# 19-Year Old Saudi Rape Victim Ordered to Undergo 200 Lashes



## Taelae (Nov 15, 2007)

[DLMURL]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311848,00.html[/DLMURL]

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia ?  A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.

The new verdict was handed down by Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council following a retrial, the Arab News reported.

The court last year sentenced the six heavily-armed men who carried out the attack against the Shiite woman to between one and five years for committing the crime.

But the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," a court source told the Arab News.

The new verdict issued on Wednesday also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine that forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.

-------


----------



## Hothien (Nov 15, 2007)

Ridiculous.

Almost as bad as the guy who was caught with a 14-year old. Guy gets off with nothing, girl gets lashes.


----------



## Satsuki (Nov 15, 2007)

A punishment for the _victim_?
Saudi Arabia, seriously, what the fuck.


----------



## Draffut (Nov 15, 2007)

She should have been happy she just got lashings and not a hanging like so many other poor rape victims over there.

Oh well, they just can't win.


----------



## Ketchups (Nov 15, 2007)

Lol Saudi Arabia.

Strict Islamic doctrine <3


----------



## Moonshine (Nov 15, 2007)

I really don't understand some cultures....the victim was punished???


----------



## Draffut (Nov 15, 2007)

Forum timer just blew up again.


----------



## Hothien (Nov 15, 2007)

Draffut said:


> Forum timer just blew up again.



Pretty hardcore, at that.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 15, 2007)

The Religion of peace strikes again.

Edit: WTF is with this threads timewarp?!


----------



## Denji (Nov 15, 2007)

For fuck's sake. Punishing the victim?


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 15, 2007)

these saudi's......


----------



## Karmaxx (Nov 15, 2007)

*Here we go again... Am I gonna have to explain Islam to all these idiots in the NF Cafe?*


----------



## Hothien (Nov 15, 2007)

Euro-Shino said:


> *Here we go again... Am I gonna have to explain Islam to all these idiots in the NF Cafe?*



You'd accomplish more, in the end, if you'd explain it to the evil bastards that did this atrocity.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 15, 2007)

OK, we have to tell you this everytime:

THIS IS NOT ISLAM!

These are Saudi's who know less about Islam then the average Westerner.

So stop fucking saying that Islam this Islam that and start saying Saudi this and Saudi this.

What's going on with NF?


----------



## Byakkö (Nov 15, 2007)

I am beginning to hate the muslim world, their logic, or lack thereof, astounds me more and more.


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 15, 2007)

Denji said:


> For fuck's sake. Punishing the victim?



yeah I know, it's like WTF


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 15, 2007)

Byakk? said:


> I am beginning to hate the muslim world, their logic, or lack thereof, astounds me more and more.



Did you not read what I posted? or are you just plain stupid?


----------



## tinhamodic (Nov 15, 2007)

I was gonna say what happened to the link and article! Anyway, that's so messed up!


----------



## Hothien (Nov 15, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> OK, we have to tell you this everytime:
> 
> THIS IS NOT ISLAM!
> 
> ...



Misogynists will always be misogynists, no matter the religion.


----------



## Arishem (Nov 15, 2007)

Thank God I don't live under a theocracy.


----------



## Draffut (Nov 15, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> OK, we have to tell you this everytime:
> 
> THIS IS NOT ISLAM!
> 
> ...





> Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine that forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.



Did you even read the article?  or do you just pull shit out your ass?


----------



## Arishem (Nov 15, 2007)

This is off topic, but has anyone else noticed massive timewarps with their posts?


----------



## Circe (Nov 15, 2007)

This is not a true representation of the followers of Islam. This is stupidity.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 15, 2007)

Draffut said:


> Did you even read the article?  or do you just pull shit out your ass?



How abou you actually go and look at Islamic laws in the actual books.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 15, 2007)

Draffut said:


> She should have been happy she just got lashings and not a hanging or stoning like so many other poor rape victims over there.
> 
> Oh well, they just can't win.



she wasnt punished because she was raped.

she was punished because she was in someone else's car or something like that. 

and if every rape victim was punished you would hear about it more.

lol time warp 

These saudi's are crazy.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 15, 2007)

stupid pieces of no good shit. Wtf is wrong with them . I hope they get theirs sometime soon. you don't punish the fucking victim you punish the criminals. gods what dark ages thinking! fucking morons!



Draffut said:


> She should have been happy she just got lashings and not a hanging or stoning like so many other poor rape victims over there.
> 
> Oh well, they just can't win.



no fuck that! these people need to get their asses out of the dark ages into the modern world, and learn a little something called human compassion.


----------



## Draffut (Nov 15, 2007)

Makenshi said:


> she wasnt punished because she was raped.
> 
> she was punished because she was in someone else's car or something like that.
> 
> ...



But they were not very specific on how she got there.  They could have easily kidnapped her, then raped her in the car.

She is still being punished for being in a car (probobly agaisnt her will).



Black Fenix said:


> How abou you actually go and look at Islamic laws in the actual books.



I'm on it.  Or do you care to elaborate instead of jsut being very vague on the subject and dodging the issue.

Are these things not "against the rules" according to the islamic faith?  And it's just the governments dolling out unfair punishments for the crimes?


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 15, 2007)

Draffut said:


> But they were not very specific on how she got there.  They could have easily kidnapped her, then raped her in the car.
> 
> She is still being punished for being in a car (probobly agaisnt her will).



Yet she was punished for something else, not for being a rape victim though the events are questionable. It was probably a corrupt court or something. 

I wouldn't be surprised Saudi is the land of corrupt.



Jagon Fox said:


> no fuck that! these people need to get their asses out of the dark ages into the modern world, and learn a little something called human compassion.



to bad i don't think this will ever happen


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 15, 2007)

Makenshi said:


> Yet she was punished for something else, not for being a rape victim though the events are questionable. It was probably a corrupt court or something.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised Saudi is the land of corrupt.
> 
> ...



well i'd like to hope that it would, europe pulled it's head out of it's ass, and out of the dark ages. if they can do it so can fucking saudi arabia. I feel for the woman, getting raped by a bunch of men and getting whipped on top of that.


----------



## Edo (Nov 15, 2007)

Oh, but Saudia Arabia is a dear friend of the US...human rights here are NOT an issue...


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 15, 2007)

Seriously, that's majorly fuckled uppers


----------



## Draffut (Nov 15, 2007)

Jagon Fox said:


> no fuck that! these people need to get their asses out of the dark ages into the modern world, and learn a little something called human compassion.



What about sweat shops in inpovershed nations, what about the illegal sex slave trade, what about China selling organs from people it basically murdered.

This shit is horrible, but is definatly not the only, or arguably biggest, problem.

It would be wonderful if all these thigns dissapeared, but expecting it is just a pipe dream.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 15, 2007)

Draffut said:


> What about sweat shops in inpovershed nations, what about the illegal sex slave trade, what about China selling organs from people it basically murdered.
> 
> This shit is horrible, but is definatly not the only, or arguably biggest, problem.
> 
> It would be wonderful if all these thigns dissapeared, but expecting it is just a pipe dream.



not neccesarily, punishing rape victims, and human trafficking is a far cry from sweat shops in impoverished nations, or illegal organs. not all of the world does these things.


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 15, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> OK, we have to tell you this everytime:
> 
> THIS IS NOT ISLAM!
> 
> ...



You cant really blame them for making that connection though. S.A was the place where the Prophet Muhammed operated and also the place where its two holiest sites are. Its the place you do Hadjj, You cant be a citizen if you arent a Muslim etc.

People view Saudi Arabia's connection to Islam in the same way as people view the Vaticans connection to Christianity.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 15, 2007)

Saudis

They need to seriously use their brains and as Black Fenix already said these people actually have no clue about Islam. They're shameful.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 15, 2007)

Byakk? said:


> I am beginning to hate the muslim world, their logic, or lack thereof, astounds me more and more.


Don't judge Muslims by this!
I knew a lot of good and well-natured Muslims!


Trick Shot said:


> This is off topic, but has anyone else noticed massive timewarps with their posts?


Damn these time warps!


Makenshi said:


> Yet she was punished for something else, not for being a rape victim though the events are questionable. It was probably a corrupt court or something.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised Saudi is the land of corrupt.


Actually, Saudi isn't corrupt because they follow their Sharai laws to the foot!
We may call Saudi, the land of religious zealots!


----------



## The Sentry (Nov 15, 2007)

Yo guys ur forgetting that Christianity is even worse and most dangerous omg no way


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 15, 2007)

sarun uchiha said:


> Don't judge Muslims by this!
> I knew a lot of good and well-natured Muslims!



you knew ? What happend did u kill them all 



sarun uchiha said:


> Damn these time warps!



i know it's annoying 



sarun uchiha said:


> Actually, Saudi isn't corrupt because they follow their Sharai laws to the foot!
> We may call Saudi, the land of religious zealots!



Actually that depends in islam you can't have more than 3 wives where as the King has like 200 odd i don't believe they follow the Shariah by the Foot 

anyway i got a question for you BF what school of thought do they follow the Saudi's that is.


----------



## FrostXian (Nov 15, 2007)

Draffut said:


> Are these things not "against the rules" according to the islamic faith?  And it's just the governments dolling out unfair punishments for the crimes?



Eh, let me just put it out for you in an objective point of view.
Islam is very suitable to be manipulated, just like every other religion. If the government wants to lash a woman, they can just point something random from the book and go with it.
Islam is a tool for them, not reason.


----------



## Cecil (Nov 15, 2007)

I really don't get some cultures, why does the victim get punished, it just doesn't make any real sense.


----------



## Goongasnootch (Nov 15, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> OK, we have to tell you this everytime:
> 
> THIS IS NOT ISLAM!
> 
> ...



Islam.  Saudi.  I don't give a darn.  This is one of those situations where I wish I had the resources to go all Metal Gear Solid on the prison, break her out, destroy Metal Gear , and take her to a little place I like to call the USA.


----------



## id_1948 (Nov 15, 2007)

Isnt this the same Saudi were the king and all his entourage were given a red carpet treatment when they visited Britain 3 weeks ago??? If I remember they were even given a royal welcome by the Queen and a welcome by the prime minister in the house of commons 
Isnt the king also called a personal friend of the american prez and a great man!!!

Many muslims abhor the saudi regimes mentality that has nothing to do with islam and everything to do with backwardness... Most of their laws dont even make islamic sense.... women cant drive!!! not allowing other religons in saudi arabi or somewhere for them to worship among other things....

I feel sorry for the people living there... Its difficult to stand up to a repressive regime that is given full support by the most powerful nations and also given billions of dollars in weaponary to control their own people (among other things)...


----------



## Twilit (Nov 15, 2007)

Fire Fist Ace said:


> Yo guys ur forgetting that Christianity is even worse and most dangerous omg no way


Are you mentally unstable?

Last time I checked, Christians haven't done much as far as murdering and praise-to-rape goes.

...Dipshit...


----------



## drache (Nov 15, 2007)

You gotta love our supposed allies in the war on terror.

Never mind they are just as bad as the extremists in many ways.


I'm not surprised but I am disappointed and for the reccord you can't pick and choose, if you're going to blame Islam for this then people should start blaming Christainity for alot of the US's recent behavior.

Me, I just recognize that some people just love power too much and have too much of an inferority complex to not be able to control others.


----------



## The Sentry (Nov 15, 2007)

_*_ said:


> Are you mentally unstable?
> 
> Last time I checked, Christians haven't done much as far as murdering and praise-to-rape goes.
> 
> ...Dipshit...



I was being sarcastic FOOL.


----------



## drache (Nov 15, 2007)

Fire Fist Ace said:


> I was being sarcastic FOOL.


 
Actually there are plenty of things Christainity has done wrong or things Christainity has been used to support that frankly it shouldn't have.

For example Christainity was at one point used to support slavery and to this day there are sects that try and use the bible to support thier misogyny.

So sure let's drag out any of the things that Islam has been used to support it should not but in fairness let's do the same for Christainity too.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 15, 2007)

Makenshi said:


> you knew ? What happend did u kill them all



no!


> Actually that depends in islam you can't have more than 3 wives where as the King has like 200 odd i don't believe they follow the Shariah by the Foot
> 
> anyway i got a question for you BF what school of thought do they follow the Saudi's that is.


I am not a Professor on theocracy, so I might be wrong!
I think their school of thought is religion first or something!
And I think Saudis allow 4 wives but I am wrong about them following Sharia to the foot! My bad!


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 15, 2007)

Fire Fist Ace said:


> I was being sarcastic FOOL.



Internet is the wrong place for sarcasm.


----------



## mister_manji (Nov 15, 2007)

that country would be nothing without oil.


----------



## Girls' Generation (Nov 15, 2007)

I believe 50 lashes will kill the person.


----------



## Valtieri (Nov 15, 2007)

I'm not racist, I generally hate everyone not just a certain race.
But come on!
ffs, Saudi Arabia is the biggest fuck up on this planet, i honestly want a lot of people in that country dead. Which is not healthy..


----------



## WindMaster (Nov 15, 2007)

ugh just reading the article made me feel like puking, what person gets away with beating a girl and then having sex with her???


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 15, 2007)

drache said:


> Actually there are plenty of things Christainity has done wrong or things Christainity has been used to support that frankly it shouldn't have.
> 
> For example Christainity was at one point used to support slavery and to this day there are sects that try and use the bible to support thier misogyny.
> 
> So sure let's drag out any of the things that Islam has been used to support it should not but in fairness let's do the same for Christainity too.



LOL! Did you just try to justify Islam by bringing up slavery? The Islamic slave trade was the largest in human history, and to this day still goes on.

And why should Christianity be blamed for U.S. actions? There is no legal statement within the U.S. constitution that states Christian principles or law will influence government in any way, quite the opposite actually. U.S. government officials being devout Christians does not mean that the U.S. is a Christian theocracy, there's simply no legal evidence that such a situation exists. Saudi Arabia and Islam however, are a combined entity. King Abdullah himself has the title of the Custodian of the two mosques and the nation has Sharia and Wahhahbi law.

And yeah, we get it. Christianity did bad things in the 1000's. The Crusades were indeed a bad thing, though the Muslims tried the exact same thing about 300 years prior (See the Battle of Tours). Their modern day crimes however are limited to butt bumping alter boys, and can not compare to the human rights abuses of the Islamic World. Both against their own people and non-Islamic nations.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Sudan have all claimed to be theocracies at one point or another, or currently are Islamic theocracies. All of the above nations, have been some of the most vicious regimes in modern times. It amazes me that Islamic law is supposed to be so wonderful, progressive, and peaceful....Yet every time it is implemented the result is barbarism fit for the 1400s.


----------



## Amnesia (Nov 15, 2007)

Separation of church mosque and state? Why yes, please! 

But honestly, things like this have been going on for a lot longer than just this one case. Not surprised just very sad once again. Stricter adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proposed by the UN would be wonderful in the absence of religious morality. I feel so very sad for this girl seeing how she's exactly my age and facing horrors that I hope I'll never know and wish she, as well as the many other women on this planet, did not have to.


----------



## drache (Nov 15, 2007)

Megaharrison said:


> LOL! Did you just try to justify Islam by bringing up slavery? The Islamic slave trade was the largest in human history, and to this day still goes on.
> 
> And why should Christianity be blamed for U.S. actions? There is no legal statement within the U.S. constitution that states Christian principles or law will influence government in any way, quite the opposite actually. U.S. government officials being devout Christians does not mean that the U.S. is a Christian theocracy, there's simply no legal evidence that such a situation exists. Saudi Arabia and Islam however, are a combined entity. King Abdullah himself has the title of the Custodian of the two mosques and the nation has Sharia and Wahhahbi law.
> 
> ...


 
Learn to read, I said if we want to start bringing up teh bad things about Islam let's do so about Christainity.

Christainity is *STILL* used by many to justify hatred towards homosexuals and women.

Priests have been protected from law suits and prosecution for thier pedophila by being moved and and then moved again (when they repeat what they did).

Christanity is *still* used to justify hatred of people just because they disagree over beliefs.

Christanity in the US also hypocritically wants to be a part of the goverment but god forbid that any other religion try. (and you want proof? try the christain prefernce programs that Bush created).

So it's not like Christainity is a shining example either.


----------



## Silvermyst (Nov 15, 2007)

I'm afraid I can't follow their line of thinking. This is one of those cultural things that just make me sad.


----------



## Karmaxx (Nov 15, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> OK, we have to tell you this everytime:
> 
> THIS IS NOT ISLAM!
> 
> ...



*Thanks for typing it for me. *


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 15, 2007)

Ugh... Saudi Arabia is so much worse than Iraq and Iran combined.
The only reason we haven't done anything about the scumbags is because of the oil.
Damn it.


Megaharrison, you ought to know that there are many Christians who support slavery in the name of The Bible, including members of Christ Church.
I don't understand why people seem to think that Christianity is so much better than any other faith as far as equality and such go.


----------



## spaZ (Nov 16, 2007)

Those country's really need to brush up on there people skills lol.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 16, 2007)

There can be no peace until we have a world without the poison of religion.


----------



## Toby (Nov 16, 2007)

Guys, please stop flame-baiting. I would respect your opinions if you could just for once put something more than a single philosophical teaching into a discussion.

So, when I clap my hands and count to three, let me see some magic. This thread deserves some interesting input since one side is claiming that Islam is to blame, and those who are Muslims here are saying it isn't.

How about somebody explains to me why it is the case that this is Islam's fault, and those of the other opinions explain why they think this is not so. Because, first of all, those blaming Islam need to prove it, or their statements are just as full of air and fluff as those proposing that an invisible man lives in the sky and always is in the need of money.

But I am the only one who can paraphrase George Carlin. Oh, and Tsukiyomi too, but that is _our _privilege.


----------



## niyesuH (Nov 16, 2007)

fucking stupid..


----------



## x602-NyteFall (Nov 16, 2007)

Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with some countries out there today? That's fucking horrible, she just got raped and now she has to be hurt even more than she already has been for it?


----------



## adil (Nov 16, 2007)

to be fair she wouldnt have been raped had she followed orders


----------



## xingzup19 (Nov 16, 2007)

But what if she was dragged into the car with them? It was against her will, and yet she gets punished for it. The rapists instead get a couple of more years on their sentence.

I don't get it. Drug dealers get beheaded, and yet rapists only get sent to jail.


----------



## maximilyan (Nov 16, 2007)

Wtf? ok... so she gets raped... and for her troubles 90 lashes? then when she tells her story more punishment? Women from saudi most have it really rough


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 16, 2007)

this is why I hate there culture


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 16, 2007)

sarun uchiha said:


> Actually, Saudi isn't corrupt because they follow their Sharai laws to the foot!
> We may call Saudi, the land of religious zealots!


I study Islam in nearly all the aspects, so trust me when I say that Saudi does not evan come close to following the Sharia.

If they did follow the Sharia the King, some Judges and some rich people would be dead for some of the things they do.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 16, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> I study Islam in nearly all the aspects, so trust me when I say that Saudi does not evan come close to following the Sharia.
> 
> If they did follow the Sharia the King, some Judges and some rich people would be dead for some of the things they do.



The clause that it is referring to that is against Shaira law is "Tawajed" or "Tahseen Al Ma'asiya" which is basically "sharing a closed place and encouraging sin even though they shared no relationship."

So they were following Shaira law in this case, even if the don't always do it. Therefore they were following a law derived from the Islamic religion.


----------



## drache (Nov 16, 2007)

adil said:


> to be fair she wouldnt have been raped had she followed orders


 


That's like saying she deserved it. Please explain to me how you think that works and after you're done I'm going to hit you with a book. Why? 'Because you deserve it'


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 16, 2007)

sadated_peon said:


> The clause that it is referring to that is against Shaira law is "Tawajed" or "Tahseen Al Ma'asiya" which is basically "sharing a closed place and encouraging sin even though they shared no relationship."
> 
> So they were following Shaira law in this case, even if the don't always do it. Therefore they were following a law derived from the Islamic religion.



Being in an enclosed space with another person is not a sin in the sense that yooy get punnished for it by the courts.

I don't know what Tawajed means but Tahseen Ul Ma'asiya means to make a sin (Ma'asi) to be good (Tahseen).


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 16, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> Being in an enclosed space with another person is not a sin in the sense that yooy get punnished for it by the courts.
> 
> I don't know what Tawajed means but Tahseen Ul Ma'asiya means to make a sin (Ma'asi) to be good (Tahseen).



Here is some more information for you


"Dr Khalifa Rashid Al Sha'ali, Dean of the Faculty of Law at Ajman University, said if a man and a woman who are not related are caught alone in a private place, they face a jail sentence or lashes even if they were not involved in any suspicious act."
[DLMURL]http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/03/24/10027928.html[/DLMURL]

This is talking about the UAE, but it the same law.


----------



## Traveler (Nov 16, 2007)

You must be kidding me ...


----------



## masterriku (Nov 16, 2007)

Pilaf said:


> There can be no peace until we have a world without the poison of religion.



I whole heartedly agree with that statement.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 16, 2007)

masterriku said:


> I whole heartedly agree with that statement.



Albert Einstein - "So long as there are men, there will be wars."


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 16, 2007)

masterriku said:


> I whole heartedly agree with that statement.



I'm gonna second that one


----------



## Kira (Nov 16, 2007)

Edo said:


> Oh, but Saudia Arabia is a dear friend of the US...human rights here are NOT an issue...


This is the truth. Therefore, not much will be made of this. Now, if this happened in Iran, then it'll be a whole different story.


----------



## xingzup19 (Nov 16, 2007)

I'll third it!


----------



## Snowblind (Nov 16, 2007)

Saudi Arabia, the land of MOTHERFUCKING BARBARIANS.

Honestly, what the motherSCREWFUCKING hell is this supposed to be?


----------



## OBBeauti (Nov 16, 2007)

Just something different. If that's what floats there boat then ok.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 16, 2007)

First of all, this should be condemned as a barbaric punishment!
Lashes for victim should be banned and international community should press the Saudi rulers to change this law!
Of course they have economic weapon of oil, but if we let this go, we are just as good as silently agreeing to this!




Pilaf said:


> There can be no peace until we have a world without the poison of religion.


As long as man (and woman) exists, there will be always religions!


adil said:


> to be fair she wouldnt have been raped had she followed orders


Don't blame the victim!
She was only with a friend (who was also raped and he is guy, according to New York Times today)!


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 16, 2007)

The Saudi system is in a word, evil. The victim usually gets executed in these cases.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 16, 2007)

Saudi Arabian Law is fucked up and is not even close to the essence of Islam. If someone wants to compare saudi arabian law with Islamic law, then bring evidence from the holy Quran not other people. So victims are being inhumanely treated and women rights are close to nothing, usually the U.S has something to say about something so evil but whats wrong this time? Oh yeah, the U.S is Saudis best friend because of the great oil!!! Thats the American government for you!


----------



## Sarun (Nov 16, 2007)

I really feel sad for what is happening to that girl!
She haven't lashed yet, so I hope International Community steps in and pressurize the Saudi Arabia from doing this to her!


----------



## Cel3stial (Nov 16, 2007)

Messed up country right thar....


----------



## Raiden (Nov 16, 2007)

Sukati said:


> A punishment for the _victim_?
> Saudi Arabia, seriously, what the fuck.



This is why the US tries to make others use a democratic government, some foreign governments can sometimes make bazaar decsions. The US still doesn't has a right for doing so but atleast you now understand the method to our madness.


----------



## The Sentry (Nov 16, 2007)

Wow so this is the religion of peace. Ima study the Quran and find out if Islam is sum bs crappy cheap version of christianity, a religion of hate, and war, and death or a religion of peace


----------



## Crayons (Nov 16, 2007)

I really can't understand Saudi's justice system.


----------



## Naruto12805 (Nov 16, 2007)

you would think the girls there would know to keep there mouths shut by now.... Or at least go to a civilized country where the people arent a bunch of sexist idiots.. But dang she is going to have one soar apple red bottom...


----------



## Sarun (Nov 16, 2007)

Naruto12805 said:


> you would think the girls there would know to keep there mouths shut by now.... Or at least go to a civilized country where the people arent a bunch of sexist idiots.. But dang she is going to have one soar apple red bottom...



I don't think they will hit her bottom and the person who administers the whipping has to hold Koran under his arm!
Still, this is cruel and should be stopped!


----------



## Omega037 (Nov 16, 2007)

We actually don't have the right to dictate what is acceptable or not in other cultures.  And trying to force change before a culture is ready can have negative effects.  Furthermore, this woman was aware of the law and broke it.  This isn't a case of police seeking her out or arresting her for no reason.

We ourselves have laws that seem obvious to us morally but could be found offensive by others.  Some cultures would find the number of homeless people we have, our problems with drugs and health care, and the psychological disorders caused by an "image" society to be disgusting.


----------



## Savior (Nov 16, 2007)

Circe said:


> This is not a true representation of the followers of Islam. This is stupidity.



Yup. It makes me wonder what is really going on in saudi arabia sometimes.


----------



## Casyle (Nov 16, 2007)

Reminds me of that story I heard on... Discovery?  Same place too.  This unmarried, under-age woman was raped by a much older man.  She was hung and he got something like 10 lashes.


----------



## Xion (Nov 16, 2007)

Saudi Arabia, it's backwards! Done right!

I am starting to wonder whether the only country in the region with an ounce of sense is the UAE, or is that crazy as well?


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 17, 2007)

there just plain crazy


----------



## SAFFF (Nov 17, 2007)

Saudi sounds like a pretty homo place.


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 17, 2007)

Supreme Alchemist Fan said:


> Saudi sounds like a pretty homo place.



agreed           .


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 17, 2007)

Taelae said:


> [DLMURL]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311848,00.html[/DLMURL]
> 
> RIYADH, Saudi Arabia ?  A 19-year-old female victim of gang rape who initially was ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for telling her story to the news media.
> 
> ...



Only in KSA lol.


----------



## Ukkitake Kakashi (Nov 17, 2007)

What do you expect from such a messed up country, the only thing that's protects them is America's oil interests.


----------



## Levi (Nov 17, 2007)

I sense a new Apple product coming up...

The iSlam.


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 17, 2007)

Omega037 said:


> We actually don't have the right to dictate what is acceptable or not in other cultures.  And trying to force change before a culture is ready can have negative effects.  Furthermore, this woman was aware of the law and broke it.  This isn't a case of police seeking her out or arresting her for no reason.



OK, you people may deny yourself the right to dictate them, but then, do I ? I'm a muslim and think they're idiots and make me wonder how come I share the same religion as them ? I should have the right to tell them they're fuckheads, right ? But you're not muslim so you can't ? Com'on...

Reminds me of Mr Harrisson being able to say the word f**, because he's one and the hets like me only get the bleep when we say it...


----------



## HyperKnuckles22 (Nov 17, 2007)

give me one more more reason why religion makes me want to barf.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 17, 2007)

HyperKnuckles22 said:


> give me one more more reason why religion makes me want to barf.



Well, your gonna be getting alot more reasons because religion is gonna stick around until the end of time.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 17, 2007)

HyperKnuckles22 said:


> give me one more more reason why religion makes me want to barf.



*offers medicine*


----------



## Edo (Nov 17, 2007)

adil said:


> to be fair she wouldnt have been raped had she followed orders




Well that is just the stupidest post I've read in a long time.....reminds me of Minigunner 

By that you are justifying her being raped, which is stupid. 


@ Toby:

I can see why some blame Islam for this. 

First of all Saudi's claim that it runs according to Islamic law, which puts any passed law and judgment under Islam's cover.

Second, the laws of Islam itself. You have a religion that punishes extra marital sex with lashes and in case of adultery (for married people) with death penalty. It also punishes those who convert from Islam with death penalty....so it is not really that weird that we see Judges in Saudi Arabia pass such laws and punishments.

@ the rest who picture Islam as a fucked up religion...

And usually those are either christians or jews....they really have to take a look at the old testament, that book is just as fucked up...let's not forget they all have the same bases.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 17, 2007)

^ Had she followed the law, she wouldn't have been raped. Its simple as that. I don't justify rape, and I don't blame it on the woman entirely. The men are blamed just as much, if not more than her. She should've thought about this before going with them.


----------



## Edo (Nov 17, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> ^ Had she followed the law, she wouldn't have been raped. Its simple as that. I don't justify rape, and I don't blame it on the woman entirely. The men are blamed just as much, if not more than her. She should've thought about this before going with them.



So in other words you are saying she got what she deserved. 

This does not justify rape and does not give the others the right to rape her. You say you don't justify rape but that is what you are saying in your post. You are saying that because she went with them she got raped, like if rape is the natural result of a woman going out with a man?


----------



## Diamed (Nov 17, 2007)

You shouldn't have to live as a domestic slave your entire life, without any privacy or freedom, like an animal instead of a human, just to avoid being raped.  A government should provide freedom AND security to ALL its members.  It should not be whipping teenage girls 200 times for nothing.  It's a shame the middle east has no idea what a government is for or how it functions.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 17, 2007)

Edo said:


> So in other words you are saying she got what she deserved.
> 
> This does not justify rape and does not give the others the right to rape her. You say you don't justify rape but that is what you are saying in your post. You are saying that because she went with them she got raped, like if rape is the natural result of a woman going out with a man?



Well, she deserves punishment for going with them, not rape. I never said that rape is a natural outcome of a woman going out with a man, that is a very big strawman here. The law is there to protect her, why didn't she follow it. So I definately support her being punished, *along with the men*. The extra 200 lashes was very unjust though.


----------



## Naida (Nov 17, 2007)

There are some things in this world that I don't think I'll ever like or understand. This, clearly, is going to be one of them.


----------



## Fojos (Nov 17, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> OK, we have to tell you this everytime:
> 
> THIS IS NOT ISLAM!
> 
> ...





> Saudi Arabian culture mainly revolves around the religion of .


They're muslims. But humans are evil, not religion. Religion really stands for peace, but since humans are the ones using it, it cannot be.

But seriously, can you explain to me why MOST countries revolving around Islam have fucked up laws like these?


----------



## Edo (Nov 17, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Well, she deserves punishment for going with them, not rape. I never said that rape is a natural outcome of a woman going out with a man, that is a very big strawman here. The law is there to protect her, why didn't she follow it. So I definately support her being punished, *along with the men*. The extra 200 lashes was very unjust though.



By this logic then: 

First, they too were breaking the law when they took her with them and therefore they should also by punished for that too.

Second, this law makes me believe that every male in Saudia Arabia is a sex-hungry pig, otherwise why would it exist, in an Islamic country that follows islamic law and where children are brought up by islamic teachings, one should expect that even if she did go with them they should have, at least, refused her company....


----------



## The Sentry (Nov 17, 2007)

This is surely Islam the religion of peace piss


----------



## Ashiya (Nov 17, 2007)

That is appalling to the point of irrationality.


----------



## drache (Nov 17, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Well, she deserves punishment for going with them, not rape. I never said that rape is a natural outcome of a woman going out with a man, that is a very big strawman here. The law is there to protect her, why didn't she follow it. So I definately support her being punished, *along with the men*. The extra 200 lashes was very unjust though.


 

The law is there to protect her?

Possibly but it's also a way to keep women as second class citizens.

Though if everyone in the country of question is happy with that then it's their choice.

I look at this as just another way countries like Sadia Arbria try and keep women as second class citizens. But then again I don't live there so I don't think it's my place to throw stones; if they are happy with it so be it.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 17, 2007)

Edo said:
			
		

> By this logic then:
> 
> First, they too were breaking the law when they took her with them and therefore they should also by punished for that too.



Isn't that what I just said. Thank you for agreeing with me. Of course what actually happened is none of my concern, it's what should've happened that I'm talking about.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Second, this law makes me believe that every male in Saudia Arabia is a sex-hungry pig, otherwise why would it exist, in an Islamic country that follows islamic law and where children are brought up by islamic teachings, one should expect that even if she did go with them they should have, at least, refused her company....


Not necessrily. Prevention is the best cure. Furthermore, the fact that they took her with them reflects their own upbringing, not that of every Saudi.



			
				Drache said:
			
		

> The law is there to protect her?
> 
> Possibly but it's also a way to keep women as second class citizens.
> 
> ...



The islamic law was based on protecting the women. Whatever tweaks the Saudis add is their own, and only they can tell you the reason behind them.


----------



## Ukkitake Kakashi (Nov 17, 2007)

This is why the Saudi's fail hard, no logic at all.


----------



## drache (Nov 17, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> The islamic law was based on protecting the women. Whatever tweaks the Saudis add is their own, and only they can tell you the reason behind them.


 
As I said, it's not my country and thus I don't think it's right for me to just come in and say my values and pirorities are right adopt them now or die.

That said I am highly critical of any law designed 'to protect someone from themself' it seems remarkably similair to the Jim Crow laws the US once had in the South and it seems to be the marching beat of any majority bent on oppressing a minority.

If that's the way Saudi Arabia or even Islam as a whole wants it, okay far be it from me to be judgemental; provided they don't try and force that view on anyone else and provided that everyone really agrees with it. But the second people start cutting off people from rights they want, expect me to have a probelm with that.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 17, 2007)

Casyle said:


> Reminds me of that story I heard on... Discovery?  Same place too.  This unmarried, under-age woman was raped by a much older man.  She was hung and he got something like 10 lashes.


The link?


II Xion II said:


> Saudi Arabia, it's backwards! Done right!
> 
> I am starting to wonder whether the only country in the region with an ounce of sense is the UAE, or is that crazy as well?


I heard that a French boy was threatened with charges of homosexuality even though he was raped!


----------



## Sarun (Nov 17, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> ^ Had she followed the law, she wouldn't have been raped. Its simple as that. I don't justify rape, and I don't blame it on the woman entirely. The men are blamed just as much, if not more than her. She should've thought about this before going with them.


You haven't seen the full story!
The girl was with a man who happened to her former friend!
She was with him because she was going to be married to another man and she wanted him to return her pictures of herslf!
While they were in the car, some group of men came and raped both of them!
You see, she didn't go out with her rapists but rather she went to a man to ask him to return her pictures, who himself was raped in this incident!
So, you can't blame her for this at all!


The_Unforgiven said:


> Well, she deserves punishment for going with them, not rape. I never said that rape is a natural outcome of a woman going out with a man, that is a very big strawman here. The law is there to protect her, why didn't she follow it. So I definately support her being punished, *along with the men*. The extra 200 lashes was very unjust though.


Read what I posted above!


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 17, 2007)

The_unforgiven said:
			
		

> ^ Had she followed the law, she wouldn't have been raped. Its simple as that. I don't justify rape, and I don't blame it on the woman entirely. The men are blamed just as much, if not more than her. She should've thought about this before going with them.


So let me give you a hypothetical situation. 

The American government institutes a law that says EVERY muslim must be accompanied by a police offers wherever they go. This is for their own protection, the police officer will watch over them an make sure that they are not attack in a hate crime. 

Would you agree to this. Would you agree to a law that every muslim must be accompanied by a police officer if they leave their homes. 

As it is for their own protection.


----------



## M E L O D Y (Nov 17, 2007)

horrible. the victim getting punished?!


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 17, 2007)

sarun uchiha said:


> You haven't seen the full story!
> The girl was with a man who happened to her former friend!
> She was with him because she was going to be married to another man and she wanted him to return her pictures of herslf!
> While they were in the car, some group of men came and raped both of them!
> ...



Well, that changes the situation alot! One, she shouldn't have gone alone. Dhe should've went with a brother or w/e, it shows that she's dead serious, and she would have protection if this man tried something "unexpected". Plus, why did he have pics of her in the first place? 



			
				Sedated Peon said:
			
		

> So let me give you a hypothetical situation.
> 
> The American government institutes a law that says EVERY muslim must be accompanied by a police offers wherever they go. This is for their own protection, the police officer will watch over them an make sure that they are not attack in a hate crime.
> 
> ...



Supposing that they are in danger, yeah why not.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 17, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Supposing that they are in danger, yeah why not.


Supposing the current American climate today, you would support being forced to be accompanied by a police officer if you left your home.


----------



## Razza (Nov 17, 2007)

I'm sorry but I find this quite funny.


----------



## Vanity (Nov 17, 2007)

That's messed up on the highest level. I honestly don't understand the decisions of some people in this world at all.

I feel really sorry for her. And it's not the first time that I've heard about something like this.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 18, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Well, that changes the situation alot! One, she shouldn't have gone alone. Dhe should've went with a brother or w/e, it shows that she's dead serious, and she would have protection if this man tried something "unexpected". Plus, why did he have pics of her in the first place?



She didn't have to fear him because he was her friend!
But you have your right in saying your opinion and if we follow logic by which Saudi's law, you win this argument!
Still it is harsh to punish victim and to have laws like these!
But then again, the middle ages weren't much different and different parts of the world have different timing in progress in proper judicial law!


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 18, 2007)

I don't know how these people can sleep at night


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 18, 2007)

Hamoodi, if you think people should be accompanied because the society they live in is too dangerous far going out alone, it's that society that has a problem, and not the person going out on her own. And do you really think that if she went with an other girl or an other male from her family, they wouldn't have been attacked as well ?

"Oh you can't attack me ! my older brother came with me !"
"... LOL STICK IT IN THEIR POOPERS !!!"

The girl got raped, the ex BF got raped. Maybe her bother or father would have been raped too !

Stop justifying what can't be.


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 18, 2007)

T4R0K said:


> Hamoodi, if you think people should be accompanied because the society they live in is too dangerous far going out alone, it's that society that has a problem, and not the person going out on her own. And do you really think that if she went with an other girl or an other male from her family, they wouldn't have been attacked as well ?
> 
> "Oh you can't attack me ! my older brother came with me !"
> "... LOL STICK IT IN THEIR POOPERS !!!"
> ...



there laws and culture make me sick


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 18, 2007)

Sean Connery said:


> there laws and culture make me sick



Want a vomitbag ? I stockpile them because of those. 

Everytime I speak with a middle-eastern muslim, I feel like there's a cultural gap even though my country of origin has a mainly muslim population. Wait no, it's actually a cultural canyon.

In some way, the fact we used to be a kind of christians before that sticked a lot to what Jesus said about compassion and humility (and bringing it so far the Vatican didn't like us. Not paying taxes and stuff...), we didn't drop it completely when we became muslims and were able in some way to keep our senses, mixing Islamic and European cultures. I've only recently started to hear "She got raped because she had it coming" there, and it's because of the influence of foreigners from the arabic peninsula (thank God, we're either expelling them, or giving them out to the CIA). Fortunately, most people still know that rape victims are VICTIMS, hence people that suffered an horrible act upon them.

What about all the women that got raped by the Serbs, Hamoodi ? Should we have killed them ? Or maybe "just" punished them ? We didn't. We must be VEEEEERY bad muslims...

This religion needs a reform, I will never stop saying that ! We're in a dark age, and it seems no one wants out ! (and those that do, LOL, they're killed !)


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 18, 2007)

there way over due for reform


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 18, 2007)

sadated_peon said:


> Supposing the current American climate today, you would support being forced to be accompanied by a police officer if you left your home.



Is safety such an absurd desire?



			
				sarun uchiha said:
			
		

> She didn't have to fear him because he was her friend!
> But you have your right in saying your opinion and if we follow logic by which Saudi's law, you win this argument!
> Still it is harsh to punish victim and to have laws like these!
> But then again, the middle ages weren't much different and different parts of the world have different timing in progress in proper judicial law!



What I'm saying is, she shouldn't be punished for being raped. She should be punished for putting herself in such a situation, *provided these men are punishd too*. It is partially her fault really. For example, if I put oil on the edge of a kitchen counter, right next to an open flame, then it is my fault for the fire that will result.



			
				T4ROK said:
			
		

> Hamoodi, if you think people should be accompanied because the society they live in is too dangerous far going out alone, it's that society that has a problem, and not the person going out on her own. And do you really think that if she went with an other girl or an other male from her family, they wouldn't have been attacked as well ?
> 
> "Oh you can't attack me ! my older brother came with me !"
> "... LOL STICK IT IN THEIR POOPERS !!!"
> ...



I am not justifying anything. Had her brother been there with her, at least she would have the law on her side, even if they were all raped. That's my point there.



			
				T4ROK said:
			
		

> What about all the women that got raped by the Serbs, Hamoodi ? Should we have killed them ? Or maybe "just" punished them ? We didn't. We must be VEEEEERY bad muslims...



That's a very different story. Pls don't mix things up. These women were victims because of a war situation that they had no hand in setting up. While the case at hand is one of a woman going alone (which is by Saudi law illegal) to her BF. She was raped because she was in an easy rape situation. These people that raped her didn't go and knock on her house and barge in. SHE WENT TO THEM. That's were the difference is. We good now


----------



## Radiance (Nov 18, 2007)

that is nothing!
 I'm a bondage freak!


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 18, 2007)

Radiance said:


> that is nothing!
> I'm a bondage freak!



I'm not going there


----------



## Nytorious (Nov 18, 2007)

> foxnews



Is it just me who realised this is from Fox News, he most biased news base who have a passion for widening the gap between the Arab world and the West with every chance they get.
Aslo, WTF was the need in mentioning oil?


----------



## neko-sennin (Nov 18, 2007)

This is why most people in this world who have any respect for women consider Saudi Arabia backwards and barbaric.

This gross miscarriage of its own teachings (insofar as what any Muslim I've talked to has admitted to me) is also what gives Islam itself a bad name to the rest of the world.



The_Unforgiven said:


> While the case at hand is one of a woman going alone (which is by Saudi law illegal) to her BF. She was raped because she was in an easy rape situation. These people that raped her didn't go and knock on her house and barge in. SHE WENT TO THEM. That's were the difference is. We good now



So let me get this straight: if a woman goes somewhere with _me_, I can do whatever I want with her, and _she_ gets punished for it? No wonder these guys don't know how to control their fuckin' hormones. They've never _had to_.


----------



## Juubi (Nov 18, 2007)

This is ridiculous, but it's to be expected from backwards cultures such as that.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 18, 2007)

Neko-sennin said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight: if a woman goes somewhere with me, I can do whatever I want with her, and she gets punished for it? No wonder these guys don't know how to control their fuckin' hormones. They've never had to.



Yes, but what use is testing their control when the girl got raped. What is better, you have a rape victim (who by the way, might have just lost her marriage), or her preventing this whole dillema by taking precautions against it.

Look, I'm all against rape and feel real bad for this woman, but we have to look at the situation at hand, could it have been avoided? The answer is yes, and very easily at that too. Don't put yourself in a risky situation. Would a wise sheperd take his goats near a cliff?


----------



## Levi (Nov 18, 2007)

Nytorious said:


> Is it just me who realised this is from Fox News, he most biased news base who have a passion for widening the gap between the Arab world and the West with every chance they get.
> Aslo, WTF was the need in mentioning oil?



It's probably full of corruption.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 18, 2007)

The_unforgiven said:
			
		

> Is safety such an absurd desire?


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 18, 2007)

sadated_peon said:


> You didn't answer the question.



Supposing their safety was indeed in danger, then why not?


----------



## drache (Nov 18, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Yes, but what use is testing their control when the girl got raped. What is better, you have a rape victim (who by the way, might have just lost her marriage), or her preventing this whole dillema by taking precautions against it.
> 
> Look, I'm all against rape and feel real bad for this woman, but we have to look at the situation at hand, could it have been avoided? The answer is yes, and very easily at that too. Don't put yourself in a risky situation. Would a wise sheperd take his goats near a cliff?


 
So are you saying that women are incapable of protecting themselves or don't know how to protect themselves?

Because the first implies that due to being a woman one would never be able to adaquately defend yourself no matter what you do.

While the second would just be a case of knowledge and skill.

Frankly I'd say that it's teh second and the second can easily be remedied. It's just a simple matter of self defense classes and making the males in that culture actually learn that they  aren't 100% in charge.

No offense but that's just how I feel, maybe it's just a culture difference but women aren't breakable and are just as capable of defending themselves as any man is.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 18, 2007)

drache said:


> So are you saying that women are incapable of protecting themselves or don't know how to protect themselves?
> 
> Because the first implies that due to being a woman one would never be able to adaquately defend yourself no matter what you do.
> 
> ...



And still, the simpler solution to that issue, is avoiding it. Again, would the wise sheperd take his goats to graze near a cliff and carry mountain climbing tools with him, or would he just go to an open field?


----------



## drache (Nov 18, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> And still, the simpler solution to that issue, is avoiding it. Again, would the wise sheperd take his goats to graze near a cliff and carry mountain climbing tools with him, or would he just go to an open field?


 
The only probelm with that analogy is that I'd personally say women are not goats. They have intelligence, self awareness and so on.

If anything that analogy highlights everything I find wrong with this situation, because your analogy implies alot of negatives about women and implies that they are second class and not equal to men.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 18, 2007)

drache said:


> The only probelm with that analogy is that I'd personally say women are not goats. They have intelligence, self awareness and so on.
> 
> If anything that analogy highlights everything I find wrong with this situation, because your analogy implies alot of negatives about women and implies that they are second class and not equal to men.



I'm sorry if you didn't understand the analogy. In here, the women are not the goats, they are the shepherd. Furthermore, if we assume that the women are the goats we can look at it in another way; what's the most important thing in the world to a shepherd? *raises hand* His goats!


----------



## drache (Nov 18, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> I'm sorry if you didn't understand the analogy. In here, the women are not the goats, they are the shepherd. Furthermore, if we assume that the women are the goats we can look at it in another way; what's the most important thing in the world to a shepherd? *raises hand* His goats!


 
Like I said in the end this is going to come down to a cultural difference I think.

Even if the women are the shepherds I still wouldn't agree with your analogy because how I was raised and what I was taught seems to be different from you. Which isn't inherently bad, it's just different.

Where I live no one would even suggest passing laws detailing what a woman can and can't do becuase she's a woman. The women wouldn't put up with it, the courts wouldn't allow it and any politican trying it most likely wouldn't get elected back into office.

If it works for your country and the women and men are truely happy with the situation, then who am I to say that I know absolutely what is and isn't right?


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 18, 2007)

I hope you guys realise how hypocritical Saudi Arabia are? In Islam its haram to have a monarchy yet Arabia is ruled by a King and Princes. Not to mention the King has 200 wives and is an alcholic. If anyone its the family that deserves the lashes. 

As for the rape case, all I can say is that its disgusting. Women have a right to have security, imagine your sister goes to a corner shop and gets raped, would you blame your sister for going outside alone or the rapists? Theres something seriously wrong in a society where men think they can go around rape women. Personally they're the ones that should get the lashes. And they claim the "west" is evil, pfft Arabia is a joke.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 18, 2007)

drache said:


> Like I said in the end this is going to come down to a cultural difference I think.
> 
> Even if the women are the shepherds I still wouldn't agree with your analogy because how I was raised and what I was taught seems to be different from you. Which isn't inherently bad, it's just different.
> 
> ...



Well, its not about how I was raised, its how I think. Why deal with the consequences if you can prevent the cause?


----------



## Zhongda (Nov 18, 2007)

I am writing a paper on the compatibility of Islam and the nation state, i'll be posting it in the philosophical corner before i submit it for you guys to critiqueueue


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 18, 2007)

cool. Good luck


----------



## drache (Nov 18, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Well, its not about how I was raised, its how I think. Why deal with the consequences if you can prevent the cause?


 
And yet you can get teh same results by teaching self defense, how to be safe to the women and teaching the men that they can't just take what they want.


----------



## Nakor (Nov 18, 2007)

at least saudi arabia seems willing to adjust their laws alittle. so its not like there is no hope for them changing.


----------



## Xion (Nov 18, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Well, its not about how I was raised, its how I think. Why deal with the consequences if you can prevent the cause?



I agree. Prevention is better than trying to patch the past, but in some cases, preventative means do not work so well.


----------



## Jaga (Nov 18, 2007)

banged and beaten...ouch


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 18, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:
			
		

> Supposing their safety was indeed in danger, then why not?


Are you being purposefully in your avoidance of my question?
I told you the current climate, so you have a base of reference for their state of safety. Now given that state yes, you would accept or no.


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 18, 2007)

Jaga said:


> banged and beaten...ouch



yeah it's pretty F'ed up


----------



## Sarun (Nov 18, 2007)

T4R0K said:


> Hamoodi, if you think people should be accompanied because the society they live in is too dangerous far going out alone, it's that society that has a problem, and not the person going out on her own. And do you really think that if she went with an other girl or an other male from her family, they wouldn't have been attacked as well ?
> 
> "Oh you can't attack me ! my older brother came with me !"
> "... LOL STICK IT IN THEIR POOPERS !!!"
> ...


It is unfair for woman that she can only go out if she has a family member! It's like woman can't defend themselves!
I am getting little liberal than I was before because of this debate!


The_Unforgiven said:


> What I'm saying is, she shouldn't be punished for being raped. She should be punished for putting herself in such a situation, *provided these men are punishd too*. It is partially her fault really. For example, if I put oil on the edge of a kitchen counter, right next to an open flame, then it is my fault for the fire that will result.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She didn't go to them!
She want to a guy who was also raped in this incident!
She and that guy knew each other and knew she wouldn't be harmed by him and she was right, she wasn't harmed by him!


neko-sennin said:


> TSo let me get this straight: if a woman goes somewhere with _me_, I can do whatever I want with her, and _she_ gets punished for it? No wonder these guys don't know how to control their fuckin' hormones. They've never _had to_.


Saudi laws are anti-woman, especially this one as it shows that they are harsh when it comes to women's rights!


The_Unforgiven said:


> Yes, but what use is testing their control when the girl got raped. What is better, you have a rape victim (who by the way, might have just lost her marriage), or her preventing this whole dillema by taking precautions against it.
> 
> Look, I'm all against rape and feel real bad for this woman, but we have to look at the situation at hand, could it have been avoided? The answer is yes, and very easily at that too. Don't put yourself in a risky situation. Would a wise sheperd take his goats near a cliff?


She got married for your information as she was engaged before this incident! And her husband supports her and would appeal/contest this decision, although I'm not sure whether the incident is carried out by now!
She didn't put herself into risky position, she didn't go the rapists, the rapists went and raped her and her friend!


----------



## Seren (Nov 18, 2007)

Put herself in that situation?

Look, if I go outside in a miniskirt, five inch heels and a tube top.. well, first hell would freeze, but after that. If I did that, got blasted out of my fucking gourd and walked around in public- would it be okay for someone to rape me? After all, it'd be public intoxication, which is against the law. Not only that, but I'm a girl, in suggestive clothing.

Would I have been asking for it? No.

I have basic knowledge- maybe a little more than the average westerner- about Islam and the Koran. There is nothing that says a woman can't be in an enclosed enviorment with a male. The laws regarding the hijab/burqua's are there to prevent men from looking at women lustfully- which is not a bad law in and of itself. Purdah is a different story, but insofar as I know, I can't find a consensus about whether Purdah itself is Islam law or just a societal barrier.

But in case, it doesn't make it right. The car deal is a bullshit law, and lashings for speaking out about what happened is ever more stupid.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Nov 18, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> OK, we have to tell you this everytime:
> 
> THIS IS NOT ISLAM!
> 
> ...



It seems to me man you are getting mad at the wrong people. You seem more upset with people *saying* this is Islam than people who are *making* this Islam.


----------



## mortal (Nov 18, 2007)

When victims becomes villains...truly sad.

I do think I should add that this wasn't an Islamic ruling, it was a Saudi ruling.


----------



## neko-sennin (Nov 19, 2007)

Seren said:


> The car deal is a bullshit law, and lashings for speaking out about what happened is ever more stupid.



Just another of many human society's sick, sad ways of keeping rape victims from telling their side of the story, and Saudi Arabia is one of the lowest of the low in that regard.


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 19, 2007)

neko-sennin said:


> Just another of many human society's sick, sad ways of keeping rape victims from telling their side of the story, and Saudi Arabia is one of the lowest of the low in that regard.



like I mentioned earlier, there culture makes me sick to my stomach


----------



## Munak (Nov 19, 2007)

Well, leaving theologies aside, it is really unfair for the poor victim to be lashed. What did happen to the rapist anyways?


----------



## Iram_et_Dolorem (Nov 19, 2007)

Welcome back to the stone age.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 19, 2007)

drache said:
			
		

> And yet you can get teh same results by teaching self defense, how to be safe to the women and teaching the men that they can't just take what they want.



Not necessarily the same results. I don't know about you, but I have gotten into numerous fights. I trained for about 6 months in Kung fu, and I can tell you that it never came in handy, except maybe the extra physical power that I got. During a fight, you forget everything you trained to do. You just want to inflict as much damage as you can. That can only be achieved through getting physical power. Last time I checked the average man is stronger physically than the average woman. So untill now, my way is more fool proof.



			
				Seren said:
			
		

> Put herself in that situation?
> 
> Look, if I go outside in a miniskirt, five inch heels and a tube top.. well, first hell would freeze, but after that. If I did that, got blasted out of my fucking gourd and walked around in public- would it be okay for someone to rape me? After all, it'd be public intoxication, which is against the law. Not only that, but I'm a girl, in suggestive clothing.
> 
> ...


Agreed on the bolded.

I said many times that in such a situation, the woman is partially blamed. Of course, the greater responsibility is on the man, but the woman has a share in the responsibility. 



			
				neko-sennin said:
			
		

> Just another of many human society's sick, sad ways of keeping rape victims from telling their side of the story, and Saudi Arabia is one of the lowest of the low in that regard.


QFT


----------



## drache (Nov 19, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Not necessarily the same results. I don't know about you, but I have gotten into numerous fights. I trained for about 6 months in Kung fu, and I can tell you that it never came in handy, except maybe the extra physical power that I got. During a fight, you forget everything you trained to do. You just want to inflict as much damage as you can. That can only be achieved through getting physical power. Last time I checked the average man is stronger physically than the average woman. So untill now, my way is more fool proof.


 
That's because you've only had 6 months of training.

For me it's teh exact opposite, when I get into a fight (though I try not to) I have to work to not let my instincts take completely over, otherwise I'd probably seriously hurt someone.

You can't judge the effectiveness of a martial art based on only 6 months of training, because you've not had time for it to become half instinctual let alone fully instinctive.

And not all martial arts are about power, Akkido, Ju Jistu both relay on joint locks and throws neither of which are dependent on power; Praying Mantis Kung Fu is a style that assumes your opponent will be bigger then you and trains accordingly and Wing Chun was actually developed by a woman to be a self defense art for woman.

That doesn't even begin to cover modern self defense classes and styles which are really effective, because not only do they teach techinique but they teach tactics. Did you know that just about anything can be used as a weapon? And that keys are one of the nasiest weapons people almost always have on hand.

More over it would seem to me that again this is also a cultural thing where Saudia men (and maybe men from other Arabic cultures) think they can take anything that isn't protected. Now note I don't live in Sadia Arabia and I'm not saying that is for a fact how it is I'm just saying that's the interpratation I get. Thus it's just as much a probelm and needs to be corrected.

I'd seriously would like to understand why this gang of men decided to rape not only the girl but the guy and apparently in public as it seems very odd; at least to me because such things don't often happen where I live.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 19, 2007)

drache said:
			
		

> That's because you've only had 6 months of training.
> 
> For me it's teh exact opposite, when I get into a fight (though I try not to) I have to work to not let my instincts take completely over, otherwise I'd probably seriously hurt someone.
> 
> You can't judge the effectiveness of a martial art based on only 6 months of training, because you've not had time for it to become half instinctual let alone fully instinctive.



 lol, probably. Anyaway, I quit because I found it to be boring and uneffective(in my experience at least).



			
				drache said:
			
		

> And not all martial arts are about power, Akkido, Ju Jistu both relay on joint locks and throws neither of which are dependent on power; Praying Mantis Kung Fu is a style that assumes your opponent will be bigger then you and trains accordingly and Wing Chun was actually developed by a woman to be a self defense art for woman.
> 
> That doesn't even begin to cover modern self defense classes and styles which are really effective, because not only do they teach techinique but they teach tactics. Did you know that just about anything can be used as a weapon? And that keys are one of the nasiest weapons people almost always have on hand.


I know, but still, learning these arts takes time, and during that time, something might happen (I'm saying there's a possibility, not saying it _has_ to happen).



			
				drache said:
			
		

> More over it would seem to me that again this is also a cultural thing where Saudia men (and maybe men from other Arabic cultures) think they can take anything that isn't protected. Now note I don't live in Sadia Arabia and I'm not saying that is for a fact how it is I'm just saying that's the interpratation I get. Thus it's just as much a probelm and needs to be corrected.



What I think is that this is a direct result from separating men from women, all the time, and _forcing_ women to cover from head to toe. It just makes them super sex hungry druling pigs like that.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> I'd seriously would like to understand why this gang of men decided to rape not only the girl but the guy and apparently in public as it seems very odd; at least to me because such things don't often happen where I live.



True. It makes me doubt the authenticity of the story.


----------



## Trias (Nov 19, 2007)

So where's porn in this thread?


----------



## Jiraya_Ero_Senjin (Nov 19, 2007)

Omg this doesnt sound surprising at all !
We all know woman are surpressed in those regimes.


----------



## Ceej17 (Nov 19, 2007)

That was just stupid


----------



## drache (Nov 19, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> lol, probably. Anyaway, I quit because I found it to be boring and uneffective(in my experience at least).


 
It's only uneffective at first because you're relatively untrained. If you want something quick then grab a weapon and even then if you're not trained with it you probably still won't be that effective with it.

Any thing worth having takes time.



The_Unforgiven said:


> I know, but still, learning these arts takes time, and during that time, something might happen (I'm saying there's a possibility, not saying it _has_ to happen).


 
It might and it might not; using your logic though no one should ever learn to drive a car though. Because something _could_ happen while you're learning to drive. Sorry but I find this too much of an excuse and not enough of a reason.



The_Unforgiven said:


> What I think is that this is a direct result from separating men from women, all the time, and _forcing_ women to cover from head to toe. It just makes them super sex hungry druling pigs like that.


 
It might, I don't live in that culture so I won't pretend to know for sure. I personally think you may be on to something but I don't know for sure.

However *regardless* of how much your harmones may be screaming at you that doesn't mean you should just give in to them. People should be able to exercise some control over themselves.



The_Unforgiven said:


> True. It makes me doubt the authenticity of the story.


 
Oh I don't doubt it's true, I was merely wondering why people would do something like that. And what motivation they had.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 19, 2007)

drache said:
			
		

> It's only uneffective at first because you're relatively untrained. If you want something quick then grab a weapon and even then if you're not trained with it you probably still won't be that effective with it.
> 
> Any thing worth having takes time.



As long as I can fight, I'm happy 



			
				drache said:
			
		

> It might and it might not; using your logic though no one should ever learn to drive a car though. Because something could happen while you're learning to drive. Sorry but I find this too much of an excuse and not enough of a reason.


Fine then, look at it from another angle. What if the guy also knew martial arts. I'm sorry, but whatever example you bring up, mine will always be better. I'm all for teaching women martial arts, but I don't think it would completely solve the problem.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> It might, I don't live in that culture so I won't pretend to know for sure. I personally think you may be on to something but I don't know for sure.
> 
> However regardless of how much your harmones may be screaming at you that doesn't mean you should just give in to them. People should be able to exercise some control over themselves.



Oh I know some really desperate people at my school. I go to a boys only school, and you can't even begin to estimate how desperate these guys can get. They fuckin drool when they see a girl pass in front of our school. 



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Oh I don't doubt it's true, I was merely wondering why people would do something like that. And what motivation they had.


beats me


----------



## drache (Nov 19, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> As long as I can fight, I'm happy


 
*shrug* you don't need training to fight really, any one can flail thier fists at someone.



The_Unforgiven said:


> Fine then, look at it from another angle. What if the guy also knew martial arts. I'm sorry, but whatever example you bring up, mine will always be better. I'm all for teaching women martial arts, but I don't think it would completely solve the problem.


 
First off that's incredibly arrogant and foolish to blanketly claim that any example you bring up will always be better. I gave an example and showed that your line of thinking is a bit silly. There's no reason to get insulting.

Sure the person _may_ know martial arts but most martial artists I know don't go around picking fights. In fact to do so would be to go against the principles I learned as part of my martial arts training.

I also never said it would completely slove the probelm, I said it would help and in combination with teaching the men some self restraint would do much to stop the probelm.




The_Unforgiven said:


> Oh I know some really desperate people at my school. I go to a boys only school, and you can't even begin to estimate how desperate these guys can get. They fuckin drool when they see a girl pass in front of our school.


 
You're not telling me anything I don't know, I went to an all guys school too and yeah it happens. But that's still no excuse or reason to not have some self restraint.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 19, 2007)

drache said:
			
		

> First off that's incredibly arrogant and foolish to blanketly claim that any example you bring up will always be better. I gave an example and showed that your line of thinking is a bit silly. There's no reason to get insulting.
> 
> Sure the person may know martial arts but most martial artists I know don't go around picking fights. In fact to do so would be to go against the principles I learned as part of my martial arts training.
> 
> I also never said it would completely slove the probelm, I said it would help and in combination with teaching the men some self restraint would do much to stop the probelm.



I didn't mean it as insulting or anything, sorry you read it that way. 

Anyway, back to the topic: You yourself just said that your way wouldn't completely stop the problem, while my way prevents any possibility of the event whatsoever. It is better because prevention is the best cure.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> You're not telling me anything I don't know, I went to an all guys school too and yeah it happens. But that's still no excuse or reason to not have some self restraint


QFT


----------



## drache (Nov 19, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> I didn't mean it as insulting or anything, sorry you read it that way.
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic: You yourself just said that your way wouldn't completely stop the problem, while my way prevents any possibility of the event whatsoever. It is better because prevention is the best cure.


 
Making it illegal doesn't stop it, hell the whole freaken history of America's 'War on Drugs' should be a lesson in how outlawing a supposed probelm doesn't make it go away.

This law doesn't slove anything, it just increases the ignorance of everyone and when people do get into a bad situtaion they don't know how to talk/think their way out and failing that bash enough heads to be safe.

Sticking your head in the ground has never sloved anything.


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 19, 2007)

Urizen5 said:


> It seems to me man you are getting mad at the wrong people. You seem more upset with people *saying* this is Islam than people who are *making* this Islam.



This needs to be quoted again.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 19, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> True. It makes me doubt the authenticity of the story.



The story is true, even the part about the guy being raped and incidentally my International Affairs class discussed it (I brought up the subject)!


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 20, 2007)

Urizen5 said:


> It seems to me man you are getting mad at the wrong people. You seem more upset with people *saying* this is Islam than people who are *making* this Islam.



QFT!!! +reps. 

its SUCH a cop out to just say: well, thats not true Islam....and wave off all responsibility. 


They ALSO are muslims. they ALSO have an interpretation on Islam. They ALSO form a face of islam in this world. And they will mold and form Islam according to THEIR interpretation. 

What if their Salafist interpretations of Islam would become dominant, or even mandatory?? Then THEIR Islam, will be the true Islam. 
Hell for them it already is!

Who is to say your subjective interpretation is the right one?? Wait...it doesnt even matter, because their ""wrong"" interpretation is viewed as true by them, and thus has an effect on this world as they live by their interpretations and try to change and shape the world accordingly......

The practical, wordly influence of Islam on the world is partly guided by its message, but also guided by the leading human interpretations of that message. 

You...and them, are both influenced by islam, both interpreted the Q'uran. As such you are both faces of Islam....you both shape the image of islam.


That that image shaped by your brothers in the faith is shitty....not my fault. 

Simply, your religion is hijacked and its name is abused....yet you seem to care less about that. and more about that we as outsiders cant tell which out of hundreds of different subjective interpretations on what is ""true"" Islam, is the right one. 

And yeah, where you ignore that its possible that their interpretation spreads to have a consensus opinion that THAT is true islam. 
Scripture forms the theoretical part. interpretations then affect how Islam will be put in practice. 

So religions arent constant, they change.


----------



## Diamed (Nov 20, 2007)

Islam is as Islam does.  Islam is whatever the followers of it do.  Which currently includes: high crime rates wherever they immigrate, female genital mutilation, honor killings, wife beating, burqas and male relative 'escorts', dictators over almost all their countries, terrorism across the entire world, internal and external wars, illiteracy, ignorance, poverty, slavery, absurd penal codes, high unemployment, the death penalty for apostates, a complete dearth of nobel prizes or other cultural accomplishments, and screaming mobs who chant 'death to america, death to israel, death to the UK' and cheered in the streets after 9/11.  It also includes riots over cartoons, death threats to all of its critics, the death penalty for gays, and rampant anti-semitism.

Like Pandora's box, within Islam is virtually every evil in the whole world, a basket case just waiting to be released upon the unsuspecting world.  Even though it now has conquered 1 out of every 6 people on Earth, we still turn a blind eye to it, welcome their immigrants into our countries, ignore their genocides in darfur, and passively permit the subhuman barbarous treatment of their women, even praising them with the ridiculously orwellian term "Religion of Peace" at a time when they are responsible for virtually every violent conflict on earth.

Sooner or later we will have to confront this religion for what it is, the "Religion of Jihad," and the longer we wait, the stronger they become and the weaker, more decadent, dissipated, pacifistic, old, frail, and fewer we become.  The birth rates speak for themselves.


----------



## Zhongda (Nov 20, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Islam is as Islam does.  *Islam is whatever the followers of it do*.  Which currently includes: high crime rates wherever they immigrate, female genital mutilation, honor killings, wife beating, burqas and male relative 'escorts', dictators over almost all their countries, terrorism across the entire world, internal and external wars, illiteracy, ignorance, poverty, slavery, absurd penal codes, high unemployment, the death penalty for apostates, a complete dearth of nobel prizes or other cultural accomplishments, and screaming mobs who chant 'death to america, death to israel, death to the UK' and cheered in the streets after 9/11.  It also includes riots over cartoons, death threats to all of its critics, the death penalty for gays, and rampant anti-semitism.


Fair enough, this would mean that the very small minority of Muslims doing this, out of the Muslim population of, over a billion? practice the religion in such a negative way, while the majority are simply your average day Dick and Harry.


----------



## Diamed (Nov 20, 2007)

:/.  I can't share your optimism about this 'shadow' majority until they stand up and act in the name of Islam to put an end to these abuses by the 'vocal' minority.  If moderate Islam is truly the majority, then they need to put their _own_ house back in order, and take care of their fringe extremists.  Moderate Islam must become the rulers of all the middle eastern states, moderate islam must be broadcasted in all the satellite networks, moderate Islam must be taught in the schools, moderate Islam must negotiate peace with their neighbors, and so on.  If they don't, then I go back to my original formula: Islam is as Islam _does_.

It's meaningless that most muslims are moderate if all muslim ACTS are done by the extremists.  Until moderate islam is a _verb_ instead of a _noun_ Islam will continue to be judged by its actions--which are currently all being done solely and exclusively by extremists.  Dictator thugs, criminal gang immigrants, jihadi terrorists, and religious 'morals' police who prowl the streets in search of sinful women and gays, are the people actually DOING things in Islam.  The moderates, if they exist, are all submissively sitting around being victims, or callously ignoring the brutality and terror in their midst, and are therefore marginalized as meaningless parts of the equation.


----------



## Anaiya (Nov 20, 2007)

Forgive me if it has already been mentioned here, but I thought I would provide a quick update:

Her attorney has now had his license revoked and faces a possible disbarment for going to the media with his appeals.  The young girl is now without representation and continues to face 200 lashings.


----------



## Zhongda (Nov 20, 2007)

Diamed said:


> :/.  I can't share your optimism about this 'shadow' majority until they stand up and act in the name of Islam to put an end to these abuses by the 'vocal' minority.


How do you expect them to do that? Any action against the extremists will antagonize them further and lead them to act even more violently - take the red mosque shootings in Pakistan for instance. 

The majority of Muslims accept the modern type of government. Iraq is a perfect example. The voter turnout in the 2004 elections was 65-75% I believe. When you vote for a government, you expect it to provide security, however these voters, who of course constitute a majority, can't do anything against the "vocal minority".



Diamed said:


> If moderate Islam is truly the majority, then they need to put their _own_ house back in order, and take care of their fringe extremists.  Moderate Islam must become the rulers of all the middle eastern states, moderate islam must be broadcasted in all the satellite networks, moderate Islam must be taught in the schools, moderate Islam must negotiate peace with their neighbors, and so on.  If they don't, then I go back to my original formula: Islam is as Islam _does_.


Well considering that we have only two supposed theocracies in the ME with the rest ranging from being all out secular to being influenced by Islam, i am really not sure what house you want in order - do you expect perhaps the moderates to yell in the streets and rally around, i dunno, Darwin's picture or something? Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and pre-war Iraq are secular - most of the GCC are influenced by Islam but definitely moderate,  KSA can be seen as to breed terrorism, then again they're very good friends with US. Just what exactly do you want done in the ME? Perhaps more coverage of moderate activity? Here, i hope this will do.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1_y_5vUmA[/YOUTUBE]



Diamed said:


> It's meaningless that most muslims are moderate if all muslim ACTS are done by the extremists.  Until moderate islam is a _verb_ instead of a _noun_ Islam will continue to be judged by its actions--which are currently all being done solely and exclusively by extremists.  Dictator thugs, criminal gang immigrants, jihadi terrorists, and religious 'morals' police who prowl the streets in search of sinful women and gays, are the people actually DOING things in Islam.  The moderates, if they exist, are all submissively sitting around being victims, or callously ignoring the brutality and terror in their midst, and are therefore marginalized as meaningless parts of the equation.


It wouldn't make sense really to have moderates not accept government as the only legitimate protector - the people you think are "callously ignoring terror" are the most effected by it - again with Iraq, the death toll i think is just a few thousands short of a million, all caused by terrorists who wave the Islamic flag. You apparently expect a moderate Muslim front against these Muslims, well that won't happen because moderate Muslims depend on government, not insurgents to protect them.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 20, 2007)

Zhong Da said:


> Fair enough, this would mean that the very small minority of Muslims doing this, out of the Muslim population of, over a billion? practice the religion in such a negative way, while the majority are simply your average day Dick and Harry.



very small minority?? That phrase is a cop out as well.  Look at the numbers of protesters, at majorities voting Hamas, or whole countries ending up as a theocracy. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Aghanistan. Pakistan with all its madrassas. All those who are in favor of Sharia law, or for killing apostates. 

that minority is Far from small enough. That minority still constitutes millions and millions of people. 


Seeing as the followers shape the image and meaning of islam, its far from ""the religion of peace"". As it is far more agressive then other religions now. 


pfftt, we have a neo-nazy rally from time to time. With like 100 people from throughout the country joining. Now THATS a small minority. 

So we could be like you: oh its a minority, and leave it at that. leave it to fester and spread....

But we keep a very careful watch on them, and object to their views on a regular basis. We have anti-fascists, looking for fights with them. 




but yeah, I do make a distinction between different interpretations of Islam. But together, they still shape the general view of Islam, and you are lying to yourself if you do not think, that there are a good deal of negatives to this view.


----------



## HyperKnuckles22 (Nov 20, 2007)

> ts SUCH a cop out to just say: well, thats not true Islam....and wave off all responsibility.



i was told that, and got negrepped by four idiots.




> If moderate Islam is truly the majority, then they need to put their own house back in order, and take care of their fringe extremists. Moderate Islam must become the rulers of all the middle eastern states, moderate islam must be broadcasted in all the satellite networks, moderate Islam must be taught in the schools, moderate Islam must negotiate peace with their neighbors, and so on. If they don't, then I go back to my original formula: Islam is as Islam does.



that proves that moderates dont care, or that they arent really moderate.


----------



## drache (Nov 20, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Islam is as Islam does. Islam is whatever the followers of it do. Which currently includes: high crime rates wherever they immigrate, female genital mutilation, honor killings, wife beating, burqas and male relative 'escorts', dictators over almost all their countries, terrorism across the entire world, internal and external wars, illiteracy, ignorance, poverty, slavery, absurd penal codes, high unemployment, the death penalty for apostates, a complete dearth of nobel prizes or other cultural accomplishments, and screaming mobs who chant 'death to america, death to israel, death to the UK' and cheered in the streets after 9/11. It also includes riots over cartoons, death threats to all of its critics, the death penalty for gays, and rampant anti-semitism.
> 
> Like Pandora's box, within Islam is virtually every evil in the whole world, a basket case just waiting to be released upon the unsuspecting world. Even though it now has conquered 1 out of every 6 people on Earth, we still turn a blind eye to it, welcome their immigrants into our countries, ignore their genocides in darfur, and passively permit the subhuman barbarous treatment of their women, even praising them with the ridiculously orwellian term "Religion of Peace" at a time when they are responsible for virtually every violent conflict on earth.
> 
> Sooner or later we will have to confront this religion for what it is, the "Religion of Jihad," and the longer we wait, the stronger they become and the weaker, more decadent, dissipated, pacifistic, old, frail, and fewer we become. The birth rates speak for themselves.


 
Oddly enough at various points in time you could have said the same of just about any religion; especially Christianity.Though I'm hardly willing to so easily condemn a religion especially just because of what seems like a minority.

Though honestly I don't see anyone turning a 'blind eye towards it'.

That said like I argued earlier, from my point of view this is really wrong and needs to change.

But then again as long as Saudia Arabia is a buddy to all the Western states and has oil the cynical part of me believes that no real international deal will be made about it.

Finally, your appealing to emotion by sayying we have to do something now or we're all going to die. Bush has done that for 7 years and it is bullshit when he does it and I call bullshit on you for trying the same stunt.



Anaiya said:


> Forgive me if it has already been mentioned here, but I thought I would provide a quick update:
> 
> Her attorney has now had his license revoked and faces a possible disbarment for going to the media with his appeals. The young girl is now without representation and continues to face 200 lashings.


 
ouchies, really really bad ouchies.

Now I'd really like to see what the Muslim world thinks of this and how this is justified. The Unforigiven tried to explain it to me with the original law and now I'd welcome an explaination from a follower of the religion these laws claim to originate from.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 20, 2007)

Anaiya said:


> Forgive me if it has already been mentioned here, but I thought I would provide a quick update:
> 
> Her attorney has now had his license revoked and faces a possible disbarment for going to the media with his appeals.  The young girl is now without representation and continues to face 200 lashings.



This is an outrage . If you can't defend your verdict, then don't make it! 




> Islam is as Islam does. Islam is whatever the followers of it do. Which currently includes: high crime rates wherever they immigrate, female genital mutilation, honor killings, wife beating, burqas and male relative 'escorts', dictators over almost all their countries, terrorism across the entire world, internal and external wars, illiteracy, ignorance, poverty, slavery, absurd penal codes, high unemployment, the death penalty for apostates, a complete dearth of nobel prizes or other cultural accomplishments, and screaming mobs who chant 'death to america, death to israel, death to the UK' and cheered in the streets after 9/11. It also includes riots over cartoons, death threats to all of its critics, the death penalty for gays, and rampant anti-semitism.
> 
> Like Pandora's box, within Islam is virtually every evil in the whole world, a basket case just waiting to be released upon the unsuspecting world. Even though it now has conquered 1 out of every 6 people on Earth, we still turn a blind eye to it, welcome their immigrants into our countries, ignore their genocides in darfur, and passively permit the subhuman barbarous treatment of their women, even praising them with the ridiculously orwellian term "Religion of Peace" at a time when they are responsible for virtually every violent conflict on earth.
> 
> Sooner or later we will have to confront this religion for what it is, the "Religion of Jihad," and the longer we wait, the stronger they become and the weaker, more decadent, dissipated, pacifistic, old, frail, and fewer we become. The birth rates speak for themselves.



Alright. So now I can assume all americans are Bush, because America is as america does.


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Nov 20, 2007)

Your Lord has seen such punishments since the first day he hit ashore.

Too bad vigilantism would cause an international incident.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 20, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Alright. So now I can assume all americans are Bush, because America is as america does.



You dont get it huh? 

I am not saying take 1 part of a group and generalize. Diamed isnt doing that either. 

We just say that ALL parts of a group shape the view of a group!! 

So if asked: Is America peaceful. 
I would answer, that there are pacifist groups, but there is a large group that are very militaristic, especially government and neo-cons. 
So basically...no, compared to lets say the Netherlands..its not that peaceful. 

Similar to Islam. Is islam the most peaceful religion on earth?? Well then i look at Islam as a whole. 


i am NOT going to ignore parts of Islam. (interpretations and followers) just because they embarrass you, or you rather want to ignore them/forget them as well.. 

So as such i would say NO, cause Islam has some serious problems with people hijacking the belief, distorting its message. (its message isnt all that epacefull compared to lets say Buddhism, but lets keep it to interpretations in practice) and entire countries falling to radicalism and fundamentalism.





HyperKnuckles22 said:


> i was told that, and got negrepped by four idiots.



I get negrepped for saying the truth also. I wonder how many muslims neg-repped the_unforgiven for being in favor of killing apostates. 



HyperKnuckles22 said:


> that proves that moderates dont care, or that they arent really moderate.



another good point. They dont really care, or they are mildly positive. Atleast secretly happy at their actiosn and effects on the world.
Such as Meng, who supports Al-Qaeda. He disagreed with their views, but was happy for their ""resistance"" 

So That ""very small minority"" just got a little bigger...again. I would say its a minority. When whole countries fall under its spell, you can scracth ""very"" and ""small"" before minority.




drache said:


> Oddly enough at various points in time you could have said the same of just about any religion; especially Christianity.Though I'm hardly willing to so easily condemn a religion especially just because of what seems like a minority.



Yes, yes it can and it HAS. do you know how much the Crusades and inquisition etc, negatively affect view on Christianity. How bombing abortion clinics affect view? 

You havent seen all the atheist threads about how religion is bad etc. 

This used to be solely against Christianity, because there was a good decade that saying something against the multicultural paradise, was really considered bad form for a leftie. 

(in the netherlands)



drache said:


> Though honestly I don't see anyone turning a 'blind eye towards it'.



all i see from many muslims are excuses to wave of responsibility. 

""its a VERY SMALL minority."" 

""its not true Islam."" 

Many of these radical ideas can only exist and spread BECAUSE so many in the muslim community are turning a blind eye towards it.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 20, 2007)

How many people here arguing against Islam know the difference in Islam between Zina and rape?

Zina= Adultery with both partners conseting.

Rape(forced sex)= Is the same as British sex however in Islam a man cannot be raped only women.


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Nov 20, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> How many people here arguing against Islam know the difference in Islam between Zina and rape?
> 
> Zina= Adultery with both partners conseting.
> 
> Rape(forced sex)= Is the same as British sex however in Islam a man cannot be raped only women.



Islam is a monotheistic religion originating with the teachings of Muhammad, a 7th century Arab religious and political figure. The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God, or in Arabic, Allah.

Zina is extramartial sex for men and women and is punishable by Islamic Law. It is considered to be for the protection of men and women and for the respect of marriage. It is considered one of the greatest sins and would not only result in punishment before death, but such sinners will be punished after death unless they atone for their sins according to Shari'a Law.

Rape is too obvious.

No, I did not get this from the internet. This Sesshoumaru must know the enemy.

Islam and Islamic Law have one major difference - Islam is the teaching of Muhammad to the people. Islamic Law is the laws set down by people of the region in which they live their public and private lives. This mainly applies to the Middle East and few communities in the world which associate with that region. Islam and Islamic Law, or Shari'a, have very little association.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 20, 2007)

zabuza lives said:
			
		

> You dont get it huh?
> 
> I am not saying take 1 part of a group and generalize. Diamed isnt doing that either.
> 
> ...



Diamed is saying that islam is what the followers do, which is not the case. Islam is the monotheistic religon that was revealed to prophet mohammad through the archangel Gabriel. What Diamed said makes no sense, because ,for example, some muslims drink. Is that islam? I don't think so.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 20, 2007)

> No, I did not get this from the internet. *This Sesshoumaru must know the enemy.*


Little too harsh?


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 20, 2007)

Sesshoumaru said:


> No, I did not get this from the internet. This Sesshoumaru must know the enemy.



I suddenly feel very uneasy... Like, being stuck between someone not from my religion classifying me me as an enemy because of some shitheads in my religion and someone from my religion classifying me as an enemy for not being enough like them...

At this rate, I'll end up an angry atheist.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 20, 2007)

Sesshoumaru said:


> Islam and Islamic Law have one major difference - Islam is the teaching of Muhammad to the people. Islamic Law is the laws set down by people of the region in which they live their public and private lives. This mainly applies to the Middle East and few communities in the world which associate with that region. Islam and Islamic Law, or Shari'a, have very little association.


Islam is a religion like all others based on laws, rules and regulations and similar to other religion most of the law's, rules and regulations are personal and between the person and his Lord (e.g. praying, charity). However just like all the other religions there are law's, rules and regulations that restrict a person from doing somethings which will (if found guilty by the courts) be punnished by the law, these are called Hudood/limits (set out by God), some of these are; murder, robbery and adultery etc. These Hudood are set in stone and cannot be changed.

In the one of the most famous books on Islamic law called Qudoori states what I stated in my previous post.

Similar to English law the MP's make some laws and the majoroty of the laws are made through case laws. Change the words around: In Islamic law God made some of the laws and the majority are made through the courts.
This does not mean that they are serperate.

It's like saying that your a Briton but the British laws do not apply to you whilst in Briton, both go hand in hand.

BTW, you just called me an innocent, your enemy.


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Nov 20, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> BTW, you just called me an innocent, your enemy.



Of course. That was this Sesshoumaru's very intension.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 20, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Diamed is saying that islam is what the followers do, which is not the case. Islam is the monotheistic religon that was revealed to prophet mohammad through the archangel Gabriel. What Diamed said makes no sense, because ,for example, some muslims drink. Is that islam? I don't think so.



he wasnt talking about it in that way. 

What followers do in the name of the religion, what followers claim as being part, or true form of that religion. 


Lets say you and your brother start a new religion (Islam v2) based on some texts.

You have the interpretation that all apostates should be killed. 

Your brother does not agree, he interprets it differentely, and does not think they should be killed. 


As an outsider I see two different interpretations/streams of Islam v2.  
Islam v2 as a whole is mixed on the issue of killing apostates. 


Now lets say your brother passes away. (or you convince/force him to change his mind) 

Now all thats left is your interpretation. Which you will teach as the right and only proper interpretation of islam v2 to all your children/followers. 

So all followers of Islam v2 are now in favor of killing apostates. 


As an outsider, Islam v2 stands for killing apostates now....


Lets say you pass away or are convinced/forced to changte your mind. 
The interpretation that apostates do NOT deserve death is spread. Al followers adhere to that interpretation. That is the ""right"one. 

What does Islam v2 stands for now? on this issue? 

Exactly, for not killing apostates. 



Basically this is a simplified example on how interpretation shapes a religion. 
Sure you have scripture, but this can always be differentely interpreted or ignored. So that how people practise Islam, its effect on the world, is different.



Example2:  scripture says: "turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour""
But then a religion leader says. Well thats just about Christian neighbours, turn the cheek to other Christians.  
Every filthy haethen and non-believer should be slaughtered though! 

And all followers would go: yeah your right, this is the only correct interpretation! This will be taught as the right way to practise our religion. 

So, off they go, murdering and slaughtering as they pass. 

So, one asks, Are christians peaceful? (followers) is the religion peaceful? 

No, only the scripture can be interpreted as peaceful. But that message was changed and now followers and the religion in practise, in its effects and influences on the world is very violent.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 20, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> he wasnt talking about it in that way.



Don't be defending the delusional diamed, he was talking about it that way, where in the Quran does it say circumsize women, commit crime blah blah blah. 



Zabuzalives said:


> What followers do in the name of the religion, what followers claim as being part, or true form of that religion.



That would be sectarianism right ? a total different topic.



Zabuzalives said:


> No, only the scripture can be interpreted as peaceful. But that message was changed and now followers and the religion in practice, in its effects and influences on the world is very violent.



Of course they can we are only human. 

also you're analogy (Islam v2) is no good when comparing to the orignal Islam our message was totally completed also we have highly educated people and 4 different schools of thought trying to understand the Quran and what it says. 

Why bring Christianity into this ? this is about the corrupt (good friends of USA) Saudi regime.


----------



## Soldier (Nov 20, 2007)

Well i know where I'm not going on vacation. That just ... cruel why punish the victim when you can punish the criminal?  Odd.


----------



## drache (Nov 20, 2007)

T4R0K said:


> I suddenly feel very uneasy... Like, being stuck between someone not from my religion classifying me me as an enemy because of some shitheads in my religion and someone from my religion classifying me as an enemy for not being enough like them...
> 
> At this rate, I'll end up an angry atheist.


 
The probelm here is that there are many professed muslims that support laws like this one and when a country professes to live by the laws of Islam and something like this happens then what conculusion can you draw but that Islam is backwards, discriminatory and all those other things?

Islam seems to be in an identity crisis as many professed devout muslims support such laws, entire countries are supposedly using laws like these because Islam says to; and yet there are people like you that are very much the moderates.

If it makes you feel any better at least here in the US Christianity is having a similair crisis where the moderate, reasonable people who still really believe in the teachings of Jesus are starkly contrasted by the extermists who cling to a style of Christainity that only really exists in there head. 

The same probably ist true of Islam in that the extermists are wrong, however I didn't grow up Muslim so I don't know what to think except what I see by the news. And such stories like these do alot of damage to Islam's reputation; justifiably or not.


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 20, 2007)

> and yet there are people like you that are very much the moderates.



Well, hearing what the "moderates" say, I'd rather define myself as a very liberal muslim. More moderate than a moderate. So "moderate" even moderates can't like me.



> And such stories like these do alot of damage to Islam's reputation; justifiably or not.



I do agree.


----------



## Diamed (Nov 20, 2007)

It's a very simple message, and you guys can't get around it:  Islam is as Islam does.  Islam is the sum total, good and bad, of every action done by every muslim in the world.  Considering most of your economy is done by foreign workers who pump the oil for you, and that you contribute nothing to scientific progress, and no muslim work of art reaches us like harry potter reaches you, and most of your people lack freedom and live in poverty, I'm gonna put a big 0 on the good part.  Then for the bad part I quickly learn you're responsible for almost all the crime in Europe, terrorist attacks worldwide, mass slaughters of your own people in Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, etc---well I add this up and I put up a big "-".

Go ahead and judge America by what it does.  You'll notice something magical about the United States.  We produce 30% of the entire world's goods.  Nobel Prize winners every year, Ipods, World of Warcraft, Halo, boeing aircraft, the international space station--wherever you turn your life is being made better by americans.  Then you look at the USA coming to help the bangladeshis hit by the cyclone, or how we delivered aid after the tsunami, and it turns out we're saving millions of lives, or you see us at the front line in the war on terror---the only nation willing to die to set other men free.  By now it's traditional in America.  We did it in the civil war, we did it in both world wars, we did it in the cold war, and now we're doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Each time america has freed millions of people from cruel dictatorships and given them permanent grounds for hope.  If you judge us by our actions, you'll have no choice but to admit we're the greatest and most benevolent force on earth and human history.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 20, 2007)

Makenshi said:


> Don't be defending the delusional diamed, he was talking about it that way, where in the Quran does it say circumsize women, commit crime blah blah blah.



I'll let him react himself yeah. 



Makenshi said:


> That would be sectarianism right ? a total different topic.



In Afghanistan under the taliban, In Saudi Arabia, in Iran, their interpretations are seen as the proper way to interpret and practice Islam. 

Their sectarianism could just leave you as the odd one out. They decide the face of islam. And you are the one following some insignigicant cult. 



Makenshi said:


> Of course they can we are only human.
> 
> also you're analogy (Islam v2) is no good when comparing to the orignal Islam our message was totally completed also we have highly educated people and 4 different schools of thought trying to understand the Quran and what it says.



lol, and entire countries falling for Salafism and mixing up cultural rules and morals as being islamic. 
Shia/sunni.  

Or are you saying the taliban interpretation is the rigth one? Al-Qaeda has it right? In which case you are my enemy. You support a barbaric, violent, destructive belief.



Makenshi said:


> Why bring Christianity into this ? this is about the corrupt (good friends of USA) Saudi regime.



Drache initially did. 

I just used it because Christians and Christianity in general has undergone a big metamorphosis.


----------



## Edo (Nov 20, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Alright. So now I can assume all americans are Bush, because America is as america does.



Well actually that is a very sound assumption.

I mean honestly, elected  President and Leaders are always a representative of the country they govern, it is only natural....otherwise they would not have elected them.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 20, 2007)

Sesshoumaru said:


> Of course. That was this Sesshoumaru's very intension.



You want war, I'll give you war!


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 20, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> I'll let him react himself yeah.







Zabuzalives said:


> In Afghanistan under the taliban, In Saudi Arabia, in Iran, their interpretations are seen as the proper way to interpret and practice Islam.



Actually i don't think so, it's just people in power perverting ideals to further their agenda interests, i mean growing and selling drugs in Afghanistan sounds like a twisted ideal to me even though the rules on drugs are quite concrete. Though they probably used islam to justify it to the people.



Zabuzalives said:


> Their sectarianism could just leave you as the odd one out. They decide the face of islam. And you are the one following some insignigicant cult.



they are cults now ? Okay  and i don't think im part of a minority.



Zabuzalives said:


> lol, and entire countries falling for Salafism and mixing up cultural rules and morals as being islamic.


Shia/sunni.  

Well that's what happens with corrupt regimes i mean it happens everywhere don't you think. They just control the people by any means necessary. 



Zabuzalives said:


> Or are you saying the taliban interpretation is the rigth one? Al-Qaeda has it right? In which case you are my enemy. You support a barbaric, violent, destructive belief.



When or how did i even imply that ? I'm sure if i supported those views i would certainlly not be posting on an anime forum.





Zabuzalives said:


> Drache initially did.



okay.



Zabuzalives said:


> I just used it because Christians and Christianity in general has undergone a big metamorphosis.



Yup, but how does that relate ?


----------



## Sarun (Nov 20, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> This is an outrage . If you can't defend your verdict, then don't make it!


I agree!


Sesshoumaru said:


> Your Lord has seen such punishments since the first day he hit ashore.
> 
> Too bad vigilantism would cause an international incident.


I don't understand!


Black Fenix said:


> How many people here arguing against Islam know the difference in Islam between Zina and rape?
> 
> Zina= Adultery with both partners conseting.
> 
> Rape(forced sex)= Is the same as British sex however in Islam a man cannot be raped only women.


So, in Islam, a man cannot be raped by a woman?:amazed


Diamed said:


> It's a very simple message, and you guys can't get around it:  Islam is as Islam does.  Islam is the sum total, good and bad, of every action done by every muslim in the world.  Considering most of your economy is done by foreign workers who pump the oil for you, and *that you contribute nothing to scientific progress*,* and no muslim work of art reaches us like harry potter *reaches you, and most of your people lack freedom and live in poverty, I'm gonna put a big 0 on the good part.  Then for the bad part I quickly learn you're responsible for almost all the crime in Europe, terrorist attacks worldwide, mass slaughters of your own people in Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, etc---well I add this up and I put up a big "-".


I would like to point out that during middle ages, Muslims discovered many scientific and mathematical facts and have written many great pieces of literature! Although these happened centuries ago, they still contributed!


----------



## Sirah (Nov 20, 2007)

snoworyx said:


> I really don't understand some cultures....the victim was punished???



the culture isnt wrong... its the cuntry ,


that cuntry is really fucked up now


----------



## Sarun (Nov 20, 2007)

This is one of the reason how oil can let you do anything, almost, of course there are exceptions!


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 20, 2007)

zabuza lives said:
			
		

> he wasnt talking about it in that way.
> 
> What followers do in the name of the religion, what followers claim as being part, or true form of that religion.
> 
> ...



You don't seem to get it do you? Not everyone can interpret the scriptures and still consider himself correct. There are certain criteria to do that. That's why your analogy fails. 

And in the end, whatever injustice happened, there is the day of judgement so everyone will be prosecuted fairly.



			
				Edo said:
			
		

> Well actually that is a very sound assumption.
> 
> I mean honestly, elected President and Leaders are always a representative of the country they govern, it is only natural....otherwise they would not have elected them



Not neccesarily. He might've changed since they elected him, or lied or whatever.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 21, 2007)

*Saudi rape victim gets jailed*



Man that is some screwed up country, its just like Pakistan.

edit: sorry saw the other thread, msged mod to close this.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 21, 2007)

I believe Toby_Christ requested some information of Islam and rape and segregation of men and women.

Firstly, rape is not inherently wrong in Islam, as Muhammad allowed it when capturing female slaves.

 Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence." 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.718

 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137

Coitus interruptus is having sex but withdrawing once your going to ejaculate, btw those hadiths also show slaves were taken and is also taken that contraception is wrong.

Now the charge is that the woman should not, in Islam, be near men that are not related to her, this is indeed quite an established ruling in Islamic jurisprudence, it mainly is an extension of the various rulings that a man or woman even looking at another are guilty of adultery, thus to prevent this, the sexes are kept separate.

*Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
Isa At-Tirmidhi recorded that Abu Musa, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Prophet said:
(Every eye commits fornication and adultery, and when a woman puts on perfume and passes through a gathering, she is such and such) -- meaning an adulteress. He said, "And there is a similar report from Abu Hurayrah, and this is Hasan Sahih.'' It was also recorded by Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i. By the same token, women are also forbidden to walk in the middle of the street, because of what this involves of wanton display.

Somewhat echoed in:
The eyes commit Zina, the hands commit Zina and feet commit Zina and the genitals commit Zina.
-Musnad Ahmad


----------



## d3l (Nov 21, 2007)

The reason the woman gets jailed (and prob. the 90 lashes) is not because of the rape, but because she was with an unrelated male person. That's not allowed according the shariah law in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 21, 2007)

sarun uchiha said:


> So, in Islam, a man cannot be raped by a woman?:amazed



Same as British law.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 21, 2007)

Black Fenix said:


> Same as British law.


Can you elaborate please.


----------



## Black Wraith (Nov 21, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Can you elaborate please.





> *Under English law, it is not possible for a woman to rape a man.* Both women and men can be prosecuted for sexual assault under section 3 of the 2003 act if they touches a person of either sex sexually without consent. A person of either sex can also be prosecuted for intentionally causing another to engage in sexual activity without consent under section 4, a crime which carries a maximum life sentence if it involves penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina. Section 2 of the 2003 Act introduces a new sexual offence, "assault by penetration", with the same punishment as rape. It is committed when someone sexually penetrates the anus or vagina with a part of his or her body, or with an object, without that person's consent. [1]
> 
> A woman assisting a man commit a rape can be prosecuted for the crime as an accessory.[2]


----------



## Twirl (Nov 21, 2007)

lol, thats their creative way of thinking... they want to be different. Wouldn't it be interesting if the judge punished himself for the crimes...


----------



## neko-sennin (Nov 21, 2007)

sarun uchiha said:


> I would like to point out that during middle ages, Muslims discovered many scientific and mathematical facts and have written many great pieces of literature! Although these happened centuries ago, they still contributed!



Yes, but what have they done lately? This is the point some of us are trying to make. Modern Islam has fallen into its own Dark Age, much like how Europe did centuries ago, dominated by illiteracy, ignorance, and blind superstition, and a religious monopoly perverting the spiritual teachings of its own founders. Force of arms can no more save them than it can save the West from our own wasteful consumption.

The only thing that can break this vicious circle is enlightenment and understanding. As long as despots and demagogues hold the mic, they will be the ones who define "Islam", both in their own respective countries, as well as for the rest of the world.


----------



## skunkworks (Nov 21, 2007)

Silly Islam.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 21, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> You don't seem to get it do you? Not everyone can interpret the scriptures and still consider himself correct.



Ehmm, I can read the Q?ran right now, make an interpretation and feel that i am correct. Problem lies in making others think you are correct. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> There are certain criteria to do that. That's why your analogy fails.



no it doesnt. I just simplified it. As long as you have very liberal muslims, and Al-Qaeda memebers screaming for blood, i would say there is a whole range of difference of opinion of what is justified by Islam, or how you should practice and interpret Islam. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> And in the end, whatever injustice happened, there is the day of judgement so everyone will be prosecuted fairly.



yeah...but just in case. I would want to make THIS world somewhat live-able as well.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 21, 2007)

Makenshi said:


> Actually i don't think so,
> it's just people in power perverting ideals to further their agenda interests, i mean growing and selling drugs in Afghanistan sounds like a twisted ideal to me even though the rules on drugs are quite concrete. Though they probably used islam to justify it to the people.



Its not just that, if you spoonfeed people that interpretation/view, it begins to live a life of its own. Those people will view it as right. 



Makenshi said:


> they are cults now ? Okay  and i don't think im part of a minority.



didnt say they were, Said that you might be reduced to a minority, and your interpretation be viewed as incorrect/cultist. 



Makenshi said:


> Shia/sunni.



and you have various levels of how fundamentalist/radical they are. 



Makenshi said:


> Well that's what happens with corrupt regimes i mean it happens everywhere don't you think. They just control the people by any means necessary.



Yes, they even change a religion in a warped version of itself. 



Makenshi said:


> When or how did i even imply that ? I'm sure if i supported those views i would certainlly not be posting on an anime forum.



lol you would be suprised. Even on this forum there are those in favor of killing apostates (Unforgiven). there are those supporting Al-Qaeda. (Mengde)

Several of the Islamic texts given by Majin etc. are FAR from peaceful.

I asked to be sure. Maybe you were under the impression Saudi Arabia, Iran have the right interpretation of Islam. 



Makenshi said:


> Yup, but how does that relate ?



To show religion (its practice and its effects/influence) and its followers can change.


----------



## Asmodeus (Nov 21, 2007)

It's what happens when the lines between church and state cease to exist. The only people who will ever rule are ones that can make themselves heard the most. Extremists excel in that aspect. So, when you have a nation dominated by religious rule, who do you think your officials are going to be? 

I would have more respect for the Islamic faith in general if they'd throw off the yoke of the over-bearing oppressors that rule them. Faith is personal, not a political agenda. It's made political by cowards and power-hungry fiends. If Islamic people want respect for themselves and their faith, they need to take it back from the murderers and zealots that have stolen it away from them.


----------



## Red (Nov 21, 2007)

Oh wow


----------



## Edo (Nov 21, 2007)

> The Saudi justice ministry has defended the verdict and warned against "agitation through the media" - a sign of how sensitive the authorities are to the fact that the woman and her lawyer have sought to use the media to highlight the case, says BBC Middle East analyst Roger Hardy.
> 
> Meanwhile, Mrs Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the US presidential elections, strongly condemned the Saudi sentence.
> 
> ...



just proving my previous post...now if this had happened in Iran, it would have been a sound reason to start bombing Iran.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 21, 2007)

Oil, that is what international community from strongly condemning this!


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 21, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> Its not just that, if you spoonfeed people that interpretation/view, it begins to live a life of its own. Those people will view it as right.



of course, that is the point.



Zabuzalives said:


> didnt say they were, Said that you might be reduced to a minority, and your interpretation be viewed as incorrect/cultist.



i don't think so, the Suicide and Death to America peeps are certainly the minority.




Zabuzalives said:


> and you have various levels of how fundamentalist/radical they are.



wut ? i didn't say Shia/sunni that was me forggetin to put that in the quota XD




Zabuzalives said:


> Yes, they even change a religion in a warped version of itself.



yup, that's what people in _power_ do.




Zabuzalives said:


> lol you would be suprised. Even on this forum there are those in favor of killing apostates (Unforgiven). there are those supporting Al-Qaeda. (Mengde)



how does that make them extreme ? i am also a supporter of Al-qaeda i read it everyday 



Zabuzalives said:


> Several of the Islamic texts given by Majin etc. are FAR from peaceful.



of course, if viewed in the wrong context most of them apply to war and certain situations, you should know that by now. Unless you can only use that in an argument 



Zabuzalives said:


> I asked to be sure. Maybe you were under the impression Saudi Arabia, Iran have the right interpretation of Islam.



not really. No country really is.





Zabuzalives said:


> To show religion (its practice and its effects/influence) and its followers can change.



well they don't all change a certain Top Gear episode will prove you otherwise 

and stop putting the blame on Islam, the blame should be on the people a lone stop covering in a blanket of blame.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 21, 2007)

Makenshi said:


> how does that make them extreme ? i am also a supporter of Al-qaeda i read it everyday


How is killing ex-Muslims because they are ex-Muslims extreme?

wow, nice to see yet another muslim on this board totally demolish the image of the 'moderate' Muslim.


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 21, 2007)

ok I am sick of hearing about this crap


----------



## Quiet Storm (Nov 21, 2007)

Well maybe she should of just layed back and enjoyed it 

But seriously that was really fucked up that she got punished.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 21, 2007)

Makenshi said:


> of course, that is the point.



and they get away with it so easily. 



Makenshi said:


> i don't think so, the Suicide and Death to America peeps are certainly the minority.



dont give me this bullshit. I am not only talking about the suicide bombers, but the whole of fundamentalist/radical interpretations of Islam. 

The taliban were a majority in good parts of Afghanistan. 

Iran is a theocracy. Algeria where democracy would destroy itself. Hamas getting the majority votes. 

muslim schools teaching dangerous interpretations of Salafism. 

I am talking about that these numbers change, certain interpretations gain power. I am talking about that what is now a minority..can become a majority. 



Makenshi said:


> wut ? i didn't say Shia/sunni that was me forggetin to put that in the quota XD



ok



Makenshi said:


> yup, that's what people in _power_ do.



yeah, and they can change a religion. Now if they succesfully eradicate the old style and practices....THEIR rules will become the new form. 



Makenshi said:


> how does that make them extreme ? i am also a supporter of Al-qaeda i read it everyday



I guess we have totally different interpretations on whats ""moderate"" then.



Makenshi said:


> of course, if viewed in the wrong context most of them apply to war and certain situations, you should know that by now. Unless you can only use that in an argument



Who decides what is the right context? thats right, humans. subjective humans. Perhaps YOUR context is the wrong one? 



Makenshi said:


> not really. No country really is.



well, they are still spokesmen of Islam. followers of Islam. Their actiosn and words shape the image that the rest of the world has of Islam. 

change Islam itself. If they ever succeed to enforce their views enough. 



Makenshi said:


> well they don't all change a certain Top Gear episode will prove you otherwise



never claimed that was so. 



Makenshi said:


> and stop putting the blame on Islam, the blame should be on the people a lone stop covering in a blanket of blame.



followers can change a religion. Through interpretation and different practices. 

Look at the difference between Jews and Christians, between Protestants and Catholics. between Shia and Sunni. 

I am simply saying that the face of Islam is also shaped by its followers. 

And it isnt such a pretty sight thanks to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban, Al-Qaeda. 


I am not ""blaming Islam"" 

just saying that the arguments: ""very small minority"" (scratch ""very"" and ""small"" next time) AND ""that is not true Islam"", are both FAR too often used to wave off all responsibility and choose a path of inaction.


----------



## Mr. Obvious (Nov 21, 2007)

damnit america should get the hell out of iraq already and nuke these bastards ASAP


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 21, 2007)

Waffles and Pancakes said:


> damnit america should get the hell out of iraq already and nuke these bastards ASAP



been saying that for years


----------



## Xion (Nov 21, 2007)

Waffles and Pancakes said:


> damnit america should get the hell out of iraq already and nuke these bastards ASAP



You should have some Kool-Aid to go with those waffles and pancakes.


----------



## Diamed (Nov 21, 2007)

makenshi was doing a pun.  Al Qaeda also means a madrassa school program where you learn standard stuff about islam.  He's just being silly.


----------



## Cirus (Nov 22, 2007)

In a country where religion rules, then people will get no justice.  In a country where the leaders also lead the faith, then people will get no justice.  In a country where faith oppresses people, then the people will get no justice.  In a country where religion rules choice, then people will get no justice.  In a country where religion has the power, then the people will have no justice.


Religion is something that should have any power in government.  Having faith in something is good, but when you let it determine your entire life and how you judge others, then you are no better then a dictartor who hurts his people.


----------



## Sean Connery (Nov 22, 2007)

this is probally why I haven't been involved much in my church


----------



## Edo (Nov 22, 2007)

Waffles and Pancakes said:


> damnit america should get the hell out of iraq already and nuke these bastards ASAP



mmmm.....that seems to be the USA's answer to every problem.


----------



## Diamed (Nov 22, 2007)

nukes aren't an effective weapon against this enemy.  A few radicals hide in caves while holding the civilian population as hostages.  If there's a known terrorist cell, we have to go in there and take it out on foot.  If we don't know where they are, we can't just flail around killing people blindly.  I'm afraid even if they nuke us, we can't nuke them back.  The people/state didn't nuke us after all, and we'd just be killing innocents if we nuked them.  We have to one by one pick out the actual terrorists and kill them.  We need to convince the ordinary muslim to change what Islam means and rejoin the modern world, and until then, we need to make sure they don't have access to WMD, and kill all funders or organizers of terrorism we can find with our intelligence.  It's a long, slow, expensive, and thankless war.


----------



## Edo (Nov 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> nukes aren't an effective weapon against this enemy.  A few radicals hide in caves while holding the civilian population as hostages.  If there's a known terrorist cell, we have to go in there and take it out on foot.  If we don't know where they are, we can't just flail around killing people blindly.  I'm afraid even if they nuke us, we can't nuke them back.  The people/state didn't nuke us after all, and we'd just be killing innocents if we nuked them.  We have to one by one pick out the actual terrorists and kill them.  We need to convince the ordinary muslim to change what Islam means and rejoin the modern world, and until then, we need to make sure they don't have access to WMD, and kill all funders or organizers of terrorism we can find with our intelligence.  It's a long, slow, expensive, and thankless war.



lolz.....morality is not even on the USA's list in any of the wars it has been through over the last decade.

The USA goes to war for 2 things, domination and economy....to crush any potential future enemy and to maintain enough supplies (oil) for its economy.

If morality was the issue and spreading freedom, well there are many other places to start from, why not start from there?

Please do not insult our intelligence coming here and posting posts like that.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 22, 2007)

Edo said:


> lolz.....morality is not even on the USA's list in any of the wars it has been through over the last decade.
> 
> The USA goes to war for 2 things, domination and economy....to crush any potential future enemy and to maintain enough supplies (oil) for its economy.
> 
> ...


Why do you want America to babysit the world? every country has to be responsible for its own problems.

Are you so reliant on America that when Saudi Arabia does something wrong, you have to cry for America?


----------



## Edo (Nov 22, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Why do you want America to babysit the world? every country has to be responsible for its own problems.
> 
> Are you so reliant on America that when Saudi Arabia does something wrong, you have to cry for America?



Do you even understand anything I write?

If you've read any of my posts so far you'd know by now that I am all against the USA babysitting the world.

'nough said.


----------



## origami.sanity (Nov 22, 2007)

I've heard this one before. I can't really say anything other than the fact that I strongly disagree with their disciplinary code. But I do think citizens over there should revolt (opposing not this particular case, but certain overall aspects of it), although I'm not sure if that would go over fairly well. 

I just know that something needs to be done without them becoming unfairly reliant on the US.


----------



## Diamed (Nov 22, 2007)

Edo:  Your hatred and ignorance can be answered pretty quickly.  How much do you think our war in Iraq has cost us?





> Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark



That sum seems a little high for thieves trying to turn a profit.  Furthermore, your insinuation that Americans would sacrifice 4,000 of our soldiers to enrich ourselves at the cost of their lives is sickening.  Of course, it's no different from how we caused 9/11 on ourselves, killing 3,000 of our own people, and another trillion dollars, just so we could put in motion this steal the oil plan, which will cost another 2 trillion dollars, and another 4,000 dead, right?  So now that we've murdered 7,000 of our own people and paid 3 trillion of our own dollars, our mercenary goals are really revealed.

Furthermore, when do we get to start stealing the oil for free, instead of buying it like everyone else at the market price?  I'm really eagerly looking forward to that, since, you know, we did this whole war for oil, and it's already been 4 years, and we still haven't gotten one free drop of oil, or even discounted drop of oil, so far.

Now for your second reason, 'potential future enemy'.  Huh?  We were still at war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.  They were a current enemy.  They signed an armistice conditional on fulfilling the UN resolutions, they never did, and so the war resumed, a war they started by invading Kuwait for oil in 1990.  Furthermore, radical Islam as a whole declared war on us as early as the 70's, with a constant stream of terrorist attacks hitting our discos, embassies, marine barracks, airliners, ships, etc.  The WTC was bombed and nearly destroyed in the early 90's.  Following it up, the WTC was destroyed on 9/11/01, where 3,000 people died due to radical Islam.  By retaliating against radical Islam and those who fund, harbor, train, or develop WMD radical Islamists could use, we were fighting a current enemy in an ongoing war.  Not only Iraq, but we are at war with elements in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea (who has been spread nuclear know-how and missle delivery systems to terrorist states), and a host of other countries.  These are not potential future enemies, they have all contributed their share to the attacks on our country and people, and they all must be defeated and brought to justice as our fair share back at them.  The war is on, it isn't a 'distant threat.'  It's been going on for decades, and of course, it's really been going on for 1400 years, this is just another phase of it.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Edo:  Your hatred and ignorance can be answered pretty quickly.  How much do you think our war in Iraq has cost us?




lol edo is fucking awesome, don't call him ignorant! foo






Diamed said:


> That sum seems a little high for thieves trying to turn a profit.  Furthermore, your insinuation that Americans would sacrifice 4,000 of our soldiers to enrich ourselves at the cost of their lives is sickening.  Of course, it's no different from how we caused 9/11 on ourselves, killing 3,000 of our own people, and another trillion dollars, just so we could put in motion this steal the oil plan, which will cost another 2 trillion dollars, and another 4,000 dead, right?  So now that we've murdered 7,000 of our own people and paid 3 trillion of our own dollars, our mercenary goals are really revealed.




yes and who's gettign that 3 trillion dollars and what companies are profiting of it ?



Diamed said:


> Furthermore, when do we get to start stealing the oil for free, instead of buying it like everyone else at the market price?  I'm really eagerly looking forward to that, since, you know, we did this whole war for oil, and it's already been 4 years, and we still haven't gotten one free drop of oil, or even discounted drop of oil, so far.



yup someone's profiting 



Diamed said:


> Now for your second reason, 'potential future enemy'.  Huh?  We were still at war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.  They were a current enemy.  They signed an armistice conditional on fulfilling the UN resolutions, they never did, and so the war resumed, a war they started by invading Kuwait for oil in 1990.



Under who's orders and don't forget who gave them the weapons 



Diamed said:


> Furthermore, radical Islam as a whole declared war on us as early as the 70's, with a constant stream of terrorist attacks hitting our discos, embassies, marine barracks, airliners, ships, etc.  The WTC was bombed and nearly destroyed in the early 90's.  Following it up, the WTC was destroyed on 9/11/01, where 3,000 people died due to radical Islam.  By retaliating against radical Islam and those who fund, harbor, train, or develop WMD radical Islamists could use, we were fighting a current enemy in an ongoing war.  Not only Iraq, but we are at war with elements in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea (who has been spread nuclear know-how and missle delivery systems to terrorist states), and a host of other countries.  These are not potential future enemies, they have all contributed their share to the attacks on our country and people, and they all must be defeated and brought to justice as our fair share back at them.  The war is on, it isn't a 'distant threat.'  It's been going on for decades, and of course, it's really been going on for 1400 years, this is just another phase of it.



You're gonna have to provide sources for those attacks in the 70's


----------



## Diamed (Nov 22, 2007)

> The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States that was triggered by a group of militant university students who took over the U.S. diplomatic mission in Tehran on November 4, 1979.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 22, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> Ehmm, I can read the Q?ran right now, make an interpretation and feel that i am correct. Problem lies in making others think you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt. I just simplified it. As long as you have very liberal muslims, and Al-Qaeda memebers screaming for blood, i would say there is a whole range of difference of opinion of what is justified by Islam, or how you should practice and interpret Islam.



No. Not everyone is allowed to interpret the hadith and the Quran and still have authority in your claims. Black fenix was kid enough to post a list, and here it is.
"Jesus Christ"



Zabuzalives said:


> yeah...but just in case. I would want to make THIS world somewhat live-able as well.



It would be liveable if everyone sticked to the rules.


----------



## Red (Nov 22, 2007)

Cirus said:


> Religion is something that should have any power in government.  Having faith in something is good, but when you let it determine your entire life and how you judge others, then you are no better then a dictartor who hurts his people.



Thats what religions does.


----------



## Edo (Nov 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Edo:  Your hatred and ignorance can be answered pretty quickly.  How much do you think our war in Iraq has cost us?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Someone should really start watching some documentaries....may I suggest Moor's documentaries...


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 22, 2007)

Nope I think the state government should always stay secular, otherwise religion is used as a tool by politicians to gather support. I think politicians should be judged by their merits, I've seen too many of them use religion to blind voters in to getting their own way.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 22, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> No. Not everyone is allowed to interpret the hadith and the Quran and still have authority in your claims. Black fenix was kid enough to post a list, and here it is.
> Vol 3



Not everyone agrees with this. And even the ones that are allowed to interpret. regularly interpret it differentely. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> It would be liveable if everyone sticked to the rules.



What rules? Islamo-Fascism?


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 23, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> Not everyone agrees with this. And even the ones that are allowed to interpret. regularly interpret it differentely.



First, this is not a matter of discussion. Whether everyone agreees with this or not relevant. These are the criteria that give you authority when you make claims about the Quran and Ahadith. If I, for example, were to make a certain claim, I wouldn't be taken seriously because I don't have full eloquence, and I don't know all the related ahadith, and don't know the reason for revealing that verse. Basically, I don't meeet the criteria. 



Zabuzalives said:


> What rules? Islamo-Fascism?



Rules of islam you idiot.


----------



## Suna No Shukaku (Nov 23, 2007)

Regardless of my "Christian" status or my feelings torwards Islam, a few things need to be said here:

1) This is not a war on terror debate thread.

2) The country is to govern itself the way that it wants to, regardless of outside influences.

3) The woman was whipped and imprisoned for leaking the story to the media, and that makes a little more sense, doesn't it? The government didn't want drama, and now they have it. Bad press for the government means doubting citizens, and its a lot easier to work with people if they hold no questions in terms of your methods.

Basically, the woman did something that she _probably_ knew was not allowed by the state, and now she has to live with the fact that she cannot redeem her actions. Unfortunate, definitely. It reflects badly on the culture as a whole down there, and I'd actually go so far as to say that they are more successful in being an authentic, spiritual people than us here in Western Culture.

We need more information before making solid opinions though, and regardless of my disapproval of Islam, the government and the police and the justice system of Saudi Arabia were the ones who commited the act against her, not Islam, not the Middle East. There are plenty of self-proclaimed Christians, Atheists, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. who commit things just as bad, if not, worse. It's because people don't care about religion, but would rather be decieved and distracted from it. 

I don't enjoy discussing comparitive religion, but I will end on this note:
*
While the culture may be based in fundamental/extremist Islamic traditions and religious codes, that does not indicate if the religious/social codes were followed in this situation. 

*


----------



## Mutant Anemone (Nov 23, 2007)

There's one more thing I have to be thankful for... O_O I'm not her.

But gahd, that's horrible. What sick bastards, the guys who did the deed and the ones who sentenced her. That's fucked up. =/


----------



## maj1n (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Rules of islam you idiot.


I think not many people would like the instating of rules such as killing ex-Muslims, you support this belief in Islam, but alot of people would have problems with it.

Btw not many people would support the argument that so long as people followed rules, then the rules are ok, i doubt anyone would back that kind of argument in regards to say, slavery, which btw Islam also supports.



			
				drkfire said:
			
		

> We need more information before making solid opinions though, and regardless of my disapproval of Islam, the government and the police and the justice system of Saudi Arabia were the ones who commited the act against her, not Islam, not the Middle East.


I thought you just said one needs more info before making a judgement, but then you make a judgement that Islam has no responsibility.

Why the hypocrisy?


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 23, 2007)

maj1n said:
			
		

> I think not many people would like the instating of rules such as killing ex-Muslims, you support this belief in Islam, but alot of people would have problems with it.
> 
> Btw not many people would support the argument that so long as people followed rules, then the rules are ok, i doubt anyone would back that kind of argument in regards to say, slavery, which btw Islam also supports.



While islam allowed slavery for a certain perod of time, it provided very effective means to stop it gradually because it was so integrated into people's lives.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> While islam allowed slavery for a certain perod of time, it provided very effective means to stop it gradually because it was so integrated into people's lives.


I'm sorry but im only aware of verses that condoned slavery, not of any ending it, could you provide them plz.

For example:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence." 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.718

We can continue this in the Islam discussion thread if you want.

Oh, and the treatment of slaves wasn't exactly nice as you can see, rape was ok, so could you elaborate on how Islam made it better, with evidence.

Oh and could you support your argument that it was 'so integrated into peoples lives'.

Oh and you didn't reply to my comment on your support that ex-Muslims should be killed, do you think this would benefit society, if everyone followed it?


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 23, 2007)

maj1n said:


> I'm sorry but im only aware of verses that condoned slavery, not of any ending it, could you provide them plz.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...



In islam, most kaffarah/ something that you pay to repent involve freeing a slave. Swearing an oath for example.

Second, sex with slaves was not considered rape. It was the right of the master, even before islam. So again, islam can't just say NO. It must be taken a step at a time.

Furthermore, having sex with a slave woman is a positive thing in itself on many sides:

1) The slave girl will feel somewhat equal to free women because her master desired her like his wife.
2) If a slave girl got pregnant from a free man, her son will be free. Thus ending a potential line of slaves, because if that same slave woman got married to a slave, then their children would all be slaves. 
3) She would have the benefit of the protection of her master, because he wouldn't just get her pregnant then dump her. That was not the case back then. People wanted sons.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Second, sex with slaves was not considered rape. It was the right of the master, even before islam. So again, islam can't just say NO. It must be taken a step at a time.
> 
> Furthermore, having sex with a slave woman is a positive thing in itself on many sides:
> 
> ...


Wow trying to rationalise rape of female slaves.

My hat is off to you.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 23, 2007)

Thanks I guess.


----------



## SOLID (Nov 23, 2007)

lol,
I went through the 13 pages thread fast and I couldn't find the real reason behind these 200 lashes, which actully I may know.
it has nothing to do with islamic laws .. read the article carefully and you will see that the girl is *Shiite* muslim while the laws in Saudi Arabia are ruled by *Whabies* who are extremist sunnies who see Shiites as infidels. thats the reason in my opinion, or atleast the most part of the reason. Saudi Arabia's laws hate Shiites.




			
				From the article said:
			
		

> The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 23, 2007)

SOLID said:


> lol,
> I went through the 13 pages thread fast and I couldn't find the real reason behind these 200 lashes, which actully I may know.
> it has nothing to do with islamic laws .. read the article carefully and you will see that the girl is *Shiite* muslim while the laws in Saudi Arabia are ruled by *Whabies* who are extremist sunnies who see Shiites as infidels. thats the reason in my opinion, or atleast the most part of the reason. Saudi Arabia's laws hate Shiites.


Actually the lashes are derived from the Quranic injunction of 100 lashes for lewd behaviour.

24:2 The adulterer and the adulteress, *scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes.* And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> First, this is not a matter of discussion. Whether everyone agreees with this or not relevant. These are the criteria that give you authority when you make claims about the Quran and Ahadith. If I, for example, were to make a certain claim, I wouldn't be taken seriously because I don't have full eloquence, and I don't know all the related ahadith, and don't know the reason for revealing that verse. Basically, I don't meeet the criteria.



sigh....are there different interpretations of Islam existing in this world or not? ( Sunni, Shiites, Salafism, Wahhabism)

try to twist yourself around this. 

Nemvermind the Imams praising violence and hatred against Jews and the West. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> Rules of islam you idiot.



Not everyone wants to live by those rules...... 

Peace and consensus because you destroy anyone not agreeing with your views...hmm like that hasnt been tried and argued before. 

also 

Some commentators[attribution needed] including Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens, believe there are similarities between historical fascism and Islamofascism:[8][page # needed]


rage against historical humiliation; 

inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism)

a desire to restore the perceived glory of this age -- or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations"

-- with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system; 

belief that malicious, predatory alien forces are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces; 

exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.

offensive military, (or armed) campaign to reestablish the power and rightful international domination of the nation/community


And some other stuff like that Christians will become second hand citizens, Apostates will be murdered. ""Infidels"" will have to convert or fear for their lives.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 23, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> sigh....are there different interpretations of Islam existing in this world or not? ( Sunni, Shiites, Salafism, Wahhabism)
> 
> try to twist yourself around this.
> 
> Nemvermind the Imams praising violence and hatred against Jews and the West.



Yes, there are different interpretations, that is not my point here. My point is that not everyone is allowed to interpret the texts as he wishes. For example, even within the sunni sect, we have different interpretations made by the 4 imams. They are all right because they all met the criteria we talked about. 

pls, don't try to teach me about my religion. 



Zabuzalives said:


> Not everyone wants to live by those rules......
> 
> Peace and consensus because you destroy anyone not agreeing with your views...hmm like that hasnt been tried and argued before.
> 
> ...



Very interesting read [/sarcasm] 

Islam does not force people to live under the rules. Proof? Look at all the countries in the world, does any of them rule by the laws of islam.

[109:1]
Say: O disbelievers!

[109:2]
I worship not that which ye worship;

[109:3]
Nor worship ye that which I worship.

[109:4]
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.

[109:5]
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

[109:6]
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Yes, there are different interpretations, that is not my point here.



different interpretations, that form the face of Islam. That was my point, so i dont know why you responded with the ""not EVERYONE has authority"" its hugely beside the point. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> My point is that not everyone is allowed to interpret the texts as he wishes. For example, even within the sunni sect, we have different interpretations made by the 4 imams. They are all right because they all met the criteria we talked about.



which means Islam encompasses those 4 interpretations. So when one waves off responsibility saying the other are not true Islam. Its purely an opinion of his. An opinion that can be snuffed out, in which case what he previously saw as untrue Islam, would be viewed as the one and true Islam. 

So religions arent just their scripture. Followers interpretations and practices have the power to change religion. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> pls, don't try to teach me about my religion.



im not. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> Very interesting read [/sarcasm]
> Islam does not force people to live under the rules. Proof? Look at all the countries in the world, does any of them rule by the laws of islam.



Yeah. Atleast by what they interpret as Islam. Or justified by Islam. Iran for instance. Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan under the Taliban. 

And there was a whole bunch of similarities buddy. Atleast argument against those points, instead of thinking your done after ""argumenting"" against one. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> [109:1]
> Say: O disbelievers!
> [109:2]
> I worship not that which ye worship;
> ...



Well if they were really so tolerant of freedom of religion...why kill apostates?? unto you, your religion remember??? 

Also, its nice that I can remain a Christian, but you do turn me into a second class citizen. a Dhimmi.  

I said this before. you just ignored it. 

And can you quote me some texts about the UN-believers??? Those of no religion?


----------



## Diamed (Nov 23, 2007)

Which is abrogated by:



> I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. 8:12 (quran)





> Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. 9:29


----------



## maj1n (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Islam does not force people to live under the rules. Proof? Look at all the countries in the world, does any of them rule by the laws of islam.


Uhh yes Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iran.




			
				The_Unforgiven said:
			
		

> [109:1]
> Say: O disbelievers!
> 
> [109:2]
> ...


It's great that Islam allows you to enter a religion, it's not so great on how to treat people not of their religion.

 Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294

The last one pretty much says believe what you want, but if it aint Islam, let us rule you, or die.


----------



## HyperKnuckles22 (Nov 23, 2007)

> Second, sex with slaves was not considered rape. It was the right of the master, even before islam. So again, islam can't just say NO. It must be taken a step at a time.
> 
> Furthermore, having sex with a slave woman is a positive thing in itself on many sides:
> 
> ...



ill be congratulating you when your fucking nine year olds in cambodia.



> Islam does not force people to live under the rules. Proof? Look at all the countries in the world, does any of them rule by the laws of islam.



that is not true at all.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 23, 2007)

Somehow this debate became about interpretations of Islam!


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 23, 2007)

ZL said:
			
		

> different interpretations, that form the face of Islam. That was my point, so i dont know why you responded with the ""not EVERYONE has authority"" its hugely beside the point.



Actually, who has authorit makes a big difference. It is true that many people can attempt to interpret the Quran, but it is your fault for following the wrong person, while you know that there are many others with the correct answer.



			
				ZL said:
			
		

> which means Islam encompasses those 4 interpretations. So when one waves off responsibility saying the other are not true Islam. Its purely an opinion of his. An opinion that can be snuffed out, in which case what he previously saw as untrue Islam, would be viewed as the one and true Islam.
> 
> So religions arent just their scripture. Followers interpretations and practices have the power to change religion.



No, a religion is based on its scriptures. How the people interpret them is not the religion's concern. There are 4 schools of though because prophet did the same act in different ways. For example, raising your hands during prayer. Or sometimes it can be a difference in language interpretation, and I have examples on that, but don't feel like typing atm.



			
				ZL said:
			
		

> Well if they were really so tolerant of freedom of religion...why kill apostates?? unto you, your religion remember???
> 
> Also, its nice that I can remain a Christian, but you do turn me into a second class citizen. a Dhimmi.
> 
> I said this before. you just ignored it.



What does that have to do with this? You are derailing the topic.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. 8:12 (quran)



Fail! Diamed, if you cannot debate properly then shut up. The real verse is:

[8:12]
Remember thy Lord inspired *the angels *(with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
[8:13]
This because they contended against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God and His Apostle, God is strict in punishment.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. 9:29



And that relates to this in.....



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> Uhh yes Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iran.


No. 
Although they are fairly close, they are not practicing full sharia law. This incidence in fact proves it.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> It's great that Islam allows you to enter a religion, it's not so great on how to treat people not of their religion.



Yeah, really great.

*The Umariyya Covenant:*

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Beneficent. This is what the slave of Allah, Umar b.Al-Khattab, the Amir of the believers, has offered the people of Illyaa? of security granting them Amaan (protection) for their selves, their money, their churches, their children, their lowly and their innocent, and the remainder of their people. Their churches are not to be taken, nor are they to be destroyed, nor are they to be degraded or belittled, neither are their crosses or their money, and they are not to be forced to change their religion, nor is any one of them to be harmed. No Jews are to live with them in Illyaa? and it is required of the people of Illyaa? to pay the Jizya, like the people of the cities. It is also required of them to remove the Romans from the land; and whoever amongst the people of Illyaa? that wishes to depart with their selves and their money with the Romans, leaving their trading goods and children behind, then their selves, their trading goods and their children are secure until they reach their destination. Upon what is in this book is the word of Allah, the covenant of His Messenger, of the Khulafaa? and of the believers if they (the people of Illyaa?) gave what was required of them of Jizya. The witnesses upon this were Khalid ibn Al-Walid, 'Amr ibn al-'As, Abdur Rahman bin Awf and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Written and passed on the 15th year (after Hijrah)





> ill be congratulating you when your fucking nine year olds in cambodia.



No, nine year olds are too young for my taste 



> that is not true at all.



Wow, what a great debater you are.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 23, 2007)

im pretty sure diamed is posting fake links of the Quran from some biased sites.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 23, 2007)

he only quoted the middle section of a verse. Not the begining, or the end. Very excellent debating skills there.

إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلآئِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُواْ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ سَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ الرَّعْبَ فَاضْرِبُواْ فَوْقَ الأَعْنَاقِ وَاضْرِبُواْ مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍ
(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." (Al-Anfal 8:12)
ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ شَآقُّواْ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

This is because they defied and disobeyed Allâh and His Messenger. And whoever defies and disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, then verily, Allâh is Severe in punishment. (Al-Anfal 8:13)


----------



## Suna No Shukaku (Nov 23, 2007)

maj1n said:


> I thought you just said one needs more info before making a judgement, but then you make a judgement that Islam has no responsibility.
> 
> Why the hypocrisy?



Innocent until proven guilty, and I am forced to shape my opinion based off of what little I do know as well. Until proven otherwise, I am forced to assume that Koran did not directly order this woman to be beaten, therefore until I see that the Koran encourages beating women who talk to the Saudi press, I must assume that this is either political corruption, a bad justice system in the Western culture's opinion, or that they misinterpreted or misused the Koran as justification.

Innocent until proven guilty, once again. You are forced to assume the positive until proven otherwise.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 23, 2007)

DrkFire said:


> Innocent until proven guilty, and I am forced to shape my opinion based off of what little I do know as well. Until proven otherwise, I am forced to assume that Koran did not directly order this woman to be beaten, therefore until I see that the Koran encourages beating women who talk to the Saudi press, I must assume that this is either political corruption, a bad justice system in the Western culture's opinion, or that they misinterpreted or misused the Koran as justification.
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty, once again. You are forced to assume the positive until proven otherwise.


Actually the correct judgement, if you lack knowledge, is no judgement, 'i do not know'.
Presuming knowledge when you have none is the height of idiocy.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> In islam, most kaffarah/ something that you pay to repent involve freeing a slave. Swearing an oath for example.
> 
> Second, sex with slaves was not considered rape. It was the right of the master, even before islam. So again, islam can't just say NO. It must be taken a step at a time.
> 
> ...


 
So then using this logic, if someone can't say no then it's no crime? 

Seriously I can't believe someone could believe this.

I'd like to have some faith in Islam but the more I read the less faith I have. I'd also like to give the benifit of the doubt to Islam but the again; the more I read the less I feel I can.



sarun uchiha said:


> Somehow this debate became about interpretations of Islam!


 
Actually this debate was always about the interpratations of Islam because this punishment was claimed to have been done by the will of Islam.


----------



## SOLID (Nov 23, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Actually the lashes are derived from the Quranic injunction of 100 lashes for lewd behaviour.
> 
> 24:2 The adulterer and the adulteress, *scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes.* And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.




I wasn't talking about adultery and the concept of lashes.
I was talking about why they would punish a victim.


----------



## Edo (Nov 23, 2007)

SOLID said:


> I wasn't talking about adultery and the concept of lashes.
> I was talking about why they would punish a victim.



Because according to them She is NOT a victim since she was in car with a man that is not related to her. Therefore she broke the law and she is guilty....


Stupid reasoning which tells the women in Saudi Arabia 2 things:

If you get raped do not report it in any way whatsoever.

Rape is a woman's fault.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 23, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Actually, who has authorit makes a big difference. It is true that many people can attempt to interpret the Quran, but it is your fault for following the wrong person, while you know that there are many others with the correct answer.



those in authority vary in what exactly is the ""correct" answer. Followers have different ideas of who these authorities are, and should be. 
Those in athority will lose it, if many ""normal"" followers disagree. 

Those in authority are followers of that religion as well. As such, your arguments have little to do with my points. That religion can be changed and shaped by its followers. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> No, a religion is based on its scriptures.



BASED on...thats where it ends and influences of followers begin to take effect. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> How the people interpret them is not the religion's concern.




Seeing that that drives how religion is practiced. it IS part of religion. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> There are 4 schools of though because prophet did the same act in different ways. For example, raising your hands during prayer. Or sometimes it can be a difference in language interpretation, and I have examples on that, but don't feel like typing atm.



There are more differences of interpretations then that. 
Suicide bombing. Some say its Islam, others disagree. 



The_Unforgiven said:


> What does that have to do with this? You are derailing the topic.



Oh you mean you have no defense against it? 

You started with the: if we all live under Islamic rule, there will be peace and happiness for all. 

I brought up Islamo-fascism. and explained the similarities between fundamental Islam and Fascism. 

You acted as this was ridiculous, but never even attempted to explain why, or counter/disprove the similarities. 

If you do not want to discuss it, say so. Dont pretend that you have already decided that debate by just stating your opinion without giving basis or explanation.  

I do agree its getting off-topic though


----------



## Diamed (Nov 23, 2007)

how did reposting the same quranic verse change anything?  You act like I twisted the message, but the message is quite clear.  It's exactly the same as before.  All infidels will be terrorized, mutilated, and killed for the sake of Allah.  Your God admits he's a terrorist, of course his followers' highest aspiration is to also be terrorists.  The very way he phrases it, gloatingly, that he's a God of terror and God, the most Holy God, telling people to do a barbaric act, of mutilating a dead corpse just out of sheer hatred and contempt for human decency---and you think there's a context that explains that away?     The context changed nothing, and your God is vile.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 23, 2007)

drache said:


> Actually this debate was always about the interpratations of Islam because this punishment was claimed to have been done by the will of Islam.



my bad, it's just that i felt that the topic went away from the lashes for the victim to something else!
again, my bad!


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2007)

sarun uchiha said:


> my bad, it's just that i felt that the topic went away from the lashes for the victim to something else!
> again, my bad!


 
It's all good and we have been talking about the victim, but (at least to me) it's just as important to talk about *why* the victim is getting punished too.

And the fact is it's a goverment claiming to do so at the direction of support of Islam; which means that while people can make all the arguements that this isn't truely Islam it's almost purely academic. 

Why? Because where are all the devout Muslims protesting Sadia Arabia's decesion? Why aren't people saying that I'm Muslim and this isn't what my religion is about?

Frankly I find it more disturbing that people are trying to justify the goverment's choice on one hand while simotamously saying it's not Islam. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Whitest Rose (Nov 23, 2007)

Oh gawd, I heard about this a few days ago during class.

That poor girl.


----------



## Suna No Shukaku (Nov 24, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Actually the correct judgement, if you lack knowledge, is no judgement, 'i do not know'.
> Presuming knowledge when you have none is the height of idiocy.



However you are also to make assumptions with what logic you have and with what information you are given. That is how you make decisions on a day to day basis(hopefully).You are forced to not double and triple-check all that you know on a day to day basis, you make assumptions and the majority of them are probably correct.

However, I do see your point, so I will rephrase/correct my statement. It will sound a bit different 

Given what little(and biased) evidence we have seen on this girl's case and about the Saudi justice system in general, you can not conclude that this is because of Islam or the Koran. You may be able to deduce that it is fanatical or misinterpretited Islam, but you do not have enough here to say "this is what all Muslims are like, and this is how all muslims run governments and treat people."


----------



## SpitefulSerpent5 (Nov 24, 2007)

This article is an example of what can happen when you destroy the line that seperates church and state. This injustice is not the fault of Islam; every religion has shown some form of controversial beliefs. Even Christianity has and can be completely sexist (I'm a Catholic who believes in God devoutley and I can admit that my church is sexist). 

The fact is, when you have a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, you end up with religious zealots who attempt to impose their wills on others. This would have happened with any other religion in control, it's a product of men not their beliefs. Did you notice that most of the outrage in Saudi Arabia wasn't because the woman had been raped. It was because she wasn't the same type of Muslim.

I believe that Saudi Arabia is one of the worst countries on Earth. Not because of its devotion to Islam, but because of its enforcing of it on everybody there. I am Pro-God and Pro-Religion, but I hate theocracy and pity any who live under such tyranny. To force a religion upon people is not saving them, its only oppressing them.

I don't want to turn this into a political statement by stating this, but this is the major reason why I refuse to vote for any of the people in the Republican Party. I believe that their stance on moral issues is leading us closer and closer to a theocracy ruled by a bunch of religious nuts who believe that everybody should be forced to worship Jesus and follow the rules the Bible sets down.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2007)

I couldn't agree more, but let me clear something. in that case the girl was in the car with some guys, that she is not related to, and that's is a sin in Islam. One can argue that she was forced to ride with them, but again in saudia arabia a girl shouldn't be out alone.

But they had no right to punish her, that's not Islam. The married guys should have been executed, if they were trully acting acorrding to Islam.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 24, 2007)

DrkFire said:


> Given what little(and biased) evidence we have seen on this girl's case and about the Saudi justice system in general, you can not conclude that this is because of Islam or the Koran. You may be able to deduce that it is fanatical or misinterpretited Islam, but you do not have enough here to say "this is what all Muslims are like, and this is how all muslims run governments and treat people."


Actually i have alot of evidence that in Islam, it is considered sinful to be near men that are not your husband or relatives, much from sunni legal jurisprudence, the ahadith, and the Quran.

So maybe you should rephrase it as, perhaps you do not have enough evidence.



			
				drkFire said:
			
		

> but you do not have enough here to say "this is what all Muslims are like, and this is how all muslims run governments and treat people."


First you talk about whether or not Islam supports it or not, now your talking about muslims as if that was your original argument.

Arguing or critiquing Islam is an argument on beliefs, so you are yet again making a mistake of logic.



			
				spitefulserpent said:
			
		

> he fact is, when you have a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, you end up with religious zealots who attempt to impose their wills on others. This would have happened with any other religion in control, it's a product of men not their beliefs


Actually, its a product of beliefs, buddhists don't really do it, nor do Jews really.

For instance in Burma, the buddhists aren't in control, in fact they are leading completely peaceful protests against the tyrannical government, sometimes just marching even when being fired upon.

Your argument is almost saying peoples actions are completely separate from their beliefs, which is flawed, we act, on our beliefs, only the most basic of physiological functions do we really act without relying on beliefs, like eating.

In fact do try to give me a case where many buddhists killed citing their religion as justification, with your argument as 'men always do it' then i'm sure you can find an easy case for one of the largest religions in the world.


----------



## strongarm85 (Nov 24, 2007)

I'll be glad when the day comes in the next couple of decades when Saudi Arabia runs out of oil and we can stop pretending to be nice to them.


----------



## Legendary_Toad_Sage (Nov 24, 2007)

a little strict over there aren't they.....


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Actually i have alot of evidence that in Islam, it is considered sinful to be near men that are not your husband or relatives, much from sunni legal jurisprudence, the ahadith, and the Quran.


Actually, It's not.

It's a sin when they are *alone*. Could you post those evidence, pls?



maj1n said:


> Actually, its a product of beliefs, buddhists don't really do it, nor do Jews really.
> 
> For instance in Burma, the buddhists aren't in control, in fact they are leading completely peaceful protests against the tyrannical government, sometimes just marching even when being fired upon.
> 
> ...


so, by your logic, we can say that Christianity is not against rape, 'cause we see alot of these cases everyday in america, right? Please!

The US has the largest percentage of its citizens imprisoned of all countries in the world, including China. does that make you a criminal?

People in saudia arabia were againts that judgment, and everyone thought that they were Injustice to the girl. They had no right to punish her cause she was a victim, but the judicial system there is as flawed as it's in all of the world.

It's not Islam responsibility, if they didn't follow it right.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 24, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> Actually, It's not.
> 
> It's a sin when they are *alone*. Could you post those evidence, pls?


You just agreed with me.

Classically it is derived from the hadith
"The two eyes commit zina, the two hands commit zina, the two feet commit zina, and the genitals commit zina"
-Musnad Ahmad, Hadith #4258

Because of this, the various rulings of gender segregation to minimize the sin (considered a minor zina) of looking/talking/touching to another that is not your husband or relative, have been made.

You can read more of it in the Shafi classical manual of law,The Reliance of the Traveller.

Iirc it is considered Tazeer, as in, there is no prescribed punishment, but a muslim cleric or juror may make one for it.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> so, by your logic, we can say that Christianity is not against rape, 'cause we see alot of these cases everyday in america, right? Please!
> 
> The US has the largest percentage of its citizens imprisoned of all countries in the world, including China. does that make you a criminal?
> 
> ...


Sorry but could you reread my post because you totally misunderstood or are making a strawman of my position.

Almost every action people make is based on their beliefs, if a person follows a system of beliefs, it necessarily influences them, hence that system of beliefs has some responsibility as it influenced the person to act in a certain way.

To take another example, if there is a book saying hate blacks, and someone read that book and killed blacks, you would be very stupid to argue that the book did not in any way influence or was partially responsible for the person's actions just because it only said to hate blacks and not to kill them, hence the person 'followed' the book wrongly.

In the same vein, the constant denigration of women inferior to men, punishing them with lashing, making them practically property of men in Islam, the focus on their 'chastity' as something so valuable that if they give it up or even commit the first steps towards giving it up incorrectly (like meeting un-married men alone as you said) is a sin.

Gives rise to these situations, hence Islam does in fact, have some responsibility.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 24, 2007)

maj1n said:


> You just agreed with me.


How is that? 

You said "in Islam, it is considered sinful to be near men that are not your husband or relatives", And it's not.



maj1n said:


> Classically it is derived from the hadith
> "The two eyes commit zina, the two hands commit zina, the two feet commit zina, and the genitals commit zina"
> -Musnad Ahmad, Hadith #4258
> 
> ...


It's a tybe of Arabic Metaphor, The hadith doesn't mean that it's a sin to look/talk/touch the other gender. 

It's known that Islam forbids affairs. Therefore allah explains why it's important to dress well and not expose your body, cause it's begin with a look, then the hand's (handshake), and the legs (getting a room), etc .. tell it's ends with doing it.

Anyway the looking/talking/touching is not a sin really, but it's not very acceptable thing to do especially if it wasn't needed to. It's like when you'r trying to impress a girl with talking and so on. Hope you got the idea.



maj1n said:


> Sorry but could you reread my post because you totally misunderstood or are making a strawman of my position.
> 
> Almost every action people make is based on their beliefs, if a person follows a system of beliefs, it necessarily influences them, hence that system of beliefs has some responsibility as it influenced the person to act in a certain way.
> 
> ...


I undrstand, but don't just say Islam encourages such behavior without given any evidence, everything you said is an opinion not a fact, so take your time and prove what you'r saying.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 24, 2007)

Whitest Rose said:


> Oh gawd, I heard about this a few days ago during class.


We had the discussion too, in my International Affairs class!


SpitefulSerpent5 said:


> I don't want to turn this into a political statement by stating this, but this is the major reason why I refuse to vote for any of the people in the Republican Party. I believe that their stance on moral issues is leading us closer and closer to a theocracy ruled by a bunch of religious nuts who believe that everybody should be forced to worship Jesus and follow the rules the Bible sets down.


There are many who are just libertarian and mode conservatives in Republican Party and in future, hardcore conservatism will be marginalized in the party!
Just look how Democratic Part were in before Civil War, many supported slavery!


strongarm85 said:


> I'll be glad when the day comes in the next couple of decades when Saudi Arabia runs out of oil and we can stop pretending to be nice to them.


I agree!


----------



## ~rocka (Nov 24, 2007)

That poor girl...


----------



## maj1n (Nov 24, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> How is that?
> 
> You said "in Islam, it is considered sinful to be near men that are not your husband or relatives", And it's not.


And you support me.



> It's a sin when they are alone.


The distinction is nothing in my eyes, ok if your alone with man or men then its sinful.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> It's a tybe of Arabic Metaphor, The hadith doesn't mean that it's a sin to look/talk/touch the other gender.
> 
> It's known that Islam forbids affairs. Therefore allah explains why it's important to dress well and not expose your body, cause it's begin with a look, then the hand's (handshake), and the legs (getting a room), etc .. tell it's ends with doing it.
> 
> Anyway the looking/talking/touching is not a sin really, but it's not very acceptable thing to do especially if it wasn't needed to. It's like when you'r trying to impress a girl with talking and so on. Hope you got the idea.


Sorry your wrong, please read the Shafi manual of Islamic law 'The Reliance of the Traveller'.

please read my next comment.

The manate of the veil (well not really veil but covering of the body) as you describe as a law by Allah, further supports me.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> I undrstand, but don't just say Islam encourages such behavior without given any evidence, everything you said is an opinion not a fact, so take your time and prove what you'r saying.


All your above statements have been voicing an 'opinion' with no evidence, i am somewhat amused that you would call me wrongful in doing your exact behaviour, this is what we call hypocrisy.

In an internet message boards, it is far too cumbersome to back up each and every statement you make with mountain-loads of evidence every-time, i am fine in doing so when someone wishes it or expresses objection, which is what i did.

I believe you do the same, judging from your statements in the last post.


----------



## Sirah (Nov 24, 2007)

Goongasnootch said:


> Islam.  Saudi.  I don't give a darn.  This is one of those situations where I wish I had the resources to go all Metal Gear Solid on the prison, break her out, destroy Metal Gear , and take her to a little place I like to call the USA.



LOL yeah... thats alot better 
to tell the truth USA sucks as much as Saudi , both of them are brain wash'd


----------



## maj1n (Nov 25, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> Do you know the diffrence between 'near' and 'been alone' with someone? I'm not talking about how many of them, nvm, let's drop it here, you'r kind of like to urgue on anything.


The OP case is of a woman being in a car with men, hence being alone with them.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Ok, that was weird.
> 
> I'm saying what the hadith is talking about is the importance of covering your body, nothing more nothing less.
> 
> ...


And? all you have shown is that the prophet said that if a man is to marry a woman, he should look at why he wants to marry her.

This is of little relevance to how (as even you said) women being with non-married, non-related men are doing something sinful.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Umm, that wasn't necessary. I disagreed with you cause I know better, and you haven't posted anything at that time to back up your word too. I only wanted you to post your evidence, so I can reply on them, that's all.


No, you said i did something wrong in not posting evidence in the first place, but you didn't either when replying to me (which in actuality you should since you told me to do it in that same post).

Your hypocrisy is showing.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 25, 2007)

maj1n said:


> The OP case is of a woman being in a car with men, hence being alone with them.



so why did you say It's sinful to be near men, hence near.

Re-read my post carefully, there's *two *hadiths, the looking part is the second one, and I was just giving you an evidence about what I said that the "looking/talking/touching is not a sin really, but it's not very acceptable thing to do especially if it wasn't needed to". and the first one is another version of the hadith, that you have posted before about zina, with an explainition.



> Your hypocrisy is showing.


do you know what I'm arguing you about?


----------



## maj1n (Nov 25, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> so why did you say It's sinful to be near men, hence near.


Because i am replying to drkfire's post which was about the OP, it is not my fault you want to jump into our conversation, if you do so, at least read the whole conversation, as you are liable to have misunderstood something.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Re-read my post carefully, there's *two *hadiths, the looking part is the second one, and I was just giving you an evidence about what I said that the "looking/talking/touching is not a sin really, but it's not very acceptable thing to do especially if it wasn't needed to". and the first one is another version of the hadith, that you have posted before about zina, with an explainition.


I find nothing that show's i am wrong.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> do you know what I'm arguing you about?


What relevance does this have with your hypocrisy? here let me explain.

You say i should not say Islam encourages so and so without posting evidence.

But you didn't post evidence to begin with when assertions:



> It's known that Islam forbids affairs. Therefore allah explains why it's important to dress well and not expose your body, cause it's begin with a look, then the hand's (handshake), and the legs (getting a room), etc .. tell it's ends with doing it.
> 
> Anyway the looking/talking/touching is not a sin really, but it's not very acceptable thing to do especially if it wasn't needed to. It's like when you'r trying to impress a girl with talking and so on. Hope you got the idea.


In other words, your being a hypocrite, it is a common mistake, so why your still arguing about your own mistake as if you didn't commit any just show's me your unreasonable stubbornness.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 25, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Because i am replying to drkfire's post which was about the OP, it is not my fault you want to jump into our conversation, if you do so, at least read the whole conversation, as you are liable to have misunderstood something..



so what's the big deal, I was correcting you, is that a bad thing to do?



maj1n said:


> I find nothing that show's i am wrong


could you be more specific about it, cause I'm sure I didn't say you'r wrong, I was just giving you evidence about what I was saying.



maj1n said:


> What relevance does this have with your hypocrisy? here let me explain.
> 
> You say i should not say Islam encourages so and so without posting evidence.
> 
> ...



I thought you'r talking about me bieng hypocrite, 'cause I was saying Islam doesn't encourages such behavior. I didn't know that you meant that part of my speech, you should have told me from the begining.

For me, being a muslim, talking about something in Islam is taking from Islam itself, It's not my opinion. I didn't know that you question my credibility, anyway, I gave you my evidence, but I don't see your's.


----------



## Spiral Man (Nov 25, 2007)

Thats absurd my good man


----------



## khorven (Nov 25, 2007)

serves her right lol
saudies r funny


----------



## maj1n (Nov 25, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> so what's the big deal, I was correcting you, is that a bad thing to do?


Go and reread my post, because you still do not understand.

I was replying to Drkfire who was talking about the OP, hence my post is about the OP.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> could you be more specific about it, cause I'm sure I didn't say you'r wrong, I was just giving you evidence about what I was saying.


Then you agree with me.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> I thought you'r talking about me bieng hypocrite, 'cause I was saying Islam doesn't encourages such behavior. I didn't know that you meant that part of my speech, you should have told me from the begining.


I did, reread the posts you quote from more carefully.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> I undrstand, but don't just say Islam encourages such behavior without given any evidence, everything you said is an opinion not a fact, so take your time and prove what you'r saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If your not even going to read posts properly, don't bother conversing with me, because you will end up being wrong.


			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> For me, being a muslim, talking about something in Islam is taking from Islam itself, It's not my opinion. I didn't know that you question my credibility, anyway, I gave you my evidence, but I don't see your's.


Really? you sure don't read.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> Could you post those evidence, pls?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If your going to try and be stupid and claim i didn't post evidence when i did, don't even bother replying, because it is very easy for me to show what your doing.


----------



## drache (Nov 25, 2007)

I'd like to point out the following hypocrisy:

This post



ρяίvàтε said:


> could you be more specific about it, cause *I'm sure I didn't say you'r wrong,* I was just giving you evidence about what I was saying.


 
is contradicted by this earlier post, pay attention to the bold



ρяίvàтε said:


> Umm, that wasn't necessary. I* disagreed with you cause I know better, and you haven't posted anything at that time to back up your word too.* I only wanted you to post your evidence, so I can reply on them, that's all.


 
You did say he was wrong and he has posted evidence backing up his position, even before that earlier post.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 25, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Go and reread my post, because you still do not understand.
> 
> I was replying to Drkfire who was talking about the OP, hence my post is about the OP.



This is your post which you say in it, 



> Actually i have alot of evidence that in Islam, it is considered sinful to be *near *men that are not your husband or relatives, much from sunni legal jurisprudence, the ahadith, and the Quran.



and my objection here was, it is considered sinful to be *alone with *men that are not your husband or relatives. It's not sinful to be near them, as they are just walking in the street and they have to run from each other.



maj1n said:


> Then you agree with me.



Yes, my only objection was on the word you choosed to descripe the action.



maj1n said:


> If your not even going to read posts properly, don't bother conversing with me, because you will end up being wrong.
> 
> Really? you sure don't read.
> 
> If your going to try and be stupid and claim i didn't post evidence when i did, don't even bother replying, because it is very easy for me to show what your doing.



nice speech there, but I'm not talking about these evidence, cuase I already agreed with you on them.



maj1n said:


> Gives rise to these situations, hence Islam does in fact, have some responsibility.



am talking about these calims, got it?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 25, 2007)

drache said:


> I'd like to point out the following hypocrisy:
> 
> This post
> 
> ...



Read my pervious post.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 25, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> This is your post which you say in it,
> 
> and my objection here was, it is considered sinful to be *alone with *men that are not your husband or relatives. It's not sinful to be near them, as they are just walking in the street and they have to run from each other.


In relation to the OP and drkfire's post, because i was responding to him, how long does it take for you to understand this?



			
				private said:
			
		

> nice speech there, but I'm not talking about these evidence, cuase I already agreed with you on them.


Do you even understand yourself?



			
				private said:
			
		

> I thought you'r talking about *me bieng hypocrite*, 'cause I was saying Islam doesn't encourages such behavior. I didn't know that you meant that part of my speech, *you should have told me from the begining.*


This is about your hypocrisy, don't try and change the goal post and say your talking about something else, you specifically talk about my comment on your hypocrisy right there.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> All your above statements have been voicing an 'opinion' with no evidence, i am somewhat amused that you would call me wrongful in doing your exact behaviour, this is what we call hypocrisy.





			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> am talking about these calims, got it?


Were you?



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Umm, that wasn't necessary. I disagreed with you cause I know better, and you haven't posted anything at that time to back up your word too.


You specifically say right here i didn't post evidence about what you were disagreeing with me about.

Btw i did post evidence before talking to you, maybe you shold read some of the thread.

ps. btw as to your comment.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> It's not sinful to be near them, as they are just walking in the street and they have to run from each other.





			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> Tafsir Ibn Kathir
> Isa At-Tirmidhi recorded that Abu Musa, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Prophet said:
> (Every eye commits fornication and adultery, and when a woman puts on perfume and passes through a gathering, she is such and such) -- meaning an adulteress. He said, "And there is a similar report from Abu Hurayrah, and this is Hasan Sahih.'' It was also recorded by Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i. By the same token, *women are also forbidden to walk in the middle of the street, because of what this involves of wanton display.*
> 
> ...


Oh btw that is from 
kskdkdkdkkk

Which is the first post in this thread about any evidence explaining the saudi case in relation to Islam's teachings.

Which btw was by me, so you made a mistake in saying i didn't post any evidence, i was the first.


----------



## Sarun (Nov 25, 2007)

maj1n said:


> The OP case is of a woman being in a car with men, hence being alone with them.


lol, OP got it wrong!
He didn't go through the article properly!
The victim never went along with her rapists, rather they came to her when she was in a car with a friend and raped her and her friend!


----------



## Ryan (Nov 26, 2007)

maj1n said:


> In relation to the OP and drkfire's post, because i was responding to him, how long does it take for you to understand this?



And I'm responding to you, what's your problem?
I don't see anything that says, for a woman to be near men is wrong.



maj1n said:


> Do you even understand yourself?
> 
> This is about your hypocrisy, don't try and change the goal post and say your talking about something else, you specifically talk about my comment on your hypocrisy right there.
> 
> Were you?



Yes, my first post was about 'being near to men' is not a sin, and I asked you for the evidence, but when I said ..



ρяίv?тε said:


> It's not Islam responsibility, if they didn't follow it right.


 
You replied ..



maj1n said:


> In the same vein, the constant denigration of women inferior to men, punishing them with lashing, making them practically property of men in Islam, the focus on their 'chastity' as something so valuable that if they give it up or even commit the first steps towards giving it up incorrectly (like meeting un-married men alone as you said) is a sin.
> 
> Gives rise to these situations, hence Islam does in fact, have some responsibility.



and that's when I said ..



ρяίv?тε said:


> I undrstand, but don't just say Islam encourages such behavior *without given any evidence*, everything you said is an opinion not a fact, so take your time and prove what you'r saying.



remember? 




maj1n said:


> You specifically say right here i didn't post evidence about what you were disagreeing with me about.
> 
> Btw i did post evidence before talking to you, maybe you shold read some of the thread.
> 
> ...



so what?

I didn't see that post, is that a crime? I was asking for evidence, cause I didn't see them. You could have just pointed to them, without going on and on with that hypocrisy thing. I asked for evidence that I couldn't find, in this 15 pages thread. I'm not sure why are you been so aggressive about it, anyway thanks.




maj1n said:


> Firstly, rape is not inherently wrong in Islam, as Muhammad allowed it when capturing female slaves.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



wrong, That was a diffrent time.

Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war.

for more information about this, read ..



Allah could just said, "Free every slave at once, or you will not be considerd a muslim", but slavery was an Important tybe of trading at that time on the the whole world, therefore Islam began to reduce slavery on steps.

First, Islam devoted a part of the "zakah" money for freeing slaves, then he made it a penance for the guilt of some actions, like accidental murder, lying and eating in ramadan, and he allowed the prisoners to buy thier freedome, till every last one of them has been freed.

but he didn't forbbide it, 'cause some slaves (even in the west) preferred to be a slave to his rich master, than becoming free and living in his own.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Narrated Abu Huraira: 

The Prophet said, "Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave." Said bin Marjana said that he narrated that Hadith to 'Ali bin Al-Husain and he freed his slave for whom 'Abdullah bin Ja'far had offered him ten thousand Dirhams or one-thousand Dinars. 

Narrated Abu Musa: 

Allah's Apostle said, "He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward." 




*as to this*, 



maj1n said:


> Tafsir Ibn Kathir
> Isa At-Tirmidhi recorded that Abu Musa, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Prophet said:
> (Every eye commits fornication and adultery, and when a woman puts on perfume and passes through a gathering, she is such and such) -- meaning an adulteress. He said, "And there is a similar report from Abu Hurayrah, and this is Hasan Sahih.'' It was also recorded by Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i. By the same token, *women are also forbidden to walk in the middle of the street, because of what this involves of wanton display*.
> 
> ...



I don't see anything that says, women shouldn't be near men, it says they have to keep dictance, as they don't need to force themselves to walk between men ,and that's a respect for women.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 26, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> And I'm responding to you, what's your problem?
> I don't see anything that says, for a woman to be near men is wrong.


Let me make it simple for you, Drkfire said that the woman being with those men in a car had nothing to do with Islam, i said that women being near men like that woman was, in a car for instance, Islam has something to say.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> and that's when I said ..
> 
> remember?


My response to you was about your asking for me for evidence, when you did not supply any that exact same post on your assertions.

Do you know what hypocrisy is? it is wanting someone to do something or not do something, and you do it anyway (or not to do it).



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> so what?
> 
> I didn't see that post, is that a crime? I was asking for evidence, cause I didn't see them. You could have just pointed to them, without going on and on with that hypocrisy thing. I asked for evidence that I couldn't find, in this 15 pages thread. I'm not sure why are you been so aggressive about it, anyway thanks.


Because you said i did something wrong, and i pointed out i didn't, only now do you admit your mistake, it's not my fault you didn't get it and continued to talk about it.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> wrong, That was a diffrent time.
> 
> Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war.
> 
> ...


There is nothing in Islam that even speaks of the intention of reducing slavery, present evidence of this please, but i believe your wrong, if that was the intention? why didn't God further reduce it? why is Islam stuck in time so now they support slavery to some extent, while the rest of the world does not? why, if its intention was to reduce and therefore abolish slavery, does it still support it now?

As to your last quote, nice misleading there, indeed Muhammad said to treat slaves nicely, what you don't understand is what he thinks treating 'nicely' is.

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.718
bt.html#007.062.137

Just like Islam say's to treat women nicely, but considers beating your wife as valid treatment, your attempts to quote Muhammad out of context is notable.

And i find your argument amusing, if i live in a society that tells people to kill 50 other people, and i think thats a bit much and i kill 30, apparently i'm progressive and even, moral?

Slavery is wrong, it doesn't matter what society thought it was ok, whether they in comparison to some other society were better or worse, it is still wrong and immoral, your attempts to even try and show Islam as somehow moralistic when conducting slavery is probably one of the stupidest thing's i have ever seen.

edit:
 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict."* Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment* (or the King's judgment)." 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.148

Can you give me a moral spin to this?



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> I don't see anything that says*, women shouldn't be near men, it says they have to keep dictance,* as they don't need to force themselves to walk between men ,and that's a respect for women.


Nice contradiction of logic there, sometimes i wonder on the depths of your bias to support Islam.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 26, 2007)

Let's say for now, that we agree to disagree, you clearly don't take my evidence seriously and I don't have time to repeate myself.


*Spoiler*: __ 




Allah could just said, "Free every slave at once, or you will not be considerd a muslim", but slavery was an Important tybe of trading at that time on the the whole world, therefore Islam began to reduce slavery on steps.

First, Islam devoted a part of the "zakah" money for freeing slaves, then he made it a penance for the guilt of some actions, like accidental murder, lying and eating in ramadan, and he allowed the prisoners to buy thier freedome, till every last one of them has been freed.

*but he didn't forbbide it*, 'cause some slaves (even in the west) preferred to be a slave to his rich master, than becoming free and living in his own.



Islam is againts slavery, but he didn't forbbide it, for the reason that I have pointed out in my previos post, and he didn't want to be injustice to anyone, that's why he made it on steps; allowing the slaves to be free, and not causing a loss to thier masters.

And btw, the quran and the orders in Islam didn't come at one time, It was sperated on 23 years, saying that that muslims done something wrong at a time, before the orders have come, is not reasonable.

*why would Islam encourages people to free thier slaves, If he was trully not againts it?*


----------



## maj1n (Nov 26, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> Islam is againts slavery, but he didn't forbbide it, for the reason that I have pointed out in my previos post, and he didn't want to be injustice to anyone, that's why he made it on steps; allowing the slaves to be free, and not causing a loss to thier masters.


You cannot be against slavery and at the same time endorse it, that is not logical.

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." *Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."*
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.148

Muhammad accepted and endorsed taking people as slaves, you cannot be against slavery and somehow endorse taking people as slaves.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 26, 2007)

That was before the orders come, hence before. Slavery was a common thing at that time between people and nations who were fighting. Even after Islam statred to free the slaves, the other countries were still doing it.

and please answer this question, I wanna hear your opinion.



ρяίvàтε said:


> *why would Islam encourages people to free thier slaves, If he was trully not againts it?*


----------



## maj1n (Nov 26, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> That was before the orders come, hence before. Slavery was a common thing at that time between people and nations who were fighting. Even after Islam statred to free the slaves, the other countries were still doing it.



Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict."* Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."*
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.148

Let me repeat myself, you cannot be against slavery, and endorse taking people as slaves, that is not logical.



			
				private said:
			
		

> and please answer this question, I wanna hear your opinion.
> 
> why would Islam encourages people to free thier slaves, If he was trully not againts it?


My personal view? someone else made it up.

It is well known that the vast majority of ahadith are forgeries, and it is flat out not possible to even begin to have evidence of its authenticity.

There is abundant evidence Muhammad allowed and endorsed slavery, only very late ahadith collections start speaking of Muhammad and freeing slavery, this contradiction does not match up, nor is it even in the Quran, but the ahadith only, which makes it suspect.

My opinion is, someone put words in Muhammads mouth.

consider in the Quran:

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries a*nd the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."*

It is not just Muhammad, but God himself that directly ENDORSED AND GAVE MUHAMMAD SLAVES.

this strong endorsement of slavery stands in stark contrast to any argument of freeing slavery (in particular since it is in the Quran).

Not only that, but looking at the development of Muslim societies, they were slow to end the slavery, in fact they were the last (saudi arabia in 1960's), all this evidence suggests that the more likely scenario is that slavery was heavily endorsed by Islam, only later, and a minority, tried to paint Muhammad as some kind of anti-slavery (even though he orders people to take slaves so yeh nice contradiction).

 Narrated Kuraib: 
the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "*Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?*" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "*You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."*


In particular note the above ahadith, Muhammad said it was better if the girl gave the slave to one of her relatives rather then free the slave, contradicting isn't it? Islamic history is very uncertain.


----------



## RoomBurnerZ (Nov 26, 2007)

Lol wut Islam?


----------



## Anaiya (Nov 26, 2007)

sarun uchiha said:


> maj1n said:
> 
> 
> > The OP case is of a woman being in a car with men, hence being alone with them.
> ...



The individual she was with was a man who was not her husband, hence she was alone with a man.


----------



## drache (Nov 26, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> Read my pervious post.


 
I did and I don't think the huge glaring hypocrisy in it.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 26, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict."* Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."*
> -http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.148
> 
> Let me repeat myself, you cannot be against slavery, and endorse taking people as slaves, that is not logical.



I'm forced to repeat myself, Allah could have just said, "Free every slave at once, or you will not be considerd a muslim", but slavery was an Important tybe of trading at that time on the the whole world, therefore *Islam began to reduce slavery on steps*.

*The quran and the hadith didn't come at one time*, It was sperated on 23 years, saying that that muslims done something wrong at a time, before the orders have come, is not reasonable.

Let me give another example,when the message of Islam was first delivered, alcohol was already available and frequently consumed. At first, Muslims were told in the Qur'an that they should not turn up drunk for the Prayers in the mosque:


{O you who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until you can understand all that you say} (An-Nisaa' 4:43)

At a later stage, another revelation was received which told them that there was some good to be found in alcohol, as people would tell us today, but that this was outweighed by the bad:


{They ask you concerning alcohol and gambling. Say: ‘In them is a great sin, and some benefits for men, but the sin is far greater than the benefits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:219)

Muslims began to question, after the revelation of this verse, whether perhaps drinking alcohol was the best thing for them to do, even though it was not yet forbidden, and many stopped drinking from this time onward. Drunkenness began to be seen as something shameful and not befitting the high moral standards of which Muslims were called to be the best examples. Muslims would help each other in giving up alcohol, supporting and encouraging those who found it difficult.

Finally, a verse was revealed to the Muslims in Madinah which totally forbade alcohol: 


{You who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan's handiwork. Eschew such abomination, that you may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer; will you not then abstain?} (Al-Ma'idah5:9091)
From that day forward, alcohol became forbidden.

So, we can see how Allah weaned the Muslims away from what was harmful to them. At first, Allah hinted that it might not be good since it would affect their Prayers. Then He said that it did have some good but was mostly bad. Finally, Allah declared it to be the work of Satan.

*In the same way, slavery was reduced, but it wasn't forbbided for the reasons I said before.*



maj1n said:


> My personal view? someone else made it up.
> 
> It is well known that the vast majority of ahadith are forgeries, and it is flat out not possible to even begin to have evidence of its authenticity.



That's a news for me, care to elaborate?



maj1n said:


> There is abundant evidence Muhammad allowed and endorsed slavery, only very late ahadith collections start speaking of Muhammad and freeing slavery, this contradiction does not match up, nor is it even in the Quran, but the ahadith only, which makes it suspect.
> 
> My opinion is, someone put words in Muhammads mouth.
> 
> ...



That's not an evidence, did you read the "tafseer" of the ayah? 

read it, and If you still don't understand the meaning here, I will try to translate the arabic "tafseer" that I got tommorow, or I will try to find the english tafseer.



maj1n said:


> Not only that, but looking at the development of Muslim societies, they were slow to end the slavery, in fact they were the last (saudi arabia in 1960's), all this evidence suggests that the more likely scenario is that slavery was heavily endorsed by Islam, only later, and a minority, tried to paint Muhammad as some kind of anti-slavery (even though he orders people to take slaves so yeh nice contradiction).



slavery ended long before that (says the arab Historians), but when the europian came to the arab world at the 19th century they brought it back.



maj1n said:


> Narrated Kuraib:
> the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "*Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?*" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "*You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."*
> 
> In particular note the above ahadith, Muhammad said it was better if the girl gave the slave to one of her relatives rather then free the slave, contradicting isn't it? Islamic history is very uncertain.



llol, why do you think he said your maternal uncles not your aunts, for example, even as the slave-girl was a slave to a girl? The meaning was, to give her to one of them to marry her. (ask your teacher).


----------



## Ryan (Nov 26, 2007)

drache said:


> I did and I don't think the huge glaring hypocrisy in it.



To be honset I'm not sure what do you mean, but thanks.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 26, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> I'm forced to repeat myself, Allah could have just said, "Free every slave at once, or you will not be considerd a muslim", but slavery was an Important tybe of trading at that time on the the whole world, therefore *Islam began to reduce slavery on steps*.


Sorry but this excuse doesn't work on me, you have never given, and there is no evidence to suggest Allah wanted slavery abolished, if it were so, Allah would have eventually said to end slavery, why would Islam be stuck in time as it is now? endorsing slavery when the whole world does not.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> That's a news for me, care to elaborate?


Sure, most hadiths are considered forgeries by un-biased historians, the constant inner contradictions, the fact that it was compiled only roughly 100 years after Muhammad died, that between this was constant civil war (like the First Fitna) with people vying for legitimate Islamic rule.

When legitimate analysis of the ahadith began, using modern techniques, by Gustav Weil and Alloys Springer, they concluded that at least 1/4 of the ahadith is unreliable.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> That's not an evidence, did you read the "tafseer" of the ayah?


That god ordained slaves to Muhammad.

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and* the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."*



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> slavery ended long before that (says the arab Historians), but when the europian came to the arab world at the 19th century they brought it back.


It's just amazing the level of bias you have, literally everything is someone elses fault isn't it?

Btw slavery ended because of Britain and France exerting pressure post WW2, even the Encyclopedia of Islam says so.

It was reduced because of the slavery abolition movements in Europe too, so why your blaming Europe when in fact you should be thanking them is beyond me.

edit: btw i think i'll stop talking about this, it is really derailing this thread, and your posts lack any substantial evidence.

As a finale note, no matter how 'humane' anyone or any religion tries to make the practice of slavery, it is immoral, and it ALWAYS leads to the situation where slaves are brutally mistreated, this is because you devalue slaves worth compared to everyone else.

It's like if a book said to hate blacks, but don't mistreat them too much, you would be incredibly stupid to somehow argue that if then the society that reads that book really mistreats blacks, the book had no responsibility.


----------



## Saria19 (Nov 26, 2007)

What is wrong with the world anymore? Why do people commit such sick acts?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Sorry but this excuse doesn't work on me, you have never given, and there is no evidence to suggest Allah wanted slavery abolished, if it were so, Allah would have eventually said to end slavery, why would Islam be stuck in time as it is now? endorsing slavery when the whole world does not.



It's the government respansobility if they you do so, 'cause they are not following the right bath of Islam any more, but who said we endorse slavery now?

Did you come here and see it by yourself, or you were just listening to the news and you believed it? 

and btw, I do what I do to by trying to explain the questionable things, but from what I see, you will never belive in anything that I give you from Islam, It's like you feel it's wrong just by looking on it, and not trying to think of it. 



maj1n said:


> Sure, most hadiths are considered forgeries by un-biased historians, the constant inner contradictions, the fact that it was compiled only roughly 100 years after Muhammad died, that between this was constant civil war (like the First Fitna) with people vying for legitimate Islamic rule.
> 
> When legitimate analysis of the ahadith began, using modern techniques, by Gustav Weil and Alloys Springer, they concluded that at least 1/4 of the ahadith is unreliable.



Arab scholars found out that hundred of years ago, that's why we are using "Sahih Muslim" and "Sahih Al Bukahri" *mainly*, for finding the right hadith, 'cause they are the most reliable sources after al Quran.



maj1n said:


> That god ordained slaves to Muhammad.
> 
> 33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and* the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."*



How many times do I have to tell you, you'r not an arabic, and you didn't study the "tafseer", don't make any "tafseer" from the quran by yourself, 'cause from what I see your understanding is not that high.

That's the comlplete verse, in arabic.

 يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ إِنَّا أَحْلَلْنَا لَكَ أَزْوَاجَكَ اللَّاتِي آتَيْتَ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ مِمَّا أَفَاء اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ وَبَنَاتِ عَمِّكَ وَبَنَاتِ عَمَّاتِكَ وَبَنَاتِ خَالِكَ وَبَنَاتِ خَالَاتِكَ اللَّاتِي هَاجَرْنَ مَعَكَ وَامْرَأَةً مُّؤْمِنَةً إِن وَهَبَتْ نَفْسَهَا لِلنَّبِيِّ إِنْ أَرَادَ النَّبِيُّ أَن يَسْتَنكِحَهَا خَالِصَةً لَّكَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ قَدْ عَلِمْنَا مَا فَرَضْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِي أَزْوَاجِهِمْ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ لِكَيْلَا يَكُونَ عَلَيْكَ حَرَجٌ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا (50) 

and this is the arabic "tafseer" for the part we are talking about, not the whole "tafseer", so if you wanted it you can ask me any time,

from Ibn katheer.

يَقُول تَعَالَى مُخَاطِبًا نَبِيّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِأَنَّهُ قَدْ أَحَلَّ لَهُ مِنْ النِّسَاء أَزْوَاجه اللَّاتِي أَعْطَاهُنَّ مُهُورهنَّ وَهِيَ الْأُجُور هَهُنَا كَمَا قَالَهُ مُجَاهِد وَغَيْر وَاحِد وَقَدْ كَانَ مَهْره لِنِسَائِهِ اِثْنَتَيْ عَشْرَة أُوقِيَّة وَنَشًّا وَهُوَ نِصْف أُوقِيَّة فَالْجَمِيع خَمْسمِائَةِ دِرْهَم إِلَّا أُمّ حَبِيبَة بِنْت أَبِي سُفْيَان فَإِنَّهُ أَمْهَرَهَا عَنْهُ النَّجَاشِيّ رَحِمَهُ اللَّه تَعَالَى أَرْبَعمِائَةِ دِينَار وَإِلَّا صَفِيَّة بِنْت حُيَيّ فَإِنَّهُ اِصْطَفَاهَا مِنْ سَبْي خَيْبَر ثُمَّ أَعْتَقَهَا وَجَعَلَ عِتْقهَا صَدَاقهَا وَكَذَلِكَ جُوَيْرِيَة بِنْت الْحَارِث الْمُصْطَلِقِيَّة أَدَّى عَنْهَا كِتَابَتهَا إِلَى ثَابِت بْن قَيْس بْن شَمَّاس وَتَزَوَّجَهَا رَضِسي اللَّهُ عَنْهُنَّ أَجْمَعِينَ وَقَوْله تَعَالَى " وَمَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينك مِمَّا أَفَاءَ اللَّه عَلَيْك " أَيْ وَأَبَاحَ لَك التَّسَرِّي مِمَّا أَخَذْت مِنْ الْمَغَانِم وَقَدْ مَلَكَ صَفِيَّة وَجُوَيْرِيَة فَأَعْتَقَهُمَا وَتَزَوَّجَهُمَا وَمَلَك رَيْحَانَة بِنْت شَمْعُون النَّضْرِيَّة وَمَارِيَة الْقِبْطِيَّة أُمّ اِبْنه إِبْرَاهِيم عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَام وَكَانَتَا مِنْ السَّرَارِيّ رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهُمَا

ask your teacher to translate it.




maj1n said:


> It's just amazing the level of bias you have, literally everything is someone elses fault isn't it?
> 
> Btw slavery ended because of Britain and France exerting pressure post WW2, even the Encyclopedia of Islam says so.
> 
> ...



Actaully, It's like someone who sees a book that's not saying any harmful thing about blacks, but he's saying it does, without studying the book. (as you have done with the pervious verse).

That was my last statment on this, hope you really did understand what I was saying.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Arab scholars found out that hundred of years ago, that's why we are using "Sahih Muslim" and "Sahih Al Bukahri" *mainly*, for finding the right hadith, 'cause they are the most reliable sources after al Quran.


Actually the modern analysis finds Bukhari and Muslim as unreliable, please do a little research.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> How many times do I have to tell you, you'r not an arabic, and you didn't study the "tafseer", don't make any "tafseer" from the quran by yourself, 'cause from what I see your understanding is not that high.


3 translations.

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; *and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war*
-Yusuf
O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, a*nd those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, *
-Pikthal

O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, *and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, *
-Shair

Tafsir Al-Jalalyn
, *of those whom God has given you as spoils of war.., with respect to, what their right hands own, of slavegirls,*

'what your right hand possesses' is a term to mean ownership of slaves, hence i am right.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Actaully, It's like someone who sees a book that's not saying any harmful thing about blacks, but he's saying it does, without studying the book. (as you have done with the pervious verse).
> 
> That was my last statment on this, hope you really did understand what I was saying.


slavery is inherently harmful, i think you missed that part of my post, reread it again.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> As a finale note, no matter how 'humane' anyone or any religion tries to make the practice of slavery, it is immoral, and it ALWAYS leads to the situation where slaves are brutally mistreated, this is because you devalue slaves worth compared to everyone else.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

Do you really want to end this debate or not?
I'll not continue to reply if you are not going to be serious about it.



maj1n said:


> Actually the modern analysis finds Bukhari and Muslim as unreliable, please do a little research.



Links? I did, I didn't find anything about it.

And btw, about Gustav Weil and Alloys Springer, they must have studied the hadiths and were perfect in arabic, and even if we assumed that they did, thier statments will be *flawed*, 'cause Espiecially in hadith, not everyone can say that a hadith is wrong, not even most of the muslim scholars nowadays, there are some rules you have to acmplish to do that.

Can you give me some information about them and thier study in the Hadith?



maj1n said:


> 3 translations.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Pls, when I say don't make your own "tafseer", don't do it. It makes you look silly. I'm not arguing you about if the Quran did mention the slaves or not, 'cause he did.

Read the "tafseer" carefully, 'cause it has all the information you want. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Allah says, addressing his prophet (peace_be_upon_him), that it's "Halal" lawful to him (and his people), to marry women who he gave wages (dowry also, said Mujahid and others), and thier dowry was twelve ounces and a half (the half is called something I couldn't understand really, but it said that it's a half ounce), so the total dowry for each was "500 Dirhams"

Only *Habiba *daughter of Abu Sufian, who her dowry was paid by Al Negashi, and was "four hundred Dinars", *Safiya *bint it Huyay, who was a captivity  from "Khyber", and he (The Prophet) choosed and freed her, and her dowry was the money he paid for freeing her, as well as *Joerih* Bint Harith, who The Prophet paid for her freedome to Thabet bin Qais bin Shammas.

*And for this part*, "and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war" ..

And that's mean, Allah said it's lawful to the prophet to take women as presoners of war, 'cause we know in Islam, It's forbbided for both genders to be with the other gender that are not husband or relatives,

The Prophet did take Safiya, Rihaneh daughter of Shimon, Maria and Joerih as slaves, but he freed them (by paying money to them or someone who had them as presinors of war), then he married them.



- *Translated by me From Ibn katheer*.


why would he free them, If he was not againts slavery? why not marry them by force? we all know that he could have done that, he was the prophet and people had to opey him, so why did he choosed to pay a dowry instead of that? 



maj1n said:


> slavery is inherently harmful, i think you missed that part of my post, reread it again.
> 
> 
> 
> > As a finale note, no matter how 'humane' anyone or any religion tries to make the practice of slavery, it is immoral, and it ALWAYS leads to the situation where slaves are brutally mistreated, this is because you devalue slaves worth compared to everyone else.



I choosed not reply on this, I thought that was abvios. Slavery is wrong period. Islam never said It's a good thing to do, nor did he forbbid it.

Untill you brove that Islam said "slavery is ok", you have no right to say that Islam encourages slavery.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> Links? I did, I didn't find anything about it.
> 
> And btw, about Gustav Weil and Alloys Springer, they must have studied the hadiths and were perfect in arabic, and even if we assumed that they did, thier statments will be flawed, 'cause Espiecially in hadith, not everyone can say that a hadith is wrong, not even most of the muslim scholars nowadays, there are some rules you have to acmplish to do that.
> 
> Can you give me some information about them and thier study in the Hadith?


Yes, they studied the history of the ahadith, in particular its collection, just about all ahadith are unreliable, there is no way you can confidantly say any ahadith is genuine, as when you date the collections, they happen after the events it portrays.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> *And for this part*, "and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war" ..
> *
> And that's mean, Allah said it's lawful to the prophet to take women as presoners of war,* 'cause we know in Islam, It's forbbided for both genders to be with the other gender that are not husband or relatives,


Thank you for verifying Allah condones slavery.

 Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet used to take the Pledge of allegiance from the women by words only after reciting this Holy Verse:--(60.12) "..that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah." (60.12) And* the hand of Allah's Apostle did not touch any woman's hand except the hand of that woman his right hand possessed. (i.e. his captives or his lady slaves). *



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> why would he free them, If he was not againts slavery? why not marry them by force? we all know that he could have done that, he was the prophet and people had to opey him, so why did he choosed to pay a dowry instead of that?


This is totally irrelevant, essentially your argument is, if a hospital endorses abortion and practices it, but they consult with a pregnant teen and tell her abortion is very stressful and give her the pro's and con's of the decision, they are in fact AGAINST abortion.

It doesn't matter whether Muhammad, or any arbitrary muslim wanted to set any slave free because they had personal feelings for them *if they endorse and practice slavery, they endorse slavery*
That is clear logic.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> Untill you brove that Islam said "slavery is ok", you have no right to say that Islam encourages slavery.



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,*
-Pikthal

 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 interrupt us?"* 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. 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/034.sbt.html#003.034.432

 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137

Narrated Ibn Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the *Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives*; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army. 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.717

*The Messenger took some of its people captive, including Safiyah bt. Huyayy, the wife of Kinanah and her two cousins.* The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself.When Dihyah protested, wanting to keep Safiyah for himself,* the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.""*
-Al-Tabari


I'm sorry but your blatant bias is showing, how you can possibly argue Islam did not encourage slavery when you have Muhammad giving the ok of raping slaves, you have muslims talking about how much the slaves were worth, Muhammad raiding innocent people and taking their women and children as slaves, taking the wife and female cousins of someone their army had just killed, then trading the wife and female cousins around.

 i'm appalled and greatly amused that you can somehow justify Islam practicing slavery and say they were in fact against slavery.

Here is something i'd like you to read.

*Cognitive Dissonance*
In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Yes, they studied the history of the ahadith, in particular its collection, just about all ahadith are unreliable, there is no way you can confidantly say any ahadith is genuine, as when you date the collections, they happen after the events it portrays.



I'm not asking you about your obinion on them, just give me some links about thier biography and thier so-called study, so I can believe what you are saying.



maj1n said:


> Thank you for verifying Allah condones slavery.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



No, the only thing that is showing is your arrogant.

*First of all*, The prophet didn't make his wives slaves, he took them when they were imprisoned, then he freed them, got it? let me repeat it one more time, they were prisoners of war, as all people will do to thier enimes, when they are fighting, they take prisoners.

You can't fight someone and expect him to live happily ever after with you, but the prophet freed them, as he have done to thousands others. It's not difficult to understand, see? *And*, It does matter if it was from The Prophet! He was Allah massenger to the people, do you think he will do anything that abset allah?



maj1n said:


> Here is something i'd like you to read.
> 
> *Cognitive Dissonance*
> In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs.
> -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance



From what I see you'r trolling and you didn't prove anything, grow up man.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> I'm not asking you about your obinion on them, just give me some links about thier biography and thier so-called study, so I can believe what you are saying.


They are only available as books, there are many sites on the internet talking about their findings, but since their analysis was purely academic, it is available in book form only, i got mine from my uni.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> No, the only thing that is showing is your arrogant.
> 
> *First of all*, The prophet didn't make his wives slaves, he took them when they were imprisoned, then he freed them, got it? let me repeat it one more time, they were prisoners of war, as all people will do to thier enimes, when they are fighting, they take prisoners.
> 
> You can't fight someone and expect him to live happily ever after with you, but the prophet freed them, as he have done to thousands others. It's not difficult to understand, see? *And*, It does matter if it was from The Prophet! He was Allah massenger to the people, do you think he will do anything that abset allah?


I am going to give you some advice, just stop for a minute, and replace Islam with say, Buddhism, hopefully this will cure your state of denial.

Your trying to argue as if Muhammad freeing some of his personall slaves (which he took as wives) as somehow moral and wanting to end slavery *did you somehow ignore the abundant evidence where it speaks of Muhammad putting them into slavery in the first place?! by killing their people?!*



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> 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,*
> -Pikthal
> 
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> ...


I cannot believe you somehow glossed over the fact that it was Muhammad and the Muslims who killed and then enslaved them, i don't care if they freed one or two out of some personal attachment, the fact is, they enslaved people in the first place.

Please read this.

*Cognitive Dissonance*
In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


----------



## scottlw (Nov 27, 2007)

how are women prisoners of war tho... Women and Children cant be prisoners of war... their hostages.


----------



## drache (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> To be honset I'm not sure what do you mean, but thanks.


 
I mean you demanded he do something and then didn't do it yourself. That is the definition of hypocrisy.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> They are only available as books, there are many sites on the internet talking about their findings, but since their analysis was purely academic, it is available in book form only, i got mine from my uni.



That's not an excuse, at least give me the name of the book.



maj1n said:


> I am going to give you some advice, just stop for a minute, and replace Islam with say, Buddhism, hopefully this will cure your state of denial.
> 
> Your trying to argue as if Muhammad freeing some of his personall slaves (which he took as wives) as somehow moral and wanting to end slavery *did you somehow ignore the abundant evidence where it speaks of Muhammad putting them into slavery in the first place?! by killing their people?!*
> 
> I cannot believe you somehow glossed over the fact that it was Muhammad and the Muslims who killed and then enslaved them, i don't care if they freed one or two out of some personal attachment, the fact is, they enslaved people in the first place..



llol, so now it's wrong now to fight who fights you? you'r changing the subject every chance you got. Let's just agree that killing your enemy is wrong, and consedring the big diffince on time, why america keeps doing it in Iraq and some muslims countries?


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> I'm forced to repeat myself, Allah could have just said, "Free every slave at once, or you will not be considerd a muslim", but slavery was an Important tybe of trading at that time on the the whole world, therefore *Islam began to reduce slavery on steps*.
> 
> *The quran and the hadith didn't come at one time*, It was sperated on 23 years, saying that that muslims done something wrong at a time, before the orders have come, is not reasonable.
> 
> *In the same way, slavery was reduced, but it wasn't forbbided for the reasons I said before.*



So what are the lines from the Quran and hadiths that changed from when slavery was allowed to when it was no longer allowed. 



ρяίv?тε said:


> slavery ended long before that (says the arab Historians), but when the europian came to the arab world at the 19th century they brought it back.


Source?

Because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> That's not an excuse, at least give me the name of the book.


Muslim Studies.
Translation of Adwa? `ala as-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah (it was a text so doubt you could get it, but you might be able to read the arabic book),

You can track down articles of them in the Islamic Review iirc.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> llol, so now it's wrong now to fight who fights you? you'r changing the subject every chance you got. Let's just agree that killing your enemy is wrong, and consedring the big diffince on time, why america keeps doing it in Iraq and some muslims countries?


What are you talking about? It is well known Muhammad was a bloody pirate, he would raid and plunder many towns.

*When the Apostle raided a people* he waited until morning, and then he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night. When morning came and he did not hear the call to prayer, he rode and we rode with him.* We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets*. When they saw the Prophet and our army they cried, 'Muhammad with his force.' They turned tail and fled. The Apostle yelled, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed.' When we arrive at a people's square, it is a bad morning for them.
-Ishaq:511


And nice try on trying to obscure the debate, this is about Muhammad and Islam endorsing taking people as slaves.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> 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,*
> -Pikthal
> 
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> ...


I guess you have no good rebuttal.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

sadated_peon said:


> So what are the lines from the Quran and hadiths that changed from when slavery was allowed to when it was no longer allowed.



I think I posted them before, check my posts in the 16 page.



sadated_peon said:


> Source?
> 
> Because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.



I know I read it somewhere but I don't really remember, but it said that some where in the Abbasi Era, slavery fanished from the Islamic world completely. I'm not really putting my money on this, but I know that is Islam tried to reduce slavery.

*about slavery in Islam*,

Qaradawi says (a muslim scohlar): nothing in the Holy Koran and the hadith  supports slavery and ordere muslims to do it, and it is not Islam, which introduced the phenomenon of slavery, but found prevalent in the world are treated with the convenience of provisions including legislative and ethical guidance, but Islam developed further liberalization of the slave various causes, so that Islam made "Zakat" eight banks: banks for the Liberation of slavery, is (in the Necks), and even the subject of the slave put in the books jurisprudence under the title (the book of emancipation). 

We know that the Koran when he stated the position of prisoners of war, did not mention only two things only: Freeing them without charge or redemption money or prisoners, Allah said: 

"So, when you meet (in fight - Jih?d in All?h's Cause), those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Isl?m), until the war lays down its burden." (Mohammed:4)


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Muslim Studies.
> Translation of Adwa’ `ala as-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah (it was a text so doubt you could get it, but you might be able to read the arabic book),
> 
> You can track down articles of them in the Islamic Review iirc.



I will try, but till that day come, "Sahih Al Bukhari" and "Sahih Muslim" is very true to me.



maj1n said:


> What are you talking about? It is well known Muhammad was a bloody pirate, he would raid and plunder many towns.
> 
> *When the Apostle raided a people* he waited until morning, and then he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night. When morning came and he did not hear the call to prayer, he rode and we rode with him.* We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets*. When they saw the Prophet and our army they cried, 'Muhammad with his force.' They turned tail and fled. The Apostle yelled, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed.' When we arrive at a people's square, it is a bad morning for them.
> -Ishaq:511



They were fighting long before that day, read about (Gazwat Khaybar).



maj1n said:


> And nice try on trying to obscure the debate, this is about Muhammad and Islam endorsing taking people as slaves.
> 
> I guess you have no good rebuttal.





ρяίvàтε said:


> *about slavery in Islam*,
> 
> Qaradawi says (a muslim scohlar): nothing in the Holy Koran and the hadith supports slavery and ordere muslims to do it, and it is not Islam, which introduced the phenomenon of slavery, but found prevalent in the world are treated with the convenience of provisions including legislative and ethical guidance, but Islam developed further liberalization of the slave various causes, so that Islam made "Zakat" eight banks: banks for the Liberation of slavery, is (in the Necks), and even the subject of the slave put in the books jurisprudence under the title (the book of emancipation).
> 
> ...


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> I think I posted them before, check my posts in the 16 page.


the only thing I could find on page 16 that quotes anything was this post. 
Vagrant Tom

"Whoever frees a *Muslim *slave, Allah will..."
This is basically saying it is good to free Muslim slaves, in no way does it show mean against the policy of slavery in general. Slavery is condoned by this statement. 

it does not lead to a society without slaves. 
"Allah's Apostle said, "He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward."

This may be a cultural thing, but marring slaves is not a bonus to me. The idea that you capturing and or buying a woman, and then making her you wife is abhorrent. 
But I guess you don't see the inherent inhumanity of it, so I will say that it just continues the idea of spreading Islam, as marrying a slave-girl requires she be Muslim. 

Neither of these lines show a progression of outlawing slavery. 



ρяίv?тε said:


> I know I read it somewhere but I don't really remember, but it said that some where in the Abbasi Era, slavery fanished from the Islamic world completely. I'm not really putting my money on this, but I know that is Islam tried to reduce slavery.


I really need a source here, because everything I have researched has shown a steady policy of slavery in Muslim countries until 19th century. 




ρяίv?тε said:


> *about slavery in Islam*,
> 
> Qaradawi says (a muslim scohlar): nothing in the Holy Koran and the hadith  supports slavery and ordere muslims to do it, and it is not Islam, which introduced the phenomenon of slavery, but found prevalent in the world are treated with the convenience of provisions including legislative and ethical guidance, but Islam developed further liberalization of the slave various causes, so that Islam made "Zakat" eight banks: banks for the Liberation of slavery, is (in the Necks), and even the subject of the slave put in the books jurisprudence under the title (the book of emancipation).
> 
> ...


I would say that having slaves, supports slavery.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> Qaradawi says (a muslim scohlar): nothing *in the Holy Koran and the hadith supports slavery and ordere muslims to do it*


Do you even read the authority you cite? and the evidence i give?



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> 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,*
> -Pikthal
> 
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> ...


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

First, Islam devoted a part of the "zakah" money for freeing slaves, then he made it a penance for the guilt of some actions, like accidental murder, lying and eating in ramadan, and he allowed the prisoners to buy thier freedome, till every last one of them has been freed.



> We know that the Koran when he stated the position of prisoners of war, did not mention only two things only: Freeing them without charge or redemption money or prisoners, Allah said:
> 
> "So, when you meet (in fight - Jih?d in All?h's Cause), those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Isl?m), until the war lays down its burden." (Mohammed:4)





sadated_peon said:


> I really need a source here, because everything I have researched has shown a steady policy of slavery in Muslim countries until 19th century.



As I said, I'm not sure about that information, cause I read it only once years ago in some history book, and I didn't heard anything about it again.



sadated_peon said:


> I would say that having slaves, supports slavery.



And, I would say eveyone was having slaves after wars, but who started to free them?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Do you even read the authority you cite? and the evidence i give?



Yes. That was a war time, what did you expected them to do? celeprate with them?


----------



## scottlw (Nov 27, 2007)

congradulations to private.... most commented man i know... 

not ever y one had slaves after wars most people take slaves during wars and they get released after war is over..


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

scottlw said:


> congradulations to private.... most commented man i know...
> 
> not ever y one had slaves after wars most people take slaves during wars and they get released after war is over..



thanks man, that's my point.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 27, 2007)

private said:
			
		

> First, Islam devoted a part of the "zakah" money for freeing slaves


So I looked into this and the only thing I could find was. 

CHEAP DOUJIN ALERT


?At the time of `Umar ibn `Abdel `Aziz, one of his governors wrote him that he could not find poor people to whom he should give Zakah. `Umar instructed him to pay it to poor Christians and Jews. When the governor said that he could not find any, `Umar suggested that he should buy Muslim slaves and set them free. If we have such a situation when the Muslim community is so affluent that there are no poor in its ranks, then we consider paying Zakatul-Fitr to non-Muslims.?

So that means that only Muslim slaves get bought and freed with the zakah, and it doesn?t happen until all the poor are taken care of. 

Also can you show me where in the Quran or a Hadith that this is supported. 



			
				private said:
			
		

> then he made it a penance for the guilt of some actions, like accidental murder, lying and eating in ramadan, and he allowed the prisoners to buy thier freedome, till every last one of them has been freed.


How is this against slavery?
Having people being able to go into slavery because of a crime, is indorsing slavery. That they can stop being slaves later, doesn?t change this fact. 



> We know that the Koran when he stated the position of prisoners of war, did not mention only two things only: Freeing them without charge or redemption money or prisoners, Allah said:
> 
> "So, when you meet (in fight - Jih?d in All?h's Cause), those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Isl?m), until the war lays down its burden." (Mohammed:4)


This is not the only thing mentioned in the Quran and the Hadiths about slavery, it goes in length about the keeping of slaves. 



			
				private said:
			
		

> As I said, I'm not sure about that information, cause I read it only once years ago in some history book, and I didn't heard anything about it again.


So I have counter evidence that I can reference, but you want me to take your word on it based on a book you read years ago?



			
				private said:
			
		

> And, I would say eveyone was having slaves after wars, but who started to free them?


So you admit that they were slaves, great. 
I don?t disagree that there is a long history of slavery, but thankfully I don?t live by the standards of my ancestors. You on the other hand do. 

As for who started freeing them, that would be European countries. 


Here is a timeline of when slavery was abolished. 

Notice how the most recent countries are mainly Muslim.


----------



## Morwain (Nov 27, 2007)

.....Wow stupidity of rules...that poor girl...we talked about this is one of my classes yesterday...it's truely horrible what people are willing to do to eachother in the name of rules.


----------



## master bruce (Nov 27, 2007)

1. thats a stupid law.
so if its a heatwave and someone who she knows and was family friends with for a long time offers her a ride and she gets in the car, she's doing wrong to accept the ride?
thats bullsh$t.
that law is illrationally in its truest form.


2. if the guys had raped my sister, they'd pray for the cops to find them first, before I do(12 guage in hand,pistol and stainless steel buck knife in pants.)


----------



## Reanimater (Nov 27, 2007)

Wooha! I'm moving to Saudi Arabia! No more pretending to be insane! I will pretend to believe in an invisible guy in the sky and to some raping. Or molesting after I get married. Twice.

Don't you just love the good guys?


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> And, I would say eveyone was having slaves after wars, but who started to free them?


So basically your saying it's ok for me to murder people because murder happens nowadays?

You have some very queer morals.

But wait, first you say Islam does not support slavery, now your saying Islam does but it isn't so bad because everyone else did it?

You seem to be hopping all over the place, btw slavery is immoral no matter what time period, why? because of the mistreatment of slaves, that other people mistreat and enslave people doesn't magically make it right.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Yes. That was a war time, what did you expected them to do? celeprate with them?


I would expect a moral and just religion and a just God, even if it was a time of war, allow the men and women to live as equals and free, as they were innocent.

It's an interesting leap of logic where God is supposedly all-powerful but he is so very restricted by thousand year old societies practices.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

sadated_peon said:


> So I looked into this and the only thing I could find was.
> 
> [Ossu]Mx0_c063
> 
> ...



It said here that non-Muslims can be freed, read it carefully.

Islam didn't really favour muslims ,but non-Muslims slaves usually got freed by thier nations and thier tribes, so there was no need to spend money on them.



sadated_peon said:


> Also can you show me where in the Quran or a Hadith that this is supported.



sure.

"As-Sadaq?t (here it means Zak?t) are only for the Fuqar?' (poor), and Al-Mas?kin (the poor) and those employed to collect (the funds), and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Isl?m); *and to free the captives*, and for those in debt, and for All?h's Cause (i.e. for Muj?hid?n - those fighting in a holy battle), and for the wayfarer (a traveler who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by All?h. And All?h is All-Knower, All-Wise." (AT-TAWBA:60)



sadated_peon said:


> How is this against slavery?
> Having people being able to go into slavery because of a crime, is indorsing slavery. That they can stop being slaves later, doesn?t change this fact.



Sorry, It's look like I translated it wrong, what does "penance" mean?

I meant that is for god to be bleased on them, they have to free a slave, not to be one. That was a huge mistranslation by me, again sorry.



sadated_peon said:


> is not the only thing mentioned in the Quran and the Hadiths about slavery, it goes in length about the keeping of slaves.


 
care to elobrate?



sadated_peon said:


> So I have counter evidence that I can reference, but you want me to take your word on it based on a book you read years ago?



Did you read this post?



> I know I read it somewhere but I don't really remember, but it said that some where in the Abbasi Era, slavery fanished from the Islamic world completely. I'm not really putting my money on this, but I know that is Islam tried to reduce slavery.





sadated_peon said:


> So you admit that they were slaves, great.
> I don?t disagree that there is a long history of slavery, but thankfully I don?t live by the standards of my ancestors. You on the other hand do.



And who said I'm living it? is that all you can say? Im living it?! 



sadated_peon said:


> As for who started freeing them, that would be European countries.
> 
> 
> Here is a timeline of when slavery was abolished.
> ...



That's there problem, cause they'r divided and no longer considered a real proof of muslims community. Everyone is just putting his rules on the action.

Are you saying that with all the evidence I gave you, you still don't believe Islam started to free slaves 1500 years ago? 'cuase if you don't, there's no reason for me to cotinue giving you such evidence.

You just choosed to ignore them.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίv?тε said:


> That's there problem, cause they'r divided and no longer considered a real proof of muslims community. Everyone is just putting his rules on the action.


Muslim countries were the last to abolish slavery, and mainly only because the UN made it illegal to do it, that is strong evidence of what effect Islam has on slavery, it supports and encourages it.

If Islam was so dead set against slavery, it would necessarily affect all Islamic countries and should have made them end slavery much faster (especially before European countries since they had no religion to say slavery was wrong).

But it didn't, Islam endorses slavery, it's affect is only encouraging slavery.



			
				ρяίv?тε said:
			
		

> Are you saying that with all the evidence I gave you, you still don't believe Islam started to free slaves 1500 years ago? 'cuase if you don't, there's no reason for me to cotinue giving you such evidence.


And? Judaism started to free slaves too, and they were a religion much much older then even islam, the key point you seem to have missed, is that Islam promotes enslaving people in the first place.

It's a queer argument to say, for instance, if i put someone in a cage, then i let him out, i am...encouraging freedom.

It's like how countries have a thing called jail, and criminals go in there, just because there are many systems in place to try and prove a person as innocent before he goes to jail, doesn't change the fact those countries endorse jailing criminals.


----------



## Sirah (Nov 27, 2007)

Reanimater said:


> Wooha! I'm moving to Saudi Arabia! No more pretending to be insane! I will pretend to believe in an invisible guy in the sky and to some raping. Or molesting after I get married. Twice.
> 
> Don't you just love the good guys?



of course i do , im one of them


----------



## adevilinthedark (Nov 27, 2007)

WTF...seriously...what...the...fuck.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> So basically your saying it's ok for me to murder people because murder happens nowadays?
> 
> You have some very queer morals.
> 
> ...



No. I'm saying if someone was trying to kill me, am sure I will not stand there and let him do that, as I'm positive that you want.

And btw, that was a diffrent time, people were fighting each other for anything, They didn't need a reason to fight. Taking slaves in wars was a common thing to do, even now. Or you didn't here about guantanamo prison?



maj1n said:


> I would expect a moral and just religion and a just God, even if it was a time of war, allow the men and women to live as equals and free, as they were innocent.
> 
> It's an interesting leap of logic where God is supposedly all-powerful but he is so very restricted by thousand year old societies practices.



Are you expecting people to live peacefully with you, after fighting them? why did they fought in the first place? llol, at your logic, where did that ever happened?


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> No. I'm saying if someone was trying to kill me, am sure I will not stand there and let him do that, as I'm positive that you want.
> 
> And btw, that was a diffrent time, people were fighting each other for anything, They didn't need a reason to fight. Taking slaves in wars was a common thing to do, even now. Or you didn't here about guantanamo prison?


Were talking about enslaving people.

Sorry but i don't find guantanamo prison acceptable, and i don't support the idea that 'if someone else does something bad, its ok for me to do so'.

They are also not slaves.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> Are you expecting people to live peacefully with you, after fighting them? why did they fought in the first place? llol, at your logic, where did that ever happened?


So i guess women and children are going to launch a massive retaliation against you for killing all their men? i'm sure the children especially are quite fearsome back then, they could topple whole armies right?

And no, Muhammad started many fights first, he for example continuously tried to raid and kill the Quraysh, mainly because they expelled him from their town for ridiculing their Gods, he was the first to break the treaty of Hudaybiddah and started a war against them (interestingly he claimed he didn't really break any treaty since God allowed it).

He expelled both jews and Christians from the arab peninsula, unless they accepted Muslim rule, which was unjust, whatever ill-blood he had with jews, there was no reason to include Christians in his conquering.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Muslim countries were the last to abolish slavery, and mainly only because the UN made it illegal to do it, that is strong evidence of what effect Islam has on slavery, it supports and encourages it.
> 
> If Islam was so dead set against slavery, it would necessarily affect all Islamic countries and should have made them end slavery much faster (especially before European countries since they had no religion to say slavery was wrong).
> 
> But it didn't, Islam endorses slavery, it's affect is only encouraging slavery.



I read that article, and it doesn't prove anything. Most of the arab countries were Occupied at that time by the European countries, and once they got thier Independence, they abolished slavery. 



maj1n said:


> And? Judaism started to free slaves too, and they were a religion much much older then even islam, the key point you seem to have missed, is that Islam promotes enslaving people in the first place.
> 
> It's a queer argument to say, for instance, if i put someone in a cage, then i let him out, i am...encouraging freedom.
> 
> It's like how countries have a thing called jail, and criminals go in there, just because there are many systems in place to try and prove a person as innocent before he goes to jail, doesn't change the fact those countries endorse jailing criminals.



But that's not the case here.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Were talking about enslaving people.
> 
> Sorry but i don't find guantanamo prison acceptable, and i don't support the idea that 'if someone else does something bad, its ok for me to do so'.
> 
> They are also not slaves.



And neither did Islam, but they are taking prisoners on that prison, right? 

And who said that the prisoners of wars considerd slaves in muslims communities? Are you trying to forget everything I said about the rights of prisoners of wars?

If you did forget, let me remind you.



> We know that the Koran when he stated the position of prisoners of war, did not mention only two things only: Freeing them without charge or redemption money or prisoners, Allah said:
> 
> "So, when you meet (in fight - Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden." (Mohammed:4)





maj1n said:


> So i guess women and children are going to launch a massive retaliation against you for killing all their men? i'm sure the children especially are quite fearsome back then, they could topple whole armies right?
> 
> And no, Muhammad started many fights first, he for example continuously tried to raid and kill the Quraysh, mainly because they expelled him from their town for ridiculing their Gods, he was the first to break the treaty of Hudaybiddah and started a war against them (interestingly he claimed he didn't really break any treaty since God allowed it).
> 
> He expelled both jews and Christians from the arab peninsula, unless they accepted Muslim rule, which was unjust, whatever ill-blood he had with jews, there was no reason to include Christians in his conquering.



About the women and children, they were freed, but what happens to them if they wanted to continuing on living at thier own village? you guesd it, they will live under the Islamic rules.

The other things you talked about is up to debate, And history's books disagree with you.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> I read that article, and it doesn't prove anything. Most of the arab countries were Occupied at that time by the European countries, and once they got thier Independence, they abolished slavery.


Evidence? you sure present next to no evidence for every claim you make.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> But that's not the case here.


Your lack of a logical rebuttal is noted.

Islam encourages and condones taking people as slaves, Muhammad did it himself, that some slaves are freed after does not in any way mean Islam is anti-slavery, how can you be anti-slavery when you enslaved people in the first place?

Do we also conveniently forget the time they are forced into servitude? that giving some slave their freedom erases all the time they were inhumanely forced to serve someone else?

I reiterate my analogy, if i force someone into a cage, then 2 years later let him out, am i what? a model for promoting freedom?



> And neither did Islam, but they are taking prisoners on that prison, right?
> 
> And who said that the prisoners of wars considerd slaves in muslims communities? Are you trying to forget everything I said about the right's of prisoners of wars?
> 
> If you did forget, let me remind you.


women and children are not combatants, the Guatanomo bay people are captives, but not slaves, this is different to Islam, which enslaved everyone, women and children included.



			
				private said:
			
		

> About the women and children, they were freed, but what happens to them if they wanted to continuing on living at thier own village? you guesd it, they will live under the Islamic rules.
> 
> The other things you talked about is up to debate.


No, they weren't, give me evidence every woman and child enslaved by Islam was freed.



			
				private said:
			
		

> .* take them as captives)*. Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom),* or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm),* until the war lays down its burden." (Mohammed:4)


Great humane verse you have there...


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Evidence? you sure present next to no evidence for every claim you make.



Take the dates from the article and compare it to the Independence dates, I'm sure they are not hard to find.



maj1n said:


> Your lack of a logical rebuttal is noted.
> 
> Islam encourages and condones taking people as slaves, Muhammad did it himself, that some slaves are freed after does not in any way mean Islam is anti-slavery, how can you be anti-slavery when you enslaved people in the first place?
> 
> ...



Are you going to repeat that every once and a while? cuase I'm tired of repeating myself, over and over again.



maj1n said:


> women and children are not combatants, the Guatanomo bay people are captives, but not slaves, this is different to Islam, which enslaved everyone, women and children included.



Prove it.



maj1n said:


> No, they weren't, give me evidence every woman and child enslaved by Islam was freed.Great humane verse you have there...



Read about the rights of the non-muslims in Islam "Ahl Al Thema".



maj1n said:


> Great humane verse you have there...



Yeah, and what a great way to make your point, by avoiding the "tafseer".



> We know that the Koran when he stated the position of prisoners of war, did not mention only two things only: *Freeing them without charge or redemption money or prisoners*


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> Take the dates from the article and compare it to the Independence dates, I'm sure they are not hard to find.


You made the assertion, you present evidence for your claims.



> Are you going to repeat that every once and a while? cuase I'm tired of repeating myself, over and over again.


I will repeat myself as long as you don't get the point.

Islam condones and encourages enslaving people, freeing some slaves does not change this immoral act, no more to the fact that if i put someone in a cage, if i free them 2 years later, i am promoting freedom?



> Prove it.


Which part?

Guantanamo bay is for enemy combatants.

The Pentagon announces the formation of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals – panels of three *military officers allowed to rely on classified or coerced evidence against detainees denied legal representation and presumed to be "enemy combatants"*, broadly defined, unless they prove otherwise.
-http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511852006

On the part of Islam enslaving women and children.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> *
> We got female captives in the war booty *and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
> -http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137
> ...





> Read about the rights of the non-muslims in Islam "Ahl Al Thema".


I know the rights of non-muslims, they must pay a discriminatory tax for the sole purpose of humiliating them and funding the muslim state, they are restricted in practicing their religion, they are implicitly of inferior status, as ordained by the Quran.

*Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
(and feel themselves subdued.), *disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. *Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

Want to guess what happens in a society when you make it so a group of people are inferior? mistreatment, do you know how dhimmi's were treated in Muslim countries? badly.





			
				private said:
			
		

> Yeah, and what a great way to make your point, by avoiding the "tafseer".


I am reading your past post, you did not say what tafsir it comes from but merely state it as part of the following statement from the below scholar, i presume it comes from him.



			
				private said:
			
		

> Qaradawi says (a muslim scohlar): *nothing in the Holy Koran and the hadith supports slavery and ordere muslims to do it*


Flatly contradicted by Islamic history and muhammad.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> 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,
> -Pikthal
> 
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> ...


----------



## Ryan (Nov 27, 2007)

maj1n said:


> You made the assertion, you present evidence for your claims.



Use google for once, you have the dates in the article.



maj1n said:


> On the part of Islam enslaving women and children.



I don't see anything that proves your claims.



maj1n said:


> I know the rights of non-muslims, they must pay a discriminatory tax for the sole purpose of humiliating them and funding the muslim state, they are restricted in practicing their religion, they are implicitly of inferior status, as ordained by the Quran.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Speclation, no actuall proof of the abuse.



maj1n said:


> I am reading your past post, you did not say what tafsir it comes from but merely state it as part of the following statement from the below scholar, i presume it comes from him.
> 
> Flatly contradicted by Islamic history and muhammad.



It's not Islam resbansobility, if you choosed not to believe its books and its shcolars.

That's my last post here, your logic are flawed, you'r just refusing to believe every evidence I gave you, I can't see anything that reqires replying on.

See you.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 27, 2007)

ρяίvàтε said:


> Use google for once, you have the dates in the article.


Ok i'll do your work for you.



> The First Saudi State was established in the year 1744 (1157 A.H.) when leader Sheikh Muhammed ibn Abd al Wahhab settled in Diriyah and Prince Muhammed Ibn Saud agreed to support and espouse his cause, with a view to cleansing the Islamic faith from distortions. The House of Saud with other allies rose to become the dominant state in Arabia controlling most of the Nejd, but not either coast.
> After a rebuilding period following the ending of the First Saudi State, the House of Saud returned to power in the Second Saudi State in 1824. The state lasted until 1891 when it succumbed to the Al Rashid dynasty of Ha'il. In 1902 Ibn Saud reconquered Riyadh, the first of a series of conquests leading to the creation of the modern nation state of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
> The Third Saudi state was founded by the late King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud (known internationally as Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud).
> 
> ...


Nothing about any european occupation, so your wrong.



			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> I don't see anything that proves your claims.


Ok i'll just repeat myself a 5th time.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> *
> We got female captives in the war booty* and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
> -http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137
> ...





			
				ρяίvàтε said:
			
		

> Speclation, no actuall proof of the abuse.


I guess we gloss over this part.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
(and feel themselves subdued.), *disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.* Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

Oh and non-muslims (Dhimmi's) could not testify against a muslim in court.

And i read that in _Islamic Law Pertaining to Non-Muslims_ by Mawdudi



			
				private said:
			
		

> It's not Islam resbansobility, if you choosed not to believe its books and its shcolars.


What are you babbling about? and you said it is a tafsir, i don't recall Qaradawi writing any tafsir, a tafsir is not a Muslim scholar's words.

evidence please.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Nov 27, 2007)

Though I find your argument interesting guys. You kinda went off subject of the topic at hand. You two should just email each other or PM each other. I have begun to get bored with this.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

Salam,

How did you deviate from the topic to slavery?

Wrong is wrong no matter who does it, and we already know Saudi government is corrupt, if it were up to me I'd say there is no Islamic state currently since the king is too busy sucking up to his western "friends" who sell him his oil for more than its worth. They jailed an imaam of Masjid Al-Nabawwi for giving a sermon...

Everyone will be accounted for their deeds on the day of resurrection, the oppressed and the oppressor. Allah(swt) knows what you hide, and you reveal what you reveal with his permission alone.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 28, 2007)

private said:
			
		

> It said here that non-Muslims can be freed, read it carefully.
> 
> Islam didn't really favor Muslims ,but non-Muslims slaves usually got freed by their nations and their tribes, so there was no need to spend money on them.


Actually I think you need to read it more carefully. 
“he could not find poor people to whom he should give Zakah.”
=
“If we have such a situation when the Muslim community is so affluent that there are no poor in its ranks”
Notice how this is poor “in it’s ranks” referring to the Muslim community.

“`Umar instructed him to pay it to poor Christians and Jews.”
=
“then we consider paying Zakatul-Fitr to non-Muslims.”
Notice the use of the word pay, in both instances, where as when it is used in the context of freeing mulsim slaves it is buy. 

Islam did favor Muslims and you are naive to believe otherwise. There is a clear distinction that is shown clearly by the quote I posted. That only after all Muslim poor are taken care of do you move on to non-Muslims. This is CLEAR favoritism. (though I am sure that you will come back with some excuse about taking care of their own first. But that doesn’t matter to me because it is still favoritism.)



			
				private said:
			
		

> sure.
> 
> "As-Sadaqât (here it means Zakât) are only for the Fuqarâ' (poor), and Al-Masâkin (the poor) and those employed to collect (the funds), and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islâm); and to free the captives, and for those in debt, and for Allâh's Cause (i.e. for Mujâhidûn - those fighting in a holy battle), and for the wayfarer (a traveler who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by Allâh. And Allâh is All-Knower, All-Wise." (AT-TAWBA:60)



Free captives? How did that become slaves?
Here is another translation. 
“SHAKIR: Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.”


“the (ransoming of) captives”

You don’t ransom slaves, you ransom captives. That is people(Muslims in this case) taken captive by the enemy. They could be slaves by those who have captured them, but that is not the same as a non-muslim slave in Muslim society. They are fundamentally different concepts. 

So I ask again for you to find a line that supports this. 



			
				private said:
			
		

> Sorry, It's look like I translated it wrong, what does "penance" mean?


Penance means, a voluntary action of punishment in repentance for a personal wrong. 



			
				private said:
			
		

> I meant that is for god to be bleased on them, they have to free a slave, not to be one. That was a huge mistranslation by me, again sorry.


I not sure what you mean here. What are you translating from? Book, line, verse?



			
				private said:
			
		

> care to elobrate?


As you are surely aware, there are many other instances in the quran and Hadith that deal with slaves. Which includes treatment of slaves. 



			
				private said:
			
		

> Did you read this post?


So you concede the point.



			
				private said:
			
		

> And who said I'm living it? is that all you can say? Im living it?!


Correct me if I am wrong, but a large basis of the Islamic faith is the belief in emulating Muhammad. As Muhammad owned slaves imitating Muhammad would be to also own slaves. 
Unless you believe the that Muhammad was wrong to own slaves. 



			
				private said:
			
		

> That's there problem, cause they'r divided and no longer considered a real proof of muslims community. Everyone is just putting his rules on the action.


I would say that if Islamic communities where so against slavery, that such practices would have ended. The prohibition of alcohol in Muslim states has been around for much longer than the abolition of slavery. (a comparison you made yourself) 



			
				private said:
			
		

> Are you saying that with all the evidence I gave you, you still don't believe Islam started to free slaves 1500 years ago? 'cuase if you don't, there's no reason for me to cotinue giving you such evidence.
> 
> You just choosed to ignore them.


I am sorry, I must have missed them. 

I don’t need you to quote the arguments again, just tell me what post numbers they were in. 

Once again, I am sorry if I missed something, but I don’t remember the evidence…


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

You need to check your sources before spouting bullshit about Islam. 

Zaid, Muhammad's servant, said, "I served Lord Muhammad ten years, and he never said 'Uff,' to me; and never said, 'Why did you do so?' and never said, 'Why did you not do so?'"

Zayd Ibn Haritha was a slave. The prophet(pbuh) bought him from the market place to set him free, then the Prophet adopted him as his son and called him after his name (that was before adoption was declared forbidden in Islam), but later on called him after his father.

Yes, Muhammad (PBUH) had slaves, but he treated them like his sons / daughters. He freed Zaid (ra) and Zaid (ra) was given a choice to stay with his parents or with the holy prophet(PBUH), Zaid (ra) chose Prophet (PBUH) and the prophet (PBUH) adopted him as a son. 

His testimony is far greater than your bullshit will ever be.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 28, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> You need to check your sources before spouting bullshit about Islam.
> 
> Zaid, Muhammad's servant, said, "I served Lord Muhammad ten years, and he never said 'Uff,' to me; and never said, 'Why did you do so?' and never said, 'Why did you not do so?'"
> 
> ...



Actually Muhammad enslaved people.



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> *
> We got female captives in the war booty *and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
> -http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137
> ...


So you have Muhammad enslaving women and children, picking women from people he conquerred and trading them around with his fellow muslims as if they were a commodity (which as slaves they were), and ok-ing rape of female captives.

Also, i'd like to repeat my analogy, if i put someone in a cage and i set them free in 2 years, am i a good person? do i advocate freedom?

If you enslave people in the first place, your in the wrong, setting them free afterwards does not somehow excuse the years of bondage you put them through.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

Ah the religion of peace. Now they will reduce the sentance to like 175 lashes claiming that Allah instructed them to be merciful to the infidel woman....


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Actually Muhammad enslaved people.
> 
> 
> So you have Muhammad enslaving women and children, picking women from people he conquerred and trading them around with his fellow muslims as if they were a commodity (which as slaves they were), and ok-ing rape of female captives.
> ...



First, your definition and our definition of slavery is different, you treat your people like dirt, you left your slaves in the farms while they were pregnant, a sad state when women have to work while pregnant and give birth to newborn babies (of course, they got raped) on a farm or cotton field. 

Second, Yes he had slaves, and if his slaves did not have a problem with him, they would choose him above their respected families, they went through unsurmountable torture for him, then who are you to question him?

Third, don't judge others by your retarded perspective, you rape the ones you take care of, we educate them.

And guess what, America still does this. Stop looking at our country through you rose-tinted glasses, What do you think happened in Thailand? Hell, I've seen it happen around me, the people I know being taken for no good reason, and they were never heard of. What do you think is happening to Iranian daughters and mothers right now?


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

Whatever America practices no such thing. And UNLIKE your country the western world generally tries to LEARN from their mistakes and tries to tolerate other peoples beliefs and values instead of saying convert or die. Or lashing RAPE VICTIMS who press charges against their attackers.

As for Iranian mothers and daughter they are most likely being oppressed by their men/husbands/fathers/polictical learder. So take that argument and shove it. Most likely the people around you were taken by your nations secret police forces for breaking some trivial law.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

Tleilaxu said:


> Whatever America practices no such thing. And UNLIKE your country the western world generally tries to LEARN from their mistakes and tries to tolerate other peoples beliefs and values instead of saying convert or die. Or lashing RAPE VICTIMS who press charges against their attackers.
> 
> As for Iranian mothers and daughter they are most likely being oppressed by their men/husbands/fathers/polictical learder. So take that argument and shove it. Most likely the people around you were taken by your nations secret police forces for breaking some trivial law.



It's in the history, you can question me but you cannot question history and facts. You learn from your facts? Tell me then, why were the votes of African-American people disregarded in Florida in 2004? Tell me why are we in Iran, and why did we conquer Iraq? Tell me, why did we re-elect a president who brought us in a 7 trillion deficit?

edit: As far as the lashings go, blame it on the GOVERNMENT not the religion. 

 Say what you want, but Allah(swt) is my witness, while you accuse Islam for its jurisprudence, your sons and daughters will come to it like moth comes to a flame in darkness.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

Ok slavery was in the past and since has been renounced and is no longer a relevent factor. Americans reelected Bush because IMO Kerry would have been worse of the two evils. We invaded Iraq due to the issue of the WMDs which it seems was not completely accurate but let me pose this question. If Iraq did NOT have WMDs then why did they refuse to allow the weapons inspectors free reign to search where they wanted? Looks suspcious in western eyes. 2004 FLA was a massive fuckup and will not happen again (so it is hoped)

Also we are not in Iran, and Iran continues to tempt fate with its defiance of the internation community on its nuclear weapons programs. And also its threat to wipe Israel off the map. You do not ignore threats like that from a nation state that is most likely going to gives nukes to terrorists.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

Because Iraq wanted to keep her dignity, and guess what, America is the only country that ever nuked anyone and STILL produces WMDs. 

Who are you to say what they will and what they will not do? You said they had WMDs and you were clearly wrong, what credibility do you have now?


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

I never said they did I said that was the reason. As to retaining a countries dignity when the INTERNATIONAL community demands a country allow inspectors than that country must or it will looks like they have something to hide and since Iraq gassed its own people the weat even had more reason to suspect iraq. And stop pulling old historical facts that are irrelevent to moder day. And just to answer your question the bombs were dropped to SAVE both AMerican and Japanese lives, as an invasion would have been much worse. Also that is the one and only time the USA ever used WMDs. And THAt was in a dark and ugly time period.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

And what Internation community are you talking about? Oh yea, the "western" International community. So yes, you are using a probability, a prediction at best, to justify taking the lives of 120,000, and you say we are barbaric.

 Your reason was false, you went in without any concrete proof and what credibility do you have now?


----------



## maj1n (Nov 28, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> First, your definition and our definition of slavery is different, you treat your people like dirt, you left your slaves in the farms while they were pregnant, a sad state when women have to work while pregnant and give birth to newborn babies (of course, they got raped) on a farm or cotton field.


'My people'? what do i care about 'my people?' even if 'my people' did bad thing's, i don't accept, nor does this make Islams enslaving of people less wrong.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Second, Yes he had slaves, and if his slaves did not have a problem with him, they would choose him above their respected families, they went through unsurmountable torture for him, then who are you to question him?


I'm sure they felt they could protest, i am sure they felt no fear or pressure after muhammad massacred their people and took them captive.


I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that *the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives;* the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.717

Did you think they were happy? do you think they did not feel any fear or pressure? 



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Third, don't judge others by your retarded perspective, you rape the ones you take care of, we educate them.


Who are these people i take care of? btw i am not American.

And Islam did allow the rape of female captives.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
*
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them.* So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> And guess what, America still does this. Stop looking at our country through you rose-tinted glasses, What do you think happened in Thailand? Hell, I've seen it happen around me, the people I know being taken for no good reason, and they were never heard of. What do you think is happening to Iranian daughters and mothers right now?


And do i care? i am greatly amused at your moral relativism, if America nukes another country, does that mean every other country gets to nuke every other country? and claim 'but america did it'.

Here is a very simple moral lesson for you, the morality of an act is not determined by the fact some other people do it.

Alot of people murder, this does not make murder more ok.

Islam condoned and encouraged slavery, it doesn't matter if anyone else does it, it is wrong, it is not less wrong.

Your failure of making a credible rebuttal is noted, the best you can do is 'but america has done some bad things'.

So what? that does not excuse Islams immoral beliefs or practices.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

Hey we don't torture and beat our women. We allow them to have jobs and do as they please. We do not lash rape victims, we dont condone slavery either.



> And what Internation community are you talking about? Oh yea, the "western" International community. So yes, you are using a probability, a prediction at best, to justify taking the lives of 120,000, and you say we are barbaric.
> 
> Your reason was false, you went in without any concrete proof and what credibility do you have now?


Dispite the fact their was VERY LITTLE WMDs found Saddam was a very evil man and deserved what was coming to him. And also America does not deliberatly target civillians unlike the terrorists. Secondly We will be leaving Iraq when our job there is done, currently great progress is being made.


----------



## Yakuza (Nov 28, 2007)

I dont know whats worse, the rape or the lashes =/


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

I say its insult to injury myself.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

maj1n said:


> 'My people'? what do i care about 'my people?' even if 'my people' did bad thing's, i don't accept, nor does this make Islams enslaving of people less wrong.
> 
> 
> I'm sure they felt they could protest, i am sure they felt no fear or pressure after muhammad massacred their people and took them captive.



Where are you from? By your people, I meant Americans that enslaved Africans. You're "sure"? Then where is your proof?



maj1n said:


> I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that *the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives;* the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
> -http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.717
> 
> Did you think they were happy? do you think they did not feel any fear or pressure?



Why Am I not surprised you would quote from Ali Sina? It was obvious you would resort it.

"News reached the Prophet [pbuh] on Sha‘ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet [pbuh] summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet [pbuh] married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295]"

Read it carefully, the holy Prophet(PBUH) married her.



maj1n said:


> Who are these people i take care of? btw i am not American.



Like Is aid before it was addressed towards Americans, where are you from? 



maj1n said:


> And Islam did allow the rape of female captives.
> 
> 
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> ...



Yes, Islam allows one to have concubines from prisoners of wars, (meaning: the ones you own), the commander has the choice of distributing them or setting them up for ransom.

edit: didn't explain.

Slavery in Islam was introduced due to kufr. In a war commander is given the choice to either set them up for ransom or distribute. However, Islam also encourages the freeing of slaves as it is an expiation of sins. Slavery is not something that is desirable, but freeing of slaves is encouraged. 
(just paraphrased from )



maj1n said:


> And do i care? i am greatly amused at your moral relativism, if America nukes another country, does that mean every other country gets to nuke every other country? and claim 'but america did it'.



First off, it was not addressed to you. Second, the person I addressed it to was American which made the entire quote in context, basically calling him a hypocrite.

And you are right on one thing though, wrong is wrong no matter who does it, but you clearly have no distinction between which is which.



maj1n said:


> Here is a very simple moral lesson for you, the morality of an act is not determined by the fact some other people do it.
> 
> Alot of people murder, this does not make murder more ok.
> 
> ...



Like I said, wrong is wrong no matter who does it, and Islam is a perfected religion. I raise valid points where as you take from liars and deceivers, keep posting lies, truth stands out clear from error.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

If islam was a pefected religion we would not have riots over cartoons, lashing of rape victims and other 15th century dogma. Not to mention the virtual enslaving of women. So yeah....


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 28, 2007)

So yea what? Am I supposed to be offended from that?

You are mixing people with religion, you want to criticize religion then read it's doctrines, don't assume. If you recall, in my first post I said that Saudi government is NOT the model Islamic government, if you want to criticize, then criticize the government, not the religion. That's like me saying all priests are pedophiles because I've come to know a few have done it.

And as far as the cartoon goes, the reasons why Muslims get offended at the incident is because this is exactly what the Prophet(PBUH) said not to do. It leads to shirk in the sense that people start worshiping messengers and take them for Allah, and Muhammad (PBUH) was only a human. You disrespect our prophet(PBUH), what do you expect us to kiss you on the forehead and sing you to sleep?

‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers that Umm Habeebah and Umm Salamah mentioned a church that they had seen in Abyssinia, in which there were images. They mentioned it to the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: “Those people, if there was a righteous man among them and he died, they would build a place of worship over his grave and put those images in it. They will be among the most evil of creation before Allaah on the Day of Resurrection.” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Salaah, 409). 

I'm not sure what you mean by virtual enslaving of women.

edit: I have to go tutor my cousins now, bye.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 28, 2007)

> You are mixing people with religion, you want to criticize religion then read it's doctrines, don't assume. If you recall, in my first post I said that Saudi government is NOT the model Islamic government, if you want to criticize, then criticize the government, not the religion. That's like me saying all priests are pedophiles because I've come to know a few have done it.



That is a nice reasoned responce I like 



> And as far as the cartoon goes, the reasons why Muslims get offended at the incident is because this is exactly what the Prophet(PBUH) said not to do. It leads to shirk in the sense that people start worshiping messengers and take them for Allah, and Muhammad (PBUH) was only a human. You disrespect our prophet(PBUH), what do you expect us to kiss you on the forehead and sing you to sleep?


So your saying that people who DONT follow Islam must be subject to your laws and beliefs anyway? That still does not excuse the violence. Christians Jews, and other major religions would not riot over such a thing. They are taught to tolerate others view points... not violently attack them when a major religious figure is made fun of. (I can think of tons of cartoons depicting Jesus in many unholy ways and still no one rioted over it) It seems that the followers of Islam are far more intolerant other other peoples views, and other religions. It certainly seems that cannot take a joke about their own religion either. There is something in the world called free speech and everyone has a right to excersie it and if you dont like the message ignore it. Dont riot over something trivial as a cartoon. Now I will hasten to add that there are some whck job christians(and members of every other religion) out there was well, but they are ignored. The rioting over the insult of the prophet only exemplifies this. Now one rioted when Iran wanted to make fun of the holocaust. 

For the enslaving of women, they are forced to wear burka, hijjabs or something similar, They are often harrassed or molested if they dont, its obvious they have no rights other than to bow to the mans rule to the man judgement and are not treated equally.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 29, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> Where are you from? By your people, I meant Americans that enslaved Africans. You're "sure"? Then where is your proof?


Proof of what? if anyone massacred my people and enslaved me, i would be afraid, ANYONE would be afraid.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Why Am I not surprised you would quote from Ali Sina? It was obvious you would resort it.


Who is Ali Sina?i posted the link where i got it from.

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
*-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137*



			
				unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> "News reached the Prophet [pbuh] on Sha?ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet [pbuh] summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa?d bin ?Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet [pbuh] married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet?s in-laws. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295]"
> 
> Read it carefully, the holy Prophet(PBUH) married her.


I find it disgusting that one would marry females you had just captured in war, if i took a girl from her family, made her my slave, and married her.

Umm that doesn't make it better, it makes it far far worse.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, Islam allows one to have concubines from prisoners of wars, (meaning: the ones you own), the commander has the choice of distributing them or setting them up for ransom.*


Thank for admitting it.



			
				unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Like I said, wrong is wrong no matter who does it, and Islam is a perfected religion. I raise valid points where as you take from liars and deceivers, keep posting lies, truth stands out clear from error.


Islam is a perfected religion while you admit it allows concubines during war, using captives from war as ransom, marrying and distributing captives from war amongst themselves?

Well i guess slavery to you is ok then.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 29, 2007)

Tleilaxu said:


> That is a nice reasoned responce I like
> 
> 
> So your saying that people who DONT follow Islam must be subject to your laws and beliefs anyway? That still does not excuse the violence. Christians Jews, and other major religions would not riot over such a thing. They are taught to tolerate others view points... not violently attack them when a major religious figure is made fun of. (I can think of tons of cartoons depicting Jesus in many unholy ways and still no one rioted over it) It seems that the followers of Islam are far more intolerant other other peoples views, and other religions. It certainly seems that cannot take a joke about their own religion either. There is something in the world called free speech and everyone has a right to excersie it and if you dont like the message ignore it. Dont riot over something trivial as a cartoon. Now I will hasten to add that there are some whck job christians(and members of every other religion) out there was well, but they are ignored. The rioting over the insult of the prophet only exemplifies this. Now one rioted when Iran wanted to make fun of the holocaust.
> ...



You are right, it is still no excuse for violence, but level with me, put yourself in my shoes for a minute. To be honest, you could sense a harshness in my tone in all these posts because of the way maj1n addressed the prophet (PBUH), which to me sounded rude. I was really pissed because he said just Muhammad with any suffixes or prefixes of respect. Now imagine, just this is enough to tick me off then drawing pictures is an entirely different story. You won't truly be able to make sense of these emotions simply because you don't know the amount of love and respect we have for our dear Prophet (PBUH). If it helps, we try to imitate every single action of the Prophet(PBUH) because he was of such noble character and had such great personality its just odd not to like him.

This is just an example in quotes for you. It's a hadith (sayings/ actions of the Prophet of Allah(saw):



> One old woman made a habit of throwing rubbish on Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) whenever he passed from her house. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had to pass that house daily on the way to the mosque. Even when the old woman threw rubbish on him, he would pass silently without showing any anger or annoyance. This was a regular, daily event.
> 
> One day when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was passing by the woman was not there to throw the rubbish. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stopped and asked the neighbor about her well-being. The neighbor informed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that the woman was sick on bed. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) politely asked permission to visit the woman. When allowed he entered the house, the woman thought that he had come there to take his revenge when she was unable to defend herself because of sickness. But the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) assured her that he had come to her, not to take any revenge, but to see her and to look after her needs, as it was the command of Allah that if any one is sick, a Muslim should visit him and should help him if his help is needed.
> 
> The old woman was greatly moved by this kindness and love of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). By the example of greatness of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), she understood that he was truly the Prophet of Allah and Islam was the true religion. She accepted Islam at once.



Tell me, how can you not love a man who would treat you like his family even if you hated him and threw garbage in his way.

Don't get me wrong though, I still think violence should only be used as a last resort when all else fails as Allah(swt) commands fogiveness is far greater than revenge.

And regarding your "Islam enslaving women"...

Islam gives women rights similar to that of men. I say similar because the roles of men and women are different. In some cases the rights of a woman is greater tot hat of a man and vice versa. The Prophet of Allah (swt) said that paradise lies under the feet of mother.  A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of God! Who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship? The Prophet said: Your mother. The man said, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man further asked, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man asked again, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your father. (Bukhari, Muslim). 

When women wear hijab, they don't do it or at least should not do it for anyone but Allah. Hijab protects a woman's modesty. Like the women wear hijab, men too have the duty to wear their pants above their ankles but don't do it, yea its double-standard... but you have to realize it's not the religion that is at fault here, its the people following the religion. I'll explain more if you elaborate on "they have no rights other than to bow to the mans rule to the man judgement and are not treated equally."

Maybe a muslim sister could better explain things than me.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 29, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Proof of what? if anyone massacred my people and enslaved me, i would be afraid, ANYONE would be afraid.
> 
> 
> Who is Ali Sina?i posted the link where i got it from.
> ...



Why are you still here? Why are you even arguing? Go look up Ali Sina if you have time to argue and read from you own source. And yet again you do not say where you are from, have you got something hide? look at the circumstances leading to it and then come back and explain your perspective, I just posted the hadith for you to read, read it.

You find it disgusting? To marry a woman? yea...

you arguments are retarded, you just misquote to mislead people, of course not surprising considering your source and intentions. Keep spouting, truth stands clear from error.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 29, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> Why are you still here? Why are you even arguing? Go look up Ali Sina if you have time to argue and read from you own source.


Why do i look up Ali Sina? i am confronting you on this charge.



			
				unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Why Am I not surprised *you would quote from Ali Sina?* It was obvious you would resort it.


But i did not, i clearly, and always reference my source



			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
> -


That is a university website.



			
				unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> And yet again you do not say where you are from, have you got something hide?


Yeh i wanna hide where i'm from, unfortunately i believe some Muslims on this board want to kill or threaten me, got some disturbing arabic emails 



			
				unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> You find it disgusting? To marry a woman? yea...


Indeed i find it disgusting to marry a female captive you just got after killing their men.

I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that t*he Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives;* the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.717

How you can even begin to frame it as a moralistic action, marrying a woman you just enslaved, and killed off all their people, is beyond me.

That is powerful cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 29, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Why do i look up Ali Sina? i am confronting you on this charge.
> 
> 
> But i did not, i clearly, and always reference my source
> ...



When I talk about Ali Sina I would expect you to look him up, which is why I asked you to look him up. He has been known to lie, the link you provided was a hadith narrated by him and it was distorted which is why i posted teh entire hadith, start reading now.

Muslims threaten you? I doubt it lol. Oh yea, where are you from? (for the third time)

and it could always go the other way (regarding cognitive dissonance), read the hadith I posted and come back. Clearly you have not read.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 29, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> When I talk about Ali Sina I would expect you to look him up, which is why I asked you to look him up. He has been known to lie, the link you provided was a hadith narrated by him and it was distorted which is why i posted teh entire hadith, start reading now.


Why should i look him up? you are the one who accused me of quoting Ali Sina, you haven't backed that up, i gave you a clear source where i got it from.

btw Ali Sina did not narrate the ahadith, 

* Narrated Ibn Aun:*

I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that* the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives;* the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army. 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html#003.046.717

Just getting back to one of your earlier comments.



			
				unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> and it could always go the other way (regarding cognitive dissonance), read the hadith I posted and come back. Clearly you have not read.


I did, it only agreed with me, though i note how brave, selfless and intelligent that Jewish woman was, she thought of her own people before herself.



			
				unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> . Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. *The Prophet [pbuh] married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws.*


Of course Muhammad got the better of her, after all they 'suddenly' embraced Islam after their whole tribe was massacred, i'm sure they did this sincerely

Oh and it is implied by Aisha that Muhammad married her because of her looks, apparently she was the most beautiful woman on the battlefield and everyone stared at her.

She was also the daughter of the leader of the tribe Muhammad just massacred.

So maybe you can understand why i think enslaving then marrying a woman from a tribe of people you had killed, which included her father, is a sick act.

Nor do i fully trust Islamic history, if i did, apparently every wife of Muhammad was completely happy and glad they were his wife, despite the fact you know, he killed their family? fathers, sisters, cousins and all?

Most scholars consider that strong evidence of the bias of Islamic history as recorded by Muslims.


----------



## Miracle Sun (Nov 29, 2007)

Well, I read through the first 6 pages of this thread, and thought I would clarify a few things, starting here.

First, I'd like to make clear that rape is prohibited in Islam. Violence against women (particularly sexual violence) finds no sanction in the Qur'an, the religion's main doctrine, nor in the hadith.
Secondly, a word about lashes for adultery and pre-marital sex. 
There are a few points to be made about this:
1) The lashes are *not to break the skin*. Again, the lashes cannot break the skin (i.e. induce bleeding). 
2) There is a great deal of mercy with regards to prescribed punishments in Islam, and many of these punishments are seen as a last resort. There are numerous avenues for reconciliation and retribution that do not involve the legal system (for example, paying back the victim in cases of monetary theft).

And before continuing on with that, I want to also clarify for some of you (and I can link you to a scholarly article a friend of mine wrote) that Islamic law and Shari'ah are *not* synonymous. This is a huge misconception. Sometimes "Shari'ah" goes against the grain of Islamic teachings. I can go into much greater detail if anyone is interested.


Edo said:


> Second, the laws of Islam itself. You have a religion that punishes extra marital sex with lashes and in case of adultery (for married people) with death penalty.


The punishment for this is not the death penalty.


> It also punishes those who convert from Islam with death penalty


The punishment for apostasy in Islam is *not* death. In fact, *no punishment is prescribed at all in the Qur'an*. That is an oft-repeated myth.
Other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity (and particularly Judaism) have flourished under Islamic rule, and Muslims are expected to at the very least tolerate the presence of other belief systems (including atheism) and allow their adherants to practice as they please.
That Saudi Arabia does not allow this is very indicative of the level of corruption of that state. Saudi Arabia does not represent Islam. The country's leaders are highly corrupt, and their interpretation of Islam is not extreme, _it is wrong_.


----------



## maj1n (Nov 29, 2007)

Miracle Sun said:


> First, I'd like to make clear that rape is prohibited in Islam.


Then early Muslims and Muhammad were wrong right?

 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." 
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.137



			
				miraclesun said:
			
		

> Violence against women (particularly sexual violence) finds no sanction in the Qur'an, the religion's main doctrine, nor in the hadith.



PICKTHAL: *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*. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: *Men are the maintainers of women *because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) *those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them;* then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.



			
				miraclesun said:
			
		

> The punishment for apostasy in Islam is *not* death. In fact, *no punishment is prescribed at all in the Qur'an*. That is an oft-repeated myth.


I guess Muhammad was wrong also.

Narrated 'Ikrima: 'Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as [Muhammad] said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for *[Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him*
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260

 Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' *I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" *
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.057


----------



## Miracle Sun (Nov 29, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Then early Muslims and Muhammad were wrong right?
> 
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> 
> ...



I'll definitely address what you've posted here this weekend. 
I have a couple articles to link you to, and I'll try to summarize them beforehand. Tomorrow though, because it's a bit late where I am.




> Narrated 'Ikrima: 'Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as [Muhammad] said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for *[Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him*
> -http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260
> 
> Narrated 'Ikrima:
> ...


Here is one way that a hadith's validity is challenged and called into question.
If it contradicts the Qur'an in any way, *then it is no longer valid*.

This hadith clearly contradicts the following verse:
Qur'an 2:256 - *There is no compulsion in religion.*

For all the points you have made, you have cited hadith, but people often neglect the fact that the Qur'an is the foremost authority in dictating how a Muslim should live their life and achieve spiritual perfection.
That that hadith that you cited directly conflicts with a verse in the Qur'an indicates that it is unreliable and can be discarded.


----------



## Yasashiku (Nov 29, 2007)

That's really messed up.... I mean, they may have different views and a different government compared to that of the U.S.A, but aren't we still only human?  I mean... god...


----------



## maj1n (Nov 29, 2007)

Miracle Sun said:


> Here is one way that a hadith's validity is challenged and called into question.
> If it contradicts the Qur'an in any way, *then it is no longer valid*.
> 
> This hadith clearly contradicts the following verse:
> ...


I hope you realise your Quran is internally inconsistant.
*
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah* nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Fight against those that don't believe in Allah? that does not square with your 'there is no compulsion within religion'.

I guess the Quran proves itself as inconsistant.

Do you even know the context of your verse? Muhammad gave it as a declaration that no muslim should raise a jewish baby into the Muslim faith, and vice versa, that is all, mistreating people if they exit Islam or are of another faith is definitely allowed.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 29, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> You need to check your sources before spouting bullshit about Islam.


I quoted my sources, if you have a problem with them, argue the source. 



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Zayd Ibn Haritha was a slave. The prophet(pbuh) bought him from the market place to set him free, then the Prophet adopted him as his son and called him after his name (that was before adoption was declared forbidden in Islam), but later on called him after his father.


But there were many of his slaves which he kept as slaves, and he traded and bought slaves. I consider a continued practice of slavery much more important and condemning than a single act of compassion. 



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Yes, Muhammad (PBUH) had slaves, but he treated them like his sons / daughters. He freed Zaid (ra) and Zaid (ra) was given a choice to stay with his parents or with the holy prophet(PBUH), Zaid (ra) chose Prophet (PBUH) and the prophet (PBUH) adopted him as a son.


I find it funny that you consider buying and trading people who you claim ownership over is treating someone like a son or daughter. No I find it disturbing that you consider raping a woman the way you treat your daughter. 



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> His testimony is far greater than your bullshit will ever be.


In your attempts to keep your faith you justify the abhorrent acts against humanity.


----------



## drache (Nov 29, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> You are right, it is still no excuse for violence, but level with me, put yourself in my shoes for a minute. To be honest, you could sense a harshness in my tone in all these posts because of the way maj1n addressed the prophet (PBUH), which to me sounded rude. *I was really pissed because he said just Muhammad with any suffixes or prefixes of respect*. Now imagine, just this is enough to tick me off then drawing pictures is an entirely different story. You won't truly be able to make sense of these emotions simply because you don't know the amount of love and respect we have for our dear Prophet (PBUH). If it helps, we try to imitate every single action of the Prophet(PBUH) because he was of such noble character and had such great personality its just odd not to like him.


 
You then need to get over yourself.

To be blunt at least. I _might_ respect Muhammad, I might not; but that doesn't obligate me or *anyone* outside of Islam to follow your rules.

You think people can't understand your love and emotions for your prophet? I call bullshit on that one as you've obviously never talked to anyone who really believes in say Jesus.

And *if* he was a person of noble character and great personality I'd doubt that he'd *demand* to be given titles. Though personally I'd add if you really think he would then I don't think I'd find him as great as you think I should.

Titles are often empty moreover the most noblest people I've ever met have actually fought against being given titles, and respect isn't give it's earned.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 29, 2007)

drache said:


> You then need to get over yourself.
> 
> To be blunt at least. I _might_ respect Muhammad, I might not; but that doesn't obligate me or *anyone* outside of Islam to follow your rules.
> 
> ...



Actually, he didn't demand a title, and I'll give you an example.

In the shahada (the claim of one-ness of allah) we say "I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worshipping except allah and that *Mohammad* is his slave and messenger". 

Were did we get this? Didn't prophet Mohammad teach this to us? If he wanted titles or names, he could've said "....and that mohammad is our master and His messenger". 

I think that explains it well enough.


----------



## drache (Nov 29, 2007)

The_Unforgiven said:


> Actually, he didn't demand a title, and I'll give you an example.
> 
> In the shahada (the claim of one-ness of allah) we say "I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worshipping except allah and that *Mohammad* is his slave and messenger".
> 
> ...


 
I didn't mean Mohammad himself, sorry if that was not clear.

I was addressing the poster and the part in bold which clearly said 



> '*I was really pissed because he said just Muhammad with any suffixes or prefixes of respect'*


 
I then was trying to say that I would think that if Mohammad really was some prophet of a god then I'd doubt he'd demand titles like the person I was replying to seemed to indicate.

Then again my knowledge of Islam isn't that great, somewhat because I don't have the tons of free time I did when I was younger and somewhat because on the whole the concept of Monotheism and the fundmental assumptions any monotheisitic religion makes don't seem even plausible to me so I don't have an interest to learn more.


That aside it would seem that you agree with me.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Nov 29, 2007)

drache said:


> I didn't mean Mohammad himself, sorry if that was not clear.
> 
> I was addressing the poster and the part in bold which clearly said
> 
> ...



Oh yeah, I am agreeing with you, 100%. He did not demand a title. I just thought you were implying that he did, and were thus criticizing that.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Nov 29, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> You are right, it is still no excuse for violence, but level with me, put yourself in my shoes for a minute. To be honest, you could sense a harshness in my tone in all these posts because of the way maj1n addressed the prophet (PBUH), which to me sounded rude. I was really pissed because he said just Muhammad with any suffixes or prefixes of respect. Now imagine, just this is enough to tick me off then drawing pictures is an entirely different story. You won't truly be able to make sense of these emotions simply because you don't know the amount of love and respect we have for our dear Prophet (PBUH). If it helps, we try to imitate every single action of the Prophet(PBUH) because he was of such noble character and had such great personality its just odd not to like him.
> 
> This is just an example in quotes for you. It's a hadith (sayings/ actions of the Prophet of Allah(saw):
> 
> ...




That is a nice responce their! i did not detect a hint of huff and puff. Good job!  While I can understand the feeling of being offened when some thing special is targeted I cannot bring myself to protest at all I repect others view points (if they are reasonable and logical) that I dont agree with. And to a lesser extent the irrational ones, I just tune them out hehe. I feel the only time violence is justifyied in the name of religion or any matter is self defense only, and only after your attacked first. (unless there is COMPELLING evidence to support a first strike in hopes of staving off greater vioilence)

As for that last remark its seems to me that if a woman does not listen to her man that she can be beaten stones or killed. I am pretty sure abuse rates arew high in the middle east. (Now this IS a problem that happens everywhere) and the women can do nothing to defend themselves it seems like they are notthing over there. I am I explaining it right? Its hard to put things into words sometimes


----------



## Hitomi (Nov 30, 2007)

Before she got raped she was in her way to attempt adultery and she was a married woman, for that she was punished with the lashes, although in Islamic religion her punishment would be stoned to death.  

Too bad that she got duple punishment though; the rape and the lashes... 

The rape could've been enough punishment but I guess the judges sought after the lashes to let it sink in even more. the lesson I mean. *sigh*


----------



## drache (Nov 30, 2007)

Snow Princess said:


> Before she got raped she was in her way to attempt adultery and she was a married woman, for that she was punished with the lashes, although in Islamic religion her punishment would be stoned to death.
> 
> Too bad that she got duple punishment though; the rape and the lashes...
> 
> *The rape could've been enough punishment but I guess the judges sought after the lashes to let it sink in even more. the lesson I mean.* *sigh*


 


She was sitting in a car with a friend who happened to be male.

Last time I checked to commite adultry implies that she was engaged in sexual acts, though I suppose we could change the definition to be 'any time a woman is with a man she's not married' but that's going to be hell on the statistics.

 I just don't get it how some people think she 'deserved it' just because she was sitting in a car with a  friend who was male. Frankly it just makes me think that Islam (or those that pratice it) are more backwards then Christianity. Which is a huge generalization I know, but the more comments I see here the more I become resigned to the possiblity that Islam encourages behavior that is just frankly inhumane. *sigh*


----------



## Hitomi (Nov 30, 2007)

drache said:


> Last time I checked to commite adultry implies that she was engaged in sexual acts, though I suppose we could change the definition to be 'any time a woman is with a man she's not married' but that's going to be hell on the statistics.


Yeah, in order to punish her for adultery they need to have 4 witnesses or that she actually did it, but to punish her on assumption is just wrong :/


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Nov 30, 2007)

maj1n said:


> Why should i look him up? you are the one who accused me of quoting Ali Sina, you haven't backed that up, i gave you a clear source where i got it from.
> 
> btw Ali Sina did not narrate the ahadith,
> 
> ...



read your freakin source you retard


----------



## drache (Dec 1, 2007)

Snow Princess said:


> Yeah, in order to punish her for adultery they need to have 4 witnesses or that she actually did it, but to punish her on assumption is just wrong :/


 
So I'm confused between this and your last post.

Are you saying the judge is wrong for the lashes but that the basic idea behind punishing her is right (ie that women shouldn't be alone with men they are not married to)?


----------



## funkyjunky (Dec 1, 2007)

today was gonna be the day but they will never throw it back to u


----------



## Hitomi (Dec 2, 2007)

drache said:


> So I'm confused between this and your last post.
> 
> Are you saying the judge is wrong for the lashes but that the basic idea behind punishing her is right (ie that women shouldn't be alone with men they are not married to)?


What's to be confused about?!

To lash her for just being with him is not just imo especially after the gang rape she's been through. but to have sex with a man she's not married to; it's called adultery and it has a punishment in Islam.. 

I don't know the full details of the story nor do I care to know.. but if she didn't have sex with the guy she was with in the beginning why punish her?! The rape was enough punishment imo.


----------



## Naruto12805 (Dec 2, 2007)

Snow Princess said:


> What's to be confused about?!
> 
> To lash her for just being with him is not just imo especially after the gang rape she's been through. but to have sex with a man she's not married to; it's called adultery and it has a punishment in Islam..
> 
> I don't know the full details of the story nor do I care to know.. but if she didn't have sex with the guy she was with in the beginning why punish her?! The rape was enough punishment imo.



she nows the rules and laws of her country therefore shouldnt been in the car... I really dont get why any of those womens arent following there laws especially when they know if they are caught they will get the a$$ whoopin of a life time. I couldnt even imagine the pain of 200 lashes especially since she is a women it will hurt even more on that fragile body, kunta kentay didnt even get that many lashes. Also I wonder how they do the lashes, like do they do them all at once? If so the skin on her back will be gone and all you will see is her spinal cord and meat.


----------



## Lilykt7 (Dec 4, 2007)

her fiance spoke up for her. He said he wouldn't be defending an adulterer so that means she's not. Supposedly this is unusual since some families see rape as a mark of shame even if their family members are the victim.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Dec 4, 2007)

Lilykt7 said:


> her fiance spoke up for her. He said he wouldn't be defending an adulterer so that means she's not. Supposedly this is unusual since some families see rape as a mark of shame even if their family members are the victim.



Hats off to him, he sounds like a gentleman. Not many islamic men in that region would do that.


----------



## Lilykt7 (Dec 4, 2007)

Tleilaxu said:


> Hats off to him, he sounds like a gentleman. Not many islamic men in that region would do that.



after a 14 year old girl was raped and her entire family was killed, the village burned them and their houses down, they died in shame because of the rape so they werent honored with a traditional burial. That sort of thing is the worse. You can't judge whole religions on that though. She was gang raped by american soldiers. So see there are always shades of grey. 

wow sorry that wasn't aimed at you specifically I was merely replying and had to get some thoughts off my chest.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Dec 4, 2007)

I remember that, that was disgusting, and the soliders got off too easy dispite the near life sentances.


----------

