The oppression of women that Islam advocates is not only disturbing, but is direct contrast with everything that Christian civilization stands for when it comes to the rights of women.
The Quran
A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.
The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:
Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like
Husbands are a degree above their wives.
The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:
. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status
A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:
The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . .
A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.
The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:
And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.
A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man and then this second man divorces her.
The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:
And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry
Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.
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]
A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.
The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:
And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.
A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.
The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:
It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense.
Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).
The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.
Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. Islam supports peadophilia.
The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:
65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.
Mohammed had an 8 year old wife (peadophilia).
Although in the Quran he would limit his followers to having four wives, Mohammed himself took more than four wives and concubines.
It also poses a logical problem for Muslims. Because the Quran in Sura 4:3 forbids the taking of more than four wives, to have taken any more would have been sinful for Muhammad.
LIST OF MOHAMMED WIVES
1.Khadija 12. Hend
2. Sawda 13. Asma (of Saba)
3. Aesha 14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
4. Omm Salama 15. Habla
5. Halsa 16. Asma (of Noman)
6. Zaynab (of Jahsh) 17. Mary (the Christian)
7. Jowayriyi 18. Rayhana
8. Omm Habiba 19. Omm Sharik
9. Safiya 20. Maymuna
10. Maymuna (of Hareth) 21. Zaynab (a third one)
11. Fatema 22. Khawla
12. Hend
13. Asma (of Saba)
14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
15. Habla
16. Asma (of Noman)
17. Mary (the Christian)
18. Rayhana
19. Omm Sharik
20. Maymuna
21. Zaynab (a third one)
22. Khawla
The first 16 women were wives. Numbers 17 and 18 were slaves or concubines.
The last four women were neither wives or slaves but devout Muslim women who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.
Aesha was only eight or nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, she was still playing with her dolls. This facet of Muhammad's sexual appetite is particularly distressing to christians and hindus.
This aspect of Muhammad's personal life is something that many scholars pass over once again because they do not want to hurt the feelings of Muslims. Yet, history cannot be rewritten to avoid confronting the facts that Muhammad had unnatural desires for little girls. Islam and Mohammed is immoral.
Islam is anti women
Moderator: Moderators
-
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
- Sage
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: Kefitzat Haderech
Post #111
But, like Structuralists, you alone are privy to the correct interpretation?Fatihah wrote:different commentaries and sects are due to simply being misinformed or following one's own desire relating to what is to be comprehended from the qur'an, not because it is not an easy read.
لا إلـــــــــــــــــــــــــــه
Post #112
Response: The correct interpretation is not exclusive to myself, but evident to anyone who seeks it.Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:But, like Structuralists, you alone are privy to the correct interpretation?Fatihah wrote:different commentaries and sects are due to simply being misinformed or following one's own desire relating to what is to be comprehended from the qur'an, not because it is not an easy read.
Post #113
So basicallly you are saying you are right and he is not? Again I have found fault in that your definitions and usage makes for an obvious contradiction within the verse in question, your inability to see it makes me wonder if english is your native tongue. You have said married female slaves were having sex, but you have also said that once a female slave marries they are no longer a slave. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in that statement?Response: For starters, my native tongue is english, while it is apparent that it is your english that is in error, as demonstrated in the previous post. As for what another muslim has said, I've stated my case which shows that sex with slaves outside of marriage is not allowed in islam, which automatically addresses any view which says otherwise, muslim and non-muslim alike. And lastly, my definition is very much possible, supported by your inability to find fault in it.
Post #114
How can the koran be easy to comprehend when it uses words that have multiple inexact meanings which people like yourself then try to shoehorn their own ideas into? I have seen christian apologists do the same thing with the bible that you are doing with the koran, so why would I want to be part of a religion that is no better and in many ways worse than what I used to be? Yes you are correct it is easy to purposely misinterpret something in order to suit their own agenda which you have repeatedly shown in these forums.Response: Explanation fits perfectly with what other muslims say when saying the qur'an is made to easily comprehend. Secondly, the qur'an can be understood in other languages and in arabic. Thus one's inability to comprehend it is simply due to their own inability to comprehend, not the qur'an. But just because something can be comprehended easily does not mean that one can not be misinformed about what is to be comprehended or purposely misinterpret what is to be comprehended to suit their own agenda. Thus different commentaries and sects are due to simply being misinformed or following one's own desire relating to what is to be comprehended from the qur'an, not because it is not an easy read.
Post #115
Response: Yet I have never stated that any verse of the qur'an means married female slaves were having sex, nor can you quote otherwise, thus there is no contradiction, but rather a lack of comprehension on your part.Wyvern wrote:So basicallly you are saying you are right and he is not? Again I have found fault in that your definitions and usage makes for an obvious contradiction within the verse in question, your inability to see it makes me wonder if english is your native tongue. You have said married female slaves were having sex, but you have also said that once a female slave marries they are no longer a slave. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in that statement?Response: For starters, my native tongue is english, while it is apparent that it is your english that is in error, as demonstrated in the previous post. As for what another muslim has said, I've stated my case which shows that sex with slaves outside of marriage is not allowed in islam, which automatically addresses any view which says otherwise, muslim and non-muslim alike. And lastly, my definition is very much possible, supported by your inability to find fault in it.
Post #116
Neither you nor I have been talking about what the koran says but about what you say the koran says. If we are talking about what the koran says then firstly you have to substantiate your case. You must show that no islamic man has ever had sex outside of marriage, you have to show that female slaves or captives never had sex outside of marriage. You have to explain how a slave can have sex which by your definition means they had to be married but at the same time they were not slaves even though you name them such.Fatihah wrote:Response: Yet I have never stated that any verse of the qur'an means married female slaves were having sex, nor can you quote otherwise, thus there is no contradiction, but rather a lack of comprehension on your part.Wyvern wrote:So basicallly you are saying you are right and he is not? Again I have found fault in that your definitions and usage makes for an obvious contradiction within the verse in question, your inability to see it makes me wonder if english is your native tongue. You have said married female slaves were having sex, but you have also said that once a female slave marries they are no longer a slave. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in that statement?Response: For starters, my native tongue is english, while it is apparent that it is your english that is in error, as demonstrated in the previous post. As for what another muslim has said, I've stated my case which shows that sex with slaves outside of marriage is not allowed in islam, which automatically addresses any view which says otherwise, muslim and non-muslim alike. And lastly, my definition is very much possible, supported by your inability to find fault in it.
Post #117
Response: For starters, to say that neither of us are talking about what the qur'an says but what I say the qur'an says is not even a coherent sentence, especially considering your habit of analyzing one's english. For when talking about the qur'an says and the person answers, the answer is what the person says the qur'an says. In other words, talking about "what the qur'an says" and "what I say the qur'an says" are synonymous statements, not different as you suggest.Wyvern wrote:Neither you nor I have been talking about what the koran says but about what you say the koran says. If we are talking about what the koran says then firstly you have to substantiate your case. You must show that no islamic man has ever had sex outside of marriage, you have to show that female slaves or captives never had sex outside of marriage. You have to explain how a slave can have sex which by your definition means they had to be married but at the same time they were not slaves even though you name them such.Fatihah wrote:Response: Yet I have never stated that any verse of the qur'an means married female slaves were having sex, nor can you quote otherwise, thus there is no contradiction, but rather a lack of comprehension on your part.Wyvern wrote:So basicallly you are saying you are right and he is not? Again I have found fault in that your definitions and usage makes for an obvious contradiction within the verse in question, your inability to see it makes me wonder if english is your native tongue. You have said married female slaves were having sex, but you have also said that once a female slave marries they are no longer a slave. Do you not see the obvious contradiction in that statement?Response: For starters, my native tongue is english, while it is apparent that it is your english that is in error, as demonstrated in the previous post. As for what another muslim has said, I've stated my case which shows that sex with slaves outside of marriage is not allowed in islam, which automatically addresses any view which says otherwise, muslim and non-muslim alike. And lastly, my definition is very much possible, supported by your inability to find fault in it.
As for what the qur'an says, your requirements to substantiate my case is not valid, for whether men or female slaves or captives have ever had sex outside of marriage is not proof or disproves what the qur'an says. How a people behave is not synonymous to what words mean. The meaning of words is based on their definition, not one's behavior. Nor is an explanation of how a slave has sex proof of what the qur'an means. As for what the verses mean, it has been proven and substantated in post 94 to you, as it shows what the literal arabic translation is and it's multiple meanings.
Post #118
If every muslim in the world held your views what you say would be true but as we have seen even on this thread not every muslim holds your view on this subject so yes we are talking about what YOU say the koran says. Since your views are not universal you can not say that what you say the koran says is what the koran actually says. What is Islams stand on being prideful?Response: For starters, to say that neither of us are talking about what the qur'an says but what I say the qur'an says is not even a coherent sentence, especially considering your habit of analyzing one's english. For when talking about the qur'an says and the person answers, the answer is what the person says the qur'an says. In other words, talking about "what the qur'an says" and "what I say the qur'an says" are synonymous statements, not different as you suggest.
No you did not prove or substantiate anything in post 94 you merely tried to explain what you meant previously. If you are unwilling or unable to substantiate your case then you don't have a case at all and have been doing nothing but blowing smoke this entire time. Until you can actually prove what you have been saying this entire time is true there is nothing for us to talk about. If you refuse to abide by one of the few rules of debate that are followed here everything you have said in this and other threads is nothing more than conjecture on your part.As for what the qur'an says, your requirements to substantiate my case is not valid, for whether men or female slaves or captives have ever had sex outside of marriage is not proof or disproves what the qur'an says. How a people behave is not synonymous to what words mean. The meaning of words is based on their definition, not one's behavior. Nor is an explanation of how a slave has sex proof of what the qur'an means. As for what the verses mean, it has been proven and substantated in post 94 to you, as it shows what the literal arabic translation is and it's multiple meanings.
Post #119
Response: Another of your completely irrational arguments. As we can see from above, you've provided no evidence which shows my argument to be flawed, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claim is substantiate. If you can't find fault in it, then you have no proof that it's not substantiated. Then you make the absurd claim that it's what "I say" the qur'an says and not what the qur'an says because all muslims don't agree. How illogical is that? Truthhood is based on proof, not consensus. The fact that someone does not agree that something is true is not proof that it's not true. Truth is based on proof. And the fact that you can't point to any flaw and show how it is a flaw supports the fact that my argument is substantiated, thus it is what the qur'an says.Wyvern wrote:If every muslim in the world held your views what you say would be true but as we have seen even on this thread not every muslim holds your view on this subject so yes we are talking about what YOU say the koran says. Since your views are not universal you can not say that what you say the koran says is what the koran actually says. What is Islams stand on being prideful?Response: For starters, to say that neither of us are talking about what the qur'an says but what I say the qur'an says is not even a coherent sentence, especially considering your habit of analyzing one's english. For when talking about the qur'an says and the person answers, the answer is what the person says the qur'an says. In other words, talking about "what the qur'an says" and "what I say the qur'an says" are synonymous statements, not different as you suggest.
No you did not prove or substantiate anything in post 94 you merely tried to explain what you meant previously. If you are unwilling or unable to substantiate your case then you don't have a case at all and have been doing nothing but blowing smoke this entire time. Until you can actually prove what you have been saying this entire time is true there is nothing for us to talk about. If you refuse to abide by one of the few rules of debate that are followed here everything you have said in this and other threads is nothing more than conjecture on your part.As for what the qur'an says, your requirements to substantiate my case is not valid, for whether men or female slaves or captives have ever had sex outside of marriage is not proof or disproves what the qur'an says. How a people behave is not synonymous to what words mean. The meaning of words is based on their definition, not one's behavior. Nor is an explanation of how a slave has sex proof of what the qur'an means. As for what the verses mean, it has been proven and substantated in post 94 to you, as it shows what the literal arabic translation is and it's multiple meanings.
Post #120
Hello Fatihah,Fatihah wrote:Woland wrote: 1. Please explain why Pickthall and Yusufali, two of the most widely accepted translators used the words "slaves" or "captives" in the verse (23:6) which you believe refer to wives, and why the others use a term which refers to prisoners of war in the rest of the Quran (as far as I know, can you show otherwise?). "Consistency" is a very poor explanation at best, for obvious reasons which I have already mentioned.
2. Please explain to me why these verses originally use an Arabic term which is "otherwise" (according to your contention) used throughout the Quran to refer to prisoners of war who were used as slaves and considered to be property, which obviously creates confusion in the minds of many learned and devout Muslims and scholars who are convinced that Muhammad had a concubine and that slaveowners could have sex with their slaves based on the information available from Muslims and Islam's sacred texts.
3. Please present or summarize the commentary which you introduced as evidence in the debate and which you said explains why the verse is speaking of wives, and tell us why we should take it as authoritative over the words of Yusufali and Pickthal, who speak of captives or slaves in 23:6. If you are in possession of their (Pickthal, Shakir) commentaries of have them available, which I do not, please provide a short exerpt or summary which demonstrates your position's validity. Otherwise, retract your claim that the translators' own commentaries explain that the verses speak of wives alone.
4. Please tell me if you believe that Muhammad had a concubine named Mariah, as a Muslim "attempts to" demonstrate at http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... cubine.htm with all sorts of references to the texts and maintream scholar's opinions, and if not, tell me why you reject the evidence provided at the link I mentioned (I can reproduce or summarize it here if you wish, but it's quite elaborate), and explain why so many devout and learned Muslims seem to "not get it" that zina includes slaves/captives/servants to which one is not married, as you suggested.
1. That was addressed in post 94. Your rebuttle that consistency is not correct makes no sense, as it suggests that writing in consistency is an irrational concept, which makes no sense.
2.Never once did I say that the verse uses "otherwise".
3. The commentary which I referred to is Yusef Ali and Pickthall as well who both say that there translations means that the slaves are married and sex partakes after the marriage.
4. You yourself would firsr have to produce why the article of Sam Shamoun is correct before I partake in disproving it, not presenting something as correct and suggesting me to disprove it without you first stating why it is correct.
As for the rest, it has already been debunked, including the hadiths, in post 67.
1. You are suggesting that the translators value consistency over translating the phrase to give it the appropriate meaning in context. Consistency with what? You yourself suggested that the expression can have multiple meanings, thus there is no need at all to "mistranslate it" just so that it will fit the meaning of the other times when ma malakat aymanukum is used at the risk of confusing Muslims, as it clearly has considering the number of Muslims who think that sex with "ma malakat aymanukum" who aren't wives was allowed - using consistency as an excuse doesn't help your case in the slightest, and it nearly amounts to an admission that you are using special pleading to excuse the few instances where the expression "must not" mean what it usually does. The translators did not even bother translating the phrase in "that which you rightfully possess", which would have slightly helped you make your case that the verse refers to wives - they used the words "slaves" and "captives". Do you know what special pleading means?
2. I ask you again, please explain to me why "ma malakat aymanukum" is never (to my knowledge) used in the text to refer to wives except in these instances where you claim it "must" mean your spouses when even the translators speak about wives or slaves or captives. If you say it is indeed used elsewhere to clearly refer to wives, please show the verse(s) so we may discuss.
3. They do? Now that would be interesting. Would it be possible for you to quote, link to, or scan a small part of it? I am curious to see why they translated the words as slaves. Quite simply: either the verse doesn't mention or refer to slaves or captives at all, or it does. If it does, then the verses allow for sexual relations between wives or "ma malakat aymanukum". The verb is in the present, and Allah wouldn't refer to a wife as a slave or captive, if we are to believe you. If it doesn't, then we are left wondering why Allah would use such ambiguous terms which have confused many "pious" and learned Muslims considering the rest of the Quran and Sahih Hadith. Choose which explanation you want to stick with. Does the verse speak of slaves or captives, or not?
4. Indeed. Do you agree that if it were to be demonstrated that Muhammad had a concubine, then it would mean that the prohibition on zina cannot possibly refer to any intercourse outside of marriage?
-Woland
