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
Post #121
You are correct, truth is based on proof which you refuse to provide. If someone does not agree then it is the job of the person making the claim to provide proof not as you seem to think the person making the objection. Just because you refuse to see the flaws in your argument does not mean they are not there.Fatihah wrote: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 #122
Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.Wyvern wrote:You are correct, truth is based on proof which you refuse to provide. If someone does not agree then it is the job of the person making the claim to provide proof not as you seem to think the person making the objection. Just because you refuse to see the flaws in your argument does not mean they are not there.Fatihah wrote: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 #123
Argument from Ignorance?[color=violet]Fatihah[/color] wrote:Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.
Post #124
Response:Woland wrote: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
1. For starters, I never stated that the translators valued consistency over translating appropriately, thus your interpolation makes your argument fallacious from the start. Thus it is you pleading the argument. Nor did I say that they were mistranslations. They are however, not the best way to translate the verse.
2. Some words have different meanings depending on it's context. Take for example the word "running". "I'm running for president", "I'm running a race", "My nose is running". Here we see the word running in all three sentences, but the meaning changes as the context changes. Similarly, "ma malakat aimanakum" changes in meaning depending on the context. Thus at some parts it refers to slaves and some parts it doesn't.
3. I can not provide any link which shows Ali's or Pickthall's commentary. And since I can not, it would be best to drop discussion on the matter, for even if I quote what it says, you have no way to verify. I suggest you purchase the translation with commentary.
4. Yes. Proof that Muhammad had a concubine would show that zina does not refer to sex with slaves.
Post #125
Response: Rebuttle of redundancy?AkiThePirate wrote:Argument from Ignorance?[color=violet]Fatihah[/color] wrote:Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.
Post #126
I haven't even addressed your claim merely the wording of it which constantly causes contradictions to spring up. If you want anyone to address your claims then you actually have to provide evidence to back up your claim. As you have said truth is based on proof, you have not given any proof so your claim is not true.Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.
-
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
- Sage
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: Kefitzat Haderech
Post #127
Nice link! I particularly enjoyed Carl Sagan’s quote of argumentum ad ignorantiam as ‘impatience with ambiguity’.AkiThePirate wrote:Argument from Ignorance?[color=violet]Fatihah[/color] wrote:Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.
لا إلـــــــــــــــــــــــــــه
Post #128
Response: Yet once again we see you produce no fault or contradicting words of my claim. Thus your own words support the fact the wording is clear and the claim is true.Wyvern wrote:I haven't even addressed your claim merely the wording of it which constantly causes contradictions to spring up. If you want anyone to address your claims then you actually have to provide evidence to back up your claim. As you have said truth is based on proof, you have not given any proof so your claim is not true.Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.
Post #130
Hello Fatihah,Fatihah wrote:Response: Yet once again we see you produce no fault or contradicting words of my claim. Thus your own words support the fact the wording is clear and the claim is true.Wyvern wrote:I haven't even addressed your claim merely the wording of it which constantly causes contradictions to spring up. If you want anyone to address your claims then you actually have to provide evidence to back up your claim. As you have said truth is based on proof, you have not given any proof so your claim is not true.Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.
If I may ask you a serious question...
Do you really think that what you wrote above is consistent with honest, rational debate?
"If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right"?
You keep endlessly repeating essentially the same thing in slightly different words.
It isn't reasonable to consider a claim as true until it's demonstrated to be such.
It isn't reasonable to consider a claim as true because it hasn't been proven wrong.
You keep making claims but never seem to back them up with anything else than more claims, which in turn are never substantiated by anything else than new claims.
Do you understand that meaningful discussion requires more than claims and triumphalism?
Even if it were true that Wyvern had found no weaknesses in the position you've adopted -which he certainly has- , your notion of "Thus your own words support the fact the wording is clear and the claim is true" would still be false.
Would you deny this?
The explanations you gave are strenuous at best, and need a lot of assumptions that aren't supported, apparently, by anything else than "necessity" on the part of Muslims who would rather not think of the implications of Muhammad's condoning sex with slaves.
The evidence against your position is strong.
-Quran: use of the words "ma malakat aymanukum" which are always used to refer to the prisoners of war. Is it intellectually honest to make an exception (special pleading) for verses that clearly speak of sexual relationships or lust for wives OR "ma malakat aymanukum" and say to ourselves "well Muhammad must be speaking of wives and future wives" even if there is no indication of this in the slightest?
-Hadith: Muhammad's impassibility when his own men speak of sex with captives or slaves, and the fact that sex with slaves or captives is never condemned anywhere in the Quran or Hadith
-Scholars, biographers, translators, etc.: Muhammad's concubine, use of the words "slave" or "captive" in the translations (please quote a bit of, say, Pickthall's explanation for this, I am really curious to see how he justifies the discrepancy)
-The notion that innumerable pious and learned Muslims believe that "ma malakat aymanukum" in the meaning of captives of war are halal for sexual relationships based on their belief in Islam's revered texts, as any quick internet search will show.
What do you have in support of your position, really?
-Your contention that the prohibition on zina encompasses sex with slaves, which isn't corroborated by the Quran or Hadith in the slightest.
That's all, and that's not much.
-Woland
