The Life of Muhammad - BBC2 : 9.00pm

MagicMarker

Anyone going to watch this? A whole series on Muhammad, telling us how amazing he is. I wonder if they mention the whole pedo thing?

Knasher

Probably not, but I am a little bit curious to be honest.

Is it going to be just a series of interviews describing the stuff he has done or will they do dramatisations. Because if they don't like people drawing Muhammad then surely having somebody who looks vaguely like him call himself Muhammad is 100 times worse.

Wibbs

The paedo aspect is cultural and arguable by some as far as dates and ages go. Though I personally consider her age as correctly reported as it was repeated often enough in centuries following and not considered odd. The rejig of her age at marriage is a recent tweak in response to western notions. Indeed it's not that long ago that in the west boys and especially girls were married off very young, barely in their teens. Jerry Lee Lewis' career was put on the skids when he showed up to tour England with his new bride. A cousin of his and all of 13 years old and he 23.

I'll be more interested to see if there's any talk about the camel raids and battles and enslavements or massacres of prisoners after such battles or religious and political killings. All headed and condoned by Muhammed. Interesting for a "religion of peace" not spread at the point of a sword. I'll put good money it will be not mentioned/glossed over/explained as defence or context.

Wibbs

Having just seen it and bearing in mind the chap presenting is a muslim it was balanced enough to be fair, though a couple of things were glossed over or approached sideways.

EG the early non islamic sources for Muhammed. Their detail is up there with the early non christian sources for Jesus and few non Christians give them much historical weight. For a start they dont call him a new prophet of a new faith(IIRC they reckon Christian). Nor do they mention anything about the Quran etc.

The second point about Mecca not showing up in any ancient sources was also glossed over. "Oh it was off the beaten track you know". Precisely. Not exactly the best place to have a major trading area. In any event the Greeks/Byzantines for example did go off said beaten track (in search of spices and frankincense) and leave us good references to the areas in question and still make no mention of Mecca, though do reference other towns equally remote.

Another issue is the ban on the depiction of humans in art. That evolved long after Muhammeds death. Evidenced by the heads of Islamic rulers on the earliest coinage of the empire. At some point there was some iconoclastic movement that took hold. It wasn't original to the movement.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Wibbs wrote: »

The second point about Mecca not showing up in any ancient sources was also glossed over. "Oh it was off the beaten track you know". Precisely. Not exactly the best place to have a major trading area. In any event the Greeks/Byzantines for example did go off said beaten track (in search of spices and frankincense) and leave us good references to the areas in question and still make no mention of Mecca, though do reference other towns equally remote.

I don't follow the precise issue here. Is that Mecca may have been known by some other name, or wha?

pH

I zapped to it, watched 5 minutes of "Muslims don't believe the whole Satanic verses thing so let's just say it never happened" and zapped on.

Morlar

pH wrote: »

I zapped to it, watched 5 minutes of "Muslims don't believe the whole Satanic verses thing so let's just say it never happened" and zapped on.

I thought that part was particularly nasty. It came across as the journalist basically condoning it.

Siuin

Looking forward to the next episode of how Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina. Not sure how they'll downplay genocide, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Wibbs

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't follow the precise issue here. Is that Mecca may have been known by some other name, or wha?

According to Islamic sources Mecca/Makkah goes all the way back to Abraham thousands of years before and was this really important cultural, religious and commercial centre in the region. Basically they big it up as a historical fact. A history that has zero historical, geographical or archaeological basis outside of islamic texts.

Siuin wrote:

Looking forward to the next episode of how Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina. Not sure how they'll downplay genocide, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Yep that will be interesting alright. I wonder will they mention the political and religious assassinations condoned by him too. There seem to have been "two" Muhammeds. The one before his first wife died. The quieter peaceful preacher. Then the one after she dies, the far more aggressive and martial and strict.

pH wrote:

I zapped to it, watched 5 minutes of "Muslims don't believe the whole Satanic verses thing so let's just say it never happened" and zapped on.

The satanic verses part is interesting alright. While as he said the background story is considered weak today in the hadeeth(stories of early Islam) part, it's clear that historically the early Muslim commentators in the first 200 years of Islam did think it happened. Unusual for one reason, why include something so damning of a prophet if it wasn't regarded as true and in need of recording? This principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment applied to Christian texts could be applied here. Basically "If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true".
To be fair to Islamic scholars at the time and after, they were remarkably open about not avoiding the dodgy stuff about Muhammed. It's only quite recently they've become more fundamentalist and literal about such things.

goose2005

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep that will be interesting alright. I wonder will they mention the political and religious assassinations condoned by him too. There seem to have been "two" Muhammeds. The one before his first wife died. The quieter peaceful preacher. Then the one after she dies, the far more aggressive and martial and strict.

It's seems not to be a Before Kadijah/After Kadijah split - rather a Before Power/After Power split. He only advocated tolerance initially because he only had a tiny number of followers.

Wibbs

Oh I agree G that's a huge chunk of it. I was mentioning the death of his first wife as another factor in this as the martial Muhammed comes out around that time. This is a man who saw his own mother die in front of him when he was a child, who then goes on to marry an older more socially powerful woman who he loves for 20 years. A strong woman who supports him even when he's coming out with what must have been uncomfortable, even blasphemous things for the time(he would have burnt at the stake in a Christian controlled area. A woman who then dies just as he's becoming more widely recognised. That must have been a huge emotional wrench. I imagine that's a scenario a psychologist would have a field day with.

fontanalis

Wibbs wrote: »

Having just seen it and bearing in mind the chap presenting is a muslim it was balanced enough to be fair, though a couple of things were glossed over or approached sideways.

EG the early non islamic sources for Muhammed. Their detail is up there with the early non christian sources for Jesus and few non Christians give them much historical weight. For a start they dont call him a new prophet of a new faith(IIRC they reckon Christian). Nor do they mention anything about the Quran etc.

The second point about Mecca not showing up in any ancient sources was also glossed over. "Oh it was off the beaten track you know". Precisely. Not exactly the best place to have a major trading area. In any event the Greeks/Byzantines for example did go off said beaten track (in search of spices and frankincense) and leave us good references to the areas in question and still make no mention of Mecca, though do reference other towns equally remote.

Another issue is the ban on the depiction of humans in art. That evolved long after Muhammeds death. Evidenced by the heads of Islamic rulers on the earliest coinage of the empire. At some point there was some iconoclastic movement that took hold. It wasn't original to the movement.

Isn't one of the ideas about the emergence of Islam that it came from a christian sect (I'll try to find a link to where I read it)?

Wibbs

Yea that seems to have some currency alright. There were a number of early Christian "heretical" groups knocking about. Quite a number of them with quite similar aspects to Islam. They questioned/denied the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus and a couple of other similarities. The Ebonites(sp)* were one such group and were knocking about in mid milliennium Arabia too. They were more a Jewish sect with Christian overtones. They saw Jesus as a Jewish prophet chosen by god, but not divine. They were into ritual daily bathing/purification and saw Jerusalem as the holy city and focus of their beliefs(as did the earliest Muslims who prayed in that direction rather than at Mecca). IIRC one of the first converts to Islam was an ebonite monk.







*I'm running on memory here so

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea that seems to have some currency alright. There were a number of early Christian "heretical" groups knocking about. Quite a number of them with quite similar aspects to Islam. They questioned/denied the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus and a couple of other similarities. The Ebonites(sp)* were one such group and were knocking about in mid milliennium Arabia too. They were more a Jewish sect with Christian overtones. They saw Jesus as a Jewish prophet chosen by god, but not divine. They were into ritual daily bathing/purification and saw Jerusalem as the holy city and focus of their beliefs(as did the earliest Muslims who prayed in that direction rather than at Mecca). IIRC one of the first converts to Islam was an ebonite monk.

See, the beauty here, Wibbs, describing Prophet Muhammad after 1400 years on base of incomplete record/ distorted history... Infact, he/she has faith in distorted history but he/she can't see how Prophet Muhammad change the world through his character... ...... Wibbs doesn't know, all what he has learned, is result of twisted brains/twisted history...... and history is full of liars---- full of arrogance---full of pride...... Now he considers himself as genius and thinks all the companions of Prophet who suffered pain/prison/dungeons were fool..... Would you kindly bear 10 stripe, Wibbs..... I am sure, you would change your religion on first stripe.....Even 100 stripes couldn't change minds of companion of Prophets....... why? because they had cured themselves from corruption, Clearly, i can see you only prefer that history which matches with your hypothesis because it is your wish not to believe.... and with the passage of time your wishes become the wishes of twisted brains
The world knows that the companion of prophet died in the way of Allah. They suffered troubles and hardships in support of truth and in establishing and propagating the principles of Justice

Wibbs wrote: »

They were into ritual daily bathing/purification and saw Jerusalem as the holy city and focus of their beliefs

as i have pointed again and again Islam isn't new religion, Every Prophet preached Islam in his time, that's why you see a lot similarity between these religion......His message got corruption with the passage of time due to interpretation of people..... You ,your bias and the twisted history can't whitewash the truth which is written so clear on the face of history.......

fontanalis wrote: »

Isn't one of the ideas about the emergence of Islam that it came from a christian sect (I'll try to find a link to where I read it)?

Corruption can't provide cure.Make some sense comrade?...

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

See, the beauty here, Wibbs, describing Prophet Muhammad after 1400 years on base of incomplete record/ distorted history... Infact, he/she has faith in distorted history but he/she can't see how Prophet Muhammad change the world through his character...

Oh indeed I do see how he changed the world through his character alright.

Wibbs doesn't know, all what he has learned, is result of twisted brains/twisted history......

All what I have learned is through reading more than just one book. That's the difference. If one book says X and ten say Y then is it not logical to think the ten more likely to be correct?

and history is full of liars---- full of arrogance---full of pride......

Sometimes yes, but rather than label historians as "liars" which is aggressive and unhelpful, I prefer to see recorded history as the history of viewpoints. The more and different viewpoints one has the better one can seek the truth. Again why thinking just one book is the "truth" is narrow minded. Killing people because of that one book is beyond primitive. I don't care which book it is either. Christians were killing people because of their book and Jews because of theirs.

OK if the viewpoint is based on faith I say fine and I hope it brings happiness to that person and doesn't bring unhappiness to others(the latter is the trick of course).

Now he considers himself as genius

Where did I claim any such thing? This is what debate looks like Dead One.

and thinks all the companions of Prophet who suffered pain/prison/dungeons were fool..... Would you kindly bear 10 stripe, Wibbs..... I am sure, you would change your religion on first stripe.....Even 100 stripes couldn't change minds of companion of Prophets....... why? because they had cured themselves from corruption, Clearly, i can see you only prefer that history which matches with your hypothesis because it is your wish not to believe.... and with the passage of time your wishes become the wishes of twisted brains
The world knows that the companion of prophet died in the way of Allah. They suffered troubles and hardships in support of truth and in establishing and propagating the principles of Justice

Eh what's with all the whipping? Actually since many religions are based on fear to some degree or other fear is a common meme within them. By the way, just because someone suffers for a cause it does not mean it's a righteous cause. EG Supporters of Hitler* suffered torture and prison and even death before he rose to power. He himself was shot and imprisoned. Literally millions fought and died in his name and in the name of his cause. Does this mean his and his cause was a righteous one? Of course not. Other examples? Some Muslims suffered terribly and died for their faith at the hands of Christians and Jews and Hindus, some Christians suffered terribly and died for their faith at the hands of Muslims and Romans etc, some Jews suffered and died for their faith at the hands of Christians and Muslims. Were all their causes righteous and correct? Again it's all down to viewpoint. BTW I am NOT comparing Nazism to Islam, I'm simply suggesting that just because an individual or group suffers torture or even death for a belief it doesn't add or subtract any truth from that belief.

as i have pointed again and again Islam isn't new religion, Every Prophet preached Islam in his time, that's why you see a lot similarity between these religion......His message got corruption with the passage of time due to interpretation of people.....

Or each new faith was an evolution of the previous. I've asked this before but I'll try again... All faiths before Islam were corrupted yes? Islam is incorrupted, yes? OK why didn't god protect his previous revelations from corruption? Simple question. Why did it take a few tries at it?

You ,your bias and the twisted history can't whitewash the truth which is written so clear on the face of history.......

Your face of history, from your book. Just one book. If you like I can walk in your shoes and just quote that one book and point out inconsistencies and aggression and all of that. Of course that would likely be pointless as you'll come back with "context" and "interpretation". No doubt how this documentary will "explain" mass killing of prisoners of war.






*Sorry for the Godwin folks, but if ever a case was apposite.

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh indeed I do see how he changed the world through his character alright.

He was a social reformer.....There are three pillars upon which social justice in Islam is built: the absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis, and each one of these pillars is built upon the others.... His message gave the idea of he absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis to the world.....If you turn your eyes from truth then truth won't come to you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Islam

Wibbs wrote: »

All what I have learned is through reading more than just one book. That's the difference. If one book says X and ten say Y then is it not logical to think the ten more likely to be correct?

The mob is the mother of tyrants. If ten books say "Y".... Doesn't it mean "y" is truth..... Think, why ten are saying "Y"..... The first reaction to the truth is always hatred (that is why 10 are saying "y":))....See, how Jesus spoke ("X" )against tyranny ("Y") of Roman government...... So your logic is flawed why? .... It seems "y" is logical but doesn't mean "Y" is the truth..... Just for example watch this movie as example http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/. In this movie 11 are saying "Y" and only one is saying "X" but in the end, the one with "X'' was true........ You prefer to believe in "Y"..... It doesn't mean, because ten are saying "Y" or the one is saying "Y"

Wibbs wrote: »

, but rather than label historians as "liars" which is aggressive and unhelpful, I prefer to see recorded history as the history of viewpoints. The more and different viewpoints one has the better one can seek the truth. Again why thinking just one book is the "truth" is narrow minded. Killing people because of that one book is beyond primitive. I don't care which book it is either. Christians were killing people because of their book and Jews because of theirs.

See, there are good also historian but majority in historian had written history to praise kings---- to earn money---- to feed their hunger, For this purpose they invented in lies in the history and you are using the same history to find truth........ For this purpose God has preserved Quran till judgement day.......There is difference between history and revelation..... Revelation can't be history... Revelation can only be history if it is corrupted by human ideas..... As quran has no human ideas so it is pure revelation and this revelation carries weight our all the historian of all the world..... The reason for this is simple because it is unchangeable, where views of the historian are changeable with the passage of time. God cannot alter the past, though historians can.
"A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. ''

Wibbs wrote: »

OK if the viewpoint is based on faith I say fine and I hope it brings happiness to that person and doesn't bring unhappiness to others(the latter is the trick of course).

and faith isn't blind--- right..... Faith is a torch which provides you the light to find what is truth if Ten are saying "Y" and if one is saying "X"

Wibbs wrote: »

Where did I claim any such thing? This is what debate looks like Dead One.

Your language is your mirror, i can see you in the mirror......

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh what's with all the whipping? Actually since many religions are based on fear to some degree or other fear is a common meme within them. By the way, just because someone suffers for a cause it does not mean it's a righteous cause. EG Supporters of Hitler* suffered torture and prison and even death before he rose to power. He himself was shot and imprisoned. Literally millions fought and died in his name and in the name of his cause. Does this mean his and his cause was a righteous one? Of course not.

How many follower Hitler has today........

Wibbs wrote: »

Or each new faith was an evolution of the previous. I've asked this before but I'll try again... All faiths before Islam were corrupted yes? Islam is incorrupted, yes? OK why didn't god protect his previous revelations from corruption? Simple question. Why did it take a few tries at it?

The simple answer is..... All past prophets and revelations were limited in their authority. Their purpose is only to guide limited people..... As Jesus was sent only for children of Israel...... Islam is for the whole world and there is no prophet after Muhammmad, so God has preserved his revelation till judgment day...... We believe that all prophets gave guidance and instruction to their people about how to properly worship God and live their lives and all the prophet were muslims....
Your history, from your books. Just one bias. If you like I

Wibbs wrote: »

can walk in your shoes and just quote that one book and point out inconsistencies and aggression and all of that. Of course that would likely be pointless as you'll come back with "context" and "interpretation". No doubt how this documentary will "explain" mass killing of prisoners of war.

See, understanding islam and quran through twisted history/ twisted brain/twisted documentaries,won't bring you closer to truth. Do you know in UK islam is at peak, So these types of documentary are necessary to control folks like you....because it torches your reason to believe what you prefer to believe..... I ain't saying you must admit Islam as truth what i am saying'''At least distinguish between truth and lies".... you are exploring truth in the book of lies and propagating those lie in the name of justice....

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

He was a social reformer.....

That he was, but that can go both ways.

There are three pillars upon which social justice in Islam is built:

OK.

the absolute freedom of conscience

Yet the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death? You may chose to ignore it as the majority of Muslims do, but it's there in black and white. That among the most vile of crimes and punishments is disbelief? How long would an openly atheist man or woman last in your perfect Islamic state? Where's the "freedom" there? Allah even says he directly blinds disbelievers just so he can punish them 2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. So this is a "god" who purposely makes people unbelievers just to burn them in hell? Niiice.

the complete human equality

Yet a woman's witness is worth half a mans, her inheritance is less, that her husband is allowed hit her if other punishments don't work, where she can't travel freely without a man, how the very workings of her reproductive organs render her unclean and a sickness to the man who even touches her? Men are "a degree above women". 2:228 Where's the "equality" there?

and the firm social symbiosis,

Where every aspect of ones life to an obsessive compulsive degree is mapped out? Where attack is the order of the day? Where turn the other cheek is sadly lacking?

The mob is the mother of tyrants. If ten books say "Y".... Doesn't it mean "y" is truth..... Think, why ten are saying "Y"..... The first reaction to the truth is always hatred (that is why 10 are saying "y":))....See, how Jesus spoke ("X" )against tyranny ("Y") of Roman government...... So your logic is flawed why? .... It seems "y" is logical but doesn't mean "Y" is the truth..... Just for example watch this movie as example http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/. In this movie 11 are saying "Y" and only one is saying "X" but in the end, the one with "X'' was true........ You prefer to believe in "Y"..... It doesn't mean, because ten are saying "Y" or the one is saying "Y"

I agree. And that's where objectivity and logic comes in. To have objectivity one cannot start from the point that is predetermined.

See, there are good also historian but majority in historian had written history to praise kings---- to earn money---- to feed their hunger, For this purpose they invented in lies in the history and you are using the same history to find truth

And Muslim historians didn't do this? Are you serious? The example of Mecca is a good one. To every other culture in the area it's completely unknown, yet according to Muslim sources it's this very important trading and cultural centre? Doesn't make sense. It makes even less sense when the other cultures would have had no issue with reporting such a place before Muhammed even existed and the Quran claims it was founded by Abraham 1000's of years before and the Kaaba is the oldest building on earth built by Adam himself. Yet all the cultures in the 1000's of years don't notice it? The Quran states that Pharaohs in ancient Egypt crucified criminals. Crucifixion is a later Roman invention.

For this purpose God has preserved Quran till judgement day.......There is difference between history and revelation..... Revelation can't be history...

This is where we part in logic.

Revelation can only be history if it is corrupted by human ideas.....

Right, so even some of the very dubious history in the Quran backed up by evidence elsewhere doesn't matter?

As quran has no human ideas

Really? So God only speaks in 7th century Arabic(with words borrowed from other languages)? God decrees that men and women should dress like 7th century Arabs?

so it is pure revelation and this revelation carries weight our all the historian of all the world..... The reason for this is simple because it is unchangeable, where views of the historian are changeable with the passage of time. God cannot alter the past, though historians can.

IE It's right because we say it's right.

Your language is your mirror, i can see you in the mirror......

Spooky

How many follower Hitler has today........

Quite a few unfortunately. Look no further than finding copies of Mein Kampf on open display on the streets of a few Islamic countries.

The simple answer is..... All past prophets and revelations were limited in their authority. Their purpose is only to guide limited people..... As Jesus was sent only for children of Israel...... Islam is for the whole world and there is no prophet after Muhammmad, so God has preserved his revelation till judgment day...... We believe that all prophets gave guidance and instruction to their people about how to properly worship God and live their lives and all the prophet were muslims....

Nope that avoids the question entirely.

See, understanding islam and quran through twisted history/ twisted brain/twisted documentaries,won't bring you closer to truth.

And blindly believing one book will?

Do you know in UK islam is at peak,

Really? The many many millions of non Muslim British people might just disagree with you there. Indeed I would fear for their country should Islam ever take over. Among the poorest most backward nations on this planet are Muslim and the more religious they are the more backward and poor they become. The rich ones? Wait until the oil runs out.

So these types of documentary are necessary to control folks like you....

And here we have it. All about the control, by any means necessary. Yea in Europe we're familiar with that one in the past and we shook it off in the past. One reason why the Islamic world became so backward after an all too brief flowering of culture.

because it torches your reason to believe what you prefer to believe..... I ain't saying you must admit Islam as truth what i am saying'''At least distinguish between truth and lies".... you are exploring truth in the book of lies and propagating those lie in the name of justice....

Funny I could say exactly the same of you and I think more would agree with me than with you.

fontanalis

dead one wrote: »

Corruption can't provide cure.Make some sense comrade?...

What's the point?

fontanalis

dead one wrote: »

He was a social reformer.....There are three pillars upon which social justice in Islam is built: the absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis, and each one of these pillars is built upon the others.... His message gave the idea of he absolute freedom of conscience, the complete human equality and the firm social symbiosis to the world.....If you turn your eyes from truth then truth won't come to you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice#Islam


The mob is the mother of tyrants. If ten books say "Y".... Doesn't it mean "y" is truth..... Think, why ten are saying "Y"..... The first reaction to the truth is always hatred (that is why 10 are saying "y":))....See, how Jesus spoke ("X" )against tyranny ("Y") of Roman government...... So your logic is flawed why? .... It seems "y" is logical but doesn't mean "Y" is the truth..... Just for example watch this movie as example http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/. In this movie 11 are saying "Y" and only one is saying "X" but in the end, the one with "X'' was true........ You prefer to believe in "Y"..... It doesn't mean, because ten are saying "Y" or the one is saying "Y"


See, there are good also historian but majority in historian had written history to praise kings---- to earn money---- to feed their hunger, For this purpose they invented in lies in the history and you are using the same history to find truth........ For this purpose God has preserved Quran till judgement day.......There is difference between history and revelation..... Revelation can't be history... Revelation can only be history if it is corrupted by human ideas..... As quran has no human ideas so it is pure revelation and this revelation carries weight our all the historian of all the world..... The reason for this is simple because it is unchangeable, where views of the historian are changeable with the passage of time. God cannot alter the past, though historians can.
"A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. ''


and faith isn't blind--- right..... Faith is a torch which provides you the light to find what is truth if Ten are saying "Y" and if one is saying "X"


Your language is your mirror, i can see you in the mirror......


How many follower Hitler has today........


The simple answer is..... All past prophets and revelations were limited in their authority. Their purpose is only to guide limited people..... As Jesus was sent only for children of Israel...... Islam is for the whole world and there is no prophet after Muhammmad, so God has preserved his revelation till judgment day...... We believe that all prophets gave guidance and instruction to their people about how to properly worship God and live their lives and all the prophet were muslims....
Your history, from your books. Just one bias. If you like I

See, understanding islam and quran through twisted history/ twisted brain/twisted documentaries,won't bring you closer to truth. Do you know in UK islam is at peak, So these types of documentary are necessary to control folks like you....because it torches your reason to believe what you prefer to believe..... I ain't saying you must admit Islam as truth what i am saying'''At least distinguish between truth and lies".... you are exploring truth in the book of lies and propagating those lie in the name of justice....

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Syria get pally with a certain Nazi due to his role in killing juwes?

Wibbs

Siuin wrote: »

Looking forward to the next episode of how Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina. Not sure how they'll downplay genocide, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Historical context apparently. Quelle surprise. Context, the harbour for the morally ambivalent, built for them by the otherwise moral faithful, who refuse to see the obvious. I also noted how they have so far nicely avoided his extra wives and slaves and caravan raiding and killing and further enslavement. It wasn't just the battle of the trench where his questionable beliefs and actions took place.

In fairness some commentators laboured the point that it was the first Jewish "holocaust". Touch of the modern martyr there in light of recent history IMHO. If it had been a Christian or Samite tribe I'm pretty sure the same would have happened. He still would have had them killed. it just happened to be Jews. Indeed under early Islam the Jews had a far happier and more equal lot in life than under Christians at the same time or later. Christian nations have had a far far worse record of Jewish persecution than Islamic nations ever had. Dubious though I find the later martial and frankly to my mind dangerous to be around Muhammed, I really don't see him as anti semitic. On the other hand too many Muslims today and Muslims a few generations away from the source I would. In that respect a couple of the Muslim commentators were right.

Siuin

Wibbs wrote: »

Historical context apparently. Quelle surprise. Context, the harbour for the morally ambivalent, built for them by the otherwise moral faithful, who refuse to see the obvious. I also noted how they have so far nicely avoided his extra wives and slaves and caravan raiding and killing and further enslavement. It wasn't just the battle of the trench where his questionable beliefs and actions took place.

Wow, I'm not in the country at the moment so couldn't watch it myself, but while it's disgusting that they allow the broadcasting of such obviously selective material, it's hardly surprising. People need to censor it in their minds so that they don't feel like creeps for following such a perverted religion. I had an argument with two Muslims in Jerusalem who were attempting to convert me because I told them that I wouldn't join a religion where the penalty for leaving was death. They refused point blank to acknowledge that such a law existed and simply started screaming at me and going nuts. Truth hurts, I guess. But if people wish to believe that Muhammad isn't morally culpable for mass murder because of 'historical context' (since apparently slaughter is not so bad given an adequate amount of time) then that is simply proof of their warped mentality.

Wibbs

Siuin wrote: »

I had an argument with two Muslims in Jerusalem who were attempting to convert me because I told them that I wouldn't join a religion where the penalty for leaving was death. They refused point blank to acknowledge that such a law existed and simply started screaming at me and going nuts. Truth hurts, I guess.

Just as likely they themselves didn't know this S. Or vaguely heard it somewhere, but because the vast majority of people in the world are decent and this wouldn't compute just ignored it. Like Christians who will happily think of the forgiving and loving Jesus all day long while avoiding the old testament stuff where apparently the same god is a murderous psycho and tormentor of men women and kids for shíts and giggles. Jews do the same or more. Passover is a great occasion for family and celebrating freedom(and a great boozeup to boot), the part about their god slaughtering one presumes innocent children is naturally left out.

But if people wish to believe that Muhammad isn't morally culpable for mass murder because of 'historical context' (since apparently slaughter is not so bad given an adequate amount of time) then that is simply proof of their warped mentality.

Or just the above self deceit. Though it is funny where context is used. So killing POW's is ok in context and for the time. Ditto for middle aged men marrying children. It was the times you know(and it was). But how does that square with it being a religion for all times and all cultures? It doesn't.

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death?

There is a misconception about this issue. Punishment for apostasy in islamic interpretations is death. Holy Quran doesn't provide the death sentence for those who leave Islam.

Wibbs wrote: »

You may chose to ignore it as the majority of Muslims do, but it's there in black and white. That among the most vile of crimes and punishments is disbelief? How long would an openly atheist man or woman last in your perfect Islamic state?

If you look upon quran, it clearly says, there is no compulsion in religion. Again-- if people aren't following orders of God, then it is fault of people not God/Religion.

Wibbs wrote: »

Where's the "freedom" there? Allah even says he directly blinds disbelievers just so he can punish them 2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. So this is a "god" who purposely makes people unbelievers just to burn them in hell? Niiice.

Submission to the will of God is the source of all freedom. It liberates the nature of human from the evil influences of the world. It guides mankind overcome dictators,tyrants, unjust laws, greed/lusts, deviation and psychological complexes which enslave his will. The freedom which you are looking for isn't freedom at all.... It is slavery...... So, your concept of freedom is totally different than of Islamic concept of Freedom. Now come to the point why Allah has blinded disbeliever?, See human nature becomes corrupt if it involves with corruption. Those who have disbelieved they have chosen corruption instead of cure..... Islam clearly says there are two paths, Path X and Path Y and also mentions that Path Y isn't good, If a person chooses path Y with clear guidance then problem is with person not the message.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet a woman's witness is worth half a mans, her inheritance is less, that her husband is allowed hit her if other punishments don't work, where she can't travel freely without a man, how the very workings of her reproductive organs render her unclean and a sickness to the man who even touches her? Men are "a degree above women". 2:228 Where's the "equality" there?
Where every aspect of ones life to an obsessive compulsive degree is mapped out? Where attack is the order of the day? Where turn the other cheek is sadly lacking?

See, "a degree above women".... It is example of great dishonesty which you are portraying on innocent minds...... "a degree above women" doesn't mean men are better than women or women are superior than women... It means men are more responsible for their family than of women. It is responsibility of man to feed his wife, her children etc... Women isnt responsible for that....... This is how God has favored women, Responsibly isn't superiority. See house/home is like an organisation. An organisation can't have to heads at the same time..... So, head of house as per God teaching is man... It doesn't mean man is superior than woman, it means man is more responsible than women.... Now if any member of organization breaks or violate the rules God has ordered man to punish him........ It is same as criminal being punished in courts..... Why societies in west have broken family system, it is because they dont have perfect family systems.... What provides perfect family system, that is Islam.

Wibbs wrote: »

And Muslim historians didn't do this? Are you serious?

where i said, even majority of muslim historians were of also corrupt,

Wibbs wrote: »

The Quran states that Pharaohs in ancient Egypt crucified criminals. Crucifixion is a later Roman invention.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

Wibbs wrote: »

This is where we part in logic. Right, so even some of the very dubious history in the Quran backed up by evidence elsewhere doesn't matter?Really? So God only speaks in 7th century Arabic(with words borrowed from other languages)? God decrees that men and women should dress like 7th century Arabs? IE It's right because we say it's right.

Is their any universal language which you understand?

Wibbs wrote: »

And blindly believing one book will? Really? The many many millions of non Muslim British people might just disagree with you there. Indeed I would fear for their country should Islam ever take over. Among the poorest most backward nations on this planet are Muslim and the more religious they are the more backward and poor they become. The rich ones? Wait until the oil runs out. And here we have it. All about the control, by any means necessary. Yea in Europe we're familiar with that one in the past and we shook it off in the past. One reason why the Islamic world became so backward after an all too brief flowering of culture. Funny I could say exactly the same of you and I think more would agree with me than with you.

Muslim are poor because they have left the teaching of islam.... Fault isn't with Islam, fault is with muslims...... Right...... See, this video might help you to understand what i am trying to say..... what is purpose of such distorted documentaries..... Like "Life of Muhammad".... What is purpose of banning Islamic scholar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUphBjiTfXo

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

If you look upon quran, it clearly says, there is no compulsion in religion. Again-- if people aren't following orders of God, then it is fault of people not God/Religion.

No compulsion in religion eh? Yet another example of contradiction in this book. Set against the no compulsion part we have;

If they ... assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. ...
Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 9:5

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve ... take them and kill them wherever ye find them. 4:89

And there's a lot more where that came from. In the main hadeeth, the ones considered the most correct and having the best lines of transmission Muhammed clearly and more than once says apostasy = death.

See, "a degree above women".... It is example of great dishonesty which you are portraying on innocent minds.....

Hmmm, not superior you say? OK then what about this;

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. 4:34

4:98 Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

Add to this that women have much less freedom or movement without a mans permission and escort.


OK dead one, answer me this if you can.
Do you think men and women should be able to work together in an office or other workplace?
Do you think women should be engineers, doctors, lawyers? Do you think women should play sports?
Do you think women should be in government?
Do you think women should be allowed to travel on their own or with other women or men?

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

More of the same trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. Even better using the Islamic sources to prove... yep you guessed it, the Islamic sources.

Is their any universal language which you understand?

A simple concept is easily transmissible in pretty much any language. Even highly complex concepts are. As we speak there are people exchanging ideas and building science and technology that impacts all our lives and doing so in many different languages. The truth is translatable.

Muslim are poor because they have left the teaching of islam.... Fault isn't with Islam, fault is with muslims...... Right......

This is a common explanation alright. Problem being that there's never been a perfect Islamic state. Even the state under the prophet had problems. You would think that such a perfect set of instructions would lead to Muslims of all people to build a better state. The christians managed it. Not because they were christians, but because at a very low level christianity is separate from the state. Oh the churches tried to rule, but there was always the theological/philosophical separation. Straight from their prophets mouth "give all to Caesar that is Caesars/My kingdom is not of this earth". That made them far more flexible and adaptable. EG The Islamic world had access to the invention of printing before christian Europe. Yet what did they do with it? Nothing. The first printed bible? 1456. The first printed Quran? 1798 three and half centuries later. Even then it was printed in Russia not in an Islamic country. Then there was a german one printed by a German in the mid 1800's. The first widely standardised Quran in print produced by an Islamic country? 1925. In Egypt. Compare and contrast. The rigidity in Islamic thinking save for a brief flowering in early Islam(as much to do with their access to Greek and other texts lost to the west) has kept Islamic nations far behind on the world stage. Again not what one would expect of a perfect system.

See, this video might help you to understand what i am trying to say..... what is purpose of such distorted documentaries..... Like "Life of Muhammad".... What is purpose of banning Islamic scholar?

Well they did have Islamic scholars in the documentary. Did you actually watch it or are you doing the usual trick of assuming the worst?

And you post a video by Zakir Naik? He's a Wahabi for a start. The version of Islam that has given the rest of the Muslim world such a bad name since its inception. Even among Wahabi's he's considered a bit over the top. He's supported Bin Laden and quite a few Islamic terrorists/freedom fighters(depending on viewpoint) have cited him as an influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=player_embedded
Islam is terror among other beauties. I suppose that's context though....
His opinions on women are at the extreme of Islamic thought. He also states apostates should be killed. He farcically states that other religions should be banned in muslim countries(against the Quran and Islamic law), but of course other countries should allow Islam. Plus he can't even read Arabic, so how is he in any way a scholar?

TBH if you're coming from the same position as Naik, I'm outa here. It's says too much for me. Real dangerous stuff.

Galvasean

Wibbs wrote: »

Historical context apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrO6LJyhII

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

No compulsion in religion eh? Yet another example of contradiction in this book. Set against the no compulsion part we have;

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 9:5

let me clear this first, non-muslims, at the time of Prophet muhammad, were worst enemies of Islam, .they kept an eye on prophet being hypocrite by calling them selves believer/Muslims. ......but they were disbelievers in heart..Allah has knowledge of everything..... Allah warned muslims against them

If they ... assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. ...
Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them 9:12-14

The verses were revealed in context when nonbelievers broken a peace treaty by killing innocent Muslims at time of night... The reason was, islam was spreading in Arabia. In responding their act God had revealed this chapter by ordering muslim to kill those non-believer who had done this dirty act..... Now, why you are being dishonest..... What do yo want to prove by picking verses and then making your own context to fool mankind...... Why you don't ask to yourself..... Is this honesty?, what you are doing in the name love....... Please clarify me? what makes you to do that, Isn't it your belief which you prefer to believe....

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve ... take them and kill them wherever ye find them. 4:89

You put verses out of context to make people fool about quran and Islam.......Your sole purpose is to spread misconception for Islam..I don't know what makes you to do such acts......because you know any human after listening this that kill any non-believer will immediatly go against Islam..see you can try these tricks,but infact you are tricking yourself....Now understand why God has blinded disbeliever.... Now understand why they are deaf and dumb ...... That is what dishonesty what you have learned from anti Islamic material/sites/programs/twisted minds..... God has given you brain and conscience why you don't use it....

And there's a lot more where that came from. In the main hadeeth, the ones considered the most correct and having the best lines of transmission Muhammed clearly and more than once says apostasy = death.

We prefer book of Allah, Book of Allah doesn't say anything about it even you will find, prophet was symbol of mercy and love..... He forgave his enemies then why should i believe those hadiths which say he liked killing in his own name....... See, it doesn't make any sense...

Wibbs wrote: »

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. 4:34

4:98 Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

You are charge of your women/family...... It is man, head of family, So he is charge of his family /his wife/his sons/ and daughters... Now apply this context to whole families in the world....... It is man, head family who can control his family from evils..... If a man as head of family guides what is best for his family then i am sure..... There will be no strips club/sex scenes/porn movies/sale girls/ blonde/models in the world.... No woman will display her beauty to attract customers....Quran provides you the solution..... See this is beginning of well disciplined society. Only person bold can guard fair sex.... This is universal reality....... Why you don't see in your society, where children are born without fathers and even they don't know the names of their father in their whole lives.... This is because men aren't charge of women...... Even your media is corrupting Muslim societies as well.... Do you think, Is this all right?

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think men and women should be able to work together in an office or other workplace?

No, you don't know outcomes, men working with women.....See, you can't control natural human desires...... Women and men can only work together if they are perfect in controlling their desires..... but it is impossible.... You see, Wibbs, God doesn't make woman for strip clubs/casino/ porn movies/advertisement/sex object in offices. Fate doesn't butcher her and destiny doesn't feed her to those ainimal. It is the same man who is charge of women and misusing his charge to feed his desires........... This is how men are charge of women..

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think women should be engineers, doctors, lawyers? Do you think women should play sports?

See, i ain't against education of women, or her jobs she can do whatever she wish but within context by following God's order... Now if you don't follow that context then outcomes are there you can see....open your eyes wibbs and see how free women are in your society and same media is corrupting innocent minds..... Where every born thought is imprisoned in dungeon of sex...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275829

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think women should be in government?
Do you think women should be allowed to travel on their own or with other women or men?

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society which portrays her as sex object.... .See, wibb, you can't ignore reality......

Wibbs wrote: »

A simple concept is easily transmissible in pretty much any language. Even highly complex concepts are. As we speak there are people exchanging ideas and building science and technology that impacts all our lives and doing so in many different languages. The truth is translatable.

concept is very simple, believe in Allah, in his books---- his messengers--- and follow what is right.... So where is problem..... Has science been wrong before? answer is "yes" that's why God didn't use science.....Science is research to find truth about God and his words..... You see, wibbs, science has disproved claims in the bible why because science is eliminating models of God not God....

And you post a video by Zakir Naik? He's a Wahabi for a start. The version of Islam that has given the rest of the Muslim world such a bad name since its inception. Even among Wahabi's he's considered a bit over the top. He's supported Bin Laden and quite a few Islamic terrorists/freedom fighters(depending on viewpoint) have cited him as an influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=player_embedded
Islam is terror among other beauties. I suppose that's context though....
His opinions on women are at the extreme of Islamic thought. He also states apostates should be killed. He farcically states that other religions should be banned in muslim countries(against the Quran and Islamic law), but of course other countries should allow Islam. Plus he can't even read Arabic, so how is he in any way a scholar?

i ain't fan of zakir naik.... i posted the video only to convery message
BTW: would kindly you give me reference for the bold font....i mean where you have learned this from.... Please give me the reference of exact videos in which doctor Zakir naik has made all above claims........... As far as, I know he has no support for Osama bin Ladin, he only said as he doesn't know Osama so he can't say nothing about him..... I don't know what makes you do that.... Why you aren't using your own brain.... Is their any problem with your own brain....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

You see wibbs, if i pick a phrase from your quote then try to explain people, people will not understand your thoughts , they won't able to learn your thought..... You posted 59 second video... The video has context which explains why muslim should be a terrorist.... The context is that muslim put terror in the hearts of thieves/tyrants/dictators/criminal.s... this is how a muslim should be terrorist.... That's why doctor Zakir is explaining in the video but you posted 59 seconds to make your own context.... It is example of great dishonesty..... I can see, Mr wibbs what you can't see.... why i am seeing because i ain't selfish.... the reason i ain't selish is, because i don't surrenderer myself to desires but to the will of Allah..... I hope Mr..wibbs .....you will be honest one day and try to understand what i am saying....... You will soon see Mr wibbs.

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. 9:5

let me clear this first, non-muslims, at the time of Prophet muhammad, were worst enemies of Islam, .they kept an eye on prophet being hypocrite by calling them selves believer/Muslims. ......but they were disbelievers in heart..Allah has knowledge of everything..... Allah warned muslims against them

Thats not what that verse is about according to any searches I've done. It actually is saying that the best way to be safe from Muslims is to convert, otherwise you run the risk of being attacked by them.

The verses were revealed in context when nonbelievers broken a peace treaty by killing innocent Muslims at time of night... The reason was, islam was spreading in Arabia. In responding their act God had revealed this chapter by ordering muslim to kill those non-believer who had done this dirty act..... Now, why you are being dishonest..... What do yo want to prove by picking verses and then making your own context to fool mankind...... Why you don't ask to yourself..... Is this honesty?, what you are doing in the name love....... Please clarify me? what makes you to do that, Isn't it your belief which you prefer to believe....

That is just what Muslim apologists have come up with to try and explain away the more violent passages of the quaran. If they were being attacked, why would they need to be inspired to go to war?

According to some studies of the quaran, Muhammad was attempting to redefine persecution in order to convince the Muslims that they were under it.

You put verses out of context to make people fool about quran and Islam.......Your sole purpose is to spread misconception for Islam..I don't know what makes you to do such acts......because you know any human after listening this that kill any non-believer will immediatly go against Islam..see you can try these tricks,but infact you are tricking yourself....Now understand why God has blinded disbeliever.... Now understand why they are deaf and dumb ...... That is what dishonesty what you have learned from anti Islamic material/sites/programs/twisted minds..... God has given you brain and conscience why you don't use it....

We could make the same point that someone who uses just one book to define their world view also hasn't switched on the brain;)

We prefer book of Allah, Book of Allah doesn't say anything about it even you will find, prophet was symbol of mercy and love..... He forgave his enemies then why should i believe those hadiths which say he liked killing in his own name....... See, it doesn't make any sense...

the same Allah that promised to send Muslims to hell if they didn't pick up the sword against the infidels?

You are charge of your women/family...... It is man, head of family, So he is charge of his family /his wife/his sons/ and daughters... Now apply this context to whole families in the world....... It is man, head family who can control his family from evils..... If a man as head of family guides what is best for his family then i am sure..... There will be no strips club/sex scenes/porn movies/sale girls/ blonde/models in the world.... No woman will display her beauty to attract customers....Quran provides you the solution..... See this is beginning of well disciplined society. Only person bold can guard fair sex.... This is universal reality....... Why you don't see in your society, where children are born without fathers and even they don't know the names of their father in their whole lives.... This is because men aren't charge of women...... Even your media is corrupting Muslim societies as well.... Do you think, Is this all right?

again with the "women are corrupting humanity" nonsense? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, you don't know outcomes, men working with women.....See, you can't control natural human desires...... Women and men can only work together if they are perfect in controlling their desires..... but it is impossible.... You see, Wibbs, God doesn't make woman for strip clubs/casino/ porn movies/advertisement/sex object in offices. Fate doesn't butcher her and destiny doesn't feed her to those ainimal. It is the same man who is charge of women and misusing his charge to feed his desires........... This is how men are charge of women..

So men have to control women because islam views men as unable to treat women as equals? If you tell men (as islam seems do by the content of your posts) that they control women, how do you expect them to treat them as equals?

See, i ain't against education of women, or her jobs she can do whatever she wish but within context by following God's order... Now if you don't follow that context then outcomes are there you can see....open your eyes wibbs and see how free women are in your society and same media is corrupting innocent minds..... Where every born thought is imprisoned in dungeon of sex...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275829

You're contradicting yourself now. You're not against education of women, as long as they don't break the orders of god. That's not freedom to pursue any education they like, it's just a very long leash.

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society which portrays her as sex object.... .See, wibb, you can't ignore reality......

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society where she runs the risk of being stoned to death for being accused of adultery, even if it's a lie?

concept is very simple, believe in Allah, in his books---- his messengers--- and follow what is right.... So where is problem..... Has science been wrong before? answer is "yes" that's why God didn't use science.....Science is research to find truth about God and his words..... You see, wibbs, science has disproved claims in the bible why because science is eliminating models of God not God....

you don't understand what science is based on the quote above.

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

let me clear this first, non-muslims, at the time of Prophet muhammad, were worst enemies of Islam,

Right. All those in Mecca who had every chance to kill him at the start, or those non muslims in Medina who welcomed him? Amazing how he survived for so long with all those "enemies".

The verses were revealed in context when nonbelievers broken a peace treaty by killing innocent Muslims at time of night... The reason was, islam was spreading in Arabia. In responding their act God had revealed this chapter by ordering muslim to kill those non-believer who had done this dirty act.....

Other prophets and holy men didn't need to kill to protect their faith. Many died for it and still their faith survived. You speak of context and of the time, but nowhere does the Quran say those verses are abrogated. Nowhere does it say this happened then but only then. Nowhere.

Now, why you are being dishonest..... What do yo want to prove by picking verses and then making your own context to fool mankind......

Irony, thy name is dead one.

Why you don't ask to yourself..... Is this honesty?, what you are doing in the name love.......

Under the guidance of your prophet 1000's died. Where is the "love" there?

You put verses out of context to make people fool about quran and Islam.......Your sole purpose is to spread misconception for Islam..I don't know what makes you to do such acts......because you know any human after listening this that kill any non-believer will immediatly go against Islam..see you can try these tricks,but infact you are tricking yourself....Now understand why God has blinded disbeliever.... Now understand why they are deaf and dumb ...... That is what dishonesty what you have learned from anti Islamic material/sites/programs/twisted minds..... God has given you brain and conscience why you don't use it....

If you are correct and this faith is all about peace, love and compassion, how is it that many scholars, respected scholars among your faith would agree with me?

We prefer book of Allah, Book of Allah doesn't say anything about it even you will find, prophet was symbol of mercy and love..... He forgave his enemies then why should i believe those hadiths which say he liked killing in his own name....... See, it doesn't make any sense...

The book of Allah contains page after page of intolerance and calls to aggression. I invite anyone to read it for themselves. There are far more intolerant passages than tolerant ones. Allah curses others more than he praises. There are more references to killing, fighting and death than there are references to prayer.

Only person bold can guard fair sex....

You see civilisations reduce the savage in us. Women don't require "bold men" to protect them.

This is because men aren't charge of women......

Yes cos the poor women are too stupid to be in charge of themselves.
Basically women are inferior to men. We get this. Hey even the Quran points this out as far as compensation goes;
2:178 O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.Women come last after slaves(I'd put money the word slave in this case means male slave, though even a female slave s worth more cash than a "free" woman). If a woman was equally valued a male would compensate. Never mind how primitive this is as a notion of law or justice.

No, you don't know outcomes, men working with women.....See, you can't control natural human desires...... Women and men can only work together if they are perfect in controlling their desires..... but it is impossible....

So no then. Women shouldn't work in offices with men.

You see, Wibbs, God doesn't make woman for strip clubs/casino/ porn movies/advertisement/sex object in offices.

What sort of daft experiences have you had in offices? You do know that women actually work in them. Maybe ins some odd sex fantasy offices are hotbeds of perversion or maybe Muslim men can't control themselves(more on that later), but reality is very different.

See, i ain't against education of women, or her jobs she can do whatever she wish but within context by following God's order...

So basically she can educate herself, but can't work outside the home. Yea I can see how that fulfills her wishes. This folks is how primitive some of this guff is.

Now if you don't follow that context then outcomes are there you can see....open your eyes wibbs and see how free women are in your society and same media is corrupting innocent minds..... Where every born thought is imprisoned in dungeon of sex...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056275829

Jesus.:rolleyes:

Do you think it is safe for women to travel in a society which portrays her as sex object.... .See, wibb, you can't ignore reality......

Millions of women travel millions of miles every day without any problems what so ever. You know, free women in more equal cultures, not backward ones.

Though in those more equal countries some Muslims it seems have difficulty with leaving non Muslim women alone. The recent and ongoing cases in the UK where "asian" men were raping and prostituting non asian women. That's an insult to Asian men. It wasn't Seikhs or Hindus or Buddhists doing this, it was Muslim men. Of course the media ever cautious about insulting Islam or any other culture rarely points this out, but that's what happened. To these Muslim men, non Muslim women are whores. That's the mentality behind this BS. Lets look at Norway, a very liberal and advanced society. In Oslo in 2010 all reported sexual assaults and rapes were carried out by Muslim men on non Muslim women. Not a majority, not a minority, ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y&NR=1 Again the media tries to be sensitive about it, but watch the video and see for yourselves. This has been reported in other areas of Europe with high Muslim populations. Western women are more in danger from Muslim men than they are from those liberal infidels. No wonder dead one suggests a woman needs a "person bold" to protect her. Well in a faith where a woman who is raped is as likely to end up being whipped or thrown in Gaol for reporting rape. Where the only way she can be proven right is if 4 witnesses come forward to back her up. 4 male witnesses by the way. So unless you have clinically depressed suicidal rapists it's not very likely. Oh then her family will likely disown her or even kill her, for not defending her honour. So even if you're a Muslim woman who is raped it's worse than if you're a western woman. Are Muslim men rapists? Hell no, but it gives more of an excuse to the ones that are. Well if the Quran says you can have intercourse with captured women after a battle, I'm not surprised.

i ain't fan of zakir naik.... i posted the video only to convery message
BTW: would kindly you give me reference for the bold font....i mean where you have learned this from.... Please give me the reference of exact videos in which doctor Zakir naik has made all above claims........... As far as, I know he has no support for Osama bin Ladin, he only said as he doesn't know Osama so he can't say nothing about him.....

Watch the video. He deflects the question by saying he doesn't know him, but also says that if he's fighting terrorists/America then he supports him.

I don't know what makes you do that.... Why you aren't using your own brain.... Is their any problem with your own brain....

Irony again.

Siuin

Wibbs wrote: »

Though in those more equal countries some Muslims it seems have difficulty with leaving non Muslim women alone. The recent and ongoing cases in the UK where "asian" men were raping and prostituting non asian women. That's an insult to Asian men. It wasn't Seikhs or Hindus or Buddhists doing this, it was Muslim men. Of course the media ever cautious about insulting Islam or any other culture rarely points this out, but that's what happened. To these Muslim men, non Muslim women are whores. That's the mentality behind this BS. Lets look at Norway, a very liberal and advanced society. In Oslo in 2010 all reported sexual assaults and rapes were carried out by Muslim men on non Muslim women. Not a majority, not a minority, ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y&NR=1 Again the media tries to be sensitive about it, but watch the video and see for yourselves. This has been reported in other areas of Europe with high Muslim populations. Western women are more in danger from Muslim men than they are from those liberal infidels. No wonder dead one suggests a woman needs a "person bold" to protect her. Well in a faith where a woman who is raped is as likely to end up being whipped or thrown in Gaol for reporting rape. Where the only way she can be proven right is if 4 witnesses come forward to back her up. 4 male witnesses by the way. So unless you have clinically depressed suicidal rapists it's not very likely. Oh then her family will likely disown her or even kill her, for not defending her honour. So even if you're a Muslim woman who is raped it's worse than if you're a western woman. Are Muslim men rapists? Hell no, but it gives more of an excuse to the ones that are. Well if the Quran says you can have intercourse with captured women after a battle, I'm not surprised

I can vouch for this 100%. Never had I experienced so much ass groping, inappropriate comments or just plain outright pervertedness as I did strictly within the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem. In any of the other 3 (Jewish, Armenian, Christian- the majority being Arab Christians, might I add) there were absolutely no problems, but the Muslim men felt as if they'd some kind of god given right to terrorise any vaguely young Western woman that walked through. I later complained, and the immediate response from another Muslim man was to ask me what I had been wearing- women are always, always to blame (and for the record, even a western woman can wear their full head to toe covered dealie and it still doesn't matter.) It's only when you put the religions side by side in a small area that you truly recognise the problem.

Wibbs

Basically because of all the Abrahamic religions, mainstream Islam sexualises women more. EG they cover up in the time of their lives when they're "available". Technically speaking an old woman doesn't have to cover up, neither does a young girl. Women are second class citizens. They're below the "head of the household" the man. They're below him in witness and in law. Especially anything to do with sexual law. As you say it's the woman's fault. Reading the texts, womens place in society is to be wives, mothers and concubines or booty. It also believes men are uncontrollable sexual beings and even the merest sight of a woman will inflame dangerous sexual passions. Considering the cultural climate where it sprang up, this is not that unsurprising and Siuin's experiences show this still holds in the cultural psyche. It indirectly takes away men's responsibility for their own actions. By covering up women it fetishises those uncovered women. It marks them out as not "pure" or "faithful" so it's a double whammy. The non faithful are the worst people of all, which is repeated ad nauseum in the Quran(the most accepted hadeeth are even worse on this score and are beyond primitive when it comes to women). So a woman already a degree below men is in trouble, so a non muslim uncovered women is open season. Like I said this does not mean Muslim men are rapists or mysoginists, but it does make them much more likely to be.

LondonIrish90

dead one wrote: »

Do you know in UK islam is at peak

I take it you have never been to Britain then? I expect you would be incredibly surprised and hopefully quite disgusted at the state of modern British society.

Women are for the most part given the utmost respect. People have religious, sexual, political, and cultural freedoms. In fact, in terms of civil liberties afforded to Brits then it is about as far from an islamic state as you can get.

If Islam did ever become "peak" in Britain then I'd expect a civil war.

Also, just to put it in perspective, there are more daily mail readers than muslims in Britain

robindch

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Women are for the most part given the utmost respect. People have religious, sexual, political, and cultural freedoms.

I suspect the degree of sexual freedom practiced is inversely proportional to the amount of religious freedom demanded.

dead one

koth wrote: »

Thats not what that verse is about according to any searches I've done. It actually is saying that the best way to be safe from Muslims is to convert, otherwise you run the risk of being attacked by them.

See, like i said the verses, which wibbs has posted, have some context and you are applying that verse out of context..... Here is another verse in exchange of your claim....
http://quran.com/60/8
if you learn quran from twisted brain they won't tell you the truth...
The Quran also says that, in their capacity of being human, every person is worthy of respect:
here is another verse..
http://quran.com/17/70

koth wrote: »

That is just what Muslim apologists have come up with to try and explain away the more violent passages of the quaran. If they were being attacked, why would they need to be inspired to go to war?

what violent passages? Do you know the violence of non-believers against Prophet of Islam...... These passages were revealed in response of non-believer's violence against muslims... If someone slap on your face without any reason then you are allowed to slap his face.... Is it violence?
“violent behavior is defined as intentional physically aggressive behavior against another person." So Muslims didn't start violence, it's the non believer who were aggressive against Muslims and Prophet Islam.... Clearly you don't know the situation/society in which quran was revealed.... Because you are living on bed of roses.... When you will burn you will learn....

koth wrote: »

according to some studies of the quaran, Muhammad was attempting to redefine persecution in order to convince the Muslims that they were under it.

reference please.

koth wrote: »

We could make the same point that someone who uses just one book to define their world view also hasn't switched on the brain

Is there any other book which could refinde the course of history... See, history, how Prophet muhammad refine the course of history....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

koth wrote: »

the same Allah that promised to send Muslims to hell if they didn't pick up the sword against the infidels?

please provide reference, don't pick verses of quran to make your own context...

again with the "women are corrupting humanity" nonsense?

No, women aren't corrupting humanity, it's the ideology i.e "sex symbols" which can corrupt hearts and minds of innocents---- displaying parts of women to attract customers ----in the movies/daramas---- to trade her in the name of freedom----

koth wrote: »

So men have to control women because islam views men as unable to treat women as equals? If you tell men (as islam seems do by the content of your posts) that they control women, how do you expect them to treat them as equals?

There is difference between control and responsibility. It is your responsibility to guide what is best for your family.......... In this sense you are charge of your family/your sons/your daughter/your wife.... So what is problem with it.... It is your responsibility to provide best environment.... is there any problem with this charge/
In westren socieites the corruption of the family system is one of the worst consequences of the misuse of this charge...... Men are careless about this charge.....

koth wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself now. You're not against education of women, as long as they don't break the orders of god. That's not freedom to pursue any education they like, it's just a very long leash.

No, i aint contradicting.....Islam favors education of both men and women.... but islam doesn't favor free mixing of men and women... Freedom isn't a woman should work open with men... The gravity that a man feels towards a woman, and a woman towards a man, is a natural phenomenon...It is fact and beautiful phrases and notions cannot cover up the basic truth. The mixing of women and men and the situation delivers the desire in them to draw closer...... It gives them chances to meet and counters on a regular basis. There are no hurdle in their path and their relationship progresses to the next level. Sooner they succumb to their desires.It happens all the time, and all around us. You see it,koth, every day with yours very eyes. .In the USA and other western societies , any person can choose to satisfy his or her sexual desires through illegitimate means.....It break no laws..... The society as whole will not flinch. The windows to evil are all wide open.Nobody can do anything against this evil. This all result of the free mingling

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

See, like i said the verses, which wibbs has posted, have some context and you are applying that verse out of context..... Here is another verse in exchange of your claim....
http://quran.com/60/8
if you learn quran from twisted brain they won't tell you the truth...
The Quran also says that, in their capacity of being human, every person is worthy of respect:
here is another verse..
http://quran.com/17/70

ok, don't address the point I made, just post up some "isn't Islam lovely" passages.

what violent passages? Do you know the violence of non-believers against Prophet of Islam...... These passages were revealed in response of non-believer's violence against muslims... If someone slap on your face without any reason then you are allowed to slap his face.... Is it violence?
“violent behavior is defined as intentional physically aggressive behavior against another person." So Muslims didn't start violence, it's the non believer who were aggressive against Muslims and Prophet Islam.... Clearly you don't know the situation/society in which quran was revealed.... Because you are living on bed of roses.... When you will burn you will learn....

Yes it is violence, and you agree based on the definition you provided.

reference please.

The only reason that this myth arose is the need for Muslim apologists to justify the more violent passages of the Qur’an’s second chapter, which was “revealed” shortly after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Passages from this chapter encourage believers to violence within the context of ending “tumult,” “oppression,” and “persecution.” Because of this, contemporary Muslim readers usually apply their personal definitions to these terms and assume that the Muslims in Medina must have been under attack at the time.

Unfortunately, what Muhammad meant by “persecution” is well-defined within the historical record, and it is quite different from the popular modern-day view. In fact, it was the Meccans who were acting in their own defense during this time.

It is an established fact that the Muslims in Medina were not under attack from Mecca when the second sura was written (following the hijra). There were no armies marching against them, nor any plans for such. The Meccans had no influence in this far-away town, and no Muslims were under persecution at the time by any stretch of the term as it is popularly understood today. According to the Sira (biography), the Meccans were quite content with leaving Muhammad alone following his eviction (even though he had made a pledge of war against them).

Common sense tells us that had the Muslims been under actual attack then it would not have been necessary to inspire them to war. If someone has broken into your home and is in the process of savaging your family, you do really need a formal command from Allah telling you to act in self-defense?

Muhammad was attempting to redefine persecution in order to convince the Muslims that they were under it. He wanted them to believe that the mere fact that the Meccans had evicted them to Medina and prevented their return was grounds for marching back with a vengeful army (ie. 2:193 – “persecution is worse than slaughter”).

Source

Is there any other book which could refinde the course of history... See, history, how Prophet muhammad refine the course of history....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

No, women aren't corrupting humanity, it's the ideology i.e "sex symbols" which can corrupt hearts and minds of innocents---- displaying parts of women to attract customers ----in the movies/daramas---- to trade her in the name of freedom----

pesky media putting women in front of a camera :rolleyes::rolleyes:

There is difference between control and responsibility. It is your responsibility to guide what is best for your family.......... In this sense you are charge of your family/your sons/your daughter/your wife.... So what is problem with it.... It is your responsibility to provide best environment.... is there any problem with this charge/

That doesn't explain the difference between control and responsibility. and based on your example, "responsibility" is control by another label.

In westren socieites the corruption of the family system is one of the worst consequences of the misuse of this charge...... Men are careless about this charge.....

See? Men aren't controlling their women, downfall of society etc. etc. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, i aint contradicting.....Islam favors education of both men and women.... but islam doesn't favor free mixing of men and women... Freedom isn't a woman should work open with men... The gravity that a man feels towards a woman, and a woman towards a man, is a natural phenomenon...It is fact and beautiful phrases and notions cannot cover up the basic truth. The mixing of women and men and the situation delivers the desire in them to draw closer...... It gives them chances to meet and counters on a regular basis. There are no hurdle in their path and their relationship progresses to the next level. Sooner they succumb to their desires.It happens all the time, and all around us. You see it,koth, every day with yours very eyes. .In the USA and other western societies , any person can choose to satisfy his or her sexual desires through illegitimate means.....It break no laws..... The society as whole will not flinch. The windows to evil are all wide open.Nobody can do anything against this evil. This all result of the free mingling

Yes freedom is exactly that. The alternative is that we lock up the women because men, according to your posts, men will sexually assault otherwise.

yeah, you really view men and women as equals. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

See, like i said the verses, which wibbs has posted, have some context and you are applying that verse out of context..... Here is another verse in exchange of your claim....
http://quran.com/60/8
if you learn quran from twisted brain they won't tell you the truth...
The Quran also says that, in their capacity of being human, every person is worthy of respect:
here is another verse..
http://quran.com/17/70

You love your context, so what is the context for those two? When were they revealed? Before or after Medina?

what violent passages? Do you know the violence of non-believers against Prophet of Islam...... These passages were revealed in response of non-believer's violence against muslims...

Hep we're being oppressed!! Yea that's been an excuse for many acts of war in the past. OK How many Muslims died? How many of his enemies?

If someone slap on your face without any reason then you are allowed to slap his face.... Is it violence?

Well there is the old "turn the other cheek" and resist non violently, but that doesn't seem to be in the psyche of early Islam. It had the most violence in it's birth than any other belief system on the planet.

“violent behavior is defined as intentional physically aggressive behavior against another person." So Muslims didn't start violence, it's the non believer who were aggressive against Muslims and Prophet Islam.... Clearly you don't know the situation/society in which quran was revealed....

As Koth pointed out we've a fair idea. Like I say I invite anyone to read the Quran and the main Hadeeth and see for themselves.

Because you are living on bed of roses.... When you will burn you will learn....

Ahh yes the threats of burning. Sadly too many Muslims seem to see this as an excuse to do the "burning" in this life rather than leave it to their Allah in the next. If they're so sure about Allah, why don't they leave punishment and retribution to him?

Is there any other book which could refinde the course of history... See, history, how Prophet muhammad refine the course of history....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Any number of people have changed the course of history. For the better or for the worse. That's no judgement. In any case even the historical Muhammad is hard to pin down. Non Islamic sources are very vague. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Sources_for_the_historical_Muhammad And what sources there are seem to differ to the Islamic ones. Mecca as a great centre of trade and culture doesn't exist in any outside sources.

No, i aint contradicting.....Islam favors education of both men and women.... but islam doesn't favor free mixing of men and women... Freedom isn't a woman should work open with men... The gravity that a man feels towards a woman, and a woman towards a man, is a natural phenomenon...It is fact and beautiful phrases and notions cannot cover up the basic truth. The mixing of women and men and the situation delivers the desire in them to draw closer...... It gives them chances to meet and counters on a regular basis. There are no hurdle in their path and their relationship progresses to the next level. Sooner they succumb to their desires.It happens all the time, and all around us. You see it,koth, every day with yours very eyes. .In the USA and other western societies , any person can choose to satisfy his or her sexual desires through illegitimate means.....It break no laws..... The society as whole will not flinch. The windows to evil are all wide open.Nobody can do anything against this evil. This all result of the free mingling

Basically you're stating men and women simply can't control themselves. Clearly a nonsense, but it does show the ugly mindset behind this stuff.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

The gravity that a man feels towards a woman, and a woman towards a man, is a natural phenomenon.

I know a lot of gay men and women who would disagree with you

Wibbs

Ahh gravity, that old devil called love Newtonian physics.

Jaafa

Excuse me folks where might one watch this online?

Wibbs

Here you go J on youtube
part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryGxwxv3M1Q&feature=player_embedded
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKltf_8BCk0&feature=player_embedded

dead one

Let see what wibbs has cooked up

Wibbs wrote: »

Right. All those in Mecca who had every chance to kill him at the start, or those non muslims in Medina who welcomed him? Amazing how he survived for so long with all those "enemies".

Your words are showing nothing but ignorance.....It was movement to Madina, from a scheme that was set by the heads of the Quraish who were planning to murder prophet Muhammad, and to destroy the message that today is being communicated to mankind everywhere against injustice and tyranny. Their plan was to destroy the foundation of the Islamic state....Here is exact verse which gives you the exact answer for your bold claim....why he survived so long

And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.
http://quran.com/8/30

Wibbs wrote: »

Other prophets and holy men didn't need to kill to protect their faith. Many died for it and still their faith survived. You speak of context and of the time, but nowhere does the Quran say those verses are abrogated. Nowhere does it say this happened then but only then. Nowhere. Irony,

Prophet of Islam never killed an innocent person. During the victory of Makkah even he gave alternatives to the enemies to accept Islam or go to the Non believers leader's house and they will not be harmed. See, your ignorance in respect of bold font....Prophet Moses killed a man with his bare fists (Old Testament).

Wibbs wrote: »

thy name is dead one.

"Live your life that the fear of death
can never enter your heart.
Trouble no one about his religion.
Respect others in their views
and demand that they respect yours.
Love your life, perfect your life,
beautify all things in your life.
Seek to make your life long
and of service to your people.
Prepare a noble death song for the day
when you go over the great divide."

Wibbs wrote: »

Under the guidance of your prophet 1000's died. Where is the "love" there?

"Loyalty is being honest to a person;
Honesty is being loyal to a cause.
Loyalty is being faithful
And honesty, being virtuous."
You are being honest to enemies of Prophet, you are loyal to their cause..... You are under their guidance not Prophet of Islam.... Choose whatever your desires may choose

Wibbs wrote: »

Where is the "love" there?

You can't read/see love by the prism of pride/arrogance/selfishness.....

Wibbs wrote: »

If you are correct and this faith is all about peace, love and compassion, how is it that many scholars, respected scholars among your faith would agree with me?

i don't get the point---- agree on what?--- Do you think, i should agree with you on your dishonesty..... You posted a 59 seconds out of context video of doctor zakir by picking a quote which suited with your information-- or should i agree with your out of context explanation of quranic verses.....should i agree with you? should i ?

Wibbs wrote: »

The book of Allah contains page after page of intolerance and calls to aggression. I invite anyone to read it for themselves. There are far more intolerant passages than tolerant ones. Allah curses others more than he praises. There are more references to killing, fighting and death than there are references to prayer.

I have already answered, these passages were revealed in response of non's believers violence against muslims....... So what would you expect? i mean how should these passages be according to you..... Please clarify..

Wibbs wrote: »

You see civilisations reduce the savage in us. Women don't require "bold men" to protect them. Yes cos the poor women are too stupid to be in charge of themselves.

Protection in sense of guidance---It is duty of male to protect his sons/his daughters from evil and guide what is best for them--- You see, wibbs, civilization can't teach a person if he is already corrupted..... You are telling me about civilization, i have seen its true face, The paths of civilization are extended tunnels and the tunnels are full of blood / sex / violence... it because---men aren't bold---they have made women an object of their desires----women is ruling upon their hearts and desires----

Wibbs wrote: »

Basically women are inferior to men. We get this. Hey even the Quran points this out as far as compensation goes;
2:178 O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.Women come last after slaves(I'd put money the word slave in this case means male slave, though even a female slave s worth more cash than a "free" woman). If a woman was equally valued a male would compensate. Never mind how primitive this is as a notion of law or justice.

Quran has its own logic to explain things, if women are placed at last, doesn't it mean that women are inferior or superior...... It shows, don't display women to get your point---- as your society is displaying women to get their work done..... Woman is no more object of sex/advertisement....See, you need wisdom to understand wisdom--- Twisted minds can't force wisdom into your brain.....

Wibbs wrote: »

So no then. Women shouldn't work in offices with men. What sort of daft experiences have you had in offices? You do know that women actually work in them. Maybe ins some odd sex fantasy offices are hotbeds of perversion or maybe Muslim men can't control themselves(more on that later), but reality is very different.

women are allowed to work in offices with women---not with men. Men aren't allowed to work with women--- why? the reason is simple, why you don't see your society-- where every thought is filled with sex.....this is result of free-mixing

Wibbs wrote: »

So basically she can educate herself, but can't work outside the home. Yea I can see how that fulfills her wishes. This folks is how primitive some of this guff is. Jesus.

Where i said, she can't work outside her home--- She can work outside with women but not in an organization filled with thirsty men.......even men aren't allowed to work with women--- you can't ignore your nature---why you don't ask to yourself?

Wibbs wrote: »

Millions of women travel millions of miles every day without any problems what so ever. You know, free women in more equal cultures, not backward ones.

See, the irony

In one of the first street harassment studies ever conducted, Carol Brooks Gardner, associate professor of sociology and women’s studies at Indiana University, Indianapolis, interviewed 293 women in Indianapolis, Indiana, over several years in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The women were from every race, age, class, and sexual orientation category of the general population in Indiana and the United States. She oversampled women of color to better represent their experiences. Gardner found that every single woman (100 percent) could cite several examples of being harassed by unknown men in public and all but nine of the women classified those experiences as “troublesome.”
Using a national sample of 12,300 Canadian women ages 18 and older from 1994, sociology professors Ross Macmillan, Annette Nierobisz, and Sandy Welsh studied the impact of street harassment on women’s perceived sense of safety in 2000. During their research, they found that over 80 percent of the women surveyed had experienced male stranger harassment in public and that those experiences had a large and detrimental impact on their perceived safety in public.
Laura Beth Nielsen, professor of sociology and the law at Northwestern University conducted a study of 100 women’s and men’s experiences with offensive speech in the California San Francisco Bay Area in the early 2000s. She found that 100 percent of the 54 women she asked had been the target of offensive or sexually-suggestive remarks at least occasionally: 19 percent said every day, 43 percent said often, and 28 percent said sometimes.
Notably, they were the target of such speech significantly more often than they were of “polite” remarks about their appearance.
During the summer of 2003, members of the Rogers Park Young Women’s Action Team in Chicago surveyed 168 neighborhood girls and young women (most of whom were African American or Latina) ages 10 to 19 about street harassment and interviewed 34 more in focus groups. They published their findings in a report titled “Hey Cutie, Can I Get Your Digits?” Of their respondents, 86 percent had been catcalled on the street, 36 percent said men harassed them daily, and 60 percent said they felt unsafe walking in their neighborhoods.
In 2007, the Manhattan Borough President’s Office conducted an online questionnaire about sexual harassment on the New York City subway system with a total of 1,790 participants. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents identified as women. Of the respondents, 63 percent reported being sexually harassed and one-tenth had been sexually assaulted on the subway or at a subway station. Due to collection methods used, the report “Hidden in Plain Sight: Sexual Harassment and Assault in the New York City Subway System” is not statistically significant, but it suggests that a large number of women experience problems on the subway system.
The author’s own studies support the pervasive and widespread nature of the problem of harassment that exists in the USA,


Nearly every woman I have talked to about this issue has been harassed by men in public. Further, every woman can cite strategies, such as avoiding going in public alone at night, which she uses to avoid harassment and assault. To learn more about women’s harassment experiences I conducted two informal, anonymous online surveys about street harassment: one in 2007 for my master’s thesis at George Washington University and one in 2008 as preliminary research for a book. Between both surveys, there were 1,141 respondents. Similar to the other studies conducted on street harassment, nearly every female respondent had experienced street harassment at least once.


In my first online survey, conducted during the spring of 2007, I asked the 225 respondents: “Have you ever been harassed (such as verbal comments, honking, whistling, kissing noises, leering/staring, groping, stalking, attempted or achieved assault, etc) while in a public place like the street, on public transportation, or in a store?” Ninety-nine percent of the respondents, which included some men, said they had been harassed at least a few times. Over 65 percent said they were harassed on at least a monthly basis.


Over 99 percent of the 811 female respondents (916 respondents total) of the second informal survey I conducted in 2008 said they had experienced some form of street harassment (only three women said they had not). In one question they could indicate the types of interactions they have had with strangers in public, here is a sampling of their responses.

• Leering
  Ninety-five percent of female respondents were the target of leering or excessive staring at least once, and more than 68 percent reported being a target 26 times or more in their life.
• Honking and whistling
  Nearly 95 percent of female respondents were honked at one or more times and 40 percent said they are honked at as frequently as monthly. Nearly 94 percent of female respondents were the target of whistling at least once and nearly 38 percent said it occurred at least monthly.
• Kissing noises
  Just over 77 percent of women said they were the target of kissing noises from men and 48 percent said they’ve been the target at least 25 times in their life.
• Making vulgar gestures
  Nearly 82 percent of female respondents were the target of a vulgar gesture at least once. About twenty percent said they had been a target at least 51 times.
• Sexist comment
  Over 87 percent of women said they were the target of a sexist comment, and about 45 percent said they’ve been a target of a sexist comment in public at least 25 times in their life.
• Saying sexually explicit comments
  Nearly 81 percent of female respondents were the target of sexually explicit comments from an unknown man at least once. More than 41 percent have been the target at least 26 times in their lives.
• Blocking path
  About 62 percent of women say a man has purposely blocked their path at least once and 23 percent said this has happened at least six times.
• Following
  Seventy-five percent of female respondents have been followed by an unknown stranger in public. More than 27 percent have been followed at least six times.
• Masturbating
  More than 37 percent of female respondents have had a stranger masturbate at or in front of them at least once in public.
• Sexual touching or grabbing
  Nearly 57 percent of women reported being touched or grabbed in a sexual way by a stranger in public. About 18 percent said they have been touched sexually at least six times.
• Assaulting
  About 27 percent of women report being assaulted at least once in public by a stranger.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/rampant-sexual-harassment-of-women-in-the-west/

what makes you to close your eyes, wibbs, open your eyes and read this statement again

Millions of women travel millions of miles every day without any problems what so ever. You know, free women in more equal cultures, not backward ones

You don't know how many in millions of women are harassed because men aren't bold.......

Wibbs wrote: »

Though in those more equal countries some Muslims it seems have difficulty with leaving non Muslim women alone. The recent and ongoing cases in the UK where "asian" men were raping and prostituting non asian women. That's an insult to Asian men. It wasn't Seikhs or Hindus or Buddhists doing this, it was Muslim men. Of course the media ever cautious about insulting Islam or any other culture rarely points this out, but that's what happened. To these Muslim men, non Muslim women are whores. That's the mentality behind this BS. Lets look at Norway, a very liberal and advanced society. In Oslo in 2010 all reported sexual assaults and rapes were carried out by Muslim men on non Muslim women. Not a majority, not a minority, ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y&NR=1 Again the media tries to be sensitive about it, but watch the video and see for yourselves. This has been reported in other areas of Europe with high Muslim populations. Western women are more in danger from Muslim men than they are from those liberal infidels. No wonder dead one suggests a woman needs a "person bold" to protect her. Well in a faith where a woman who is raped is as likely to end up being whipped or thrown in Gaol for reporting rape. Where the only way she can be proven right is if 4 witnesses come forward to back her up. 4 male witnesses by the way. So unless you have clinically depressed suicidal rapists it's not very likely. Oh then her family will likely disown her or even kill her, for not defending her honour. So even if you're a Muslim woman who is raped it's worse than if you're a western woman. Are Muslim men rapists? Hell no, but it gives more of an excuse to the ones that are. Well if the Quran says you can have intercourse with captured women after a battle, I'm not surprised.

Again great example of dishonesty, Mr wibbs
See, if muslim men who lack faith in islam, are raping women, or non muslim men who are raping women, it is because of the status of women in the world today. She has been made an object of sex/advertisement.....

Reality asserts that at the end of the day, women are mistreated across the globe, across cultures, races, and religions at unfortunately high and gross levels. Women do not feel safe on Western streets, not because of the “evil Mooslims” but because too many men are unable or unwilling to control themselves

---

because men aren't bold mr wibbs---- i hope you will be bold soon...

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Let see what wibbs has cooked up

Your words are showing nothing but ignorance.....It was movement to Madina, from a scheme that was set by the heads of the Quraish who were planning to murder prophet Muhammad, and to destroy the message that today is being communicated to mankind everywhere against injustice and tyranny. Their plan was to destroy the foundation of the Islamic state....Here is exact verse which gives you the exact answer for your bold claim....why he survived so long

Muslim historians don't agree with you on that.

Chronology according to Muslim historians:

There is absolutely no record of Meccan aggression against the Muslims at Medina in the first three years after their arrival in 622.

Muhammad ordered the first raids against the Meccans a year after the hijra in February of 623, which eventually proved deadly. There is no record of Meccan aggression during this time.

Word of an impending Muslim attack on a particularly rich caravan, prompted the Meccans to send an army out in defense, where they were goaded into battle and routed by the Muslims at Badr in March of 624.

The Meccans avenged their loss at Badr (and the hostages that were cruelly executed by Muhammad) by routing the Muslims at Uhud, near Medina, in March of 625. If their ultimate objective had been to kill Muhammad and his followers, then they surely would have invaded the defenseless city and defeated them. They obviously did not have any interest in doing this.

Muhammad behaved himself with the Meccans for one year, choosing to support himself instead by evicting local Jewish tribes and confiscating their property. Then he began attacking caravans in April of 626.

After a year of renewed Muslim aggression, the Meccans responded by sending an army to Medina a year later in April of 627, where they failed in a siege that is known as the 'Battle of the Trench.'

Source

Prophet of Islam never killed an innocent person. During the victory of Makkah even he gave alternatives to the enemies to accept Islam or go to the Non believers leader's house and they will not be harmed. See, your ignorance in respect of bold font....Prophet Moses killed a man with his bare fists (Old Testament).

Not so, as illustrated above, muhammad ordered raids in which many people were killed. Now he may not have killed them by his own hand, but he did order the raiding parties to attack.

You are being honest to enemies of Prophet, you are loyal to their cause..... You are under their guidance not Prophet of Islam.... Choose whatever your desires may choose

yeah, it's everyone else that's being dishonest :rolleyes:

I have already answered, these passages were revealed in response of non's believers violence against muslims....... So what would you expect? i mean how should these passages be according to you..... Please clarify..

In the Muslim holy book, hardly an unbiased source.

Protection in sense of guidance---It is duty of male to protect his sons/his daughters from evil and guide what is best for them--- You see, wibbs, civilization can't teach a person if he is already corrupted..... You are telling me about civilization, i have seen its true face, The paths of civilization are extended tunnels and the tunnels are full of blood / sex / violence... it because---men aren't bold---they have made women an object of their desires----women is ruling upon their hearts and desires----

And yet, in Norway almost 100% of sexual attacks between 2005-2010 were carried out by Muslim men, 83 out of 86 reported cases.

So it seems that Muslim men in Norway are the "bold" ones.

Quran has its own logic to explain things, if women are placed at last, doesn't it mean that women are inferior or superior...... It shows, don't display women to get your point---- as your society is displaying women to get their work done..... Woman is no more object of sex/advertisement....See, you need wisdom to understand wisdom--- Twisted minds can't force wisdom into your brain.....

if women are placed last, it does mean they are inferior.

women are allowed to work in offices with women---not with men. Men aren't allowed to work with women--- why? the reason is simple, why you don't see your society-- where every thought is filled with sex.....this is result of free-mixing
Where i said, she can't work outside her home--- She can work outside with women but not in an organization filled with thirsty men.......even men aren't allowed to work with women--- you can't ignore your nature---why you don't ask to yourself?

It really is shocking that your faith teaches you that men are sex-crazed creatures that women need to be protected from. Maybe one day you'll cast of the shackles of that medieval way of thinking.

See, the irony
what makes you to close your eyes, wibbs, open your eyes and read this statement again
You don't know how many in millions of women are harassed because men aren't bold.......

Must I remind you of the sex crime stats from Norway again? The country where it's almost exclusively Muslim men attacking women.

Again great example of dishonesty, Mr wibbs
See, if muslim men who lack faith in islam, are raping women, or non muslim men who are raping women, it is because of the status of women in the world today. She has been made an object of sex/advertisement.....

Thats not the "status" of women today, it may be the viewpoint of the Muslim world, but it ain't for most of the civilised world.

Reality asserts that at the end of the day, women are mistreated across the globe, across cultures, races, and religions at unfortunately high and gross levels. Women do not feel safe on Western streets, not because of the “evil Mooslims” but because too many men are unable or unwilling to control themselves

---

because men aren't bold mr wibbs---- i hope you will be bold soon...

True, it's because of rapists that women feel unsafe. But following the Muslim faith is no guarantee that a man won't sexually assault a woman.

In fact, in Norway as I mentioned earlier, the odds are extremely high that a woman will be sexually assaulted by a Muslim man.

Wibbs

dead one wrote:

Prophet of Islam never killed an innocent person.

Oh but it depends on how you define innocence, doesn't it?
OK lets look at the prophets actions. From the hadeeth, not one of the obscure ones either, we'll look at Bukhari

Here's an example where Muhammad ordered the death of an enemy and more allowed his hitmen to lie to do it;
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

It's a bit long to quote, but breaks down like this. The victim/target was a leader of one of the Meccan tribes and a poet. Muhammad decided this guy had hurt Allah and him, so asked his men who would kill him. A couple of them volunteer and suggest that they'll need to lie to get close enough to him. So Muhammad allows this. So off they go, make friends with this guy then lead him out away from his supporters and chop him up. There's another "hit" taken out on one of Allahs/Muhammad's enemies in the passage right after that one. No doubt this is context of course.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/056.sbt.html#004.056.826
Another example where Muhammad threatened to kill someone and followed through with this.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.286 Another example where Muhammad ordered the death of someone, a spy in this case.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/019.sat.html#019.2996 Where Muhammad gives a blanket order to kill the men of the Jews and an example where a follower did just that.

There are others, including a report of a woman poet who was killed on his orders. He really didn't like poets. Not to mention the killings and spoils of war after various raids and battles, including women and children enslaved.

Hey but it was all gods will and in context no doubt.

See, your ignorance in respect of bold font....Prophet Moses killed a man with his bare fists (Old Testament).

So? The old testament is full of murderous people. The god in the old testament isn't exactly innocent either. "Oh another prophet was even worse" Hardly a case for the Abrahamic god and his followers. Basically convert, stay the hell away from them or get killed or enslaved.

You are telling me about civilization, i have seen its true face, The paths of civilization are extended tunnels and the tunnels are full of blood / sex / violence... it because---men aren't bold---they have made women an object of their desires----women is ruling upon their hearts and desires----

No this is your image of western civilisation. Yes we have some way to go, but we'll get there faster than others.

women are allowed to work in offices with women---not with men. Men aren't allowed to work with women--- why? the reason is simple, why you don't see your society-- where every thought is filled with sex.....this is result of free-mixing

Every thought filled with sex? You seem to be the one thinking like this or convinced the rest of us non muslims are.

you can't ignore your nature---why you don't ask to yourself?

Koth summed this one up. I don't have to ignore my nature. My nature is not to be slavishly aggressively sexual. I don't fetishise sex or sexuality. It's called being civilised.

what makes you to close your eyes, wibbs, open your eyes and read this statement again

Yet ask any woman who has traveled the world and she'll tell you that sexual harrassment in the street is worse in Muslim societies. If Muslim men are taught to be "bold" and respect women how is that happening?

Women do not feel safe on Western streets, not because of the “evil Mooslims” but because too many men are unable or unwilling to control themselves

---

Too many Muslim men it seems. The same women feel safer on western streets.

dead one

koth wrote: »

Muslim historians don't agree with you on that.

Ahhhh you gave me link of site which is highly critical of Islam

---

describing muslim historian ..... See, it is your wish to prefer twisted minds .... You can learn only bias from such sites not truth..... Can a orthodox christian or jew tell you thethe truth about Islam.... use your own brain while using the brain of others....

koth wrote: »

Not so, as illustrated above, muhammad ordered raids in which many people were killed. Now he may not have killed them by his own hand, but he did order the raiding parties to attack.

What illustrated above and who is illustrating, have your ever wonder?.... I guess, you don't!!!! can a dishonest person will give you the real of definition of honesty.... Make some sense comrade or you will lose the battle.... The sole purpose of such sites is to spread hatred/lies for which they are being paid......

koth wrote: »

And yet, in Norway almost 100% of sexual attacks between 2005-2010 were carried out by Muslim men, 83 out of 86 reported cases.
So it seems that Muslim men in Norway are the "bold" ones.

Islam doesn't support rape, islam is against rape--- that is very clearly written in quran.... Western societies have damaged their ideology that is based purely on wishful thinking and false assumption.... Now..... the tactic is old which you have been using to blame islam/muslim.... I give you the clear proof.....

Friday night on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham said the terror attacks in Norway that killed of at least 92 people appeared “to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists.”

Although it was reported by one terrorism analyst that a jihadist group claimed responsibility for the attack, it was later revealed that the attack was carried out by a 32-year-old conservative Christian who was strongly opposed to multiculturalism and Islam.

koth wrote: »

It really is shocking that your faith teaches you that men are sex-crazed creatures that women need to be protected from. Maybe one day you'll cast of the shackles of that medieval way of thinking.

Why you don't look around----

koth wrote: »

Must I remind you of the sex crime stats from Norway again? The country where it's almost exclusively Muslim men attacking women.

must i remind what lies media is spreading against muslims and islam..... This is pure racist bigotry ......Your media love quoting muslim. So therefore anyone not white is muslim coz you all love to hate muslims. That's how media is brainwashing you against Islam and muslims......

koth wrote: »

True, it's because of rapists that women feel unsafe. But following the Muslim faith is no guarantee that a man won't sexually assault a woman.

Muslim faith is guarantee if you truly believe in muslim faith.....

koth wrote: »

In fact, in Norway as I mentioned earlier, the odds are extremely high that a woman will be sexually assaulted by a Muslim man.

Anyone who is not white is muslim.... right!!!--

Sarky

dead one wrote: »

You are telling me about civilization, i have seen its true face, The paths of civilization are extended tunnels and the tunnels are full of blood / sex / violence... it because---men aren't bold---they have made women an object of their desires----women is ruling upon their hearts and desires----

Pro tip: Rorschach's journal is not a terribly accurate take on western civilisation. Your values are so skewed I actually feel sorry for any woman who has to put up with them.

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Ahhhh you gave me link of site which is highly critical of Islam

---

describing muslim historian ..... See, it is your wish to prefer twisted minds .... You can learn only bias from such sites not truth..... Can a orthodox christian or jew tell you thethe truth about Islam.... use your own brain while using the brain of others....

sorry, I forgot you only accept the quran as evidence in this discussion:rolleyes:

What illustrated above and who is illustrating, have your ever wonder?.... I guess, you don't!!!! can a dishonest person will give you the real of definition of honesty.... Make some sense comrade or you will lose the battle.... The sole purpose of such sites is to spread hatred/lies for which they are being paid......

I'm just browsing the web and posting stuff that contradicts your points. Using the excuse that everyone hates muslims isn't doing anything to disprove what I post.

Islam doesn't support rape, islam is against rape--- that is very clearly written in quran.... Western societies have damaged their ideology that is based purely on wishful thinking and false assumption.... Now..... the tactic is old which you have been using to blame islam/muslim.... I give you the clear proof.....

Friday night on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham said the terror attacks in Norway that killed of at least 92 people appeared “to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists.”

Although it was reported by one terrorism analyst that a jihadist group claimed responsibility for the attack, it was later revealed that the attack was carried out by a 32-year-old conservative Christian who was strongly opposed to multiculturalism and Islam.

This may shock you, but when people started blaming muslims for the violence, I actually questioned where was the evidence for such a claim.

I don't deny that there are people who are quite hostile to islam but that doesn't mean you can dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with your perspective.

Why you don't look around----

must i remind what lies media is spreading against muslims and islam..... This is pure racist bigotry ......Your media love quoting muslim. So therefore anyone not white is muslim coz you all love to hate muslims. That's how media is brainwashing you against Islam and muslims......

who mentioned anything about non-white people being muslim??

Muslim faith is guarantee if you truly believe in muslim faith.....

Anyone who is not white is muslim.... right!!!--

that's a very racist attitude you have there. You're the only one who mentioned skin colour, I mentioned religion, not race as being a common trait amongst the sex assault cases.

Jaafa

Dead one for sake of of peoples perspective on our religion I respectively ask you stop posting here

I understand you are trying to inform people and dispel myths about Islam etc, but frankly you are failing badly and doing more harm than good.

Don't not feel the need to convince anyone here for it suggests your own doubt rather that they're disbelief.

Please consider what I have said and not simply dismiss it.

Zillah

dead one wrote: »

No, you don't know outcomes, men working with women.....See, you can't control natural human desires...... Women and men can only work together if they are perfect in controlling their desires..... but it is impossible....

This is the logic that lets people condemn women for being raped. Because, y'know, men can't resist their desires so that slut shouldn't have dressed like that/walked there/led him on/gotten a job.

o1s1n

Zillah wrote: »

This is the logic that lets people condemn women for being raped. Because, y'know, men can't resist their desires so that slut shouldn't have dressed like that/walked there/led him on/gotten a job.

This pisses me off to no end.

Making female association taboo fuels the idea that men can't control themselves in societies which enforce these kinds of rules. It ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Deny people things and they'll end up fetishsizing and perverting them. Which to me is far worse than anything you see in the 'twisted immoral western world'.

I work with an office full of women. Shock shock horror, I haven't raped any of them.

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

Islam doesn't support rape, islam is against rape--- that is very clearly written in quran....

Really? OK what about "those your right hand possesses" mentioned a fair few times in the Quran? These refer to female slaves.

EG women that are allowed to Muslim men Quran 004.024
PICKTHAL: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

Now these captive married women would have come from the results of raids and battles, battles where its likely their husbands were killed by the Muslim army, yet it's alright to marry such women? Even the man who made them widows? Do you really think these women were magically willing? Unwilling woman + sex = rape.

And again;
33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war
Spoils of war? OK.

What about Mariyah the christian slave girl who became pregnant by Muhammed. After this he married her. This proves that it was OK for a Muslim man to have sex without marriage with his slave girls/captives/possessions of the right hand.

Sex with captive women who they're not married to:
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

These guys knew they wouldn't get as good a price for a pregnant slave girl. No use for work or sex, so practiced coitus interruptus to avoid that. Again I'm sure these women/war booty/items to be traded and used were willing. Yet what does this prophet do? Does he tell them it's bad to use women in this way? No. He merely states it's better not to try to prevent pregnancy as it'll happen or not due to allahs will. Also note it's again OK to have sex with women who are not your wife. How could these men sell them as slaves if they married them.

BTW this isn't just in one Hadeeth it's in Muslim as well;
SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born"

Also more sex with recent captives;
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).

In this case his followers were worried about pagan contamination from the wives of pagans, so Allah steps in and says "nah it's still ok to have sex with them so long as they're not on their period". No mention of dont have sex with terrified widowed captives.

So it seems rape/sex with unwilling captives is OK according to the Quran and hadeeth describing the sunnah of your prophet.

Jaafa wrote:

Dead one for sake of of peoples perspective on our religion I respectively ask you stop posting here

I understand you are trying to inform people and dispel myths about Islam etc, but frankly you are failing badly and doing more harm than good.

Or showing people what some Muslims, especially Muslim men think about their religion. His is not the first example of this I've directly come across. Not by a long shot. Scrape below the surface of too many and you get very similar attitudes. More to the point you rarely get considered reasoning against such attitudes and even more rarely those who will address the really obvious holes and morally dodgy passages. Well not beyond "context". Just like Christian fundamentalists. Now the vast majority of Muslims of all types don't act this crap out, nor think like this. Basic human decency tends to win out. Plus many Muslims, like many a la cart Christians have a rose tinted view of their religion and especially their prophet. I would suggest this is why many don't dig too deep and ignore the dodgy stuff. Context isn't always an excuse, oft times it's an internal defence against something they don't want to see.

PS I'm sure we'd all happily debate with someone more moderate or schooled in this religion. One who could point out the error in our ways.

kylith

Just on the subject of the treatment of women, please read this it is an account by a Muslim lady of her experiences in public, in broad daylight, at the hands of Muslim men.

Believe it or not, Dead One, I worked in an office with men for over a decade and not once did one of them look at me in any way that would make me feel objectified, never did a man lay a hand on me, never was I made to feel uncomfortable. This has been my experience all over the world; I have walked the streets of many countries, often on my own, sometimes after dark and the only place where I have been leered at, jostled and generally harassed was in a Muslim country, I was even told that just the fact that I'm European would have men convinced that I was a slut, and therefore fair game. This is because Islam teaches that women are second class citizens. Men are taught from an early age that women are little better than chattle, the Koran even recommends beating:

Sura 4:34 wrote:

Memorize three things from me, which I memorised from the prophet who said:"The man is not to be asked why he beat his wife.”

How, being raised in this manner, can boys grow up with a healthy relationship with women? As far as they're concerned, women are there to do as they're told, whether in the kitchen or in the bedroom (marital rape is not recognised in some Muslim countries).The wearing of something like a burka dehumanises a woman, and thus makes it easier to justify violence against her, rather than keeping her safe as Muslims claim it does (see link above). In a truely civilised country, where people show each other respect, a person, regardless of gender, should be able to walk the streets naked without fear of harrassment, as it is in the middle east women are forced to wear blankets over their heads and are still the victims of sexual abuse, and to add insult to injury, are then blamed for their own attacks.

I have never understood why Islam seems to have such little respect for the men who practise it; it seems convinced that they do not have the capacity for self control, and it excuses this by demonising women for nothing more than their biology. Many Muslim men have never been made to grow up past the point where they are breast-fixated infants.

Dead One, instead of wittering on with nonsense about the objectification of women in Western culture, encourage your peers to deal with the dehumanisation of women in Islamic cultures, with the misogeny that is displayed by men in these cultures.

Jaafa

Wibbs I just saying that dead one is only showing one Muslims point or view and he is the one many here are often debating with.

Now I'm sure as you said that others hold his view but I find the more....lets say 'unacceptable' views some Muslims hold often stem from poor education into their religion and poor education in general. Again I'm sure there are exceptions to this.

Also I'm not claiming to be better suited to answer questions on Islam. I'm young and still learning about my religion. Any time I see a criticism of it I take it seriously and try to see how it can be resolved.

Anyway in response to your point about 'those whom you right hand posses', I have unashamedly copied this post from another forum I came across while researching this topic. I understand you may feel this is a cop out, but Tbh this is the best explanation I have found so far and you can see the sources are sound. To paraphrase it would not do it justice.

So if you will:

Ma malakat aymanykum, wrongly translated as "right hand" posession has nothing to do with slavery or fornication, as ill prove using the Quran.

-Prisoners of war = Asraa or asira (plural) 8:67,76:8
-Slave = Abdan (Mamluka) 16:75,24:32,2:221, imaakum 24:32 or ammah (singular) 2:221, abid to mean slave(s) of Allah
-YOUR OATHS = Aymanikum 2:224,225,5:89,16:92,94,66:2 THEIR OATHS = Aymanihim 5:108,6:109,16:38,24:53,35:42
-right hand = Maimanah 56:8,90:18 or Yamin 17:71,20:17,56:27,38:90-91,74:39

the Quran NEVER EVER uses the word AYMANIKUM to refer to the RIGHT HANDS but always and exclusively for YOUR OATHS.

Ma Malakat aymanikum (lit. "whom your oaths posess" wrongly translated as right hand possession) is a phrase used for the poor humans whom an oath has been pledged to be taken care of. They are not necessarly prisonners of wars but can be if one wishes to take under his special care (under oath) a war prisonner, ie raising his/her status.

In 33:50, the prophet is told that among the categories of women lawful for marriage are Ma Malakat yaminuka (singular) FROM AMONG the prisonners of wars, which proves they are a seperate group from war prisonners.

Further in 33:55, the prophet's wives are not blamed for not wearing the veil in the presence of certain groups, including Ma Malakat aymanikum and this again excludes regular war prisonners. Or in 24:58 setting the limits of privacy inside a home between an adult and the rest of his/her household, including Ma Malakat aymanikum who cannot logically be war prisonners. In the context of marriage, they are also mentionned seperately than regular male/female slaves 24:32-33.

Ma malakat aymanikum are therefore some special people in society, weak and unable to provide for themselves. They might have families but are very poor to take care of them, Islam encourages a wealthy/capable believer to take them under his/her wing through an oath that he/she will provide for them.

16:71,4:33,24:33 remind the people of the moral obligation of sharing from what Allah has given them with the weak and poor, including Ma Malakat aymanikum. Then 4:36 clearly explains that the oath takers must provide Ma Malakat aymanikum i.e. those poor humans in our care under oath, equitably with everyone else "And serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and the alien neighbour, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and Ma Malakat aymanikum; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful".

No sexual relation (fornication) is allowed with them outside of wedlock 4:3,24:33.
This is emphasized again in 4:25"And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) ma malakat aymanikum from among your believing fatayaat (young women); and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters (ahlihuna), and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful", the believer is told to marry Ma Malakat aymanikum if he cannot sustain a free (financially) believing woman, and he has to take the consent of her family (ahlihuna wrongly translated as masters or owners).
Ma Malakat aymanikum must be given their dowries justly and in case they commit an indecency they will have half the punishment of the self sustained women, and if one abstains from punishement altogether and is patient with them it is better, due to their past hardships that may have affected their common sense and judgement.

Now you can show me quotes from Hadeeths which contradict this, but PERSONALLY I hold the word of the Quran above the word of man.

I hope I haven't lost you and that this answer is acceptable.