.29-30). This was widely accepted and practiced among early Muslims; the Prophet Muhammad, for example, kept a slave-concubine (Mariya the Copt) who was given to him as a gift by the Roman governor of Alexandria….Islamic law devotes special attention to regulating the practice of slave marriage and concubinage, in order to determine the paternity and/or ownership of children born to a female slave.”
September 11th, 2011 at 9:55 am
IbnAbuTalib,
If you believe in the sources you quote besides the Quran, not every Muslim does that so let’s leave it at that.
It’s not okay to label another Muslim as less of a Muslim which is what inventions is doing which is only going to make loons happy because that is what they want precisely; for Muslims to fight Muslims.
If you have an interpretation of Islam that other Muslims disagree with, just leave it at that. Allah knows best.
September 11th, 2011 at 10:15 am
AJ: If you believe in the sources you quote besides the Quran, not every Muslim does that so let’s leave it at that….If you have an interpretation of Islam that other Muslims disagree with, just leave it at that.
It is not a matter of interpretation, but being academically honest. Yes, there are some Muslims who don’t think concubinage is supported by the Quran. At the same time, there are also others who do. Both have their arguments. As such, both sides of the story should be presented. We can agree to disagree, but we cannot agree to be dishonest.
September 11th, 2011 at 10:22 am
@IbnAbuTalib
“As a third source, consider Dr. Kecia Ali, Associate Professor of Religion at Boston University, who writes: “The Qur’an permits men to have sexual access to “what their right hands possess,” meaning female captives or slaves (Q. 23.5-6; 70.29-30). This was widely accepted and practiced among early Muslims; the Prophet Muhammad, for example, kept a slave-concubine (Mariya the Copt) who was given to him as a gift by the Roman governor of Alexandria….Islamic law devotes special attention to regulating the practice of slave marriage and concubinage, in order to determine the paternity and/or ownership of children born to a female slave.”
I disagree with you and Kecia. Regarding the verses she referred to, let me quote Yuksel’s footnote from our previous discussion:
“Polygamy is allowed only to provide psychological, social and economic support for widows with orphans (See 4:127). Muhammad’s practice of polygamy must have been in accordance with the condition to serve an important social service. Sure, physical attraction of widows might be one of the factors for marriage and there is nothing wrong with that. Those who could afford practicing polygamy, mentally and financially, should try hard to treat them equally, though 4:129 expresses the practical impossibly of attaining that ideal. Additionally, the consent of the first wife is necessary; otherwise, she can always seek divorce. It is clear that polygamy is not an ideal form of marriage and an unusual practice allowed for difficult times, such as a dramatic reduction in the male population during wartime. The age gap between marrying men and women creates a surplus of women who will never be able to find a monogamous partner. By a strict prohibition on polygamy, millions of young women are deprived from having a legitimate relationship with men. The only hope for millions of young girls is to get married with already divorced men, perhaps with kids, or to have a relationship born out of promiscuous sexual practices. The Western world does not prohibit polygamy since many males have sexual relationships with more than one woman at the same time. The only thing that modern societies do is deprive those women from the protection of law; they are there to be used, disposed of and recycled by men! The hypocrisy in the modern attitude becomes clear when homosexuality is defended on the pretext of “consenting adults,” but the same standards are not afforded to the polygamists. The conditional permission for polygamy is for the psychological and financial protection of children and their widow mothers, in cases of war or natural disaster. Polygamy, according to the Old Testament, started with the seventh generation after Cain and continued as a common practice in the patriarchal age together with having concubines (Genesis 4:19; 6:2; 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8-9; 29:23-30, etc.). However, the Old Testament also disapproves of polygamy (Deuteronomy 17:17). The Old Testament contains numerous exaggerated stories. One is about the number of Solomon’s wives. The roundness of the numbers of wives and concubines and their total, the three numbers being perfectly round, indicate an intentional exaggeration. “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart†(1 Kings 11:3). It is highly plausible that the word “hundred” was inserted in the text by later scribes to damage the reputation of Solomon for some political agenda. The following verses depict Solomon as an evil person and idolater. The Quran neither accuses Solomon of indulging in a hedonistic sexual life nor of associating partners with God. Ironically, modern Christians are now bashing Solomon for not sticking to monogamy. To be politically correct, modern Christians do not hesitate to condemn the common practice of polygamy among Jews and their prophets. Contrary to the Quran, which exhorts muslims to help widows, the misogynistic Rabbinical teachings inserted into the Old Testament put them in the category of harlots, and finds them unworthy of marriage by the privileged class: priests (Leviticus 21:14). The expression Ma malakat aymanukum has been translated by most translations as “whom your right hands posses” or “captives” or “concubines.” We translated this and similar expressions found in 4:3,24,25,36; 16:71; 23:6; 24:31,33,58; 30:28; 33:50,52,55; and 70:30, as “those with whom you have contractual rights.” These were the wives of the enemy combatants who were persecuted because they acknowledged the message of Islam and sought asylum at the Muslim community (60:10). Since they did not get through a normal divorce process, an exceptional contract allows them to marry muslims as free women. Marrying them could create some social, economic and personal complications for the husband. They have nothing to do with IBaD (slaves), as sectarian translations and commentaries state. As we will learn, the Quran categorically rejects slavery and considers it to be the greatest sin (See 3:79; 4:25,92; 5:89; 8:67; 24:32-33; 58:3; 90:13; 2:286; 12:39-42; 79:24). The practice of slavery was justified and resurrected to a certain extent via the influence of Jewish and Christian scholars, as well as fabricated hadith and sharia laws, decades after Muhammad’s departure. It is ironic that Jews who suffered the most from slavery and were saved by God through the leadership of Moses (Exodus 1:13-14), later justified enslaving other people, including selling one’s own daughter, and inserted that practice into their holy books (Exodus 21:7-8; 21:21-22; 26-27; Leviticus 25:44-46; Joshua 9:6-27). Though Jesus never condoned slavery, St. Paul, the founder of modern Christianity, once asked the masters to treat their slaves nicely (Colossians 3:22), and asked the slaves to be “submissive to your masters with all fear” (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:2; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9) justifying the Marxist maxim, “Religion is the opium of masses.” The use of religion by the privileged class to enslave or exploit people is vividly depicted by the South African archbishop Desmond Tutu: “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘let us close our eyes and pray’. When we opened them, we had the Bible, and they had the land.” The word YaMYN means “right hand” or metaphorically “right,” “power” or “control.” However, its plural form aYMaN is consistently mentioned in the Quran to mean not “right hands” but to mean “oaths” or “promises,” implying the mutual nature of the relationship (See 4:33 5:89; 9:12; 16:91- 94; 2:224-225; 30:28; 66:2; 5:53; 6:109). This unique Quranic usage is similar to the semantic difference between the singular and plural forms of the word Ayat (signs) (see 2:106). The expression in question, thus could be translated as “those whom your oaths/contracts have rights over” or “those whom you hold rights through your contracts,” or by reading aYMaN (oaths/contracts) as an object rather than a subject, “those who hold/possess your contracts.” The marriage declaration is a mutual partnership between two sexes and is formed by participation of family members. A married woman cannot marry another man without getting divorced from her husband. However, if a woman escapes and joins muslims while her husband stayed behind participating in a war against muslims, she may marry a Muslim man without actually getting divorced from her combatant husband; she will legally be considered a divorcee (60:10). Since this contract is different from the normal marriage contract, this special relationship is described in different words. The same is valid for a man whose wife allies with the hostile enemy. See 24:31 and 33:55. Those who work for another person according to employment contracts are also referred to with the same expression. See 16:71; 30:28. Also, see 4:25,36; 23:6; 24:58; 33:50; 33:52; 70:30. The Quran does not demand those who lived together based on a mutual promise (AYMaN) during the days of ignorance, without a marriage contract, to get divorced. Similarly, it does not want those who married two sisters before accepting islam to be a way of life (4:23). This tolerance does not encourage living together without marriage. It only does not want to incur further damage to the family structure and does not want to create hurdles for those who wish to live according to the principles of islam.”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/07/asra-nomani-government-should-tell-muslims-how-to-worship/comment-page-3/#comment-82670
The assumption that the Quran allows concubines is common among conservatives, and even some “progressives” like Kecia Ali, but it’s a difficult interpretation to tease from the Quran itself. It’s largely an interpretation derived from later commentaries of the Quran.
I also disagree with you that concubinage was a widely accepted practice among early Muslims. Why did Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq emancipate and marry Hamidah? Didn’t he know that the Quran allows slavery and sex with slave women? Or is the Quranic interpretation that allows concubinage, and the portrayal of Maria as a concubine, self-serving rationalizations?
September 11th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Well IbnAbuTalib, it’s a matter of interpretation since some verses could be interpreted differently if not all of them are considered together. For me as a mathematician and an engineer, it’s a matter of AND logic than a matter of OR logic. So if I arrive at a particular theory and EVERY verse of the Quran supports that, it is the right interpretation for me. And Allah knows best.
We should keep in mind that there are dozens of Christian denominations and they all exist in peace. It’s only a matter with us Muslims that we have to rub off that we think is right on others. As we near the end, Muslims will keep on breaking into more sects. One of the groups would be the rightly guided ones but let Allah make that decision instead of us trashing each other and proving that the other is a lesser Muslim.
September 11th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Michael Elwood: I disagree with you and Kecia.
I am not taking sides, Michael. As I said to AJ, in the spirit of academic honesty, when one is asked whether concubinage is permitted in Islam, he/she should present not only the Quran-only side of the story, but also what the conservatives have to say. After all, we all agree (except the fudamentalists and loons) that Islam is not a monolith.
September 11th, 2011 at 10:49 am
@michael, that was quiet impressive study. Do share more links on the subject.
September 11th, 2011 at 11:01 am
loons must be beaming with joy, watching ‘mooslems’ argue eachother. Dear muslim posters, Stay Focussed. Please use your intellect, energy and time to refute the baseless accusations against Islam hurled by the loons. Remember, this is LOONWATCH!
September 11th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
@ Durandal:
To be quite honest, citing the wikipedia article on slavery in the Arab world is a perfect example of just how biased wiki actually is on the subject. The wording and context are quite different from the way that slavery in the Americas is treated, to say nothing of conflating slavery in the Arab context with slavery in Islam (the two are not necessarily the same), as well as covering a much broader geographic and historical period. To be quite frank, it comes off as rather anti-Muslim and anti-Arab… while still ignoring the fact that slavery both continues on in other parts of the world and was practiced in Europe and the Americas (By some estimates, Brazil in particular imported almost as many slaves from West Africa in 350 years as the Indian Ocean did in a millennium!).
The fact is that Islam allowed for (and technically still allows) slavery. The same could be said for Christianity, for Judaism, for the Greco-Roman system… it goes on and on. In fact, slavery in the Americas was distinct in world history largely by dint of the fact that it became a purely race based institution, that it was an inherited condition, and that manumission was not encouraged in some fashion or another. Say what you will about Islam, but slavery in the Muslim world was never race based. During the Prophet Muhammad’s time, there were Arab slaves, Persian slaves, Roman slaves, Ethiopian slaves, Indian slaves and so on. During the classical age of Islamic civilization, the main sources of slaves came to be the Berbers in North Africa, the Habeshis and the Zanj in East Africa, the Turks in Central Asia, the Sudanis in West Africa and the Slavs in Eastern Europe.
One of my key issues with regarding this as an ‘Arab slave trade’ is the fact that it was multiethnic, and involved widespread trade networks which included (indeed, relied upon) non-Arabs and even non-Muslims. You claim that the Arabian peninsula benefited from slavery, yet it was black Africans who made the most wealth from the slave trade. Some were Muslim, some were animists, and in the case of Kongo the ruling elite were actually Catholics, but the fact is that at the height of the slave trade, neither Europeans nor Arabs for that matter controlled much of Africa south of the Sahara. The great Muslim kingdoms and empires like Mali, Kanem-Bornu and the Swahili city states had a minority of Arabs (or Persians in the case of the waSwahili) but it was indigenous black Africans or mixed race families that ruled these states. The same goes for Central Asia, where a successive wave of Turkish and Mongol lineages dominated. In Eastern Europe the Vikings in particular were an important supplier of Slavs for the slave trade, and indeed it was a major industry for the Kievan Rus.
Without these (non-Arab and non-Muslim) components, the slave trade could never have existed, just as Europeans (and later Americans in the colonies) were dependent upon powerful black African states to provide them slaves. Portugal, for example, forged very strong bonds with the Kingdom of Kongo (at least until the mid-16th century). So much so that the ruling class adopted Catholicism (and tried to impose it as the state religion in Kongo at times) and Portuguese-style names. The Muslim world had a similar relationship. I’ve mentioned the Norse already. Did you know the Copts played a major role in the slave trade? Islamic law forbids mutilating a slave… which includes castration. The way around this was as fiendish as it was ingenious. The Copts (who had superb medical knowledge) were the ones who made the eunuchs.
Another key issue is that you are dealing with a very broad geographic region and chronological period. Broadly the ‘Arab world’ stretches from Morocco to Iraq (it doesn’t include Turkey or Iran, let alone black African Muslim states). And aside from being separate states, some of the Arab regions weren’t ruled by Arabs. From the fall of the Fatimid Caliphate around 1171 to Nasser’s creation of the Egyptian Republic in July of 1952, Egypt was ruled by non-Arabs. King Farouk? No, he was of Albanian descent. The Mamluks? Turkish. Salah al-Din? Kurdish. In fact, it was Salah al-Din who reinstated Sunni Islam, favoring the Shafi’i school of fiqh dominant in Kurdistan. The same can be said for much of the Middle East. In fact, significant portions of the Arabian peninsula were British Protectorates in some form or another. North Africa came to be dominated by the French and Italians. So claiming slavery wasn’t abolished until the 70′s becomes a shaky claim. Morocco is not the same as Saudi Arabia. Nor is Tunisia. Nor is Syria. I couldn’t tell you the exact dates off the top of my head, but slavery has been abolished for quite a while.
And indeed, it bears mentioning that slavery is alive and well in much of the world. It is probably still Africa where slavery thrives. Sudan, Uganda, Niger, Nigeria and so forth all have some form of slavery or another. Mauritania (which is ‘Arab’ in terms of language, though the Maures themselves have a distinct ethnic identity) only recently abolished slavery. But many forms of slavery or indentured servitude still continue in Africa. In fact Ghana (decidedly non-Arab) did not outlaw slavery until 1998… and it is still going on in the country despite government efforts to stamp it out.
The problem is those are not the only forms of slavery. I’ll actually agree with you on the UAE… the local Emiratis (and the Euro-American contractors) exploit Asian and Arab laborers, sometimes taking their passports and not paying them, or worse. Sexual slavery is a thriving business in Thailand, the Philippines, and all through Eastern Europe, where local girls are sold to brothels. The worst of these cater to foreigners (read up on ‘sex tourism’ if you don’t believe me). Such brothels also exist in India and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where they cater to locals. Recently, these have also begun to exploit Iraqi refugees in Syria and other Arab states. In Japan there are brothels using white girls (mostly Australians) who go to Japan to buy things and get themselves indebted. And then there are the snakeheads, who basically create a permanent slave class out of Chinese immigrants.
So if you are going to talk about slavery and the Arab and Islamic worlds, you should be aware that it is a complex and ambiguous issue. It’s not a straightforward thing that you can make broad generalizations about.
September 11th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@IbnAbuTalib
“I am not taking sides, Michael. As I said to AJ, in the spirit of academic honesty, when one is asked whether concubinage is permitted in Islam, he/she should present not only the Quran-only side of the story, but also what the conservatives have to say. After all, we all agree (except the fudamentalists and loons) that Islam is not a monolith.”
I didn’t mean to suggest that my interpretation is the only interpretation. That we’re even having this discussion is evidence that everyone doesn’t share my interpretation. However, I still maintain that the position that the Quran allows slavery and concubinage and that Maria was a concubine is dubious.
@sadia
“@michael, that was quiet impressive study. Do share more links on the subject.”
I’m learning as I go along. I’ve learned a lot since the last discussion I linked to. If you’re a Muslim, the subject of Muhammad’s sexual practices is going to come up over and over and over again. Wanna know what’s funny about this? Muhammad and his wives were private people. The Quran says:
33:53 O you who acknowledge, do not enter the prophet’s homes except if you are invited to a meal, without you forcing such an invitation. But if you are invited, you may enter. *****When you finish eating, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a hadith.***** This used to annoy the prophet, and he was shy to tell you. But God does not shy away from the truth. If you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. It is not for you to harm God’s messenger, nor you should marry his wives after him. This is a gross offence with God.
Yet, what we think we know about his sexual practices comes from hadiths. The people who were privy to Muhammad’s sexual practices didn’t say anything, and the people who said something weren’t privy to them. But people today, Muslim and non-Muslim, think they know all about Maria, Aisha, and other details about his private life?
September 11th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
true @michael, we discuss private matters of prophet(pbuh) so openly and ignorantly, its disrespectful towards prophet (pbuh).
Alhumdulillah am a muslim, and I pray I dies as one!
September 11th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Oh I have no doubt that Durandal is what he says he is. He seems to be another run of the mill atheist, though to be quite honest, choosing the name of Roland’s sword would go a bit more in line with the anti-Muslim crowd, no? I suspect he is slightly anti-Muslim, and his biases will come from that.
One of the particular conceits made by many atheists is that while all religions are false, their own culture is worthy of a certain degree of consideration. We’ve seen that with Richard Dawkins, a staunch atheist who is inexplicably backing Anglicanism and talking about ‘cultural Christianity.’ While I cannot begrudge anyone their choice of beliefs, or their reasoning for such, it does seem a bit hypocritical. It is as if ‘culture’ or ‘nationality’ has replaced race, religion and other self-identified characteristics which people use to segregate themselves.
Durandal, in an earlier post on this site, you claimed that one of the big differences between the Muslim world and the ‘Christian countries’ is that the latter were mostly secular. It seems a rather astounding bias, not only given the fact that there are fundamentalist groups with political clout in the US, Australia and yes even England, but also because you are making the mistake of conflating ‘western’ and ‘Christianity.’ Were we to go around the globe, Christianity is the dominant religion in most of Europe, the UK, North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Russia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and indeed even parts of India and Indonesia!
And while Europe and the United States may be ‘secular democracies,’ I should point out that religion still occupies an official place in several countries. The king of England is still the head of the Anglican Church, and it does have representation in government. In Italy saying negative things about the Catholic Church can have political ramifications, including jail time and steep fines (google Sabina Guzzanti for example). The Lutheran Church was the state religion of Sweden until recently and children had to be registered with Church approved names (not to mention that it was ILLEGAL to convert to another faith throughout the 19th century). In Greece, the Orthodox Church alone is tax exempt, priests have pensions paid by the state, and Orthodox education is a mandatory part of the school curriculum. Many other religions are not recognized (and indeed LW just posted an article on the first new mosque in Athens since independence). Argentina is still OFFICIALLY a Catholic state, where the Church is funded by the government and the President is mandated by law to be Catholic.
And that’s not getting into the fact that, as I said before, much of Latin America, Africa and the Pacific IS majority Christian, yet is seldom included under the heading ‘western’ or even ‘Christendom,’ despite the rather obvious fact that the majority (if not all of the population) is born and raised Christian. Mexico is about 93% Christian, Democratic Republic of Congo is 96% Christian, the Philippines is 90% Christian, East Timor is 99% Christian, Kenya is about 80% Christian, El Salvador is also about 80% Christian, and Samoa claims 100% of their populations follow Christianity… all of those would be considerably higher percentages than in the United States. If we go by sheer numbers, countries like Nigeria, Congo and even China have more Christians than any country in Europe (save Russia which is huge). Even India, with a mere 2-3% of the population adhering to Christianity, still numbers some 26+ million people!
September 11th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Let’s see if this post actually goes through :p
To Zack:
“He seems to be another run of the mill atheist, though to be quite honest, choosing the name of Roland’s sword would go a bit more in line with the anti-Muslim crowd, no?”
In what way? My use of it doesn’t even come from the legend of Roland, it comes from the old Mac FPS called Marathon
. I just use it because it’s a cool screen name. It’s a common screen name and it’s been used in various books, movies, video games, etc. No one said I’m original.
“Durandal, in an earlier post on this site, you claimed that one of the big differences between the Muslim world and the ‘Christian countries’ is that the latter were mostly secular. It seems a rather astounding bias, not only given the fact that there are fundamentalist groups with political clout in the US, Australia and yes even England, but also because you are making the mistake of conflating ‘western’ and ‘Christianity.’”
Well saying that there are “fundamentalist groups” (fundamentalist of what, and how much power and clout, and what goals?) proves they those specific countries are not more secular is like saying because there are secular advocacy groups in places like Pakistan and Iran, they are secular. I think you see the problem with that.
Anyway, the UK? While it doesn’t have an officially secular government, it’s population and values largely are secular. Yes they have a leftover state church from long ago, but so does Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland and I don’t think you’re going to argue that they are a very religious population. The UK has a religiously plural government, which allows religions to have a degree of autonomy and even religious law, but that doesn’t make it a Christian country, that makes it..a religiously plural country.
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org wiki Religion_in_europe#Religiosity
The UK, 71 percent of people don’t view religion as important. I don’t mean atheist when I say secular, I mean secular. As in decisions in peoples lives not being based on religion, and people not giving a crap about religion, just like my family.
Australia? Well it does have a number of semi-influential religious groups the two major parties cowtail too, but they aren’t highly influential on society.
“Australia is one of the least religious nations in the developed world, with religion not described as a central part in many people’s lives.[79] This view is especially prominent among Australia’s youth, who were ranked as the least religious worldwide in a 2008 survey conducted by The Christian Science Monitor.[80] As of the 2006 census there are 3,706,555 people in Australia categorised by the ABS as having “No Religion”. This category includes just four named subcategories, namely agnosticism, atheism, Humanism and rationalism. A fifth sub-category is “No Religion, nfd” (nfd=no further definition).”
The US, well you almost got me there, we tend to have a more religious population than the rest of the West (well it depends on where you are. In Vermont that’s not going to be the case, or in Orange County where I live) but even then, the religious attendance rate is quite low, and most peoples lives are not guided by religion. Even the fundie whackjobs are going to strip clubs and partying like crazy.
Anyway, my point wasn’t even about attitudes, it was about the law. “The West” has secular laws and increasingly secular cultures. while most muslim countries do not.
I don’t conflate Christianity with “Western” so no. I don’t think Christianity is more conductive of a secular society, the only reason these mostly Christian majority nations are secular societies is because the secular movements tempered and took away Christianities power. I was also including Japan by the way, which has nothing to do with Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o68qeq29UU4&feature=channel_video_title A very brief video which contrast the two societies, if you want to lump them into two societies on opposites anyway.
“One of the particular conceits made by many atheists is that while all religions are false, their own culture is worthy of a certain degree of consideration.”
I’m not sure what this means? I’m for a secular democratic culture and I think that’s worthy of a degree of consideration. I’m not sure what you mean by “my own culture”? My own culture doesn’t include religion, but I really don’t know what you mean.
“Were we to go around the globe, Christianity is the dominant religion in most of Europe, the UK, North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Russia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and indeed even parts of India and Indonesia!”
Thanks for the geography and demographic lesson junior :p but what’s the point?
“The king of England is still the head of the Anglican Church, and it does have representation in government. In Italy saying negative things about the Catholic Church can have political ramifications, including jail time and steep fines (google Sabina Guzzanti for example). ”
Well I looked up this Italian chick and found this:
“In July 2008, in front of thousands of cheering onlookers at Piazza Navona, Rome, Guzzanti made remarks about the Pope, saying that he would end up in hell as punishment for the church’s treatment of homosexuals, saying that he would soon be “tormented by great big poofter devils – and very active ones”. Although threatened with punishments of up to five years in prison for these comments, she was not prosecuted.[7] Guzzanti discussed it on the seventh season finale of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, which was critical of the Vatican.”
Anyway what you said about England I already said, and I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to prove by citing this chick? So you found one example where a lady was almost prosecuted for talking against the Pope, um..what does that prove? That’s an example of the laws in all of “Western society” and what I was saying? It looks like you’re digging up examples.
“In Greece, the Orthodox Church alone is tax exempt, priests have pensions paid by the state, and Orthodox education is a mandatory part of the school curriculum.”
Thank God I don’t live in Greece then :p
“Sweden until recently and children had to be registered with Church approved names (not to mention that it was ILLEGAL to convert to another faith throughout the 19th century”)
Um, emphasis on “was”. I guess I can say any society exhibits a trait because it did it in the past right? Yes Sweden was highly religious 200 years ago, now it’s one of the most secular societies on the planet. That fits into my point, not yours. I don’t think you truly get the point I was trying to make.
“Argentina is still OFFICIALLY a Catholic state”
With gay marriage, so are you trying to argue it’s highly catholic there?
The requirement to be a catholic was removed. Again, you’re citing old laws from when these societies were religious. Look up “1994 amendment of the Argentine Constitution”
In fact, like a German friend of mine said, having state churches typically leads to more secular societies due to the backlash. Not that I advocate for one, absolutely not, but Norway, Iceland, Denmark even Argentina in many ways are more secular than officially secular US.
“Even India, with a mere 2-3% of the population adhering to Christianity, still numbers some 26+ million people!”
India, East Timor, Congo, Kenya, not what I think of when I think “Western societies”.
Thanks for the response Zack,
Jamie.
September 11th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Let’s see if this post actually goes through :p
To Zack:
“He seems to be another run of the mill atheist, though to be quite honest, choosing the name of Roland’s sword would go a bit more in line with the anti-Muslim crowd, no?”
In what way? My use of it doesn’t even come from the legend of Roland, it comes from the old Mac FPS called Marathon
. I just use it because it’s a cool screen name. It’s a common screen name and it’s been used in various books, movies, video games, etc. No one said I’m original.
“Durandal, in an earlier post on this site, you claimed that one of the big differences between the Muslim world and the ‘Christian countries’ is that the latter were mostly secular. It seems a rather astounding bias, not only given the fact that there are fundamentalist groups with political clout in the US, Australia and yes even England, but also because you are making the mistake of conflating ‘western’ and ‘Christianity.’”
Well saying that there are “fundamentalist groups” (fundamentalist of what, and how much power and clout, and what goals?) proves they those specific countries are not more secular is like saying because there are secular advocacy groups in places like Pakistan and Iran, they are secular. I think you see the problem with that.
Anyway, the UK? While it doesn’t have an officially secular government, it’s population and values largely are secular. Yes they have a leftover state church from long ago, but so does Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland and I don’t think you’re going to argue that they are a very religious population. The UK has a religiously plural government, which allows religions to have a degree of autonomy and even religious law, but that doesn’t make it a Christian country, that makes it..a religiously plural country.
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org wiki Religion_in_europe#Religiosity
The UK, 71 percent of people don’t view religion as important. I don’t mean atheist when I say secular, I mean secular. As in decisions in peoples lives not being based on religion, and people not giving a crap about religion, just like my family.
Australia? Well it does have a number of semi-influential religious groups the two major parties cowtail too, but they aren’t highly influential on society.
“Australia is one of the least religious nations in the developed world, with religion not described as a central part in many people’s lives.[79] This view is especially prominent among Australia’s youth, who were ranked as the least religious worldwide in a 2008 survey conducted by The Christian Science Monitor.[80] As of the 2006 census there are 3,706,555 people in Australia categorised by the ABS as having “No Religion”. This category includes just four named subcategories, namely agnosticism, atheism, Humanism and rationalism. A fifth sub-category is “No Religion, nfd” (nfd=no further definition).”
The US, well you almost got me there, we tend to have a more religious population than the rest of the West (well it depends on where you are. In Vermont that’s not going to be the case, or in Orange County where I live) but even then, the religious attendance rate is quite low, and most peoples lives are not guided by religion. Even the fundie whackjobs are going to strip clubs and partying like crazy.
Anyway, my point wasn’t even about attitudes, it was about the law. “The West” has secular laws and increasingly secular cultures. while most muslim countries do not.
I don’t conflate Christianity with “Western” so no. I don’t think Christianity is more conductive of a secular society, the only reason these mostly Christian majority nations are secular societies is because the secular movements tempered and took away Christianities power. I was also including Japan by the way, which has nothing to do with Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o68qeq29UU4&feature=channel_video_title A very brief video which contrast the two societies, if you want to lump them into two societies on opposites anyway.
“One of the particular conceits made by many atheists is that while all religions are false, their own culture is worthy of a certain degree of consideration.”
I’m not sure what this means? I’m for a secular democratic culture and I think that’s worthy of a degree of consideration. I’m not sure what you mean by “my own culture”? My own culture doesn’t include religion, but I really don’t know what you mean.
“Were we to go around the globe, Christianity is the dominant religion in most of Europe, the UK, North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Russia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and indeed even parts of India and Indonesia!”
Thanks for the geography and demographic lesson junior :p but what’s the point?
“The king of England is still the head of the Anglican Church, and it does have representation in government. In Italy saying negative things about the Catholic Church can have political ramifications, including jail time and steep fines (google Sabina Guzzanti for example). ”
Well I looked up this Italian chick and found this:
“In July 2008, in front of thousands of cheering onlookers at Piazza Navona, Rome, Guzzanti made remarks about the Pope, saying that he would end up in hell as punishment for the church’s treatment of homosexuals, saying that he would soon be “tormented by great big poofter devils – and very active ones”. Although threatened with punishments of up to five years in prison for these comments, she was not prosecuted.[7] Guzzanti discussed it on the seventh season finale of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, which was critical of the Vatican.”
Anyway what you said about England I already said, and I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to prove by citing this chick? So you found one example where a lady was almost prosecuted for talking against the Pope, um..what does that prove? That’s an example of the laws in all of “Western society” and what I was saying? It looks like you’re digging up examples.
“In Greece, the Orthodox Church alone is tax exempt, priests have pensions paid by the state, and Orthodox education is a mandatory part of the school curriculum.”
Thank God I don’t live in Greece then :p
“Sweden until recently and children had to be registered with Church approved names (not to mention that it was ILLEGAL to convert to another faith throughout the 19th century”)
Um, emphasis on “was”. I guess I can say any society exhibits a trait because it did it in the past right? Yes Sweden was highly religious 200 years ago, now it’s one of the most secular societies on the planet. That fits into my point, not yours. I don’t think you truly get the point I was trying to make.
“Argentina is still OFFICIALLY a Catholic state”
With gay marriage, so are you trying to argue it’s highly catholic there?
The requirement to be a catholic was removed. Again, you’re citing old laws from when these societies were religious. Look up “1994 amendment of the Argentine Constitution”
In fact, like a German friend of mine said, having state churches typically leads to more secular societies due to the backlash. Not that I advocate for one, absolutely not, but Norway, Iceland, Denmark even Argentina in many ways are more secular than officially secular US.
“Even India, with a mere 2-3% of the population adhering to Christianity, still numbers some 26+ million people!”
India, East Timor, Congo, Kenya, not what I think of when I think “Western societies”.
Thanks for the response Zack,
Jamie.
September 11th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Durandal aka ProgressivePost is probably the Cassidy of old (who also went by Percy, Petro, Barry Landon, and so on), as indicated by his writing style, endless “rebuttals” and blatant copy/pastes.
Perhaps next time you could post under a single moniker so that no one has to bother with your pointless and endless flame wars?
September 11th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
@Skhan: Such ‘debates’ are largely a waste of your time as it is just someone copy and pasting, however feel free to email me if you ever need a hand at some point.
Durandal, the above is an example of what I was talking about r.e. there being anti-Muslim groups out there that are organized. They often organize themselves via Yahoo and Facebook.
Do carry on, I’ve flicked through the thread a few times and, yes, it is ‘interesting’ to an extent.
September 11th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
^thanks Jack. I’ll keep that in mind.
September 11th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
I read some of your comments… and I can see that doing such ‘debates’ doesn’t do you much good. You unfortunately rapidly spiraled down to their level of name calling (though you never went totally to their level) and engaged in their illogical ‘arguments’. Again, it’s really not worth your time to try ‘talking’ to such people.
Maybe I can help, my address is on my site; jackcope@bandofstrangers.org
September 11th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
^thanks jack. I’ll control my “language”.
September 11th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
@Jack Cope: I decided to leave. out of 179 comments, only 2 were worth refuting. The whole discussion was going in circles. I’m surprised I didn’t lose any IQ points just talking to those people.
@Loonwatch: if this (http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TODHRGMHN9UDAF319) is what Bob and pammy’s typical audiences are like, I assure you, Islam is safe. It was kind of like talking to a brick wall: It starts out fun, but after a while it gets boring. You’ll enjoy it. The trolls had no evidence to back up their claims, were definitely subscribers to the Web of Hate, and found racist slurs hilarious. If Haram PorKKK, Jingo Bob, Eternal, Deccal, Durandal, and any of the other trolls on this site are looking for friends, there are tons of them waiting for you.
September 11th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Hey my comments went through :p I guess I can take back what I said about this place.
“Durandal aka ProgressivePost is probably the Cassidy of old (who also went by Percy, Petro, Barry Landon, and so on), as indicated by his writing style, endless “rebuttals” and blatant copy/pastes.
Perhaps next time you could post under a single moniker so that no one has to bother with your pointless and endless flame wars?”
If only I had access to peoples IP addresses here, I could show you how paranoid you are. I guess my big flaw is I don’t like giving people the last word. But seriously, you just don’t like me for disagreeing what you said so you ride me off as a troll. Because no one could possibly disagree with you, because you know, your logic is so sound :p
September 11th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
“Durandal, the above is an example of what I was talking about r.e. there being anti-Muslim groups out there that are organized. They often organize themselves via Yahoo and Facebook.”
“Web of Hate”
Yes because I’ve said such hateful things here :p Seriously, does simply disagreeing with your religious beliefs and apologetic behavior constitute hate? You must not get along well in society, unless you live in an insular community where everyone is just like you.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:13 am
Skhan,
I tried reading through it; its brave of you to go into the shark and alligator infested waters but I think its not worth it. These people and the Durandal chap here have their minds made up. They are not here to learn about Islam. They hate Islam with a vengeance and InshAllah their hate will consume them to such an extent that they can harm only themselves with it. I do notice that these Islamophobes hate the world Allah so heres a Allah u Akbar for them
Allah is Great and Muhammad is the best!
September 12th, 2011 at 1:27 am
“have their minds made up. ”
Who has their minds made up, the people arguing and forming their views based on facts, or those who dismiss things out of hand because it goes against their preconceptions?
“I do notice that these Islamophobes hate the world”
“They hate Islam”
“hate”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but what have I said that’s hateful? Seriously, is being criticized your definition of hateful? Do you people live in some sort of bubble where anyone outside of it hates you and conspires to stick a knife in your back?
September 12th, 2011 at 1:44 am
I am currently studying for a Masters in Islamic Studies with a view to proceed to a doctrate as a part of my comparative religious studies ( i have read masters in Christianity/Judaisim, Buddhism and Jainism as of now). In relation to Islam since this site has a lot of muslims and muslimahs i have, following that i am currently, writing an essay on:
1) What is the ruling of Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi and Maliki schools of Sharia on the matter of a father killing a child?
2) What is the sunni doctrine of “people not subject to retribution”?
3) Is there an equivalent legal doctrine in the common law of west or east?
This is one of the topics in a wider dissertation on Islamic Law (Sharia) and Common law.
It would be interesting to see the understanding of muslims on this topic.
September 12th, 2011 at 2:26 am
@ NulliusinVerba:
Your very starting point will lead you down the wrong path. You have accepted, it seems (although I may be mistaken–just going by the way you worded your comment), the classification of the Sunni Muslim world into Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi’i, and Maliki schools. This classification scheme is outdated, archaic, and unhelpful. I will write an article on this topic later.
September 12th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
@Durandal, I feel sad for you. There you are researching all these articles on Islam and slavery but please tell us what is your motive? What is it that you are trying to achieve by giving us endless Wikipedia references to back up your claims on what Islam says about slavery.
Are you trying to find holes in Islam or do you not like Islam. I am a proud Muslim and hate slavery full stop, Allah has showered me with mercy and guidance and I am very grateful to Him. There is no way an enemy of Islam can change my belief. Why don’t you explore a little bit of what our prophet had to go through just to survive, you know from a Muslim perspective. Is that taking too much of your time?
September 12th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
@Danios
You are correct. Actually that was my first resposne to my faculty chair. I got brushed off. My faculty Chair, Director of Program and my Supervisor insisted that to get proper grounding in Sharia, the recomended paths must be followed (they qouted Al Azhar and also the Saudi Fiqh council (i might be qouting the wrong word here)) and as my Chair of faculty is member of various Arab religious body’s my argument that I should be allowed to develop my thesis from primariy source (Quran sharif, Bukhari and Muslim (for sahih sitta), Tabari (for tarikh), Ishaq/hisham (for sira) plus original tafseers was rejected by the academic committee.
So i am stuck with using secondary sources of the 4 schools of Sunni jusrispudence and some reliance on Fatwa’s/rulings by Al Azhar, Saudi Ulema and surprisingly for me Deoband School from India.
Any new way to review the Quran based on Arabic textual analysis and or hadiths outside of the designated sahih hadiths is not permitted. My local imams also sided with the council. So i am in a straight jacket in that sense.
I am hoping that by the 4th year my classical arabic will be good enough for me to review some ancient source materials myself. Till such time i have to go my the course advisors.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
@NulliusinVerba
Perhaps this article can help? It’s a short response to an anti-Islamic polemic, actually, and admittedly not very scholarly. It provides a quote from the Shafi’I madhab (saying that parents who kill their children aren’t subject to legal retribution) and another quote from a Maliki mukhtassar (saying that parents are to be punished for killing their children). These views are apparently opposites; further complicating the matter is that the article seems to imply that not everyone in the particular school themselves agreed on the matter.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
NulliusinVerba: Any new way to review the Quran based on Arabic textual analysis and or hadiths outside of the designated sahih hadiths is not permitted. My local imams also sided with the council. So i am in a straight jacket in that sense.
What is the name of your university/institution?
September 13th, 2011 at 2:30 am
@ NassirH – thank you for your link. I have already got a significant collection of the opinions of the good professor. I am also looking to collect views of imams etc and not just “western” based academics. The idea is to get some sort of a “common law” position. Nevertheless, i thank you.
@IbnAbutalib – I am sorry that I am unable to reveal this on an open thread. Suffice to say I will be spending time (6 months) at Al Azhar and (3 months) at QoM, plus hopefully some time in Saudi Arabia.
University is a Western Islamic studies centre.
September 13th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“I feel sad for you. There you are researching all these articles on Islam and slavery but please tell us what is your motive?”
You feel sad for me doing research? :p Don’t, I’m a book worm. I’m the only person in my research class who actually likes research. Anyway, I haven’t done heavy research on it, I did very lite research (Islam is not my favorite topic, religion as a whole isn’t really either) and still was able to come to the facts.
“Are you trying to find holes in Islam or do you not like Islam.”
I’m not trying to “find holes” in Islam anymore than you guys try to find holes in Christianity when you make articles about the Bible…unless you are, in which case I’m still not trying to find flaws, I’m just stating the facts.
“What is it that you are trying to achieve by giving us endless Wikipedia references to back up your claims on what Islam says about slavery. ”
I thought it was endless YouTube videos loaded with sources to look up at a library or google books. I think I’m the only guy left who checks out the sources of things, at my local library no less. When I write papers, I don’t even use google scholar or any of that stuff, I do it the old fashioned way.
“an enemy of Islam can change my belief.”
I have no intention to change your belief. In fact, my conversion rate is zero and I want it to stay that way. I don’t really think very religious people would make good atheist and agnostics, they tend to become annoying people like Richard Dawkins.
“Why don’t you explore a little bit of what our prophet had to go through just to survive, you know from a Muslim perspective. Is that taking too much of your time?”
How do you mean by that?
I don’t know why you guys think I hate muslims or want to make your lives living hell.
September 13th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
@Danny boy,
As expected, you have nothing to show I’ve ever called for violence against Ahmedis and “Muslim liberals.” So like a pathetic embarrassed maggot you try to shift goalposts and play semantic games. Is it true that you’re convicted sex offender? You’re a joke without a punch line, troll.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
^
Who would have known there would be so much drama here.
September 25th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Great post from @Michael Elwood, at Sept 11th, 2011 at 10:22 a.m
Thanks Michael, its very informative, comprehensive study and i totally agree with it. Though without disrespect or disregard to other commenters, i think that specific post of yours made the most sense in this whole interesting yet messy discussion.
To @1001, please lay off the extreme Salafi/Wahhabi sites and their patriarchal and mysoginitic interpretations or translations of our primary and secondary texts.
September 25th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
“To @1001, please lay off the extreme Salafi/Wahhabi sites and their patriarchal and mysoginitic interpretations or translations of our primary and secondary texts”
All I know is that he/she is definitely using sites that contradicts what’s been said in the Quran and Sahih Hadith.
September 26th, 2011 at 6:10 am
You’re welcome, Sahra. Like I said in a previous post, if you’re a Muslim, the subject of Muhammad’s alleged sexual practices are going to come up again and again and again. So you might as well familiarize yourself with the subject. Many of the misconceptions that non-Muslims have about Muhammad’s life come from the misconceptions that Muslims, like Kecia Ali or the recent article by Peter Gray, have about him:
http://www.altmuslimah.com/a/b/spa/4464/
October 6th, 2011 at 9:29 am
“If only I had access to peoples IP addresses here, I could show you how paranoid you are. I guess my big flaw is I don’t like giving people the last word. But seriously, you just don’t like me for disagreeing what you said so you ride me off as a troll.”
So are you Percey or are you not? I actually wouldn’t have guessed that, but your response makes me wonder. For the record, Percey isn’t disliked for disagreeing with anyone here. He’s disliked for riding a moral high horse and his complete inability to shut up, even when proven incorrect.
October 6th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Percey keeps posting under different names and IP addresses. I just deleted some of his recent comments.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Hi shaun,Got your videos, very helpful and far better than the other rubbish i have purchased in the passed. I’m having a sticky area through getting traffic looking at my blog any help would be helpful.Thanks again for putting a useful and easy to use system together.
December 15th, 2011 at 4:17 am
AS far as I am concerned so called honour violence is the same as rape and assult . If the likes of Pam Geller aka Mrs MacBeth really wanted to do something she should address these problems closer to home http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16192494
March 1st, 2012 at 9:31 pm
I wish to dedicate a headstone to andrew breibart’s family…any suggestions what it should say?….thanx
March 30th, 2012 at 1:11 am
A teenager was jailed in the UK last week for posting comments on Twitter of a racist nature. The comments were nowhere near as bad as some of these on here!
March 30th, 2012 at 6:26 am
Your point is Jane ?
April 11th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
The article is a tad misleading. It is true that the JNF does not sell land to Arabs.
But, the JNF does not sell land to Jews either. The JNF was created with private money to be a foundation that buys land and LEASES it.
Technically speaking, their charter probably does say that they are supposed to rent to Jews. But, in practice, they do rent to Arabs as well.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_article=39&x_context=2