Islam is anti women

[CabinInTheForest]

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.

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: And we once again see the desperateness. When speaking of "ma malakat aimanakum" and how it changes meaning according to context, you failed to provide any proof that it doesn't. Thus your own words support the fact that my claim is correct.

*Facepalm*

I find it astounding that you still haven't realized the irrationality of the sort of diatribe quoted above despite my numerous explanations and examples, which you unsurprisingly haven't addressed. The least you could do would be to consider stopping this futile practice of projecting false logic onto others.

I am beginning to tire of this conversation mostly consisting of point-by-point, substantiated rebuttals on my part and evasive tactics, an assortment of fallacies, triumphalism and denialism on your part - a true refusal to acknowledge that strong evidence exists against your position, which cannot be substantiated except by endless further unsupported claims and special pleading.

Then you use another absurd kind of logic suggesting that Muhammad is immoral because you read a report which does not say that he prevented an atrocity. Then according to your logic, you're immoral because there's no report above showing that you're not a rapist.

Didn't I explain to you why this sort of equivocation between two incomparable scenarios is invalid?
http://fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html
Please, read it.

Why do you insist on making false analogies?
Do you at least acknowledge, based on what I've said in previous posts, that your previous analogies were weak?

As I've said, according to your logic, Muhammad would not have intervened if he saw an immoral act happen, involving his own men, that wasn't explicitly condemned by Allah. This is exactly what you implied here:

the qur'an was revealed in intervals (25:32). As such, there are several things in which islam prohibits that you will find allowed in the hadiths. Why? Because there was no revelation to prohibit the acts yet, for the qur'an was revealed piece by piece. So when reading the hadiths concerning sex with slaves, it is not that islam allows it. It's that the verse to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed. I can show you several hadiths in which muslims drink and would go to the masjid drunk and the prophet did nothing. That however changed when Allah revealed the verse prohibiting alcohol.

So in conclusion, the question is what does islam allow. And the answer is clear that islam does not allow sex outside of marriage or sex with slaves. The hadiths in which show that they were allowed is in reference to the fact that the verses to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed.

Remember, this was your original attempt to excuse Muhammad's inaction. Now, you are trying your evasive tactics and false analogies to divert from the fact that Muhammad, if he knew what was moral, should have never allowed his men to have sex with female captives they intended to ransom, or with slaves. There shouldn't be Hadiths showing the "prophet" being more concerned about coitus interruptus than about the questionable morality of his own men.

Surely, anyone can see the flaw in your degrading ideology, not islam. Lastly, you again try another interpolation suggesting that I stated that the translators translate into different meaning for consistency, when I said that they translate to show consistency, not different meaning, building another strawman argument.

What?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but either way, it's irrelevant.

Thus we see more baseless assertions which only demonstrate your flawed, faulty ideology, not islam.

It's interesting to see you repeat this sort of sentence endlessly because I don't remember stating anything about my ideology, except that it may be apparent to you by now that I have great disdain for a religion which teaches (and you've agreed on the following) to kill peaceful homosexuals who are just minding their own business ("because they use each other"), or that a girl aged 3 should be allowed to consent to marriage with an adult ("because she can consent"), or that girls who have their menses are ready for sexual intercourse ("who says so? nature says so"). Let's not forget, wife-beating is allowed under certain circumstances (and a beating which doesn't leave a mark can't be considered abuse). Great - Islam isn't anti-women at all.

At all.

To think of the collective result of the innumerable Muslims who rationalize nefarious beliefs as you do while firmly ignoring human rights and basic biological and psychological scientific knowledge makes me shudder.

I can see that you won't stop the broken record thing anytime soon.

Farewell for this thread at least.

-Woland

Response: And here we are again, as we watch another attempt to make islam appear as degrading as your ideology. Let's analyze.

First you begin with the same redundancy of stating that my claim of "someone failing to support their claim of fault in someone's logic is support that the person's logic is correct" is nonsense, yet you constantly fail to demonstrate how over and over again. The best you come up with is "it's wrong because it's wrong", which is the logic of a child, once again showing fault in your logic, not mine.

Then for the oddest of reasons, you insist on using the same analogy which shows you as a rapist, according to your logic. For it is your logic that because a person doesn't report Muhammad condemning sex with slaves under a topic which is not about slaves, makes Muhammad immoral. Then according to your own logic, since there is no report that you are not a rapist above, then you condone rape. This is your logic, which only shows another example of your degrading ideology, not islam. An ideology which says it's o.k. to use people sexually and have sex with slaves. You're clearly in a company all by yourself. While islam is shown to liberate women, grants them the best of rights, and advocates intimate committment through marriage. Once again demonstrating islam is the best for women.

[Wyvern]

Response: More of the same redundancy.

If you would actually answer the question instead of thinking you have answered we would not have to keep asking you for the same thing over and over again.

Response: To the contrary, if you desist from redundancy, you wouldn't have to ask the same thing over and over again.

The ball's in your court Fatihah, until you show proof of what you say we are stuck here and until you do so your claim is not proven so it can not be determined whether it is true or not.

[Fatihah]

Response: More of the same redundancy.

If you would actually answer the question instead of thinking you have answered we would not have to keep asking you for the same thing over and over again.

Response: To the contrary, if you desist from redundancy, you wouldn't have to ask the same thing over and over again.

The ball's in your court Fatihah, until you show proof of what you say we are stuck here and until you do so your claim is not proven so it can not be determined whether it is true or not.

Response: To the contrary, it has been proven, supported by the fact that you can't back your claim that there's any fault in my claim.

[LiamOS]

I've seen no proof other than attempts at arguments from ignorance.
I'd wager that Wyvern hasn't spotted any, either.

[Wyvern]

Response: More of the same redundancy.

If you would actually answer the question instead of thinking you have answered we would not have to keep asking you for the same thing over and over again.

Response: To the contrary, if you desist from redundancy, you wouldn't have to ask the same thing over and over again.

The ball's in your court Fatihah, until you show proof of what you say we are stuck here and until you do so your claim is not proven so it can not be determined whether it is true or not.

Response: To the contrary, it has been proven, supported by the fact that you can't back your claim that there's any fault in my claim.

As has been stated before this is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You continue to provide proof so you can not say your claim is true. Until you actually come forth with this supposed proof this conversation is over.

[Fatihah]

Response: More of the same redundancy.

If you would actually answer the question instead of thinking you have answered we would not have to keep asking you for the same thing over and over again.

Response: To the contrary, if you desist from redundancy, you wouldn't have to ask the same thing over and over again.

The ball's in your court Fatihah, until you show proof of what you say we are stuck here and until you do so your claim is not proven so it can not be determined whether it is true or not.

Response: To the contrary, it has been proven, supported by the fact that you can't back your claim that there's any fault in my claim.

As has been stated before this is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You continue to provide proof so you can not say your claim is true. Until you actually come forth with this supposed proof this conversation is over.

Response: Yet we can clearly see that such is not the case. Instead we see that the proof has been presented and when done so, you make the claim that it has fault but fail to provide these alleged faults. Thus your own words support the fact that the claim has been proven. Thanks for the clarification.

[Wyvern]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that such is not the case. Instead we see that the proof has been presented and when done so, you make the claim that it has fault but fail to provide these alleged faults. Thus your own words support the fact that the claim has been proven. Thanks for the clarification.

If the proof has been presented then it should be easy for you to present it once again, the ball is still in your court.

[Fatihah]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that such is not the case. Instead we see that the proof has been presented and when done so, you make the claim that it has fault but fail to provide these alleged faults. Thus your own words support the fact that the claim has been proven. Thanks for the clarification.

If the proof has been presented then it should be easy for you to present it once again, the ball is still in your court.

Response: And when the proof was presented and you claimed fault in it, you still have failed to demonstrate such. The ball is still in your court.

[Wyvern]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that such is not the case. Instead we see that the proof has been presented and when done so, you make the claim that it has fault but fail to provide these alleged faults. Thus your own words support the fact that the claim has been proven. Thanks for the clarification.

If the proof has been presented then it should be easy for you to present it once again, the ball is still in your court.

Response: And when the proof was presented and you claimed fault in it, you still have failed to demonstrate such. The ball is still in your court.

I found fault in your claim which you have yet to prove in the first place, if you will not provide this proof of yours then this discussion is at an end. If in your next post you continue to say you have demonstrated it but fail to show it then this discussion is over. The only thing which will allow this conversation to continue is if you provide something to discuss.

[Fatihah]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that such is not the case. Instead we see that the proof has been presented and when done so, you make the claim that it has fault but fail to provide these alleged faults. Thus your own words support the fact that the claim has been proven. Thanks for the clarification.

If the proof has been presented then it should be easy for you to present it once again, the ball is still in your court.

Response: And when the proof was presented and you claimed fault in it, you still have failed to demonstrate such. The ball is still in your court.

I found fault in your claim which you have yet to prove in the first place, if you will not provide this proof of yours then this discussion is at an end. If in your next post you continue to say you have demonstrated it but fail to show it then this discussion is over. The only thing which will allow this conversation to continue is if you provide something to discuss.

Response: If you provided any fault, we would be able to see it. The simple fact we don't once again supports the fact that there is no fault in my claim.