|
Post by Uncle Tom on Dec 23, 2014 11:04:15 GMT
...they...bend over backwards to take it up the arse... I tried this, but it doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by uncleTomUpTheArse on Dec 23, 2014 19:46:28 GMT
ISIS jihadis chortle on video over their emulation of Muhammad the slave trader and pederast. The "depraved and depressing document" cobbled together by ISIS governing the rape and enslavement and sale of non-muslim girl children and women in The Caliphate is, in fact, cobbled together from the Quran and the Hadith - the words and deeds of Muhammad himself. Don't the folk who are so outraged by this document know that it is authentic, original Islam? Why is the Quran never described by the Politically Correct as "depraved and depressing"? Because that is precisely what it is and anyone with the nous to read it knows it. Nevertheless I have been called "racist" for being negative about "the religion of peace". Maybe the excesses of ISIS will bring the Quran under more critical scrutiny by civil and human rights exponents. It would be high time! Why do the politically correct extend to Islam a tenderheartedness that they would not DREAM of extending to way-out Christian fundamentalists? Answer because they are self-hating Uncle Toms who think everything is wrong with West but who bend over backwards to take it up the arse from Islam. And, no, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam". It's a ghastly, inhuman, repressive, misogynistic, death-loving cult that no sane western person with humanistic values should give the time of day to and certainly not in terms of "equality" of respect. Open your eyes, you multiculturalists. The West has much to be proud of but it is failing to live up to its values. Islam thinks the West is a pushover. They are right and political correctness is the origin of the West's supine tolerance of the intolerable. What's with all those "quotation marks"? Who are you "quoting"...?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 24, 2014 9:11:01 GMT
And nery a word to utter about the substance of the post. How very typical. Don't want to commit yourself, eh, spesh? To difficult? Too much cognitive dissonance involved to reveal your inner contradictions in public? Get over it, pal. No-one is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 24, 2014 9:21:27 GMT
The "depraved and depressing document" was a quote from the ITV news correspondent who covered the ISIS video the other night. Presumaby he, too, did not realise it was just a pale reflection of the Quran and Hadith. "Equality" is just a quote from any PC multiculturalist clone you care to mention. Could even be YOU, spesh, if you ever dared to commit your values to print. Nobbut "reactionary", our Spesh on this board, however. Maybe s/he has a different more open and honest persona on other more PC boards. S/he must find this one a very alien place. Still, it's good to get out of the echo chamber occasionally, innit, Spesh?
|
|
|
Post by 100%SPESH on Dec 24, 2014 10:27:14 GMT
The "depraved and depressing document" was a quote from the ITV news correspondent who covered the ISIS video the other night. Presumaby he, too, did not realise it was just a pale reflection of the Quran and Hadith. "Equality" is just a quote from any PC multiculturalist clone you care to mention. Could even be YOU, spesh, if you ever dared to commit your values to print. Nobbut "reactionary", our Spesh on this board, however. Maybe s/he has a different more open and honest persona on other more PC boards. S/he must find this one a very alien place. Still, it's good to get out of the echo chamber occasionally, innit, Spesh? You said the word "spesh" nineteen times in that last post! your obsession with "spesh" is up there with the Islams and climate innit. Look. If you really want to have a debate and not simply deliver a tirade then you'll have to be a little less vague. So instead of saying that their big religious book is "depraved and depressing" perhaps you could quote an actual passage which you think shows that to be the case. We could discuss that; something to get our teeth into, yes? Otherwise your "bunny ears" post is just you parading your personal peeves. Illuminating,perhaps, but sadly no more than that.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 24, 2014 11:28:32 GMT
We cannot "discuss" anything about the Quran until you read it, spesh. Make it your Christmas homework to find out what it says about the treatment of women slaves taken in battle. What a jolly thought!
|
|
|
Post by the real spesh on Dec 24, 2014 13:30:57 GMT
We cannot "discuss" anything about the Quran until you read it, spesh. Make it your Christmas homework to find out what it says about the treatment of women slaves taken in battle. What a jolly thought! If you can't just tell us what it says that you find so objectionable then the obvious conclusion to draw is that you haven't even read it yourself! Put up or shut up is what the politicians say isn't it? So I ask you again: give one passage that you think is " depraved".
|
|
|
Post by sin on Dec 24, 2014 17:48:36 GMT
We cannot "discuss" anything about the Quran until you read it, spesh. Make it your Christmas homework to find out what it says about the treatment of women slaves taken in battle. What a jolly thought! If you can't just tell us what it says that you find so objectionable then the obvious conclusion to draw is that you haven't even read it yourself! Put up or shut up is what the politicians say isn't it? So I ask you again: give one passage that you think is " depraved". This might provide some interesting Christmas reading for those who wish to broaden their minds. Slave-girls as sexual property in the Quran James M. Arlandson
Would you join a religion that permitted men to have sex with their slave-girls throughout their enslavement—if this religion codified this act in its holy book?
Many persons in the West (and elsewhere) who convert to Islam are women. I just got an email from a Muslim woman who said she converted to Islam two years ago. Would women do this if they knew about ALL of this religion? Reasonable women should stop and think a second time before taking this serious step (but a reversible one, albeit punishable by death in many Islamic countries).
Islam goes more deeply than just the benign Five Pillars. It has many unpleasant truths lurking in its sacred texts. The goal of this article is to bring out yet another of these truths, so people can make fully informed decisions from all of the facts.
Would the true God inspire the following verses six hundred years after Jesus showed us a better way?
Sex with slave-girls in times of peace
Sura (Chapter) 23 was revealed during Muhammad’s life in Mecca before his Hijrah or Emigration from his home city to Medina in AD 622. During the early years of his ministry, he never waged war on anyone, so these were times of peace, although he suffered from a measure of persecution. For more information on the historical and the literary topical contexts of Sura 23, click here.
The Quran in Sura 23:5-6 says:
5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)
The key words are "those who are legally in their possession." Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave-girls is lawful.
Maududi writes:
Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)
The main point in this section, which Maududi overlooks or refuses to criticize, is that Muhammad himself endorses not only the entire institution of slavery, but also sex between male owners and their female slaves within this institution. But how can he and devout Muslims criticize their prophet without seriously damaging Islam? But Muslims must do this, if they think clearly and critically, and for the good of humanity.
It should be noted that Sura 70:29-30, also revealed in Mecca, uses nearly the identical words as Sura 23:5-6. Men must guard their private parts from everyone but their wives and slave-girls, meaning that men may have sex with both "categories" (Maududi’s word).
If readers would like to see these verses in multiple translations, they should go to this website. This one has three translations, and this one is funded by the Saudi royal family.
Sex with slave-girls in times of war
Now Muhammad has emigrated from Mecca to Medina. By the time Sura 4 is revealed, where our next Quranic verse is found, he has fought many wars and skirmishes. For example, he fights the Meccans in the Battle of Badr in AD 624 and again the Meccans at the Battle of Uhud in AD 625. He also exiles the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa in AD 624 and Nadir in AD 625. He carries forward this policy of sex between male owners and their female slaves to his new city of Medina, with the added twist of enslaving women prisoners of war and permitting his soldiers to have sex with them. For more information on the historical and literary topical contexts of this next sura, please click here.
The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:
And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319). (See also Suras 4:3 and 33:50)
Thus, women captives are sometimes forced to marry their Muslim masters, regardless of the marital status of the women. That is, the masters are allowed to have sex with the enslaved human property.
Maududi says in his comment on the verse that it is lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44).
But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge? The answer is obvious for those who understand simple justice. No sex should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords under any circumstance.
This sexual injustice is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so.
Predictably, the hadith perpetuate this Quran-inspired immorality.
The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s actions and words outside of the Quran. The most reliable collector and editor is Bukhari (d. 870).
The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.
Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?
The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus).
What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?
Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)
Thus, Muhammad casually believes that slave women who are part of the one-fifth of the spoils of war can be treated like sexual property. Ali is a Muslim hero. He was the husband of Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter by his first wife Khadija. So why would the model prophet for the world scold his son-in-law for having sex with a slave-girl? After all, slaves are fair sexual game. The Quran says so.
Moreover, holy jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason one expects: simple justice.
While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists "received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus." They asked the holy prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say.
He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever, declaring it haram (forbidden). Rather, he gets lost in theology and the quirky doctrine of fate:
It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; for parallel hadiths go here and here)
That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born. Muhammad does not prohibit this extremely immoral practice just when the time was right to forbid it.
It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.
Islam codifies and legalizes rape.
It is disappointing that the Quran does not abolish this sexual crime in the clearest terms: Thou shalt not have sex with slave-girls under any circumstance!
Conclusion
It may be argued that American slave-owners committed sexual crimes against their slaves before the Civil War (1861-1865), so who are Christians or Americans (the two are not identical) to complain about Islam?
In reply, however, the two situations are different. First, it is wrong to compare the US with the Muslim community founded by Muhammad, who claimed divine inspiration. Instead, it is best to compare the founder of a religion (Jesus) with another founder (Muhammad). Second, in no place in the New Testament does God give permission to men—Christian or secular—to have sex with slave-girls. This would violate the spirit of Jesus’ ministry and the entire writings of the New Testament authors, who understood Jesus as fulfilling the Old Testament. If Americans in a bygone era did this, then they were not following God’s law. The Quran, however, codifies and legalizes this sexual crime, and allegedly this book came down from Allah through Gabriel to Muhammad. Any clear-thinking individual can see that having sex with women in their most desperate condition (slavery) is wrong.
But the real issue is much larger than questions about American history.
The following question must be asked and answered: Is Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam the best prophet, book, and religion to lead humanity into the new millennium?
For those of us on the outside of Islam who examine the evidence with as much objectivity as we can and who have not been blinded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious: no, they are not the best to lead all of humanity into the new millennium.
Therefore, all clear-thinking Muslims who live under hyper-religious oppressors must throw them off and ignite secular revolutions, such as the one that happened in Turkey after World War I. Maybe this will happen in Iran, and maybe Iraq will steer clear of sharia (Islamic law), as Iraqis take their first baby steps towards democracy. They must get away from the Quran and Muhammad’s example.
Until these revolutions happen and until religious leaders renounce many verses in the Quran and the hadith, we on the outside of this religion are allowed to distrust Muhammad’s religion.
And women who are tempted to convert to this religion must stop and think a second time.Contained within that piece are links which won't work as quotes, so here is a link to the actual article. www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_slaves.htm
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 26, 2014 14:55:51 GMT
People who challenge others on the content of a book they themselves have not read are known as "prats", spesh. But if you wish to use secondary sources that will give you chapter and verse of the relevant passages rather than read the Quran itself there are tons of them as sin has pointed out. Muhammad had quite a lot to say about slaves in The Quran, especially female ones, especially about sex with them Just do a google search, then you will know a much as sin and I do! There's something to aim for, eh? P.S. I don't think Muhammad and his men knew about "No means no", BTW! And the current lot of jihadis don't either - and very proper, too, for those emulating "The Perfect Man". Try this for a list in the form of video slides of Muhammad's teaching, behaviour, sexul abuse with minors and subordinates and atrocities committed by him and willingly emulated by modern jihadis. crossmuslims.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html All because what Muhammad did they may do and what Muhammad did not forbid no modernising, liberal or "moderate" muslim may forbid either. A recipe for Dark Ages stasis, innit? BTW did you ever hear of Jesus raping a slave, behading an enemy or even murdering someone who wrote a funny poem about him? Think about it, eh? Some prophets lead more exemplary lives than others, innit?
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Dec 27, 2014 0:00:08 GMT
MR, if you always choose ‘sources’ that promote an anti-Islam and pro-Christian message, why should we professed atheists/agnostics (including you) – and others of reason as well as religion - engage with you, a professed pro-Christian and anti-Islamic poster? Why not, as ‘spesh’ says, just quote the bits of the Qur’an that prove your point? (What you posted was pretty full of tosh, don’t you think?)
As you know, I’ve tried to read the Q; but I’m not an Arabist, and find all translations pretty meaningless; and there are plenty of different interpretations; and I’ve read a lot of modern-day Islamic scholars who would deny yours, in the modern context.
[ MR, Just to pre-empt your usual jibes about my family, whose existence you exploit mercilessly, and who can’t defend themselves here, and as I’ve made absolutely plain before, I haven’t seen a great deal to like in Islam, but have a little more affinity with Christianity and Judaism. Other religions are available. On AmazMayaInca.co.uk ]
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 27, 2014 12:46:15 GMT
I knew you would say that, which is why I "always" in fact, contrary to your statement, tell people to go direct to the Quran. But since spesh was proving resistant to reading the stuff direct from the horse's mouth I thought I would help him/her along with chapter and verse from secondary sources.
You can't win with the terminally PC, can you?
I have read the Quran from cover to cover. I know exactly what sort of "teaching" it purveys and I know precisely why jihadis lurve it. They can do beastly things to unbelievers and even to fellow muslims and all with the sanction and example of the WarlordcumProphet himself. Win-win for them!
And no, it's not a matter of later "interpretation". It is a matter of respecting the record of what is held to be the behaviour and sayings of the Prophet during his lifetime in the Quran which was first recited orally and later written down, and also in the Hadith and the Sunnah, the accumulation of witness statements about what Muhammad did and said and how he lived.
There's no way Muhammad can truthfully be made with hindsight to seem better than he actually was - a ruthless warlord, any more than Jesus can be presented as a modern politically correct "new man", though there are plenty in the "modernised" Neo-Anglican Church who try to do precisely that. I think we should have more respect for the historical record, such as it is.
Islam is a ghastly, totalitarian travesty of a religion. No good can come of it's aggression and intolerance so why try to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear when it can be abandoned altogether? The tribal mentality of the MIddle East and muslim Africa today is a fine example of what early Islam in Arabia was like with murder and mayhem used instead of preaching and persuasion in matters of belief. Before Muhammad, Arabia was a multicultural region of tribes of pagans, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians et al. Muhammad took it upon himself to "unite" these various tribes and religions courtesy of a bloodbath.
And as for Jerusalem being a holy place of Islam that's another grotesque travesty. Muhammad had no connection with Jerusalem. He never went there. When living in Mecca he had a dream in which he dreamt he went to Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount "ascended" into heaven to converse with the patriarchs of Israel. Then he descended down again and was back home in Mecca in time for breakfast. It was a DREAM. Geddit? Upon this "dream" the muslims lay claim to the Temple Mount, the foundations of a REAL, TANGIBLE Jewish temple described by many REAL historians and actually built by Jews many centuries before Muhammad lived and so large that it would have been visible from space. But muslim fanatics can persuade themselves of anything and re-write history for Western gulls. I heard the tale of the "night journey" repeated by a TV correspondent recently as if Muhammad actually had "ascended into heaven" on that spot and not merely dreamed he had, as if there were a real tangible link between him and that place. Sorry, no.
Google "The NIght Journey" to find out how frail the connection of Islam to Jerusalem actually is.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 27, 2014 14:03:30 GMT
...I thought I would help him/her along with chapter and verse from secondary sources... But what sources! Can you only find some fundamentalist evangelical Christian to say what you want said? Not in Arabic, though. When you can do that, we might listen.
|
|
|
Post by LovelyBottom on Dec 27, 2014 14:09:45 GMT
I have read the Quran from cover to cover. . ...then find a bit, just one bit, that is "depraved" in your view and reprint it here. It it can't be that difficult and must be a lot easier than all the side-stepping and obfuscation you're currently indulging in.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 27, 2014 14:47:52 GMT
You apologists will always find a reason to bury your heads in the sand concerning Islam or any other of your pet causes and beliefs. I'm not pandering to your tricks. Either read the Quran for yourselves and understand the life and behaviour there described and debate it here or STFU. I'm not spoon-feeding you deniers.
By the way, Mecca to Jerusalem is 767 miles.
And returning to the "depressing depravity" of The Caliphate's jihadis you may wonder (but I doubt it) why Islam has never repudiated slavery. It cannot, because Muhammad himself and his men took captives in their many battles and kept them as slaves, also ransoming them or selling them. To repudiate slavery would be to repudiate the behaviour and teaching of their Prophet and Perfect Man. Impossible. Geddit?
|
|
|
Post by TrickyTheTrickster on Dec 27, 2014 15:29:13 GMT
I'm not pandering to your tricks. Damn! Jean was up very late with me preparing the groundwork for that trick. Anyway,well done you for spotting it!
|
|