When I did the feature two days ago on the way various societies, including Muslim societies, oppress women, I had intended to include a section on what certain writers have been saying about the supposed condonement of rape in Islam. The actual writing comes from our favourite Islamophobe, Robert Spencer. No doubt somebody will write and suggest that I not waste my talents on debunking this sort of filth. But some of the converts to Islam on one of the email lists I subscribe to find these issues unsettling, and Spencer is in any case very close to the mainstream media.
Which is surprising for somebody whose web design is courtesy of such a lousy practitioner of the art as Charles Johnson of the infamous hate blog Little Green Footballs. He has clearly been hired for being a fellow traveller, rather than for his actual skills, because his design looks lousy on Linux. Take a look at his blog for yourself if you are reading this on Windows or the Mac; I have four screenshots of how it looks on Linux: Konqueror on Fedora Core 4, Firefox on FC4, Konqueror on SUSE 9.3, Firefox on SUSE 9.3. The wrong fonts (and the problem of the normal text being bigger than the headings) can be avoided simply by making allowances for common Linux fonts in the CSS stylesheet. (Linux is not that popular in the west, but it is increasingly so in eastern Europe, Asia and the developing world where people can't afford Microsloth's prices.)
Melanie Phillips is also an admirer of Spencer's; Spencer has called her "incomparable" and her diary "always essential reading", and she has called one of his articles on FrontPageMag.com "typically informed and thoughtful". Melanie Phillips has written for the Times and the Guardian, and currently writes a column in the Daily Mail. As we know, the Sunday Telegraph published four hate pieces by the deranged hate-monger calling himself Will Cummins, a complete literary nobody apart from his tirades last July. Spencer already boasts of his appearances in the right-wing American mass media and even (probably occasionally) the mainstream media; it may not be too long before Spencer's ideas appear in sections of the British media as well.
The accusations this piece refers to can be found in the FrontPageMag.com article Muslim Target, reproduced at Jihad Watch here. It is in response to a lawsuit against Oriana Fallaci, a vitriolically anti-Muslim Italian journalist, by one Adel Smith, who if Spencer is to be believed, has a history of "defending Islam" by launching misguided lawsuits. For example, he is reported to have sued both the late and current Pope for statements which merely asserted the superiority of their own religion; given that the popes are based in the Vatican, not in the Republic of Italy, I wonder how they'd make good the result of any such suit. Last month, he was also convicted of defaming the Catholic church himself, by calling it a "criminal association". Bear in mind that Italy has a lower standard of free speech than either the UK or the USA; there are criminal libel laws, and I have read elsewhere of someone being prosecuted for criminal defamation for saying (to the police!) that he suspected a neighbour of a campaign of harrassment.
Adel Smith numbered among Fallaci's offences her accusations about Muslim soldiers in Italy; Spencer defends her with quotes from the Reliance of the Traveller and some hadeeth. The school of thought relevant to Italy is the Maliki, as this is the school which is predominant in North Africa (except lower Egypt), from whence any invasion of Italy would have come. The school, as represented a standard text and commentary translated by A'isha Bewey, has this to say:
Killing monks and priests should be avoided unless they are involved in the fighting. Similarly, women who fight can also be killed. [Commentary: The prohibition against killing monks is not by virtue of their monasticism, because they are further from Allah because of the strength of their disbelief. They are left since the people of their deen leave them and so they are like women. Priests (rabbis) are left unless they actually fight. It is said that this refers to women and children as well. Women can be killed if they are involved in the actual fighting. Ibn 'Umar limits this to the state of fighting. When fighting is over, women are not killed. The predominant opinion is that when women fight with weapons, they can be killed during the fighting or afterwards, even if they did not fight anyone. According to the Mukhtasar, monks and nuns retain their freedom, and it is forbidden either to kill them or to reduce them to slavery.]
The Mukhtasar is likely to be Mukhtasar Khalil, an authoritative text on Maliki fiqh. What Fallaci alleges is either false, or a violation of Islamic law. Later on, Spencer moved into what took place at Thessalonica in 904 CE:
When jihadists captured Thessalonica in 904, just over twenty years after sacking Montecassino, an eyewitness recorded that âÂÂnuns, petrified with fear, with their hair disheveled, tried to escape, and ended up by the thousands in the hands of the barbarians, who killed the older ones, and sent the younger and more attractive ones into captivity and dishonor⦠The Saracens also massacred the unfortunate people who had sought refuge inside churches.âÂÂ[14] And when the children and spiritual heirs of those jihadists streamed into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, historian Steven Runciman notes that âÂÂsome of the younger nuns preferred martyrdom to dishonour and flung themselves to death down well-shafts.âÂÂ[15] It is unclear whether these sisters had been reading dastardly Islamophobic propaganda or the life of the Prophet.
Now, it does not take any scholar to realise that Montecassino is in Italy and Thessalonica is in Greece, and that the people who carried out the raids on the two places were almost certainly different groups of people. Italy would have been reached via Sicily, and Greece via Anatolia or Cyprus. As for whether "the sisters had been reading dastardly Islamophobic propaganda", the answer is most likely yes. Convents are often places where people are isolated from the outside world and may not have access to information which contradicts what the church wants them to hear. If Mother Superior had told them stories about sex-crazed Saracens who followed a "liar named Mohammed" (or some corruption on that name), it's highly likely that they would have been terrified had such people entered their land.
And besides the reputation of the Arabs, we have to ask what reputation the monks and nuns themselves had, or indeed whether the invading armies consisted entirely of Arabs or included local converts who might have known things about these monasteries and their inhabitants that we don't. While some Christian "religious" (as monastics are called) have a reputation today for good community works and even radicalism within the Church, other sections of the priesthood and the monastic orders have been known for various types of abuse of people in their care. The physical and sexual abuse of children in church-run "industrial schools" in Ireland and the regimes of the infamous "Magdalen laundries" has been widely reported; the Birmingham diocese (in England) has just been hit with a ã600,000 damages bill (that's over a million US dollars) for the sexual abuse of a boy in Coventry in the 1980s. Similar scandals have affected the American section of the church.
Bear in mind also that the monastic orders fulfilled a different function in medieval European society to that they fill today - they were common dumping grounds for younger children of wealthy families who did not want the expense of getting them married; there was also the issue of primogeniture, in which the eldest son was left everything and the others got nothing. The monastic life was not always an ascetic one; it was often culturally very rich, with the participants enjoying pretty much every pleasure except (at least officially) sex. What corruption went on in this system does not justify any orgy of rape and murder, but we should treat any account of such things happening with some circumspection. After all, the above cited Shari'ah textbook does not deal with the capture by Muslims of a monastic institution known for corruption or abuse.
Spencer elsewhere cites the Reliance and a hadeeth from Bukhari regarding the status of slaves and the right of a man to have sexual relations with a slave girl. It's worth noting here that the enslavement of people captured on the battlefield or when a place falls to an invading army was a fact of life until perhaps the 18th or 19th century; it fell into disrepute due to the mass enslavement of Africans, in many cases by methods which amounted to simple banditry. They included slaving scams which were known of even in the time of the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) such as selling into slavery people to whom you had made a promise to convey them. This is equivalent to National Express or Greyhound coach drivers selling their passengers by the side of the road - you can imagine the outrage this would cause. Added to this was the appalling conditions on the slave ships and plantations and the crude racism. The position in Islam of a slave-girl who had born her master's child are also well-known; neither she nor the child is sold, and is free when the master dies (I'm not sure if the child is free from birth or from the master's death). There could be no Jefferson / Hemmings controversy in an Islamic society.
The hadeeths do record that the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) permitted the Muslim soldiers to take slave-girls from among the populations they captured, and did so himself (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam). Spencer, however, makes this accusation:
According to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, when MuhammadâÂÂs men emerged victorious in another battle, they presented him with an ethical question: âÂÂWe took women captives, and we wanted to do âÂÂazl [coitus interruptus] with them.â Muhammad told them: âÂÂIt is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.âÂÂâÂÂ[13] When Muhammad said âÂÂit is better that you should not do it,â he was referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He took that for granted.
Spencer assumes, without any evidence, that the relations the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them) had with their mates was rape and that the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) encouraged rape. He has absolutely no proof of this - he is simply assuming the worst. "Come on, it must have been." Well, that sort of reasoning won't convince a jury, except perhaps the worst type of redneck jury. The motto seems to be "think dirty" - and as demonstrated by recent events in the UK, in which cot deaths were investigated by people working on precisely that motto, a "think dirty" attitude does not produce just or truthful outcomes.
Now, I have come across Muslims who apparently lack the ability to give the Salaf the benefit of the doubt on such a serious accusation as this. It should be noted that Islam does not encourage the rape of wives or slave-girls. The Deobandi Hanafi mufti Muhammad bin Adam al-Kawthari, in response to a question on whether a husband may force himself on a wife if she is unwilling, replied:
Imam al-Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his commentary on the Hadith of Abu Huraira stated above: âÂÂThis Hadith indicates that it is unlawful (haram) for the wife to refuse her husband for sexual intimacy without a valid reason. Menstruation will not be considered a valid reason, for the husband has a right to enjoy her from above the garment (on top of cloths).â (Sharh Sahih Muslim, P. 1084) However, this does not in any way mean that the husband may force himself over her for sexual gratification. The Hadith mentions that, âÂÂthe husband spends the night in anger or being displeased,â which clearly shows that he must restrain himself from forcing himself over her. Had this not been the case, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) would have advised the husband to gain his right in a forceful manner.
Given the copious amount of material that exists on the duties and rights of married women, I must point out here that I've never seen any reference to the duties of a slave in Islam, other than not to run away. For example, here is a passage from the Reliance of the Traveller, in the section "Holding One's Tongue", which is edited from a book by Imam Nawawi (Durubi is the late Syrian Shafi'i shaikh Abdul-Wakeel Durubi):
It is offensive to contend against the words of anyone with authority over one, or talk back, oppose, rebut, or disobey such a person in anything lawful [Durubi: meaning not unlawful or offensive], the prohibition applying to such people as a follower with his leader, son with his parents, student with his teacher, wife with her husband, or unlearned person with a scholar.
Note that "a slave with his master" is not mentioned in this. (Shaikh Nuh Keller, has not translated pieces relating to slavery given its lack of relevance in our time, but he has not said that he has removed them from the Arabic.) I do not mean by this that a slave has no duty whatever, but Islamic texts I have read do not dwell over it. In fact, sections on slaves are mostly given headings to do with freeing slaves, rather than with slavery.
Other accounts demonstrate that the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) did not force himself on unwilling wives: the book by Ibn Abi Zaid al-Qairawaani translated by Abdas-Samad Clarke as A Madinan View (Ta Ha, London, 1419/1999) states that the he (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) divorced two women who sought refuge from him when they entered in upon him. Bear in mind, these were obviously non-Muslims. But there are numerous reports demonstrating the good character the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) showed to people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, and to both animals and even plants. There is also a famous hadeeth in which he (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) admonished one of his Companions (who, as I recall, was departing to Yemen for da'wah purposes) to beware of the du'a of the oppressed, as there is no barrier between it and Allah.
New Muslims especially should beware of making the same assumptions about the Salaf that the enemies of Islam do. Our duty is to give people the benefit of the doubt; we do not form opinions of people based on mere assumption, and we should especially guard ourselves about being swayed by the assumptions and aspersions of those whose hatred of Islam is clearly manifested in their published works. (Spencer cannot persuade any respectable publisher to publish his books.) There are ample books on the character of the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) which should be resorted to if we are disturbed by scurrilous filth. Causing distress to an animal is forbidden in Islam; harming a person without need is also forbidden. Rape is harmful and the distress it causes is well-known, even if it is not covered by the adultery laws when the victim is a wife or slave-girl. As the fatwa quoted above demonstrates, Islam does not condone rape. And Allah Most High knows best.
Great post Yusuf. Its the height of hypocrisy that Spencer and the rest of slime crew condones kidnapping, detainment, killing, torture and rape when its in their favor eg Gitmo and Abu Ghareeb, yet have an issue with us on woman.
Great post Yusuf. Its the height of hypocrisy that Spencer and the rest of slime crew condones kidnapping, detainment, killing, torture and rape when its in their favor eg Gitmo and Abu Ghareeb, yet have an issue with us on woman.
'the prohibition applying to such people as a follower with his leader, son with his parents, student with his teacher, wife with her husband, or unlearned person with a scholar.'
The fact that wives are in the same relation to husbands as 'unlearned people' to scholars demonstrates clearly the backward, misogynistic nature of this so-called religion. The fact that you don't even notice this speaks volumes about Muslim attitudes to women.
Islam is the most oppressive force on women in the world today. The world, especially the female half, would be better off without it.
'the prohibition applying to such people as a follower with his leader, son with his parents, student with his teacher, wife with her husband, or unlearned person with a scholar.'
The fact that wives are in the same relation to husbands as 'unlearned people' to scholars demonstrates clearly the backward, misogynistic nature of this so-called religion. The fact that you don't even notice this speaks volumes about Muslim attitudes to women.
Islam is the most oppressive force on women in the world today. The world, especially the female half, would be better off without it.
Hey, are you okay? I hope that you are. I heard about the bombings this morning on radio. May Allah grant you safety.
Hey, are you okay? I hope that you are. I heard about the bombings this morning on radio. May Allah grant you safety.
Thanks for the post. Everytime the slave girl issue came to my mind, I used to remember that Allah will have power over us on the Day of Judgement. But thanks for 'saying it out loud'! May Allah bless you.
Thanks for the post. Everytime the slave girl issue came to my mind, I used to remember that Allah will have power over us on the Day of Judgement. But thanks for 'saying it out loud'! May Allah bless you.
Asalamu ALiakum,
Hope you're safe Yusuf. And Cat, its clear you're an idiot. Most converts to Islam are females...so much for the "oppresive" religion hyperbole. Perhaps the events in London have clouded what little brains you had.
Asalamu ALiakum,
Hope you're safe Yusuf. And Cat, its clear you're an idiot. Most converts to Islam are females...so much for the "oppresive" religion hyperbole. Perhaps the events in London have clouded what little brains you had.
Thanks for that intelligent responce Kitty Cat. It goes to show how diseased your bigoted mind is. Its obvious to me that your intelligence is certainly defiecient. Classic orientalism on display here folks.
Sorry moron, I work in a hospital, our interest is in saving lives not taking them., so no I am not pleased about the events in London, unlike your cheerleading for the slaughter of innocent iraqis. Thats the difference between us you vile hypocrite.
Thanks for that intelligent responce Kitty Cat. It goes to show how diseased your bigoted mind is. Its obvious to me that your intelligence is certainly defiecient. Classic orientalism on display here folks.
Sorry moron, I work in a hospital, our interest is in saving lives not taking them., so no I am not pleased about the events in London, unlike your cheerleading for the slaughter of innocent iraqis. Thats the difference between us you vile hypocrite.
Well, I noticed that my post has been deleted. That's the thing about Islam - it can't take criticism. This post will probably be deleted too.
The reason why the West is so superior to the Muslim world that all you Muslims want to live here, is that it is self critical. We looked at our attitudes to women and found them wanting. Muslims won't hear any criticism of their religion and its attitude to women, slaves, non-Muslims and so Muslim countries are stuck in the 7th century.
Dr M, can you explain why, if Islam is so good for women, Mohammed said they are deficient in intelligence? Why the wife, in the extract quoted above , is in the role of unlearned person while the husband is a 'scholar'?
Your choice. Answer or delete. In the West, we answer criticisms and develop and move on. You Muslims silence them, delete posts, delete people. Can you rise to my challenge and answer my question, or are you just going to take refuge in abuse/deleting valid criticisms?
Well, I noticed that my post has been deleted. That's the thing about Islam - it can't take criticism. This post will probably be deleted too.
The reason why the West is so superior to the Muslim world that all you Muslims want to live here, is that it is self critical. We looked at our attitudes to women and found them wanting. Muslims won't hear any criticism of their religion and its attitude to women, slaves, non-Muslims and so Muslim countries are stuck in the 7th century.
Dr M, can you explain why, if Islam is so good for women, Mohammed said they are deficient in intelligence? Why the wife, in the extract quoted above , is in the role of unlearned person while the husband is a 'scholar'?
Your choice. Answer or delete. In the West, we answer criticisms and develop and move on. You Muslims silence them, delete posts, delete people. Can you rise to my challenge and answer my question, or are you just going to take refuge in abuse/deleting valid criticisms?
Why the wife, in the extract quoted above , is in the role of unlearned person while the husband is a âÂÂscholarâÂÂ?
I'm not going to go into this much, but they are presented as examples of people with others of relative authority. It does not mean that a wife is the equivalent of an "unlearned person" and the husband of a scholar; it means that it is offensive for one to make argument with the other. It concerns petty things, not correcting lies or backbiting or serious misinformation, for example.
I deleted your earlier comment because it was insulting and the language is inappropriate, as clearly stated on my "About" page. I do not delete comments I disagree with, but rather offensive comments.
Why the wife, in the extract quoted above , is in the role of unlearned person while the husband is a âÂÂscholarâÂÂ?
I'm not going to go into this much, but they are presented as examples of people with others of relative authority. It does not mean that a wife is the equivalent of an "unlearned person" and the husband of a scholar; it means that it is offensive for one to make argument with the other. It concerns petty things, not correcting lies or backbiting or serious misinformation, for example.
I deleted your earlier comment because it was insulting and the language is inappropriate, as clearly stated on my "About" page. I do not delete comments I disagree with, but rather offensive comments.
Trouble is kitty cat, you dont have valid criticisms...you're a feeble racist hiding behind the internet. The ranks of the BNP seem filled with twits like these. If all these lies were true why would the majority of converts to Islam be females ? If the west is so superior why is Islam flourishing there ?
Oh the west is superior alright.....just take a look at he carnage in Iraq. Perfect example of the superiority of liars, criminals and mass murderers. Huntington pinned the tail on the donkey when he said that western "values" were spread through the use of organized violence.
Trouble is kitty cat, you dont have valid criticisms...you're a feeble racist hiding behind the internet. The ranks of the BNP seem filled with twits like these. If all these lies were true why would the majority of converts to Islam be females ? If the west is so superior why is Islam flourishing there ?
Oh the west is superior alright.....just take a look at he carnage in Iraq. Perfect example of the superiority of liars, criminals and mass murderers. Huntington pinned the tail on the donkey when he said that western "values" were spread through the use of organized violence.
Well surprise surprise, Dr M has not answered my question. So I'll repeat it. It's very simple.
Dr M, can you explain why, if Islam is so good for women, Mohammed said they are deficient in intelligence? Why the wife, in the extract quoted above , is in the role of unlearned person while the husband is a âÂÂscholarâÂÂ?
If you answer this question, you may change my mind about Islam. Do you think that women are deficient in intelligence compared to men? This is what Mohammed said, but in my view he said it because he was a bit stupid.
Well surprise surprise, Dr M has not answered my question. So I'll repeat it. It's very simple.
Dr M, can you explain why, if Islam is so good for women, Mohammed said they are deficient in intelligence? Why the wife, in the extract quoted above , is in the role of unlearned person while the husband is a âÂÂscholarâÂÂ?
If you answer this question, you may change my mind about Islam. Do you think that women are deficient in intelligence compared to men? This is what Mohammed said, but in my view he said it because he was a bit stupid.
"You Muslims silence them, delete posts, delete people."
*Tapping fingers, whistling dixie...*
Cat, sweetie, are you by chance an Arabic linguist? A religious scholar?
Because we all know about those English translations.
Moving on...
"You Muslims silence them, delete posts, delete people."
*Tapping fingers, whistling dixie...*
Cat, sweetie, are you by chance an Arabic linguist? A religious scholar?
Because we all know about those English translations.
Moving on...
cncz - care to elaborate? What is the correct translation of Mohammed's words, then? That women and men are equal in intelligence? Please tell. Does the Arabic say that men are deficient in intelligence to women? Mohammed was certainly deficient in intelligence compared with me, that's for sure. I would never say anything as stupid as the idea that the sun sets in a muddy pond. And many Muslim men are deficient in intelligence - that's why they have to keep women down.
And you haven't answered my question - in the above quotation, why is the wife in the role of 'unlearned person' while the husband is in the role of scholar. Can you answer that?
No, you see, you simply can't, without admitting that Islam treats women as inferior to men. At least have the honesty to admit this.
cncz - care to elaborate? What is the correct translation of Mohammed's words, then? That women and men are equal in intelligence? Please tell. Does the Arabic say that men are deficient in intelligence to women? Mohammed was certainly deficient in intelligence compared with me, that's for sure. I would never say anything as stupid as the idea that the sun sets in a muddy pond. And many Muslim men are deficient in intelligence - that's why they have to keep women down.
And you haven't answered my question - in the above quotation, why is the wife in the role of 'unlearned person' while the husband is in the role of scholar. Can you answer that?
No, you see, you simply can't, without admitting that Islam treats women as inferior to men. At least have the honesty to admit this.
'IâÂÂm not going to go into this much, but they are presented as examples of people with others of relative authority'
So a husband has authority over a wife then? On what grounds? Men do not know any better than women. This is sexism, pure and simple. It is disgusting to treat half the human race as inferior. Not to mention neanderthal.
The reason why the Islamic world is so backward, and why Muslims consistently underachieve, is that they regard half the population as inferior.
Why is it wrong for a wife to argue with her husband? He may be wrong and she may be right. But Islam can't accept this, because in Islam, women are inferior to men.
Suppose the wife has a degree and the husband is illiterate. (Not inconceivable, where, say, British Muslim women are forced or pressured into marrying a cousin from back 'home'.) Would he still be right? How backward.
At least you've been honest - you think that husbands know better than wives. And that is why your religion is such a complete failure in the modern world.
You deleted my comment because it was 'offensive'? Well, the truth hurts, doesn't it?
'IâÂÂm not going to go into this much, but they are presented as examples of people with others of relative authority'
So a husband has authority over a wife then? On what grounds? Men do not know any better than women. This is sexism, pure and simple. It is disgusting to treat half the human race as inferior. Not to mention neanderthal.
The reason why the Islamic world is so backward, and why Muslims consistently underachieve, is that they regard half the population as inferior.
Why is it wrong for a wife to argue with her husband? He may be wrong and she may be right. But Islam can't accept this, because in Islam, women are inferior to men.
Suppose the wife has a degree and the husband is illiterate. (Not inconceivable, where, say, British Muslim women are forced or pressured into marrying a cousin from back 'home'.) Would he still be right? How backward.
At least you've been honest - you think that husbands know better than wives. And that is why your religion is such a complete failure in the modern world.
You deleted my comment because it was 'offensive'? Well, the truth hurts, doesn't it?
Kitty litter is as usual revealing his/her stupidity. This moron is upset at the events in London and trying to unload here. This explain his/her line that I was "pleased" with the loss of life. An irrational hate monger high on Islamophobia. Yusuf has answered your queries, so can you explain to me why Islam is the fastest spreading religion in the West ? And why woman are the majority of its converts ? I've asked you this twice and like the spineless coward that you are you have failed to answer. All this concern for Muslim womans rights from the same subhuman scum which cheers for war and torture.....yeah thats real consistent with human rights. Imbecile.
Yet another proof of that hypocrisy, racism, ignorance and stupidity are a fatal combo.
Kitty litter is as usual revealing his/her stupidity. This moron is upset at the events in London and trying to unload here. This explain his/her line that I was "pleased" with the loss of life. An irrational hate monger high on Islamophobia. Yusuf has answered your queries, so can you explain to me why Islam is the fastest spreading religion in the West ? And why woman are the majority of its converts ? I've asked you this twice and like the spineless coward that you are you have failed to answer. All this concern for Muslim womans rights from the same subhuman scum which cheers for war and torture.....yeah thats real consistent with human rights. Imbecile.
Yet another proof of that hypocrisy, racism, ignorance and stupidity are a fatal combo.
Just look back at your post with a critical eye. There are at least ten grammatical mistakes. Muslims are not the brightest of people. As to why women convert to this idiotic religion, I have no idea, but the penalties for apostacy, up to and including death may give a clue as to why many cannot openly convert from it to a normal one.
You haven't answered my question because you cannot, short of acknowledging that Islam regards women as inferior to men. Yusuf at least partially acknowledged this, but you, DM, seem incapable of anything more than semi-literate rants. If ever proof is needed that women are more intelligent than men, the contrasts between our two posts would provide it. This undermines the whole premise of Islam, built as the latter is on male superiority.
Stay in the 7th century where you and your co-religionists belong.
Just look back at your post with a critical eye. There are at least ten grammatical mistakes. Muslims are not the brightest of people. As to why women convert to this idiotic religion, I have no idea, but the penalties for apostacy, up to and including death may give a clue as to why many cannot openly convert from it to a normal one.
You haven't answered my question because you cannot, short of acknowledging that Islam regards women as inferior to men. Yusuf at least partially acknowledged this, but you, DM, seem incapable of anything more than semi-literate rants. If ever proof is needed that women are more intelligent than men, the contrasts between our two posts would provide it. This undermines the whole premise of Islam, built as the latter is on male superiority.
Stay in the 7th century where you and your co-religionists belong.
Yawn...so now its down to nitpicking grammatical errors. What else is there to when you cant even make a coherent argument ? A typical feeble minded Islamophobic cretin living in the dark age of ignorance. Europeans apparently havent progressed much from that crusader mindset. The same old criminal and racist mindset so typical of the species.
Yawn...so now its down to nitpicking grammatical errors. What else is there to when you cant even make a coherent argument ? A typical feeble minded Islamophobic cretin living in the dark age of ignorance. Europeans apparently havent progressed much from that crusader mindset. The same old criminal and racist mindset so typical of the species.
No Cat, the West is superior to the Middle East for reasons that are nothing to do with Islam. At the time of Islam's initial meteoric rise, there was approximate population parity between the two civilizations. However, because much of the Islamic land was barren desert, while the Western lands were highly productive, the West soon gained a numerical advantage. The only reason why Middle Easterners often posed a military threat to the West was because the Middle East was often politically monolithic, while the West has never been monolithic since the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
As the Kharijites and later the Wahhabis so aptly demonstrate, peoples of the barren desert tend to be violently intolerant. The best Islamic societies were places like Al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire, located in more temperate climes.
The other thing that made the West better was industrialization. To start an industrial civilization you need coal and iron ore, neither of which are found in abundance in any Islamic land. Sure the Islamic lands have loads of oil, but oil is almost useless unless it is refined, and thus is mainly only meant for civilizations which have already made the leap to industrialization.
If the Muslims had won the battle of Tours, Europeans would have probably still colonized the Middle East eventually - the only difference is that the Europeans would have been Muslims too...
No Cat, the West is superior to the Middle East for reasons that are nothing to do with Islam. At the time of Islam's initial meteoric rise, there was approximate population parity between the two civilizations. However, because much of the Islamic land was barren desert, while the Western lands were highly productive, the West soon gained a numerical advantage. The only reason why Middle Easterners often posed a military threat to the West was because the Middle East was often politically monolithic, while the West has never been monolithic since the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
As the Kharijites and later the Wahhabis so aptly demonstrate, peoples of the barren desert tend to be violently intolerant. The best Islamic societies were places like Al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire, located in more temperate climes.
The other thing that made the West better was industrialization. To start an industrial civilization you need coal and iron ore, neither of which are found in abundance in any Islamic land. Sure the Islamic lands have loads of oil, but oil is almost useless unless it is refined, and thus is mainly only meant for civilizations which have already made the leap to industrialization.
If the Muslims had won the battle of Tours, Europeans would have probably still colonized the Middle East eventually - the only difference is that the Europeans would have been Muslims too...
More trash from the Islamophobic kitty litter. A true hypocrite who insults others and then claims to be the victim. BTW idiot, Yusuf did reply to your questions.Your sweeping generalizations about Islam and Muslims clearly demonstrate a deep seated hatred which only come from a bigoted mind. Your comments about me being supposedly pleased with the London terrorist attacks clearly demonstrates that you are an uninformed idiot.
More trash from the Islamophobic kitty litter. A true hypocrite who insults others and then claims to be the victim. BTW idiot, Yusuf did reply to your questions.Your sweeping generalizations about Islam and Muslims clearly demonstrate a deep seated hatred which only come from a bigoted mind. Your comments about me being supposedly pleased with the London terrorist attacks clearly demonstrates that you are an uninformed idiot.
Well, George Carty, that, at least is a coherent, rational argument, even though I don't agree with it.
DrM cannot progress beyond insults. Neither he, nor Yusuf has answered the point about the second class citizenship of women within Islam and the consequent paralysis of the development of Islamic civilisation.
When Islam first expanded by conquest - Islam was a vehicle for Arab imperialism - it took over more advanced civilisations. There was a relatively brief flourishing of so-called Islamic civilisation, but once the fructifying influence of the dhimmi population ceased to be felt, Islamic civilisation declined, as it inevitably would. It has never recovered. No original thinking has come out of the Muslim world in the last thousand years.
Sad.
Well, George Carty, that, at least is a coherent, rational argument, even though I don't agree with it.
DrM cannot progress beyond insults. Neither he, nor Yusuf has answered the point about the second class citizenship of women within Islam and the consequent paralysis of the development of Islamic civilisation.
When Islam first expanded by conquest - Islam was a vehicle for Arab imperialism - it took over more advanced civilisations. There was a relatively brief flourishing of so-called Islamic civilisation, but once the fructifying influence of the dhimmi population ceased to be felt, Islamic civilisation declined, as it inevitably would. It has never recovered. No original thinking has come out of the Muslim world in the last thousand years.
Sad.
Your comments about me being supposedly pleased with the London terrorist attacks clearly demonstrates that you are an uninformed idiot.
I apologise unreservedly for that comment, which was made in haste and when I was upset. I'm sorry, it was uncalled for.
I stand by everything else I've said above, none of which you have managed to refute.
Your comments about me being supposedly pleased with the London terrorist attacks clearly demonstrates that you are an uninformed idiot.
I apologise unreservedly for that comment, which was made in haste and when I was upset. I'm sorry, it was uncalled for.
I stand by everything else I've said above, none of which you have managed to refute.
I think all your comments are based on hasty generalizations kitty litter. This is common amongst people suffering from Islamphobia. Yusuf answered your questions and you know it.
I think all your comments are based on hasty generalizations kitty litter. This is common amongst people suffering from Islamphobia. Yusuf answered your questions and you know it.
I actually shouldn't have commented in the first place--
you can't argue with someone who has made up their mind beforehand, and you can't appeal to the intellect of someone who...well. Also I should have been nice, so for that, Cat, I am sorry. If I want you to treat me as an intellectual equal, I should have done the same and not been a snark.
And as a white Muslim, I take offense to those women who think I have embraced a "repressive" religion out of some sort of masochist fantasy, Stockholm Syndrome, or some sort of Freudian love for brown men. I'm Muslim, and feminist. Period.
As for as the arabic elaboration is concerned...you have to remember that Islam isn't like Christianity. I could pull verses from the Bible that nobody ever follows, but pull something from a zillion hadiths and it is automatically assumed that all Muslims follow it to a T.
I also think there is a crisis in traditional feminism- rather than addressing the inequalities still to be found in American society (or British or whatever), people decide to go out and save us misguided Muslim women. If only they knew how much better my life is as a Muslim woman and how crappy those liberated, non-Muslim men treated me. But anyway, I'm going to shut up now. I sincerely hope Cat learns something from lurking on our blogs, even if she does leave snarky comments.
I actually shouldn't have commented in the first place--
you can't argue with someone who has made up their mind beforehand, and you can't appeal to the intellect of someone who...well. Also I should have been nice, so for that, Cat, I am sorry. If I want you to treat me as an intellectual equal, I should have done the same and not been a snark.
And as a white Muslim, I take offense to those women who think I have embraced a "repressive" religion out of some sort of masochist fantasy, Stockholm Syndrome, or some sort of Freudian love for brown men. I'm Muslim, and feminist. Period.
As for as the arabic elaboration is concerned...you have to remember that Islam isn't like Christianity. I could pull verses from the Bible that nobody ever follows, but pull something from a zillion hadiths and it is automatically assumed that all Muslims follow it to a T.
I also think there is a crisis in traditional feminism- rather than addressing the inequalities still to be found in American society (or British or whatever), people decide to go out and save us misguided Muslim women. If only they knew how much better my life is as a Muslim woman and how crappy those liberated, non-Muslim men treated me. But anyway, I'm going to shut up now. I sincerely hope Cat learns something from lurking on our blogs, even if she does leave snarky comments.
So, cat, you think you are more intelligent than our beloved? That statement not only shows deficiency in intelligence, but lack of common sense.
Only a man of a staggering intellect could come upon the ignorant Arabs of his time, and achieve what he did in the short period of twenty-three years; socially, economically, politically, and militarily.
As they say, the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim, so achieve what he did in twenty-three years, if your intellect is so great.
In a very short time, you will be forgotten, and no one on this earth will remember you ever existed. Yet, almost one and a half millennia after his passing on, his name is praised every second, of every minute, of every day.
His achievements in every aspect of life show his unparalleled intellect.
May Allah send unlimited blessings and praises upon the Best of Creation.
So, cat, you think you are more intelligent than our beloved? That statement not only shows deficiency in intelligence, but lack of common sense.
Only a man of a staggering intellect could come upon the ignorant Arabs of his time, and achieve what he did in the short period of twenty-three years; socially, economically, politically, and militarily.
As they say, the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim, so achieve what he did in twenty-three years, if your intellect is so great.
In a very short time, you will be forgotten, and no one on this earth will remember you ever existed. Yet, almost one and a half millennia after his passing on, his name is praised every second, of every minute, of every day.
His achievements in every aspect of life show his unparalleled intellect.
May Allah send unlimited blessings and praises upon the Best of Creation.
cncz: I appreciate what you did in the previous comment. Our way should be to gently explain the religion to people who are antagonistic to us. The people who like us do not count; they are not a true test of our patience. (Nor do they usually have any strong belief system!) It is people who have strong beliefs who embrace Islam and then become strong in their faith. If we respond with name-calling and vulgar epithets, what exactly have we learned from our own religion that we can teach others? We can be firm against the disbelievers without resorting to insults!
cncz: I appreciate what you did in the previous comment. Our way should be to gently explain the religion to people who are antagonistic to us. The people who like us do not count; they are not a true test of our patience. (Nor do they usually have any strong belief system!) It is people who have strong beliefs who embrace Islam and then become strong in their faith. If we respond with name-calling and vulgar epithets, what exactly have we learned from our own religion that we can teach others? We can be firm against the disbelievers without resorting to insults!
I've just linked here from from google search, and although I am not unfamilliar with blogs I don't do alot of reading outside about six or seven (a variety I assure you). I noticed a couple of things right off, I thought I might share them with you.First I couldn't help but notice the distain with which you treat your detractors. Yet so far as I can tell from the posts, none of you seem to be aware of it. I wondered (and do) if it was an illusion hiding in the subtle rythyms that distinguish two vastly different languages (and I admit being versed in just the one of them), or if it were simply a case of arrogance reigning unaware....which of course it always does. I wonder if somebody might explain that for me.As a point of interest, I found both parties equally obtuse in that both sides managed to insult the others intelligence whilst maintaining that they wouldn't dream of following their adversary down that very same low road ie. Cat said; "Muslims are not the brightest of people.".While DrM said; "Its obvious to me that your intelligence is certainly defiecient.". In either case the intended message is clear 'you are dumb, I am superior'. Is it a profound mutual lack of humility or just bad manners? If ever it proves to have been definitivley one or the other, you might very well find that the death of a world was neatly balanced on that same point of fact.
I've just linked here from from google search, and although I am not unfamilliar with blogs I don't do alot of reading outside about six or seven (a variety I assure you). I noticed a couple of things right off, I thought I might share them with you.First I couldn't help but notice the distain with which you treat your detractors. Yet so far as I can tell from the posts, none of you seem to be aware of it. I wondered (and do) if it was an illusion hiding in the subtle rythyms that distinguish two vastly different languages (and I admit being versed in just the one of them), or if it were simply a case of arrogance reigning unaware....which of course it always does. I wonder if somebody might explain that for me.As a point of interest, I found both parties equally obtuse in that both sides managed to insult the others intelligence whilst maintaining that they wouldn't dream of following their adversary down that very same low road ie. Cat said; "Muslims are not the brightest of people.".While DrM said; "Its obvious to me that your intelligence is certainly defiecient.". In either case the intended message is clear 'you are dumb, I am superior'. Is it a profound mutual lack of humility or just bad manners? If ever it proves to have been definitivley one or the other, you might very well find that the death of a world was neatly balanced on that same point of fact.
I just wanted to raise the point that some women in the West resort to cutting their hair short and wearing trouser suits. They assume a role of masculinity in order to achieve higher positions in life. Now tell me this why are these women having to give up being feminine in order to break through the glass celing? Ask yourself this and you will most certainly discover that Western women are most definitely oppressed.
I just wanted to raise the point that some women in the West resort to cutting their hair short and wearing trouser suits. They assume a role of masculinity in order to achieve higher positions in life. Now tell me this why are these women having to give up being feminine in order to break through the glass celing? Ask yourself this and you will most certainly discover that Western women are most definitely oppressed.
Aisha-In answer to your question, they are not giving up being feminine in the least, frankly I am suprised that you have been left with that impression. In my view a woman who choses to dress in that way does so because she wants to, and as a western man I am as likely to be attracted to her as I am any other. Her reason might be fashion, it might be comfort, it might be that on that day she was meeting with a more conservitive client and so chose to show a measure of respect by dressing in more traditional buiness attire. I am sure that I do not understand your equating pants with feminity, what is it exactly about pants than can make a women any less feminine.
Aisha-In answer to your question, they are not giving up being feminine in the least, frankly I am suprised that you have been left with that impression. In my view a woman who choses to dress in that way does so because she wants to, and as a western man I am as likely to be attracted to her as I am any other. Her reason might be fashion, it might be comfort, it might be that on that day she was meeting with a more conservitive client and so chose to show a measure of respect by dressing in more traditional buiness attire. I am sure that I do not understand your equating pants with feminity, what is it exactly about pants than can make a women any less feminine.
Where are the London bombers' souls? Where did they fly to at the instant of death? Why will no-one answer this question?
Where are the London bombers' souls? Where did they fly to at the instant of death? Why will no-one answer this question?
>>While DrM said; âÂÂIts obvious to me that your intelligence is certainly defiecient.âÂÂ
>>While DrM said; âÂÂIts obvious to me that your intelligence is certainly defiecient.âÂÂ
I am a Catholic English woman married to a Muslim who is Pakistani by birth.
We both are very equal in our very happy marriage. We have been married for almost 22 years and have two teenage daughters one who is Muslim and one who is a Catholic.
I know many other women like myself and especially my sister in laws who are certainly not oppressed. I am not saying that it doesnt happen, but that can happen in any marriage Muslim or not.
God Bless and Peace to all
I am a Catholic English woman married to a Muslim who is Pakistani by birth.
We both are very equal in our very happy marriage. We have been married for almost 22 years and have two teenage daughters one who is Muslim and one who is a Catholic.
I know many other women like myself and especially my sister in laws who are certainly not oppressed. I am not saying that it doesnt happen, but that can happen in any marriage Muslim or not.
God Bless and Peace to all
Muslims (typically, Pakistanis and Arabs) generally have a huge inferiority complex and a "victim mentality" where they feel that they should be on top in the world, but are not. All because of the evil Western empires of course.
Thus, they flee to the West (whose material wealth and living standards they envy and hate at the same time) and are caught in this great quandry: they love the money and the freedom Western civilization provides, but feel jealous & angry about their own 'cultures' being relegated to that of neanderthals.
As a way to relieve this tension, they turn to Islam so they can once again 'feel superior' about something.
It's all a really sick cycle, and one of the root causes of why we get fanatical bombers from Leeds killing Brits in London.
Muslims (typically, Pakistanis and Arabs) generally have a huge inferiority complex and a "victim mentality" where they feel that they should be on top in the world, but are not. All because of the evil Western empires of course.
Thus, they flee to the West (whose material wealth and living standards they envy and hate at the same time) and are caught in this great quandry: they love the money and the freedom Western civilization provides, but feel jealous & angry about their own 'cultures' being relegated to that of neanderthals.
As a way to relieve this tension, they turn to Islam so they can once again 'feel superior' about something.
It's all a really sick cycle, and one of the root causes of why we get fanatical bombers from Leeds killing Brits in London.
well, it's a bit late, but I have to say i take exception to Aisha's assertion that cutting my hair off and wearing a "trouser suit" was an attempt by me to get through the glass celing.
and i've got a well paid, senior, responsible job which has nothing to do with my hair style, religious beliefs and i'd like to keep it that way.
I like having short hair, long my hair is unruly and frizzy and takes over an hour to deal with in the mornings and doesn't suit me anyway.
as for the trouser suit thing, well they are jeans, and it's easier to cycle in trousers. and keep cash for sandwiches etc.
riding a bike is nice, eco friendly and good for you and if it upsets anybody divine, i'm prepared to take the rap.
well, it's a bit late, but I have to say i take exception to Aisha's assertion that cutting my hair off and wearing a "trouser suit" was an attempt by me to get through the glass celing.
and i've got a well paid, senior, responsible job which has nothing to do with my hair style, religious beliefs and i'd like to keep it that way.
I like having short hair, long my hair is unruly and frizzy and takes over an hour to deal with in the mornings and doesn't suit me anyway.
as for the trouser suit thing, well they are jeans, and it's easier to cycle in trousers. and keep cash for sandwiches etc.
riding a bike is nice, eco friendly and good for you and if it upsets anybody divine, i'm prepared to take the rap.
DrM has repeatedly mentioned in his comments that the majority of converts to Islam are females. What are you talking DrM, are you going nuts, are you drunk? From where did you got this statistics? I don't understand, does this mean that when a female is conerting to Islam then her husband or other male members of the family are not converting to islam. Simply ...crap! It could make sense if we say that majority of the converts to Christianity are females because when one muslim husband converts to christianity he brings upto 4 wives along.
Ha..haha..I liked that one!
DrM has repeatedly mentioned in his comments that the majority of converts to Islam are females. What are you talking DrM, are you going nuts, are you drunk? From where did you got this statistics? I don't understand, does this mean that when a female is conerting to Islam then her husband or other male members of the family are not converting to islam. Simply ...crap! It could make sense if we say that majority of the converts to Christianity are females because when one muslim husband converts to christianity he brings upto 4 wives along.
Ha..haha..I liked that one!
One day I'm going to do a study about Muslims deleting comments on their blogs... It is really a sign of insecurity - and lack of intelectual honesty. I have been saving the posting and comparing them. I left some stupid comment yeasterday and today it's gone ... what a surprise, it's what happens to stupid people like me who go into people's houses and mess on their carpets.
#
John Kactuz said,
[snip]
One day I'm going to do a study about Muslims deleting comments on their blogs... It is really a sign of insecurity - and lack of intelectual honesty. I have been saving the posting and comparing them. I left some stupid comment yeasterday and today it's gone ... what a surprise, it's what happens to stupid people like me who go into people's houses and mess on their carpets.
#
John Kactuz said,
[snip]
One day I'm going to do a study on why people waste their lives writing crap comments, which make no sense, on other people's blogs. If you scroll up you can see plenty of comments which are not sympathetic to the Islam. They're not deleted because they add something to the intellectual debate going on here not just a bunch of abusive rubbish, which I'm sure, is what you left behind.
I think people like you, old guy, enjoy saying Muslims are insecure and so on beause it makes you feel better. We can handle the slurs and lies, we've been doing it for years. Grow up and get a life.