Back Sharia law or go to hell [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Back Sharia law or go to hell

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-31-2012, 10:13 AM

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/399757/20121030/egypt-revolution-constitution-sharia-law.htm

http://imagec18.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif (http://oascentral.ibtimes.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/uk.ibtimes/world/articles/770214153/x76/default/empty.gif/5330457142464352506f554141615442?x)Back Sharia or go to Hell - Egypt's Voters Warned on Constitution PollSalafist leader Adel Afifi demands hardline Islamist laws for Egypt's post-revolution constitutionBy Dominic Gover (http://www.debatepolicy.com/archives/articles/reporters/dominic-gover/): Subscribe to Dominic's RSS feed (http://www.debatepolicy.com/rss/articles/reporters/dominic-gover.rss)
October 30, 2012 6:48 PM GMT
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2012/10/30/316481.jpg Egypt is still conflicted

Voters in Egypt will go to hell if they back a new constitution that fails to set in stone fundamentalist Islamic law, a top politician has claimed.

Adel Afifi, the leader of the Al-Asala party, delivered the warning on his Facebook page ahead of a referendum expected before the end of the year.
"Support God and reject the constitution," announced Afifi. He claimed that voting in favour of the draft constitution was committing a sin, for which voters would be "casting themselves into hell".
Failing to support sharia law in Egypt would make a citizen an apostate, insisted Afifi.
Under strict sharia law, apostasy is often punishable by death by stoning where the victim is buried up to their neck in sand and then pelted with rocks.
Advocates for sharia law are angry about the phrasing of the new constitution, which they claim does not lay enough emphasis on Islamic law.

Follow us <IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 77px; HEIGHT: 20px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" id=f106adf167760b6 class=fb_ltr title="Like this content on Facebook." src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=&locale=en_GB&sdk=joey&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2F connect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D11%23cb%3Df16 08d2ae9497fb%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ibt imes.co.uk%252Ffb1a61075964c9%26domain%3Dwww.ibtim es.co.uk%26relation%3Dparent.parent&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FIBTimesUK&node_type=link&width=100&font=arial&layout=button_count&colorscheme=light&show_faces=false&send=false&extended_social_context=false" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency name=f310adde049191a scrolling=no></IFRAME>
<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 133px; HEIGHT: 20px" class=twitter-follow-button title="Twitter Follow Button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.1347008535.html#_=1351696042125&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&screen_name=IBTimesUK&show_count=false&show_screen_name=true&size=m" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no data-twttr-rendered="true"></IFRAME>https://ssl.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-32.png (https://plus.google.com/102574654852535694181?prsrc=3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freaking animals wanting their hate to be legalised.. Obama was all for the Islamist rise across the ME.-Tyr

Dilloduck

10-31-2012, 10:21 AM

Good to see that they have to suffer under political BS like we do.

gabosaurus

10-31-2012, 10:38 AM

Good to see that they have to suffer under political BS like we do.

Score. :beer:

jafar00

10-31-2012, 04:00 PM

Every country has at least one minor party crazy in parliament. Viva Democracia!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-31-2012, 04:57 PM

Every country has at least one minor party crazy in parliament. Viva Democracia!

Whats your position on Sharia law in Egypt? I've started taking notice how often you make spin away statements on subjects.

That is unless you truly mean that Sharia law is crazy there rather than just the individual ?

Dilloduck

10-31-2012, 05:21 PM

jafar00

10-31-2012, 05:49 PM

Whats your position on Sharia law in Egypt? I've started taking notice how often you make spin away statements on subjects.

That is unless you truly mean that Sharia law is crazy there rather than just the individual ?

I'm not spinning anything. Like the USA doesn't have congress critters that say stupid things now and then?

There has always been Sharia in Egypt so what's the problem? I was married by Sharia law.

fj1200

11-01-2012, 08:35 AM

Every country has at least one minor party crazy in parliament. Viva Democracia!

Democracy, the tyranny of the majority without limits on government.

There has always been Sharia in Egypt so what's the problem? I was married by Sharia law.

Government enforcement of one religion and secular behavior. I was married by a minister but the State doesn't enforce the Ten Commandments.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-01-2012, 08:59 AM

I'm not spinning anything. Like the USA doesn't have congress critters that say stupid things now and then?

There has always been Sharia in Egypt so what's the problem? I was married by Sharia law.

The Constitution there should cover all the citizens which includes the Coptic Christians , under Sharia law they are criminals and subject to savage oppression and even being put to death for their beliefs! That you pretend to not know this is clear attempted deception on your part.
Sure, I knew you supported Sharia law and that means your supposed moderation and western enlightenment that you sometimes project here in statements is a false play. -Tyr

Dilloduck

11-01-2012, 09:31 AM

The Constitution there should cover all the citizens which includes the Coptic Christians , under Sharia law they are criminals and subject to savage oppression and even being put to death for their beliefs! That you pretend to not know this is clear attempted deception on your part.
Sure, I knew you supported Sharia law and that means your supposed moderation and western enlightenment that you sometimes project here in statements is a false play. -Tyr

Will Republicans put and end to Sharia Law-----in Egypt ? Awesome

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-01-2012, 09:55 AM

Will Republicans put and end to Sharia Law-----in Egypt ? Awesome

Are you daft? Republicans were not even mentioned in my quoted reply. Can you read?-Tyr

jafar00

11-01-2012, 01:32 PM

The Constitution there should cover all the citizens which includes the Coptic Christians , under Sharia law they are criminals and subject to savage oppression and even being put to death for their beliefs! That you pretend to not know this is clear attempted deception on your part.
Sure, I knew you supported Sharia law and that means your supposed moderation and western enlightenment that you sometimes project here in statements is a false play. -Tyr

Since Mohamed (saw) told us to be good to the Copts of Egypt and protect them, Sharia would benefit them more than secularism.

aboutime

11-01-2012, 02:36 PM

Will Republicans put and end to Sharia Law-----in Egypt ? Awesome

Dilloduck. You should be asking whether Obama would do that. After all. When he leaves office. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and now in Libya...need a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER who loves to work hard with his bretheren, to destroy the WEST. Namely the U.S.A.

jimnyc

11-01-2012, 02:37 PM

Since Mohamed (saw) told us to be good to the Copts of Egypt and protect them, Sharia would benefit them more than secularism.

Unfortunately, it's not benefiting them. Christians in Egypt are treated like 2nd class citizens in many instances, and that's from the government as well, and they are often abused and targeted for killing and such.

gabosaurus

11-01-2012, 02:55 PM

Unfortunately, it's not benefiting them. Christians in Egypt are treated like 2nd class citizens in many instances, and that's from the government as well, and they are often abused and targeted for killing and such.

So the Egyptian government is treating Christians like we treat Muslims?

Dilloduck

11-01-2012, 03:50 PM

Dilloduck. You should be asking whether Obama would do that. After all. When he leaves office. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and now in Libya...need a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER who loves to work hard with his bretheren, to destroy the WEST. Namely the U.S.A.

Mr. Tyr wants the Republicans to take up the cause against Sharia Law. I was just curious if that included Sharia Law in Egypt too.

aboutime

11-01-2012, 03:53 PM

Mr. Tyr wants the Republicans to take up the cause against Sharia Law. I was just curious if that included Sharia Law in Egypt too.

No. Be honest here. You weren't curious. You were just being a wise-ass, asking stupid questions, fitting your character here.

aboutime

11-01-2012, 03:54 PM

So the Egyptian government is treating Christians like we treat Muslims?

gabby. SO, you are now admitting to treating Muslims badly? When you say WE. You do not have my permission to include me in your accusations, or admissions.

You should really be pleasing 'jafar' about your comment.

jimnyc

11-01-2012, 05:45 PM

So the Egyptian government is treating Christians like we treat Muslims?

In no way does our government do the things to Muslims here that the Egyptian government does to Coptic Christians. Your post makes little to no sense and is a stretch of the truth. Or, maybe you're right, if you can show me how time and time again that Muslims live under a different set of laws and the government treats them like different citizens and they are continually discriminated against. If anything, they are coddled due to PC anymore. But I'll await your links... Here's an article for you to ponder over, and you can reply with the similar treatment to Muslims here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_Egypt#Egypt

While the Egyptian government does not have a policy to persecute Christians, it discriminates against them and hampers their freedom of worship. Its agencies sporadically persecute Muslim converts to Christianity.[130] The government enforces Hamayouni Decree restrictions on building or repairing churches. These same restrictions, however, do not apply to mosques.[130]

The government has effectively restricted Christians from senior government, diplomatic, military, and educational positions, and there has been increasing discrimination in the private sector.[130][131] The government subsidizes media which attack Christianity and restricts Christians access to the state-controlled media.[130]

In Egypt the government does not officially recognize conversions from Islam to Christianity; because certain interfaith marriages are not allowed either, this prevents marriages between converts to Christianity and those born in Christian communities, and also results in the children of Christian converts being classified as Muslims and given a Muslim education.[130] The government also applies religiously discriminatory laws and practices concerning clergy salaries.[130]

Foreign missionaries are allowed in the country only if they restrict their activities to social improvements and refrain from proselytizing. The Coptic Pope Shenouda III was internally exiled in 1981 by President Anwar Sadat, who then chose five Coptic bishops and asked them to choose a new pope. They refused, and in 1985 President Hosni Mubarak restored Pope Shenouda III, who had been accused of fomenting interconfessional strife. Particularly in Upper Egypt, the rise in extremist Islamist groups such as the Gama'at Islamiya during the 1980s was accompanied by attacks on Copts and on Coptic churches; these have since declined with the decline of those organizations, but still continue. The police have been accused of siding with the attackers in some of these cases.[132]

Many colleges dictate quotas for Coptic students, often around 1 or 2% despite the group making up 15% of the country's population. There is also a separate tax-funded education system called Al Azhar, catering to students from elementary to college level, which accepts no Christian Coptic students, teachers or administrators.

And then just spend an eternity reading articles, and come back and show us how our government does the same. Your trying to say the same happens to Muslims here in the USA is ridiculous and unsupportable.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7mfH.pJQkEUABGVXNyoA?p=christians% 20persecution%20egypt&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-01-2012, 05:55 PM

So the Egyptian government is treating Christians like we treat Muslims?

You really are that damn dense! And you are a teacher, God help the unforunate kids that you teach..-Tyr

jimnyc

11-01-2012, 05:58 PM

You really are that damn dense! And you are a teacher, God help the unforunate kids that you teach..-Tyr

She thinks she is defending them at times, but it would benefit her to know the facts before making an ass out of herself. While some people are dickheads towards Muslims in the US, and maybe even some violent - NO WAY is our government persecuting Muslims, and she makes herself a fool for even suggesting as much.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-01-2012, 06:05 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0731/Egypt-s-beleaguered-Christians-worry-about-persecution-neglect-under-Morsi

Abu Qurqas, Egypt
Afaf Ibrahim Fanous walks through her brother’s former home, pointing out the fire-blackened walls, charred doorways, and gaping holes in the bathroom where the fixtures used to be.
Skip to next paragraph (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#nextParagraph)

The thick dust and cobwebs that have settled on the ruined house since last year don’t hide the signs of the fire and looting that took place during clashes between Muslims and Christians in this small village in the rural Nile valley. As Ms. Fanous reaches a balcony on the third floor, overlooking another burned house, this one with a cross on the outside walls, she begins to weep – but not over the ruined house.
Police arrested and tried 20 people – 12 Christians and eight Muslims – for their involvement in the clashes, during which Muslim crowds attacked and burned dozens of Christian homes and shops and Christians fired guns from their rooftops. One of the those arrested for the violence, which killed two people, was Fanous's brother.
All Christians on trial, including her brother, were sentenced to life in prison, while all Muslim defendants were acquitted.
To Fanous, it felt like another, unbearable, injustice added to the initial attack. “All the attackers are free; they weren’t punished. But the people who tried to defend their homes are all in prison,” she says.
It has been a difficult 18 months for Egyptian Christians. During the period between former President Hosni Mubarak (http://www.debatepolicy.com/tags/topic/Hosni+Mubarak)’s ouster and the election of a civilian president, in which Egypt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/tags/topic/Egypt) was under military rule, there were at least 12 incidents of serious sectarian violence, often involving Christian homes or churches being attacked and burned. On New Year’s Eve, 2011, a bomb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians are persecuted there and Gabby has the audacity to compare it to how muslims are treated here in the USA. Just another example of how uninformed and blindly ignorant the muslim appeasors are here .-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-01-2012, 06:09 PM

She thinks she is defending them at times, but it would benefit her to know the facts before making an ass out of herself. While some people are dickheads towards Muslims in the US, and maybe even some violent - NO WAY is our government persecuting Muslims, and she makes herself a fool for even suggesting as much.

Jim, take my word for it , she is fairly typical as an American muslim appeasor. They all are just about as damn stupd and blindly arrogant as she is while they dont care to know the truth or ever even search for it concerning Islam and its evils..Some at my old forum were even worse than her. I wonder how much of her massive ignorance does she pass onto those poor kids that have her as their teacher..-Tyr

Dilloduck

11-01-2012, 06:45 PM

Jim, take my word for it , she is fairly typical as an American muslim appeasor. They all are just about as damn stupd and blindly arrogant as she is while they dont care to know the truth or ever even search for it concerning Islam and its evils..Some at my old forum were even worse than her. I wonder how much of her massive ignorance does she pass onto those poor kids that have her as their teacher..-Tyr

What are "typical muslim appeasors" letting them get away with?

aboutime

11-01-2012, 07:05 PM

You really are that damn dense! And you are a teacher, God help the unforunate kids that you teach..-Tyr

Tyr. To be fair to Real teachers here. We should remember that NOT ALL OF THEM actually are qualified to teach. But rather. Be good sheep of the Union leadership that has guaranteed their Tenure...even if they can't spell, or tie their own shoes.

Just remember those thousands of Unqualified teachers in NYC, that cannot be fired due to Union rules. But cost the taxpayers millions each year for NOT TEACHING, but being able to watch tv, or play cards eight hours a day.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-02-2012, 10:16 AM

What are "typical muslim appeasors" letting them get away with?

Laying a foundation of course..

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-02-2012, 10:40 AM

Since Mohamed (saw) told us to be good to the Copts of Egypt and protect them, Sharia would benefit them more than secularism.

SHARIA BENEFITS NOBODY NOT EVEN THE MUSLIMS THAT IT SEEKS TO DEFEND BECAUSE IT ALSO COMMANDS THEY BE MURDERED FOR MINOR TRANSGRESSIONS TOO, ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN. -Tyr

Dilloduck

11-02-2012, 10:56 AM

Laying a foundation of course..

with rebar and everything ? Maybe this should go into the conspiracy section until you can prove some of it.

jimnyc

11-02-2012, 12:37 PM

So the Egyptian government is treating Christians like we treat Muslims?

I see you're back replying to other threads, and viewing this thread, just wondering if you're going to provide proof as requested to to the persecution, abuse and killings we give to Muslims here in the US?

jafar00

11-02-2012, 09:52 PM

SHARIA BENEFITS NOBODY NOT EVEN THE MUSLIMS THAT IT SEEKS TO DEFEND BECAUSE IT ALSO COMMANDS THEY BE MURDERED FOR MINOR TRANSGRESSIONS TOO, ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN. -Tyr

I've lived according to Sharia for many years. I've not seen any women murdered in my time. So many lies in your head Tyr. You are beginning to believe in fantasy.

jimnyc

11-02-2012, 10:30 PM

I've lived according to Sharia for many years. I've not seen any women murdered in my time. So many lies in your head Tyr. You are beginning to believe in fantasy.

Maybe not "murder", but put to death for the pettiest of crimes, at least in civilized countries they are petty. But I know that Islam thinks these things important and worthy of killing over. The consequences for not abiding by the law are very extreme. I would post endless instances of women getting beaten badly to killed, for things such as being out with a non relative male, to blasphemy, to apostasy, to being rape victims! I've posted these lists many times and they remain unanswered, ignored and met with trivial excuses and denials. Maybe Shariah works for some people in some areas, but like so many other things in Islam, far too many take it to extremes, pervert it, use it as a method of controlling people and ultimately abusing them.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-02-2012, 11:00 PM

I've lived according to Sharia for many years. I've not seen any women murdered in my time. So many lies in your head Tyr. You are beginning to believe in fantasy.

Videos and eyewitness accounts of women being stoned to death because they were raped are not fantasy.
That you claim it is clearly points to your delusions.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-02-2012, 11:02 PM

with rebar and everything ? Maybe this should go into the conspiracy section until you can prove some of it.

With a lot worse that rebar dude. That you belittle it points to your ignorance not mine.-Tyr

jafar00

11-03-2012, 04:14 AM

Videos and eyewitness accounts of women being stoned to death because they were raped are not fantasy.
That you claim it is clearly points to your delusions.-Tyr

Nobody has been stoned to death in recent times except by rogue groups like the Taliban. I don't get your point.

tailfins

11-03-2012, 06:34 AM

So the Egyptian government is treating Christians like we treat Muslims?

I will give you half credit. If you say TRY TO treat Muslims, maybe. We have the rule of law and it generally works including for Muslims. That rule of law is weakened when Obama does things like selective enforcement of immigration law and manipulates the liquidation process for failed companies to leave bondholders who invested in good faith with nothing while giving that money to the union.

jimnyc

11-03-2012, 07:32 AM

I will give you half credit. If you say TRY TO treat Muslims, maybe. We have the rule of law and it generally works including for Muslims. That rule of law is weakened when Obama does things like selective enforcement of immigration law and manipulates the liquidation process for failed companies to leave bondholders who invested in good faith with nothing while giving that money to the union.

Yep, and that rule of law has prevented anyone from being persecuted, including Muslims, and has prevented them from being killed, abused, maimed and having to deal with the abuses that occur in Egypt. But your reply will likely go unanswered even if she reads it, as when she is continually proven wrong for years, she reads the replies and moves along to another thread to make shit up or troll.

tailfins

11-03-2012, 07:55 AM

Yep, and that rule of law has prevented anyone from being persecuted, including Muslims, and has prevented them from being killed, abused, maimed and having to deal with the abuses that occur in Egypt. But your reply will likely go unanswered even if she reads it, as when she is continually proven wrong for years, she reads the replies and moves along to another thread to make shit up or troll.

As a veteran of the corporate culture, I learned to respond to the crowd, not the individual. What Gabby sees is almost inconsequential. Remember, the whole forum including lurkers is your audience. People like Gabby are an opportunity to make yourself look even more reasonable. If you want to do a presentation that asks the company to spend a million dollars, schedule it right after a presentation asking for two million so your request will look like a bargain.

jimnyc

11-03-2012, 08:00 AM

As a veteran of the corporate culture, I learned to respond to the crowd, not the individual. What Gabby sees is almost inconsequential. Remember, the whole forum including lurkers is your audience. People like Gabby are an opportunity to make yourself look even more reasonable. If you want to do a presentation that asks the company to spend a million dollars, schedule it right after a presentation asking for two million so your request will look like a bargain.

True dat. I can supply endless information about the persecution of Christians in Egypt, and it's irrefutable. Gabby CANNOT supply information about the persecution of Muslims in the USA. I can supply endless stories of the beatings and killings of Christians in Egypt, Gabby cannot supply the same about Muslims in the US. I can supply endless information about how the government discriminates and treats Christians in Egypt in an entirely different manner than Muslims, and Gabby obviously cannot do the same about Muslims in the US. I've provided this information about Egyptian Christians time and time again, and the Muslims who visit this site simply deny it or excuse it. I've supplied tons and tons and tons of information about the abuse of women over there too, and that's also ignored, denied or excused. Nearly 80% of women in Egypt admit to being abused and over 50% of men admit to abusing women. And that's Muslim-Muslim - so one can only imagine how these abusive animals treat people of another faith.

Drummond

11-03-2012, 09:02 AM

I've lived according to Sharia for many years. I've not seen any women murdered in my time. So many lies in your head Tyr. You are beginning to believe in fantasy.

... which proves what, exactly ?

I wasn't in New York on 11th September 2001. That doesn't prove that the city wasn't attacked on that day by Muslim savages.

I've never visited Tel Aviv, but I'm sure that suicide bombers have .. intent on murdering innocents just going about their business, people who 'have' to be killed for doing so, just because there are Muslims out there who want them dead.

I WAS in London on July 7th, 2005 .. and I know what happened in that city. No, I didn't witness any terrorism, I was lucky enough to avoid the actual bombing incidents, but, I was involved with finding commuting across the city extremely difficult that day, thanks to the events of the day.

Women ARE murdered according to Sharia Law, Jafar, this is well documented. You're going to tell me that no woman has ever been stoned to death, as a product of a Sharia judgment ?

jimnyc

11-03-2012, 09:14 AM

The logic of Shariah Law:

http://i.imgur.com/B1ip6.jpg

Drummond

11-03-2012, 09:24 AM

Nobody has been stoned to death in recent times except by rogue groups like the Taliban. I don't get your point.

Are you for real ???

Then ... these are false reports ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8978725/Iranian-woman-sentenced-to-be-stoned-to-death-may-be-hanged-instead.html

A court sentenced Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani to be stoned in 2006 but the sentence was suspended last year after an international outcry. However, under a judicial review being carried out she still could be hanged.

"There is no rush ... our Islamic experts are reviewing Ashtiani's sentence to see whether we can carry out the execution of a person sentenced to stoning by hanging," said Malek Ajdar Sharifi, head of judiciary in the East Azerbaijan province.

Ashtiani's husband was murdered in 2005, after which an Iranian (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/)court convicted the mother of two of having an "illicit relationship" with two men. For this, she was given a stoning sentence in 2006.

Amnesty International says she received 99 lashes as her sentence but she was subsequently convicted of "adultery while being married", which the human rights group says she denied.

Ashtiani, arrested in 2006, is already serving 10 years for being an accessory to her husband's murder in a prison in the East Azerbaijan.

A local judiciary official said last year that the stoning of Ashtiani had been suspended due to "humanitarian reservations", but did not rule out possibility of her execution.

"The sentence of Ashtiani will be carried out as soon as our experts announce their view," the official said.

Under Islamic law in force in Iran since the 1979 revolution, adultery may be punished by death by stoning and crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy and drug trafficking are all punishable by hanging.

The European Union called Ashtiani's stoning sentence "barbaric". The Vatican pleaded for clemency and Brazil offered her asylum. The case further strained Tehran's relations with the West, already at odds over Iran's disputed nuclear programme.

Two reporters for German newspaper Bild am Sonntag were detained in Iran in October last year when they were interviewing Ashtiani's son without official permission, highlighting the sensitivity of the case. The two were released in February.

Iranian authorities dismiss allegations of rights abuses, saying they are following Islamic law

So, OK, in that case, this unfortunate woman can 'look forward to' being put to death by hanging instead of being stoned to death (!!!) .. thanks to the international humanitarian outcry her stoning sentence provoked. Nonetheless ... the application of Sharia Law, Iran-style, allows for stoning sentences to this day.

See also ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206009/Iranian-refugee-faces-stoning-death-red-tape-Canadian-immigration-agency-force-deported.html

Government bureaucracy may lead to the deportation and stoning of an Iranian woman seeking asylum in Canada, as she may be forced back to her home country where he husband has accused her of adultery.

Fatemeh Derakhshandeh Tosarvandan denies her husband's claims, but she fears she will not get a fair trial in Iran, and women convicted of adultery face death by stoning.

.. and that story is just TWO MONTHS old, Jafar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Penalties

In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. In addition, there are several conditions related to the person who commits it that must be met. One of the difficult ones is that the punishment cannot be enforced unless there is a confession of the person, or four male eyewitnesses who each saw the act being committed. All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority.For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Quran and hadith is 100 lashes.However, Islamists in northern Mali, citing shariah law, stoned an unmarried couple who allegedly had children together to death in 2012.

Sharia Law leads to barbarism, Jafar. Admit it.

jimnyc

11-03-2012, 09:33 AM

But that's in Iran, Drummond, where it's a fake country with 75 million fake Muslims, so that doesn't count! LOL If you discount the "fake Muslims" who are violent, abusive, killers, terrorists, Shia and everything else discounted, that leaves about 500 Muslims. They are almost extinct!

jimnyc

11-03-2012, 09:35 AM

In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. In addition, there are several conditions related to the person who commits it that must be met. One of the difficult ones is that the punishment cannot be enforced unless there is a confession of the person, or four male eyewitnesses who each saw the act being committed. All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority.For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Quran and hadith is 100 lashes.However, Islamists in northern Mali, citing shariah law, stoned an unmarried couple who allegedly had children together to death in 2012.

Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!

Stoning, hanging, lashes, caning. To deny it is foolish, to proclaim it's only done by "not real Muslims" is just as foolish.

Drummond

11-03-2012, 09:54 AM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-03-2012, 09:58 AM

They do not need Sharia law to do great harm. They do so because all that is not Islam is wrong in their eyes. However, Sharia law further protects their insane belief system. And provides for punishment of all that do not believe! Thats what they want, all others to be slaves in the system that they are slaves in.-Tyr

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/middleeast/muslims-rage-over-film-fueled-by-culture-divide.html?pagewanted=all
Here in Cairo, ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis initially helped drum up outrage against the video and rally their supporters to protest outside the embassy. But by the time darkness fell and a handful of young men climbed the embassy wall, the Salafis were nowhere to be found, and they stayed away the rest of the week.
Egyptian officials said that some non-Salafis involved in the embassy attacks confessed to receiving payments, although no payer had been identified. But after the first afternoon, the next three days of protests were dominated by a relatively small number of teenagers and young men — including die-hard soccer fans known as ultras. They appeared to have been motivated mainly by the opportunity to attack the police, whom they revile.

“This is not the first time that Muslim beliefs are being insulted or Muslims humiliated,” said Emad Shahin, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo.
While he stressed that no one should ever condone violence against diplomats or embassies because of even the most offensive film, Mr. Shahin said it was easy to see why the protesters focused on the United States government’s outposts. “There is a war going on here,” he said. “This was a straw, if you will, that broke the camel’s back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They hate us because we have freedom and because we are not muslim. All that is not muslim is an insult to Allah!!--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-03-2012, 10:16 AM

:clap::clap:

Jim nailed it...

by the way,
Hey Drummonds clear your pms , I tried sending but it says your pmbox is full.

aboutime

11-03-2012, 01:51 PM

Are you for real ???

Then ... these are false reports ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8978725/Iranian-woman-sentenced-to-be-stoned-to-death-may-be-hanged-instead.html

So, OK, in that case, this unfortunate woman can 'look forward to' being put to death by hanging instead of being stoned to death (!!!) .. thanks to the international humanitarian outcry her stoning sentence provoked. Nonetheless ... the application of Sharia Law, Iran-style, allows for stoning sentences to this day.

See also ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206009/Iranian-refugee-faces-stoning-death-red-tape-Canadian-immigration-agency-force-deported.html

.. and that story is just TWO MONTHS old, Jafar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Penalties

Sharia Law leads to barbarism, Jafar. Admit it.

Drummond. A reminder. If I may? We are all, quite well aware of jafar's unquestionable dedication, and intolerance to anything proven to be factual, and true, that happens to be negative, or against everything jafar has been brainwashed to believe...without question.

jafar MUST defend, and Disagree in such a public forum as this or....he may become the victim of everything he DENIES in REAL LIFE.

tailfins

11-03-2012, 03:31 PM

True dat. I can supply endless information about the persecution of Christians in Egypt, and it's irrefutable. Gabby CANNOT supply information about the persecution of Muslims in the USA. I can supply endless stories of the beatings and killings of Christians in Egypt, Gabby cannot supply the same about Muslims in the US. I can supply endless information about how the government discriminates and treats Christians in Egypt in an entirely different manner than Muslims, and Gabby obviously cannot do the same about Muslims in the US. I've provided this information about Egyptian Christians time and time again, and the Muslims who visit this site simply deny it or excuse it. I've supplied tons and tons and tons of information about the abuse of women over there too, and that's also ignored, denied or excused. Nearly 80% of women in Egypt admit to being abused and over 50% of men admit to abusing women. And that's Muslim-Muslim - so one can only imagine how these abusive animals treat people of another faith.

From a bird's eye, executive point of view, getting bogged down in details is the road to failure. Any successful endeavor involves trusting those "closest to the action" to make proper decisions. For example, a CEO that evaluates every customer charge account is "off in the weeds". If someone starts "bending his ear" over how a single account is irresponsible with their money should get that person out of his presence. The same principle goes for detailing Muslim on Muslim violence overseas. Delving into such detail is a sand trap. It's truthfulness is irrelevant.

jimnyc

11-03-2012, 03:54 PM

From a bird's eye, executive point of view, getting bogged down in details is the road to failure. Any successful endeavor involves trusting those "closest to the action" to make proper decisions. For example, a CEO that evaluates every customer charge account is "off in the weeds". If someone starts "bending his ear" over how a single account is irresponsible with their money should get that person out of his presence. The same principle goes for detailing Muslim on Muslim violence overseas. Delving into such detail is a sand trap. It's truthfulness is irrelevant.

That would be true, 'cept my replies stemmed from Gabby claiming that the US treats Muslims like the Egyptian government treats Christians - and in that respect, my truthfulness is spot on. The thread topic is Shariah Law, which some defend as peaceful, yet when we really delve into places where Shariah is prevalent, we tend to find much death, abuse and discrimination. I'm simply supplying information about Shariah law and it's effects. I do understand what you're saying, but when dealing with Shariah, we really have no alternative but to talk about overseas, the damages involved, and why we would never want to see it adopted here.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-03-2012, 07:15 PM

From a bird's eye, executive point of view, getting bogged down in details is the road to failure. Any successful endeavor involves trusting those "closest to the action" to make proper decisions. For example, a CEO that evaluates every customer charge account is "off in the weeds". If someone starts "bending his ear" over how a single account is irresponsible with their money should get that person out of his presence. The same principle goes for detailing Muslim on Muslim violence overseas. Delving into such detail is a sand trap. It's truthfulness is irrelevant.

You are wrong. It is very important to exspose the lie that they are a religion of peace. What better way to do that than to post the verified examples of their abject brutality and murdering actions from around the globe. Were not that lie about them so strongly believed and often just a strongly defended it would not be necessary to do that. A lie like that left unchallenged just gains more victims. If the murderous deeds posted are truly deeds they have done then MORE PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW NOT LESS.. Your suggestion that its unimportant or not important enough to spread such true information falls directly on the LESS side ! That is dead wrong IMHO.
For the TRUTH about evil should never be covered up, only Satan wants it coverd up, hidden until its too late.. -Tyr

aboutime

11-03-2012, 08:42 PM

With only three days to go until the election. Everyone should remember this line:

Keep your friends close, and your enemies CLOSER!

jafar00

11-03-2012, 09:44 PM

The logic of Shariah Law:

http://i.imgur.com/B1ip6.jpg

All they "demaded" was the right to be treated with a little human kindness and respect.

Are you for real ???

Then ... these are false reports ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8978725/Iranian-woman-sentenced-to-be-stoned-to-death-may-be-hanged-instead.html

So, OK, in that case, this unfortunate woman can 'look forward to' being put to death by hanging instead of being stoned to death (!!!) .. thanks to the international humanitarian outcry her stoning sentence provoked. Nonetheless ... the application of Sharia Law, Iran-style, allows for stoning sentences to this day.

See also ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206009/Iranian-refugee-faces-stoning-death-red-tape-Canadian-immigration-agency-force-deported.html

.. and that story is just TWO MONTHS old, Jafar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Penalties

Sharia Law leads to barbarism, Jafar. Admit it.

See http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37592-Good-for-Texas-12-executions-of-guilty-murderers-in-10-months&p=590001#post590001

Iran is not ruled by Sharia but by it's own man made laws. You also cannot use reports from ragtag misfits like Taliban and Al Shabab as examples of Sharia. Sharia rulings can only come from legitimate governance. Anything else is anarchy.

jimnyc

11-04-2012, 08:42 AM

All they "demaded" was the right to be treated with a little human kindness and respect.

Maybe in that most recent march, I didn't pay attention to that crap, but from the time that video was released. there were MANY marches by Muslims and they were carrying signs saying "to hell with freedom" or "to hell with freedom of speech". Outside of that, they get treated just the same as everyone else, and sometimes better due to the political correctness crap. In some Islamic countries they would be killed for marching against the government! If I posted how these idiotic cockroaches did the same around the world, I could post hundreds of thousands of images, if not more. This theme is recurring. This is NOT asking for kindness or respect, this is more of Islam decrying freedom and wanting Islamic global domination.

http://i.imgur.com/xWSLL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/sRx5k.gif

http://i.imgur.com/PTFEH.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/OKzMf.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/c37cf.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/twrV8.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2wyCU.jpg

Just great, let's turn our kids into mini-cockroaches:

http://i.imgur.com/KCUPW.jpg

jimnyc

11-04-2012, 08:45 AM

Iran is not ruled by Sharia but by it's own man made laws. You also cannot use reports from ragtag misfits like Taliban and Al Shabab as examples of Sharia. Sharia rulings can only come from legitimate governance. Anything else is anarchy.

Has shariah been used to give sentences of stoning? Has shariah ever been used to give sentences of hanging? Sentences against women for simply being with another man, doing nothing wrong? Sentences against women for filing rape charges, but men didn't back the story, or it couldn't be proven, but nothing was proven wrong against her? Sentences of death to people for blasphemy? You can keep denying this stuff till you turn blue, or claim the countries and people doing so not to be Muslims, but soon it will be just yourself sitting on an Island as the only Muslim left on Earth.

Abbey Marie

11-04-2012, 08:47 AM

Looking at these pics, I see lots of anger and simplistic slogans. All in the name of Islam. And yet some here just keep on defending this tripe.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-04-2012, 09:10 AM

The driving force in Islam is hate.
If it were love as is the case in Christianity they would have missionaries all over the world spreading that message and spending hundreds of millions , possibly even billions around the world helping poor people of any race or religion as do the Christian churches. That they do not do this reveals their one agenda of domination rather than salvation! We see their true nature and its nothing but barbaric and evil. Winston Churchill had them pegged a hundred years ago. -Tyr

Winston Churchill, wrote in 1899:<O:p></O:p>
“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War

About Islam (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Islam) he wrote:

<TBODY>
“

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome

</TBODY>

Drummond

11-04-2012, 01:27 PM

Drummond. A reminder. If I may? We are all, quite well aware of jafar's unquestionable dedication, and intolerance to anything proven to be factual, and true, that happens to be negative, or against everything jafar has been brainwashed to believe...without question.

jafar MUST defend, and Disagree in such a public forum as this or....he may become the victim of everything he DENIES in REAL LIFE.

Well said !

Still, my thinking is this: for one thing, I actually enjoy shooting the Islam-sanitation stuff we see down in flames. If I can prove it deserves that .. and, of course, proof is there to offer !! .. then, why not ?

Possibly more to the point, though, is this - various people look in on this forum, some members, others just visiting. Some of those people may need convincing about the truth, and posts such as mine, and Tyr's, and yours, can serve that very useful purpose. And they, too, can then spread the word.

aboutime

11-04-2012, 01:33 PM

Well said !

Still, my thinking is this: for one thing, I actually enjoy shooting the Islam-sanitation stuff we see down in flames. If I can prove it deserves that .. and, of course, proof is there to offer !! .. then, why not ?

Possibly more to the point, though, is this - various people look in on this forum, some members, others just visiting. Some of those people may need convincing about the truth, and posts such as mine, and Tyr's, and yours, can serve that very useful purpose. And they, too, can then spread the word.

Thank you Drummond. I appreciate your candor, and wisdom above.

What we need to Hope for most is. Anyone who just happens to stop by as a visitor. Goes away recognizing, or knowing the differences between Falsehoods...that are offered as truth, and the TRUTH...that can never be changed, or lost as anything else.

I fear, our nation has become somewhat of a (pardon me) challenged, educational cesspool of Selfish, Lazy, Uneducated followers who always need SOMEONE else to do their thinking, and living for them. So we get an Obama, and Democrat party whose only purpose in life is to perpetuate their POLITICAL POWER...any way they can.

Drummond

11-04-2012, 01:39 PM

Maybe in that most recent march, I didn't pay attention to that crap, but from the time that video was released. there were MANY marches by Muslims and they were carrying signs saying "to hell with freedom" or "to hell with freedom of speech". Outside of that, they get treated just the same as everyone else, and sometimes better due to the political correctness crap. In some Islamic countries they would be killed for marching against the government! If I posted how these idiotic cockroaches did the same around the world, I could post hundreds of thousands of images, if not more. This theme is recurring. This is NOT asking for kindness or respect, this is more of Islam decrying freedom and wanting Islamic global domination.

http://i.imgur.com/xWSLL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/sRx5k.gif

http://i.imgur.com/PTFEH.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/OKzMf.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/c37cf.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/twrV8.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2wyCU.jpg

Just great, let's turn our kids into mini-cockroaches:

http://i.imgur.com/KCUPW.jpg

I think that most, if not all, of those photos are from the UK. At least one looks like it was taken in Luton (which has a high ethnic minority population).

It's understandable that pictures of marches like these would come from the UK, since it's here that our Left wing have worked hard to appease groups that organise these 'protests' ... although even THEY had to ban 'Islam4uk', formerly a mainstream group, when they threatened to target Wootton Bassett for one (which would've been a direct insult to our returning war dead from Helmand Province, Afghanistan).

The more people tolerate Islam and its barbarities, the greater expectation there is that such tolerance has to occur, and it's relentlessly exploited. These pictures show HOW it's exploited ... to preach messages of hate and conquest.

Those who act as enemies should not be treated as 'friends' ... EVER !!! I don't care how politically incorrect such an attitude is.

Drummond

11-04-2012, 01:41 PM

Thank you Drummond. I appreciate your candor, and wisdom above.

What we need to Hope for most is. Anyone who just happens to stop by as a visitor. Goes away recognizing, or knowing the differences between Falsehoods...that are offered as truth, and the TRUTH...that can never be changed, or lost as anything else.

I fear, our nation has become somewhat of a (pardon me) challenged, educational cesspool of Selfish, Lazy, Uneducated followers who always need SOMEONE else to do their thinking, and living for them. So we get an Obama, and Democrat party whose only purpose in life is to perpetuate their POLITICAL POWER...any way they can.:clap::clap:

Drummond

11-04-2012, 01:42 PM

Jim nailed it...

by the way,
Hey Drummonds clear your pms , I tried sending but it says your pmbox is full.

Sorry, Tyr, just seen this. Having a clearout momentarily !

aboutime

11-04-2012, 01:46 PM

:clap::clap:

Something that should bother ALL OF US...namely jafar. If he is as sincere as he claims to be is. Those signs that say

"FREEDOM GO TO HELL".

Anyone who feels that way deserves Nothing in return.

The rest of the World...that isn't so scared, and unafraid to confront such RADICAL idiots. Needs to remember.

Those who hate FREEDOM deserve nothing from anyone except. Hope that they make their dreams come true. And they KILL THEMSELVES.

jimnyc

11-04-2012, 01:51 PM

I think that most, if not all, of those photos are from the UK. At least one looks like it was taken in Luton (which has a high ethnic minority population).

It's understandable that pictures of marches like these would come from the UK, since it's here that our Left wing have worked hard to appease groups that organise these 'protests' ... although even THEY had to ban 'Islam4uk', formerly a mainstream group, when they threatened to target Wootton Bassett for one (which would've been a direct insult to our returning war dead from Helmand Province, Afghanistan).

The more people tolerate Islam and its barbarities, the greater expectation there is that such tolerance has to occur, and it's relentlessly exploited. These pictures show HOW it's exploited ... to preach messages of hate and conquest.

Those who act as enemies should not be treated as 'friends' ... EVER !!! I don't care how politically incorrect such an attitude is.

Could be, they have done the same in many marches in NYC. I believe they have a problem with freedoms in both nations, and obviously have a problem with any of us speaking our minds - as they march with signs calling for "Death to America". They even march in Islamic countries with the same signs, as if it'll change anything here.

Drummond

11-04-2012, 02:11 PM

Could be, they have done the same in many marches in NYC. I believe they have a problem with freedoms in both nations, and obviously have a problem with any of us speaking our minds - as they march with signs calling for "Death to America". They even march in Islamic countries with the same signs, as if it'll change anything here.

Jim, they quite literally have a problem with freedom anywhere ! One of the UK's militant preachers, one Anjem Choudary, is on record as wanting to see democracy done away with throughout the world, and Sharia Law implemented in its place, under Muslim Caliphates. He admitted as much in an interview with Sean Hannity (I believe I've posted the link before now on this forum). He has been candid as wanting to see America run in just that way. And I believe he's actively working for such an outcome (along with associates, no doubt)

The posters you saw in those pictures should be taken literally, Jim.

aboutime

11-04-2012, 02:24 PM

Jim, they quite literally have a problem with freedom anywhere ! One of the UK's militant preachers, one Anjem Choudary, is on record as wanting to see democracy done away with throughout the world, and Sharia Law implemented in its place, under Muslim Caliphates. He admitted as much in an interview with Sean Hannity (I believe I've posted the link before now on this forum). He has been candid as wanting to see America run in just that way. And I believe he's actively working for such an outcome (along with associates, no doubt)

The posters you saw in those pictures should be taken literally, Jim.

Drummond, and Jim. That is what many of us recognize as taking place here in the USA as well. As many will disagree now. Namely those who voted for Obama in 2008. The Radical branch of Muslim, and Islam has taken hold here. Seemingly with the blessings of Obama, and the Democrats who have been MAKING CERTAIN...the Educational levels of those Americans who always vote for them....never really improves...even as Obama, and the Dems constantly claim...they are for increasing Educational Spending. But they stop short at NOT ADMITTING...that spending is for the TEACHER UNION membership who OWNES Obama, and the Democrats.

If those Americans who voted for Obama ever discovered...through better education. How Obama and the Democrats have been playing the BLACK AMERICANS against everyone else. They would NEVER vote for Democrats, or Obama again.

Drummond

11-04-2012, 02:33 PM

Jim, they quite literally have a problem with freedom anywhere ! One of the UK's militant preachers, one Anjem Choudary, is on record as wanting to see democracy done away with throughout the world, and Sharia Law implemented in its place, under Muslim Caliphates. He admitted as much in an interview with Sean Hannity (I believe I've posted the link before now on this forum). He has been candid as wanting to see America run in just that way. And I believe he's actively working for such an outcome (along with associates, no doubt)

The posters you saw in those pictures should be taken literally, Jim.

I've just dug this link out .. I'm assuming the video will work in America (?).

It's primarily centred on the UK's situation, but also contains Choudary's clear intent ... worldwide domination of Islam. He makes it clear that the US is a specific target in mind. [Note his comments just slightly more than 1 minute into this video ..]

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/uk-choudary-al-qaeda-phenomenon-loved-by-the-majority-of-muslims-worldwide-and-we-all-know-islam-will-rule-the-world/

aboutime

11-04-2012, 02:42 PM

I've just dug this link out .. I'm assuming the video will work in America (?).

It's primarily centred on the UK's situation, but also contains Choudary's clear intent ... worldwide domination of Islam. He makes it clear that the US is a specific target in mind. [Note his comments just slightly more than 1 minute into this video ..]

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/uk-choudary-al-qaeda-phenomenon-loved-by-the-majority-of-muslims-worldwide-and-we-all-know-islam-will-rule-the-world/

Drummond. The link works. Thank you. They are not afraid to tell anyone they want WORLD DOMINATION. And if they need to kill anyone who gets in their way. That so-called Book Of Peaceful Religion has been distorted by the Radicals who threaten...even their own people.

Of course. The Government Dependent Americans who fully support Obama. See nothing wrong with that kind of thinking. As long as when the HOLD OUT THEIR HANDS...Obama and his Brotherhood of Death will make certain....they will get, take, steal, or kill anyone who stands in their way.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-04-2012, 03:15 PM

Drummond

11-04-2012, 03:24 PM

D, THE LINK WORKED. More Brits need to listen to what that old lady said early in the video, "we need to fight".
For that is exactly what is required now because the Brits let it get out of hand . There is a fight coming there, the question is will it be too damn late and Im sorry to say but it looks like it is to me now. Simply because the muslims hav e too much power in government, the EU already sides with them against you Brits, you Brits have far too many leftist turncoats allied with the muslims!
Unless revolution occurs there Britain will be destroyed!! -Tyr

Well put, Tyr, and thanks.

I doubt that we'll see revolution .. and if we did, it would come far too late. A point not made in the video is that the Labour Party's indoctrination efforts have convinced many that Islam can't be countered, since to try, would be racist.

But I see America as a more important battleground, because you're not as far along this road as we are, and you're way more salvageable. A Romney win .. though I don't think he's Conservative enough ! .. is nonetheless vitally important if Obama's Socialist agenda is to be stopped as it MUST be.

Because if it's not, trust me .. the similarities between the UK and the US will become ever more unmistakeable over time.

aboutime

11-04-2012, 03:33 PM

Well put, Tyr, and thanks.

I doubt that we'll see revolution .. and if we did, it would come far too late. A point not made in the video is that the Labour Party's indoctrination efforts have convinced many that Islam can't be countered, since to try, would be racist.

But I see America as a more important battleground, because you're not as far along this road as we are, and you're way more salvageable. A Romney win .. though I don't think he's Conservative enough ! .. is nonetheless vitally important if Obama's Socialist agenda is to be stopped as it MUST be.

Because if it's not, trust me .. the similarities between the UK and the US will become ever more unmistakeable over time.

Drummond. How odd is it today? Here we are, living in the Colonies of our Former King in Great Britain. Telling you. A resident of G.B. more than 235 years later. About a REVOLUTION????

Not taking it lightly. Not intended to be that way. However. Sharing your life with us, there in the British Isles only makes Me, and others...I'm sure. Wonder, and worry with anger. Seeing such things becoming reality, and feeling helpless for ways to help you overcome.

I am a 30 year veteran of a nation I now must convince myself...I am still proud of, for serving. While the very people I helped to defend for those 30 years are now part of a group...trying to take all of the Constitutional rights I earned, and dedicated my life to preserve....not for me, but our son's and our grandchildren.
And what can I tell them about being Proud????

I honestly can't as long as the Idiot Obama stays in office.

Drummond

11-04-2012, 08:40 PM

Drummond. How odd is it today? Here we are, living in the Colonies of our Former King in Great Britain. Telling you. A resident of G.B. more than 235 years later. About a REVOLUTION????

Not taking it lightly. Not intended to be that way. However. Sharing your life with us, there in the British Isles only makes Me, and others...I'm sure. Wonder, and worry with anger. Seeing such things becoming reality, and feeling helpless for ways to help you overcome.

I am a 30 year veteran of a nation I now must convince myself...I am still proud of, for serving. While the very people I helped to defend for those 30 years are now part of a group...trying to take all of the Constitutional rights I earned, and dedicated my life to preserve....not for me, but our son's and our grandchildren.
And what can I tell them about being Proud????

I honestly can't as long as the Idiot Obama stays in office.

Certainly 'odd' in its way, I suppose.

What strikes me as being even odder is that, if we did have that revolution, its purpose would be to revolt against something subverting us, effectively, we'd have a revolution to BE what we ARE ...

You may call Obama an idiot ... well, maybe, but for my part I see him as a leader who's leading you down a path already trodden by others of his 'persuasion'. Is it 'idiocy', or, something a lot more pernicious than that ? Is he a bit-player in a wider movement designed to force America into being relegated into the role of a mere cog in a World Order, one definably Socialist ?

I ask the point because I'm struck by the methodological similarities that crop up between Nation States that are Socialist led. The drive towards socialised healthcare. The common tactic of borrowing massively to fund social projects. The dependency cultures created. The insistence of deference to other social orders and faiths.

All these things can become component parts in a greater globalised whole, if then socially interwoven in that context. There's all this cloning of methods that goes on, from Nation State to Nation State ... I find it suspicious.

I think Obama is working to weaken your country. He wants its military activities overseas curtailed. I think he wants its economy in thrall to foreign currency dependency, and I think he wants a thinking to exist in the ordinary citizen that's dependency-oriented.

So, is it idiocy ? Or clear SABOTAGE ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-04-2012, 08:52 PM

aboutime

11-04-2012, 09:06 PM

Certainly 'odd' in its way, I suppose.

What strikes me as being even odder is that, if we did have that revolution, its purpose would be to revolt against something subverting us, effectively, we'd have a revolution to BE what we ARE ...

You may call Obama an idiot ... well, maybe, but for my part I see him as a leader who's leading you down a path already trodden by others of his 'persuasion'. Is it 'idiocy', or, something a lot more pernicious than that ? Is he a bit-player in a wider movement designed to force America into being relegated into the role of a mere cog in a World Order, one definably Socialist ?

I ask the point because I'm struck by the methodological similarities that crop up between Nation States that are Socialist led. The drive towards socialised healthcare. The common tactic of borrowing massively to fund social projects. The dependency cultures created. The insistence of deference to other social orders and faiths.

All these things can become component parts in a greater globalised whole, if then socially interwoven in that context. There's all this cloning of methods that goes on, from Nation State to Nation State ... I find it suspicious.

I think Obama is working to weaken your country. He wants its military activities overseas curtailed. I think he wants its economy in thrall to foreign currency dependency, and I think he wants a thinking to exist in the ordinary citizen that's dependency-oriented.

So, is it idiocy ? Or clear SABOTAGE ?

Drummond. I do believe. If you asked each of us that question. We'd all feel compelled to reply...BOTH.

As much as I despise using such words, or names. Dragging them out here seem almost as harmful, and counter to what we are all trying to avoid in the REALITY of what we see taking place. Right before our eyes. And it almost seems Unreal, or Impossible to swallow, coming as it is....from our own people, but. As I said. I despise using this name...HITLER. But the mere mention of his name, and understanding what his intentions was for the world in the 1930's, into the 1940's...seem to almost be happening once more. With different names, and different tactics....right here on our shores.

Of course. I understand. Using that name will be looked upon here, almost as unwelcomed as the mention of conspiracy theories that seem to be spreading wildly...whenever someone feels a need to do so.

Hard as this may sound. Honestly speaking. I really feel the CULPRIT for nearly everything taking place around the world today, has been caused by, or is seated in the advent of the Internet.

Within seconds. The people of the entire world have access to both Real, and Fabricated News. None of which is given the time needed to fully Vet or investigate....and all of which instantly becomes FACTS filled with hatred, lies, bigotry, racism, threats, and personal destruction of innocent people.

Call me crazy. But, I thank God my life is drawing to a close within the next twenty years...I suspect.
But I am angry I won't be around to help our five Grandchildren....either survive, or become victims of hatred, and stupidity.

Abbey Marie

11-04-2012, 09:11 PM

aboutime

11-04-2012, 09:17 PM

With all the bowing and scraping Obama does, it just might.

Abbey. Despite all of this Anti-American, Muslim, Islamic hatred that is seemingly condoned by the Obama silence squads.

Look at all of the valuable time the Obama administration has paid, and dedicated to (while Benghazi was happening) the wonder of Children's television for forty years...The One, the Only...BIG BIRD.

Maybe Obama and company will change the nations most prized symbol...the BALD EAGLE, and replace it with BIG BIRD???

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-05-2012, 04:06 PM

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/03/247401.html

Missing Christian girl may spark sectarian strife in EgyptSaturday, 03 November 2012
http://images.alarabiya.net/d4/4d/640x392_15089_247401.jpg An Egyptian Coptic Christian raises a cross while others shout slogans in a demonstration last year following clashes between Muslims and Christians in Cairo. (AFP)

<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 110px; HEIGHT: 20px" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter For Websites: Tweet Button" src="http://platform0.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.html?_=1308556250267&count=horizontal&id=twitter_tweet_button_0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.alarabiya.ne t%2Farticles%2F2012%2F11%2F03%2F247401.html&text=Missing Christian girl may spark sectarian strife in Egypt&url=http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/03/247401.html" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME>
<IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 100px; HEIGHT: 21px; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" src="//www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.alarabiya.net%2 Farticles%2F2012%2F11%2F03%2F247401.html&send=false&layout=button_count&width=100&show_faces=false&action=like&colorscheme=light&font&height=21" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME>
<IFRAME style="POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 120px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 20px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=I0_1352149415000 title=+1 tabIndex=0 vspace=0 marginHeight=0 src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=m&abtk=AEIZW7Q0Y/MB76mpB1p%2BE1EMFjy4H9URkwhZWEr66h1d/zP2H6WN1A5sKO9QVO3Nw5Q2PUOQjOt0W8Iuzh18DvKx8RsjSf5/LjtNnRZmZt75ns2NYoi6G04%3D&width=120&annotation=inline&size=medium&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.alarabiya.net&url=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.alarabiya.net%2Farticles% 2F2012%2F11%2F03%2F247401.html&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fv er%3DRxsQhRw0ZtQ.en_US.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!EjuVRaiyN aqIjBsSTg%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTN0jrMAkykuS5x5MVsoP 5ReEV_ARA#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_ open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1352149415000&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.alarabiya.net" frameBorder=0 width="100%" allowTransparency name=I0_1352149415000 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no hspace=0></IFRAME>

http://assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http://english.alarabiya.net/&media=http://english.alarabiya.net/&description=http://english.alarabiya.net/)
inShare (javascript:void(0);)0

By Al Arabiya

Egyptian Salafi Front statements about a missing Christian girl may cause sectarian conflict, the national council for women spokesperson warned Thursday, Al Masry Al Youm news site reported.

Sarah Ishaq Abdel Malak, an alleged convert to Islam, disappeared from a school in Matrouh province on September 30. After her father filed a missing report, a schoolmate suggested a local Muslim man was involved, Egypt Independent reported.

The Salafi Front said Abdel Malak is not a minor, hinting it is aware of her location. It also denied ties with the girl and the alleged abductor, identified as 27 year old Mahmoud Abu Zied Abdel Gawwad.

Council head Meryat al-Talawy said her group alerted the media following the missing report.

“The girl, who is still a minor, was forced to marry at an early age, in violation of Egyptian law and the international Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Talawy said, adding the girl’s age makes it difficult for her to differentiate religions, complicating her alleged conversion to Islam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sharia law allows for this kind of crap....-Tyr

jafar00

11-05-2012, 07:44 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sharia law allows for this kind of crap....-Tyr

How do you know she didn't flee her Coptic family because they would kill her for converting?

Don't take my word for it. It can and DOES happen.

Three Coptic brothers have been arrested on suspicion of murdering their sister, her husband and five year-old son in what seems to be a sectarian hate crime.
The couple’s six year-old daughter, Nada, was the only survivor, even though she sustained neck wounds. The outrageous murder took place in the Cairo district of Boulaq Al-Dakrour.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/10609/Egypt/Politics-/Three-Coptic-brothers-accused-of-killing-sister,-h.aspx

And you think that Copts are just poor, warm and cuddly, and persecuted for no reason.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-05-2012, 08:00 PM

How do you know she didn't flee her Coptic family because they would kill her for converting?

Don't take my word for it. It can and DOES happen.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/10609/Egypt/Politics-/Three-Coptic-brothers-accused-of-killing-sister,-h.aspx

And you think that Copts are just poor, warm and cuddly, and persecuted for no reason.

So, one incident although a terrible tragedy does not excuse the many many instances of muslims doing that.-Tyr

aboutime

11-05-2012, 08:18 PM

So, one incident although a terrible tragedy does not excuse the many many instances of muslims doing that.-Tyr

Tyr. Are any of us sure jafar isn't just a code name for an Obama stand-in here?

Jafar makes so many excuses, and finds reasons to defend radicals. You'd almost swear we were reading the words of Obama.

jafar00

11-05-2012, 10:26 PM

So, one incident although a terrible tragedy does not excuse the many many instances of muslims doing that.-Tyr

One incident of many across history.

There are many good stories though like this girl who escaped her Coptic torturers to embrace Islam and find happiness and peace at last.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgWb3mTUtvQ

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-06-2012, 08:19 AM

One incident of many across history.

There are many good stories though like this girl who escaped her Coptic torturers to embrace Islam and find happiness and peace at last.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgWb3mTUtvQ

Really? How did they torture her?

jafar00

11-06-2012, 10:22 PM

Really? How did they torture her?

Watch the video. Last I heard, she was still on the run and in hiding from Copts who want to kill her.

Drummond

11-06-2012, 10:44 PM

Watch the video. Last I heard, she was still on the run and in hiding from Copts who want to kill her.

Ridiculous. The whole thing is very obviously propagandist. Hardly done as a neutrally-delivered report !!!

And all the Islamic singing and 'wailing' in the soundtrack gets decidedly tedious after, well, about 8 seconds in ....

jafar00

11-07-2012, 06:45 AM

Ridiculous. The whole thing is very obviously propagandist. Hardly done as a neutrally-delivered report !!!

And all the Islamic singing and 'wailing' in the soundtrack gets decidedly tedious after, well, about 8 seconds in ....

If you won't watch it, you can't criticise it. Fact: Copts who convert to Islam are turned upon by their families and friends. Some are killed. Others are kidnapped, tortured and brainwashed to get them back. Copts can be downright nasty people.

Drummond

11-07-2012, 08:12 PM

If you won't watch it, you can't criticise it. Fact: Copts who convert to Islam are turned upon by their families and friends. Some are killed. Others are kidnapped, tortured and brainwashed to get them back. Copts can be downright nasty people.

I haven't watched it ? You're claiming that, when it was obvious from my previous comment that I could describe what I'd heard from it ???

I regard the video as propagandist Jafar, very obviously biased in the extreme. And, I note this .. the nature of your posting is meant to make the reader think that this is all one way .. that it's those naughty, villainous Copts who are doing all the nastiness.

Jafar, where in your posting are you AT ALL critical of what the MUSLIMS did to the COPTS ? Funny how this doesn't get a mention, eh ? Well ... I'm now mentioning it ...

Note this Wikipedia link .. it took me all of 2 minutes to find it .. now, unless you'd like to tell me that Wikipedia is lying, you can see from the following that there is a LOT more to this than you've admitted to >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts

In 1952, Nasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser) led some army officers in a coup d'état against King Farouk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farouk_of_Egypt), which overthrew the Kingdom of Egypt and established a republic. Nasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser)'s mainstream policy was pan-Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arab) nationalism and socialism. The Copts were severely affected by Nasser's nationalization policies because, though they represented about 10–20% of the population, they were so economically prosperous that they held more than 50% of the country's wealth. In addition, Nasser's pan-Arab policies undermined the Copts' strong attachment to and sense of identity about their Egyptian pre-Arab, and certainly non-Arab, identity; permits to construct churches were delayed, Christian religious courts were closed, and the regime confiscated land and Church properties from Copts. As a result, many Copts left their country for Australia, North America, or Europe.

Religious freedom in Egypt is hampered to varying degrees by discriminatory and restrictive government policies. Coptic Christians, being the largest religious minority in Egypt, are also negatively affected. Copts have faced increasing marginalization after the 1952 coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) led by Gamal Abdel Nasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser). Until recently, Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians) were required to obtain presidential approval for even minor repairs in churches. Although the law was eased in 2005 by handing down the authority of approval to the governors, Copts continue to face many obstacles and restrictions in building new churches. These restrictions do not apply for building mosques.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts#cite_note-57) The Coptic community has been targeted by hate crimes and physical assaults. The most significant was the 2000–01 El Kosheh attacks, in which Muslims and Christians were involved in bloody inter-religious clashes following a dispute between a Muslim and a Christian. "Twenty Christians and one Muslim were killed after violence broke out in the town of el-Kosheh, 440 kilometres (270 mi) south of Cairo". International Christian Concern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Christian_Concern) reported that in February 2001, Muslims burned a new Egyptian church and the homes of 35 Christians, and that in April 2001 a 14-year-old Egyptian Christian girl was kidnapped because her parents were believed to be harboring a person who had converted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion) from Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) to Christianity.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts#cite_note-60)
In 2006, one person attacked three churches in Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria), killing one person and injuring 5-16 The attacker was not linked to any organisation and described as "psychologically disturbed" by the Ministry of Interior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Interior_%28Egypt%29).In May 2010, The Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal) reported increasing "waves of mob assaults" by Muslims against Copts, forcing many Christians to flee their homes. Despite frantic calls for help, the police typically arrived after the violence was over. The police also coerced the Copts to accept "reconciliation" with their attackers to avoid prosecuting them, with no Muslims convicted for any of the attacks. In Marsa Matrouh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsa_Matrouh), a mob of 3,000 Muslims attacked the city's Coptic population, with 400 Copts having to barricade themselves in their church while the mob destroyed 18 homes, 23 shops and 16 cars.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts#cite_note-Egypt.27s_Persecuted_Christians-63)
Members of U.S. Congress have expressed concern about "human trafficking" of Coptic women and girls who are victims of abductions, forced conversion to Islam, sexual exploitation and forced marriage to Muslim men.

Jafar, there's not a mention from you of ANY of this ! Anyone taking your posts at face value would likely thing that the Copts are the only villains involved, and that it's the Muslim side that's the victimised one. Well ... NOT SO.

The least that can be reasonably said is that there's 'history' between the Muslims and Copts, one in which IT IS THE COPTS WHO'VE FACED VERY CONSIDERABLE PAST VICTIMISATION FROM THE MUSLIMS.

So, tell me. Do you STILL feel inclined to say that Islam is 'a religion of peace' ?

jimnyc

11-07-2012, 08:19 PM

If you won't watch it, you can't criticise it. Fact: Copts who convert to Islam are turned upon by their families and friends. Some are killed. Others are kidnapped, tortured and brainwashed to get them back. Copts can be downright nasty people.

I'm sure that's true. What concerns me most in Egypt, is not that the religions and citizens go after one another, and not that families will turn on one another - but the fact that the government and police take sides and discriminate and persecute just the Christians.

jafar00

11-08-2012, 12:26 AM

I haven't watched it ? You're claiming that, when it was obvious from my previous comment that I could describe what I'd heard from it ???

I regard the video as propagandist Jafar, very obviously biased in the extreme. And, I note this .. the nature of your posting is meant to make the reader think that this is all one way .. that it's those naughty, villainous Copts who are doing all the nastiness.

Jafar, where in your posting are you AT ALL critical of what the MUSLIMS did to the COPTS ? Funny how this doesn't get a mention, eh ? Well ... I'm now mentioning it ...

Note this Wikipedia link .. it took me all of 2 minutes to find it .. now, unless you'd like to tell me that Wikipedia is lying, you can see from the following that there is a LOT more to this than you've admitted to >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts

Jafar, there's not a mention from you of ANY of this ! Anyone taking your posts at face value would likely thing that the Copts are the only villains involved, and that it's the Muslim side that's the victimised one. Well ... NOT SO.

The least that can be reasonably said is that there's 'history' between the Muslims and Copts, one in which IT IS THE COPTS WHO'VE FACED VERY CONSIDERABLE PAST VICTIMISATION FROM THE MUSLIMS.

So, tell me. Do you STILL feel inclined to say that Islam is 'a religion of peace' ?

Likewise, are Muslims the only villains? The previous government in Egypt was to blame for much of the strife. Some members of the interior ministry are up on charges of terrorism for bombing the Church in Alex and blaming it on the Salafis because Mubarak was afraid of "Islamists". I was enough to have a beard back then to be harassed by the police.

Marcus Aurelius

11-08-2012, 09:27 AM

Ashtiani's husband was murdered in 2005, after which an Iranian (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/)court convicted the mother of two of having an "illicit relationship" with two men. For this, she was given a stoning sentence in 2006.

Under Islamic law in force in Iran since the 1979 revolution, adultery may be punished by death by stoning and crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy and drug trafficking are all punishable by hanging.

Interesting how these stories always center around the woman. When was the last time anyone saw a story about a Sharia Law case where they mentioned the punishment of the man or men involved in a murder or rape???

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

jafar00

11-08-2012, 01:28 PM

Interesting how these stories always center around the woman. When was the last time anyone saw a story about a Sharia Law case where they mentioned the punishment of the man or men involved in a murder or rape???

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Yes I agree that Iran's system of law is flawed. Shia'ism is a terrible religion.

Next Question.

aboutime

11-08-2012, 02:56 PM

Yes I agree that Iran's system of law is flawed. Shia'ism is a terrible religion.

Next Question.

jafar. Another phony, rhetorical response that helps you stay out of being committed to actually being held responsible. It actually was a Non-answer...trying your double-talk, much like Obama. Not really stating the truth by pointing another direction.

You may be a very learned person. But your phoniness shines through, no matter how hard you try to impress others.

jimnyc

11-08-2012, 03:07 PM

Yes I agree that Iran's system of law is flawed. Shia'ism is a terrible religion.

Next Question.

I didn't realize Shariah law was only in Iran? Seemed like his legit comment, which is VERY true to my understanding, was about Shariah in general, which basically is used as a tool to discriminate against women. About 90+% of stories that I hear about people being "punished" based on Sharia Law turns out to be women. Not to say it never happens to men, but men are certainly favored.

Marcus Aurelius

11-08-2012, 03:17 PM

Yes I agree that Iran's system of law is flawed. Shia'ism is a terrible religion.

Next Question.

My next question is the one you failed to answer...

When was the last time anyone saw a story about a Sharia Law case where they mentioned the punishment of the man or men involved in a murder or rape???

Marcus Aurelius

11-08-2012, 03:22 PM

aboutime

11-08-2012, 03:36 PM

BTW, just so everyone knows where I am coming from, as I am a 'newbie' here... My issue is with Sharia law, not Islam. I know a fair amount about Islam as it is meant to be practiced, and find quite a lot of good in it. Contrarily, I find quite a lot bad in Sharia.

Marcus. Go right ahead and speak your mind. I do believe. It's a safe bet. Everyone will accept all that you have to offer here.

Our biggest complaints are. Those who constantly use hyperbole, fabrications, and downright Lies to express themselves here.

Usually those things come from members who are convinced. Only they are capable of producing the information, they insist is true. And they are under the impression that the rest of us are so terribly uneducated...compared to them. That we MUST be wrong. Without any doubt.

Honesty, and Truth cannot be changed. Like Mark Twain said...4040

Marcus Aurelius

11-08-2012, 04:07 PM

Marcus. Go right ahead and speak your mind. I do believe. It's a safe bet. Everyone will accept all that you have to offer here.

Our biggest complaints are. Those who constantly use hyperbole, fabrications, and downright Lies to express themselves here.

Usually those things come from members who are convinced. Only they are capable of producing the information, they insist is true. And they are under the impression that the rest of us are so terribly uneducated...compared to them. That we MUST be wrong. Without any doubt.

Honesty, and Truth cannot be changed. Like Mark Twain said...4040

Oh, I am completely used to dealing with those kind of posters from my old board. They are generally easy enough to handle, although they tend not to actually be smart enough to 'know' they've been handled ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-08-2012, 06:54 PM

BTW, just so everyone knows where I am coming from, as I am a 'newbie' here... My issue is with Sharia law, not Islam. I know a fair amount about Islam as it is meant to be practiced, and find quite a lot of good in it. Contrarily, I find quite a lot bad in Sharia.

Sharia law is as much a part of Islam as is Jihad. Both are curses upon mankind but will never be seperated from the religious/political/militant cult.-Tyr

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 07:53 PM

Sharia law is as much a part of Islam as is Jihad. Both are curses upon mankind but will never be seperated from the religious/political/militant cult.-Tyr

Are you playing Nostradamus again ? History shows us that violent and oppressive religions can reform.

Drummond

11-08-2012, 07:56 PM

Likewise, are Muslims the only villains? The previous government in Egypt was to blame for much of the strife. Some members of the interior ministry are up on charges of terrorism for bombing the Church in Alex and blaming it on the Salafis because Mubarak was afraid of "Islamists". I was enough to have a beard back then to be harassed by the police.

Now, why would Mubarak be afraid of Islamists ? Aren't Islamists warm, cuddly types committed to their 'religion of peace' ?

Maybe he understood that Muslims were capable of .. I quote .. 'In Marsa Matrouh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsa_Matrouh), a mob of 3,000 Muslims attacked the city's Coptic population, with 400 Copts having to barricade themselves in their church while the mob destroyed 18 homes, 23 shops and 16 cars.'

Not just one or two, there, Jafar - THREE THOUSAND OF THEM ...

My link showed you that the Copts had taken considerable persecution over a long period .. but, sure enough, you glossed over all of that. You persist in slanting things to try and fail to recognise that Muslims can be, and HAVE BEEN, the instigators of violence and much worse besides.

Jafar, if you're so against violent Muslims and consider them an aberration in Islamic terms, why do you not choose to speak out against that ? Why try to sanitise the truth instead, or brush it all under the carpet, in the hope that nobody will take you up on it ?

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 07:59 PM

Now, why would Mubarak be afraid of Islamists ? Aren't Islamists warm, cuddly types committed to their 'religion of peace' ?

Maybe he understood that Muslims were capable of .. I quote .. 'In Marsa Matrouh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsa_Matrouh), a mob of 3,000 Muslims attacked the city's Coptic population, with 400 Copts having to barricade themselves in their church while the mob destroyed 18 homes, 23 shops and 16 cars.'

Not just one or two, there, Jafar - THREE THOUSAND OF THEM ...

My link showed you that the Copts had taken considerable persecution over a long period .. but, sure enough, you glossed over all of that. You persist in slanting things to try and fail to recognise that Muslims can be, and HAVE BEEN, the instigators of violence and much worse besides.

Jafar, if you're so against violent Muslims and consider them an aberration in Islamic terms, why do you not choose to speak out against that ? Why try to sanitise the truth instead, or brush it all under the carpet, in the hope that nobody will take you up on it ?

I think there are quite enough bigots who choose to only condemn Islam instead of talk about it's good points. I think we can handle someone defending the religion without being compelled to present a "balanced" report.

Drummond

11-08-2012, 08:05 PM

I think there are quite enough bigots who choose to only condemn Islam instead of talk about it's good points. I think we can handle someone defending the religion without being compelled to present a "balanced" report.

.... umm ... you're against balanced reports, Dilloduck ?

Imagine you're a reporter in New York City, trying to interview a survivor of the 9/11 attack there .. and the person you were interviewing had just learned that Al Qaeda had been identified as being behind the attack. You say to the interviewee .. 'I think there are quite enough bigots who choose to only condemn Islam instead of talk about it's good points.'

What do you think would've been the response, Dilloduck ?

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 08:11 PM

.... umm ... you're against balanced reports, Dilloduck ?

Imagine you're a reporter in New York City, trying to interview a survivor of the 9/11 attack there .. and the person you were interviewing had just learned that Al Qaeda had been identified as being behind the attack. You say to the interviewee .. 'I think there are quite enough bigots who choose to only condemn Islam instead of talk about it's good points.'

What do you think would've been the response, Dilloduck ?

This isn't 9/11 and we aren't interviewing anyone. It's a political discussion forum. There are no requiremnets for someone to present every side of a story to participate. The bigots certainly don't and I don't expect them too.

Drummond

11-08-2012, 08:20 PM

This isn't 9/11 and we aren't interviewing anyone. It's a political discussion forum. There are no requiremnets for someone to present every side of a story to participate. The bigots certainly don't and I don't expect them too.

True, this is a political discussion forum (for the most part ... although it also has a 'religion/ethics' section, too ..).

But can you show me evidence that discussion of 9/11 is banned on this forum ? Or, more peripheral issues connected with it ?

As for someone being required to present 'every side of a story to participate', I don't understand your point. Where have I tried to argue that someone deliberately choosing NOT to present every side, should be prevented from participation ?

That's wholly different, Dilloduck, to the act of striving to prove that a certain side is being ignored. I have the right to do this. By what process should I be prevented from doing so ?

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 08:25 PM

True, this is a political discussion forum (for the most part ... although it also has a 'religion/ethics' section, too ..).

But can you show me evidence that discussion of 9/11 is banned on this forum ? Or, more peripheral issues connected with it ?

As for someone being required to present 'every side of a story to participate', I don't understand your point. Where have I tried to argue that someone deliberately choosing NOT to present every side, should be prevented from participation ?

That's wholly different, Dilloduck, to the act of striving to prove that a certain side is being ignored. I have the right to do this. By what process should I be prevented from doing so ?

I never said 9/11 is a forbidden topic. It's just that when you drag into a discussion as a strawman it's tiresome.

Go ahead--try to prove that Jafar is avoiding the negative. You have already proved you ignore the positive.

Drummond

11-08-2012, 08:40 PM

I never said 9/11 is a forbidden topic. It's just that when you drag into a discussion as a strawman it's tiresome.

Go ahead--try to prove that Jafar is avoiding the negative. You have already proved you ignore the positive.

What's really 'tiresome', Dilloduck (and WAY more, besides), is watching attitudes mutate from initial shock and revulsion, this caused by people forcibly being made to confront the awful reality of what Islam can happily visit upon ordinary, law-abiding citizens .. to a point where, years later, a manifestation of political correctness can require people to be thought of as possibly 'bigoted' if they fail to think 'happy, happy' thoughts about the very creed that murdered 3,000 people on a bloodlust-fuelled whim.

I've nothing to prove where Jafar is concerned .. his posts speak for him, and my replies are clear enough. The point is already made that Jafar sees Islam through rose-coloured glasses, and absolutely insists upon doing so, no matter how much evidence comes his way to suggest that the picture he paints is a highly distorted one (and that's putting it diplomatically).

You say I 'ignore the positive', Dilloduck ? Wrong. For example, I could say that Hitler was known to be charming company to some of his friends and supporters. Now, how's that for really reaching for something positive to say ?? HOWEVER, it doesn't mitigate everything else he got up to, now, does it ??

Extend that principle, now, to Islam.

See my point ?

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 08:45 PM

What's really 'tiresome', Dilloduck (and WAY more, besides), is watching attitudes mutate from initial shock and revulsion, this caused by people forcibly being made to confront the awful reality of what Islam can happily visit upon ordinary, law-abiding citizens .. to a point where, years later, a manifestation of political correctness can require people to be thought of as possibly 'bigoted' if they fail to think 'happy, happy' thoughts about the very creed that murdered 3,000 people on a bloodlust-fuelled whim.

I've nothing to prove where Jafar is concerned .. his posts speak for him, and my replies are clear enough. The point is already made that Jafar sees Islam through rose-coloured glasses, and absolutely insists upon doing so, no matter how much evidence comes his way to suggest that the picture he paints is a highly distorted one (and that's putting it diplomatically).

You say I 'ignore the positive', Dilloduck ? Wrong. For example, I could say that Hitler was known to be charming company to some of his friends and supporters. Now, how's that for really reaching for something positive to say ?? HOWEVER, it doesn't mitigate everything else he got up to, now, does it ??

Extend that principle, now, to Islam.

See my point ?

9/11 was an act of criminal terrorism. It is NOT an example of Islam as practiced by millions. ALL muslims are not evil killers. Begging for your debate opponent to concede your point is evidence that you can't make it yourself.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-08-2012, 08:55 PM

What's really 'tiresome', Dilloduck (and WAY more, besides), is watching attitudes mutate from initial shock and revulsion, this caused by people forcibly being made to confront the awful reality of what Islam can happily visit upon ordinary, law-abiding citizens .. to a point where, years later, a manifestation of political correctness can require people to be thought of as possibly 'bigoted' if they fail to think 'happy, happy' thoughts about the very creed that murdered 3,000 people on a bloodlust-fuelled whim.

I've nothing to prove where Jafar is concerned .. his posts speak for him, and my replies are clear enough. The point is already made that Jafar sees Islam through rose-coloured glasses, and absolutely insists upon doing so, no matter how much evidence comes his way to suggest that the picture he paints is a highly distorted one (and that's putting it diplomatically).

You say I 'ignore the positive', Dilloduck ? Wrong. For example, I could say that Hitler was known to be charming company to some of his friends and supporters. Now, how's that for really reaching for something positive to say ?? HOWEVER, it doesn't mitigate everything else he got up to, now, does it ??

He will not see your point because he defends Islam too! And that means you must be proven to be wrong. Dillo ignores the same facts that Jafar does.. He also is a master at misdirection and deliberate spin.. You make a fine case and he'll spin in a different angle attempting to get you onto that. Its a tactic that he is good at. -Tyr

See my point ?

He will see his own image in that mirror of enlightenment my friend! You are but a pale shadow lurking in the background in his mind. I am a mad dog that barks too loudly about Islam .. I find his blindness funny when I think about how proudly he polishes it!-Tyr

Drummond

11-08-2012, 09:11 PM

9/11 was an act of criminal terrorism. It is NOT an example of Islam as practiced by millions. ALL muslims are not evil killers. Begging for your debate opponent to concede your point is evidence that you can't make it yourself.

9/11 was indeed an act of criminal terrorism. As was '7/7', where coordinated acts of criminal terrorism murdered and maimed hundreds of people in London. Then there was the Atosha Station atrocity, in Spain. And Bali. And various OTHER such 'acts of criminal terrorism' which the world has seen, and which have been committed by Muslim terrorists.

Try asking Israel if all they've suffered are 'one or two rogue, isolated incidents' of criminal terrorism, OR, whether they've been fed a steady diet of these 'criminal' acts, over MANY YEARS, and ALWAYS by Muslims !

You've surely seen the series of posts Tyr produces, listing acts of terrorism committed by Muslims over three day periods, in more than one country ? Haven't those posts made clear to you that these 'criminal' acts are continuous, that the pattern, severity, numeracy, none of these ever significantly slacken ?

I will certainly agree with you that there are many Muslims out there who've never lobbed bombs at people, and don't ever envisage doing so. But, then .. Islam is a religion geared for conquest, and there are other ways to follow through on that, over and above bombing the guts out of people.

But I dispute any claim of yours that I've failed to provide evidence to back my opinions up. I am not 'begging' my debate opponent to concede my point, what I have done is shown that my debating opponent has glossed over, to an extent ignored, evidence that I HAVE produced.

My pointing this out is a reasonable thing to do. Now, you may not like that, Dilloduck. You may believe you should come to my debating opponent's defence, for whatever precise reason you actually have for doing so.

That is your right, if you choose to.

And ... it is MY right to debate, this backed up with supporting evidence. I have done precisely that.

You do have the right not to like that I do so. Which is your problem, not mine.

jafar00

11-08-2012, 09:14 PM

I didn't realize Shariah law was only in Iran? Seemed like his legit comment, which is VERY true to my understanding, was about Shariah in general, which basically is used as a tool to discriminate against women. About 90+% of stories that I hear about people being "punished" based on Sharia Law turns out to be women. Not to say it never happens to men, but men are certainly favored.

My next question is the one you failed to answer...

Google is your friend. Malaysia is an Islamic country with Sharia law btw.

MELAKA, May 19 — A hawker, described as a serial rapist by police, was sentenced to 50 years’ jail and ordered to be given 24 strokes of the cane after he pleaded guilty to 15 charges, including six for rape.
The other charges were two for attempted rape, one for committing unnatural sex and six for robbing his victims. All the offences were committed between 2007 and 2009.
Rashidi Omar, 29, from Batu 13, Kampung Beringin in Durian Tunggal, near here, admitting committing the offences before Sessions Court Judge Zaharah Hussain after the charges and the facts of the cases were read to him.
The prosecution was conducted by Deputy Public Prosecutors Ifa Sirrhu Samsudin and Haslida Ismail during the proceeding which attracted much public attention, with all the seats at the public gallery taken up.
Rashidi who told the court that his last job was selling “putu piring” at a supermarket in Jalan Bachang here, committed his first offence, according to the facts of the case, of raping a seven-year-old girl at the Hailam Oil Palm Estate in Jasin on May 24, 2007.
Rashidi was also accused of raping a 15-year-old girl at the Hainan Oil Palm Estate in Cheng on April 1, 2008, and a 19-year-old girl and robbing her handphone at an oil palm holding behind the Taman Seri Sutera housing area in Alor Gajah on March 31, 2008.
He was also charged with raping a 44-year-old woman at the Tong Bee Oil Palm Estate in Jalan Kolam, Machap, Alor Gajah and robbing the victim of a laptop computer, handphone and RM200 cash on June 7, 2009.
On Oct 7, 2009, he raped a 35-year-old woman and committed unnatural sex on the woman by pushing his penis into her mouth at a boutique in Tanjung Minyak.
Under Section 376 of the Penal Code, a convicted rapist can be jailed between five and 30 years for each offence and ordered to be whipped, while an offence under Section 392 for robbery carries a jail term of up to 14 years and a fine.
In all the cases, riding his motorcycle, Rashidi had lured his victims to follow him to a secluded spot before raping or attempting to rape his victims and robbing them. He also threatened them with a small knife.
His last rape offence was committed on Nov 21, 2009 and he was arrested on Dec 1 the same year.
In mitigation, Rashidi said he regretted his actions and if allowed by the court, he would personally apologise to the victims.
“I should have set a good example for by two younger siblings, but I did not,” he said. — Reuters

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/serial-rapist-50-years-24-strokes

BTW, just so everyone knows where I am coming from, as I am a 'newbie' here... My issue is with Sharia law, not Islam. I know a fair amount about Islam as it is meant to be practiced, and find quite a lot of good in it. Contrarily, I find quite a lot bad in Sharia.

You don't know what Sharia is. Most Muslims want to live by Sharia and often do anyway. For example, when I married my wife, I had to declare that I would follow the example of the Prophet Mohamed (saw) in dealing with my wife and in every aspect of our marriage, and I do. Don't confuse what Iran does or what the Taliban show as an example of what Sharia Law is. Much of the time, they are actually breaking it themselves.

Now, why would Mubarak be afraid of Islamists ? Aren't Islamists warm, cuddly types committed to their 'religion of peace' ?

Because like most dictators, any strong political opposition was a threat to his rule.

Maybe he understood that Muslims were capable of .. I quote .. 'In Marsa Matrouh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsa_Matrouh), a mob of 3,000 Muslims attacked the city's Coptic population, with 400 Copts having to barricade themselves in their church while the mob destroyed 18 homes, 23 shops and 16 cars.'

Not just one or two, there, Jafar - THREE THOUSAND OF THEM ...

My link showed you that the Copts had taken considerable persecution over a long period .. but, sure enough, you glossed over all of that. You persist in slanting things to try and fail to recognise that Muslims can be, and HAVE BEEN, the instigators of violence and much worse besides.

What link? The wiki link doesn't link to this incident. I did a search and only found coptic sources which are one sided and cannot be trusted. The copts are about as sneaky and well organised with their propaganda as Mossad.

Jafar, if you're so against violent Muslims and consider them an aberration in Islamic terms, why do you not choose to speak out against that ? Why try to sanitise the truth instead, or brush it all under the carpet, in the hope that nobody will take you up on it ?

Have you seen me support Taliban, Al Qaeda or any other terrorists?

Drummond

11-08-2012, 09:20 PM

He will see his own image in that mirror of enlightenment my friend! You are but a pale shadow lurking in the background in his mind. I am a mad dog that barks too loudly about Islam .. I find his blindness funny when I think about how proudly he polishes it!-Tyr

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 09:22 PM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-08-2012, 09:33 PM

gotta attack the messanger with biting metaphors ?:laugh:

Those babies only bite if the truth hurts. Apparently it does just that and your reply validates it too.
By the way it's -- messenger-- not messanger.-;)--Tyr

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 09:39 PM

Those babies only bite if the truth hurts. Apparently it does just that and your reply validates it too.
By the way it's -- messenger-- not messanger.-;)--Tyr

Only apparent to you, spelling Nazi. Have you found where the Democrats embrace Sharia law yet ?

Drummond

11-08-2012, 10:02 PM

Because like most dictators, any strong political opposition was a threat to his rule.

What was it that made it 'strong political opposition' ? Bear in mind that it was said he 'feared' that opposition. Because he knew what it was capable of ?

It wasn't as though instructive precedents didn't exist ...

What link? The wiki link doesn't link to this incident. I did a search and only found coptic sources which are one sided and cannot be trusted. The copts are about as sneaky and well organised with their propaganda as Mossad.

No bias there, then ...

OK, so, let me ask you. DID THE WIKI ENTRY LIE ? Yes or no ?

Have you seen me support Taliban, Al Qaeda or any other terrorists?

Not directly .. no. But what I have seen you do is strive to sanitise examples of violent Muslim actions any way you can. You gloss over points when it suits you to. You present a defence of Muslims and will not concede when it's shown to you that there is far more for you to consider, far more that qualifies and alters context, than you will allow for.

This 'Copts v Muslims' issue in Egypt is an excellent example. You raised the issue initially, and there was nothing in your account which conceded anything of the violence that Muslims had meted out to Copts over many years. Nothing AT ALL. In fact, what Muslims had already done to inflame the situation was entirely absent from your initial account. And the video offered was clearly propagandist .. it, too, was entirely one-sided.

So I'm making this point. Why is it that, instead of denouncing evidence of Muslim violence and criminality, don't you (a) unreservedly concede when you get evidence showing you it's happened, and (b) insist that your fellow Muslims follow the path of peace instead ?

Instead, you try to sanitise, follow bias, try to excuse. Jafar, does it really not occur to you that Muslims set upon a path of such sanitation efforts are acting to defend that which they work to excuse ?

The Taliban are Muslims. Al Qaeda are Muslims. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad (.. there's a bit of a clue, there, in the name !!!) are ALL MUSLIMS. And they're ALL dedicated to violence as their means of getting what they want.

For a 'religion of peace', Jafar, that's an awful lot of terrorism !!!

Now, let's see you embark upon yet more sanitation of Islam in response !!

Oh, by the way ...

http://www.meforum.org/1003/the-religious-foundations-of-suicide-bombings

Prominent Muslim scholars consider the general jihad declaration against the unbelievers to be crucial to Islamic success. Those who sacrifice their material comfort and bodies for jihad win salvation. By their sacrifice, they obtain all the pleasures of paradise, be they spiritual—the close presence of God—or material. As an additional incentive, Muhammad promised those mujahideen who fight in a jihad war a reward of virgins in paradise. Importantly, those conducting suicide bombings do not consider themselves dead but rather living with God. As sura 2:154 explains, "Do not think that those who are killed in the way of Allah are dead, for indeed they are alive, even though you are not aware. Therefore the prohibition on suicide need not apply to bus bombers or other kamikaze jihadists. Martin Lings, a British scholar of Sufism, argues that this linkage between martyrdom and paradise was probably the most potent factor that Muhammad brought to the annals of warfare. For it transformed the odds of war by offering a promise of immortality. Jihad in the Hadith

The Hadith collections, the second important source of Shari‘a after the Qur'an, devote considerable attention to jihad, most often in terms of military action against non-believers. Indeed, most Islamic theologians in the classical period (750-1258 C.E.) understood this obligation to jihad as military. There is a whole genre of hadith known as fada'il al-jihad (the merits of the holy war), based on the nine-volume Hadith collection of Muhammad ibn Isma‘il al-Bukhari (810-70) and considered to be the most respected and authoritative collection. He dedicates almost one-third of his fourth volume on jihad as physical holy war against infidels. For example, he relates a hadith of Muhammad commenting that there are one hundred stages in paradise for those who fight for the way of God. Only those who participate in jihad deserve paradise without any checks and reservations. To exemplify this notion, Bukhari relates a story of a woman asking Muhammad if her son, who was killed in the battle of Badr, is in paradise, and he replied that her son is in a higher paradise.

Consistent with the Qur'an, these hadith generally demonstrate the necessity for Muslims to spare no means to spread Islam by force and strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God. The main motif of jihad in the Hadith reinforces the concept that death on the battleground in the cause of God leads to paradise and receipt of a "sacred wedding" to black-eyed virgins. From among 262 traditions that are mentioned by Abdallah Ibn al-Mubarak (736-97), a renowned Khorasani scholar who concentrated on jihad warfare as the most important method to Islamic success, thirteen reinforce the concept of virgins in paradise as a reward for martyrdom.

'Islam is a religion of peace'. Keep telling yourself that, Jafar ...

Also ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/honour-crimes-cases

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/17/tulay-goren-father-honour-killing?intcmp=239)Tulay Goren (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/19/ukcrime.haroonsiddique?INTCMP=SRCH)

Tulay Goren, 15, from Woodford Green in north London, was killed in January 1999 for running away from home to live with her boyfriend. He was a fellow Turkish Kurd twice her age whom her family disapproved of because he was from a different branch of Islam. Her father, Mehmet Goren, was jailed for life with a minimum sentence of 22 years in 2009 for killing the schoolgirl after kidnapping, drugging and tying her up. Her remains, which police believe were buried in the family garden temporarily, have never been recovered.

Surjit Athwal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/19/ukcrime.haroonsiddique?INTCMP=SRCH)

Surjit Athwal, a 27-year-old Sikh, disappeared after going to a family wedding in India in December 1998. Her mother-in-law Bachan Athwal, a mother of six and grandmother of 16, ordered Surjit's death at a family meeting after discovering that her daughter-in-law, a customs officer at Heathrow airport, had been having an affair and wanted a divorce from her son Sukhdave. The 70-year-old was ordered to spend a minimum of 20 years in jail for the murder, while her son, 43, was sentenced a minimum of 27 years behind bars in September 2007.

Awais Akram (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/man-jailed-acid-attack?INTCMP=SRCH)

Awais Akram was left severely disfigured after being attacked because of a liaison with a married businesswoman whom he had met on Facebook. The 25-year-old was beaten and stabbed before concentrated sulphuric acid was poured over his head, leaving him with 47% burns, in July 2009. The woman's brother Mohammed Vakas, 26, was jailed for 30 years in May 2010 for conspiracy to murder.

Samaira Nazir (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jul/14/ukcrime?INTCMP=SRCH)

Samaira Nazir, a 25-year-old graduate and recruitment consultant, died after she tried to escape her family home following a row with her family over her plans to marry an Afghan asylum seeker. Her brother Azhar Nazir, 30, dragged her back into the house where he and his distant cousin Imran Mohammed, 17, worked together to hold her and stab her to death. Her throat was cut and she was stabbed 18 times in the attack which took place in April 2005. The killers were given life sentences in 2006.

Ahmed Bashir (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/23/ukcrime.uknews2?INTCMP=SRCH)

Ahmed Bashir died after he was attacked with a sword and a machete in the garden of his own west London home. Waseem Afsar, 32, and Nisar Khan, 31, both of Slough, stabbed and slashed the 21-year-old Afghan 43 times in 1996 for being in a relationship with Afsar's younger sister Nighat. The men were given life sentences with minimum terms of 18 years and 14 years respectively in November 2005.

Abdullah and Aysha Mohammed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/03/four-guilty-bungled-honour-killing?INTCMP=SRCH)

Abdullah Mohammed, 41, and his wife, Aysha, 39, died after they were overcome by smoke and fumes at their home in Blackburn, Lancashire in a bungled "honour" killing. Four men firebombed their house in an attempt to kill a Muslim man who was having an affair with a married woman, but poured petrol through the wrong letterbox. All four were convicted of the double murder in August 2010.

'Lovely' stuff, eh ? Can't you just sense all those 'peaceful vibes' ?

aboutime

11-08-2012, 10:08 PM

Only apparent to you, spelling Nazi. Have you found where the Democrats embrace Sharia law yet ?

Dilloduck. How bout you do the honorable thing, and tell all of us why you support, and embrace Sharia law. Since you are defending it so well?

Drummond

11-08-2012, 10:23 PM

Dilloduck. How bout you do the honorable thing, and tell all of us why you support, and embrace Sharia law. Since you are defending it so well?

:clap::clap:

Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing an answer from Dilloduck on that myself.

Marcus Aurelius

11-08-2012, 10:23 PM

Google is your friend. Malaysia is an Islamic country with Sharia law btw.

From your post...

Under Section 376 of the Penal Code, a convicted rapist can be jailed between five and 30 years for each offence and ordered to be whipped, while an offence under Section 392 for robbery carries a jail term of up to 14 years and a fine....this is COMMON LAW, not Sharia.

Malaysia is an Islamic country which is mainly based on common law. It uses a dual system which includes Sharia law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia

The dual system of law is provided in Article 121(1A) of the Constitution of Malaysia. Article 3 also provides that Islamic law is a state law matter with the exception for the Federal Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Territory_%28Malaysia%29) of Malaysia.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia#cite_note-0) Islamic law refers to the sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) law, and in Malaysia it is known and spelled as syariah. The court is known as the Syariah Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syariah_Court). Looking at the Malaysian legal system as a whole, sharia law plays a relatively small role in defining the laws on the country. It only applies to Muslims. With regards to civil law, the Syariah courts has jurisdiction in personal law matters, for example marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage), inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance), and apostasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy).

In some states there are sharia criminal laws, for example there is the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment 1993. Their jurisdiction is however limited to imposing fines for an amount not more than RM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_ringgit) 5000, and imprisonment to not more than 3 years. In August 2007, the then Chief Justice of Malaysia proposed to replace the current common law application in Malaysia with sharia law.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia#cite_note-sharia-1)

Sharia is a small part of the law in Malaysia, and is limited in scope.

Care to try again?

gabosaurus

11-08-2012, 10:32 PM

Only apparent to you, spelling Nazi. Have you found where the Democrats embrace Sharia law yet ?

I certainly do. If I found someone who had voted for Romney, I had their hands cut off. :rolleyes:

jafar00

11-08-2012, 10:47 PM

What was it that made it 'strong political opposition' ? Bear in mind that it was said he 'feared' that opposition. Because he knew what it was capable of ?

He feared not getting 99% of the vote in "elections" every time. Egyptian prisons used to be crowded with political prisoners who's only crime was being against Mubarak.

OK, so, let me ask you. DID THE WIKI ENTRY LIE ? Yes or no ?

No the wiki didn't lie. It also didn't mention that incident.

This 'Copts v Muslims' issue in Egypt is an excellent example. You raised the issue initially, and there was nothing in your account which conceded anything of the violence that Muslims had meted out to Copts over many years. Nothing AT ALL. In fact, what Muslims had already done to inflame the situation was entirely absent from your initial account. And the video offered was clearly propagandist .. it, too, was entirely one-sided.

The violence and persecution is not at all one sided as the copts report it to be. They want you to think they are nice and peaceful like your local Presbyterian lady's bridge club, but they aren't. I have an example which is extremely tame but I once went into a coptic run pharmacy to get some paracetamol. Instead of just being sold paracetamol, they tried to convert me to their religion and when I refused and talked about Islam instead I was abused and run out of the shop.... without my paracetamol.

Oh, by the way ...

http://www.meforum.org/1003/the-religious-foundations-of-suicide-bombings

Naturally I will dismiss this opinion piece by a non Muslim. I take my Islamic education from teachers who are Muslims and who have spent their lives studying the subject.

'Islam is a religion of peace'. Keep telling yourself that, Jafar ...

Also ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/honour-crimes-cases

'Lovely' stuff, eh ? Can't you just sense all those 'peaceful vibes' ?

There is no concept such as honour killing in Islam. Honour killing is a pre-Islamic tribal tradition that has unfortunately not died out.

Dilloduck

11-08-2012, 10:59 PM

Dilloduck. How bout you do the honorable thing, and tell all of us why you support, and embrace Sharia law. Since you are defending it so well?

Y'all are amazing. You see "SHARIA DEFENDERS" everywhere yet can't link a post to me or the Democratic Party embracing it. Not one.

gabosaurus

11-09-2012, 12:52 AM

I'm wondering -- does this song make Slayer "Sharia Defenders?"

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/15ETwFKcwWI" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

jafar00

11-09-2012, 04:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dILMQJubax4

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-09-2012, 08:18 AM

What was it that made it 'strong political opposition' ? Bear in mind that it was said he 'feared' that opposition. Because he knew what it was capable of ?

It wasn't as though instructive precedents didn't exist ...

No bias there, then ...

OK, so, let me ask you. DID THE WIKI ENTRY LIE ? Yes or no ?

Not directly .. no. But what I have seen you do is strive to sanitise examples of violent Muslim actions any way you can. You gloss over points when it suits you to. You present a defence of Muslims and will not concede when it's shown to you that there is far more for you to consider, far more that qualifies and alters context, than you will allow for.

This 'Copts v Muslims' issue in Egypt is an excellent example. You raised the issue initially, and there was nothing in your account which conceded anything of the violence that Muslims had meted out to Copts over many years. Nothing AT ALL. In fact, what Muslims had already done to inflame the situation was entirely absent from your initial account. And the video offered was clearly propagandist .. it, too, was entirely one-sided.

So I'm making this point. Why is it that, instead of denouncing evidence of Muslim violence and criminality, don't you (a) unreservedly concede when you get evidence showing you it's happened, and (b) insist that your fellow Muslims follow the path of peace instead ?

Instead, you try to sanitise, follow bias, try to excuse. Jafar, does it really not occur to you that Muslims set upon a path of such sanitation efforts are acting to defend that which they work to excuse ?

The Taliban are Muslims. Al Qaeda are Muslims. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad (.. there's a bit of a clue, there, in the name !!!) are ALL MUSLIMS. And they're ALL dedicated to violence as their means of getting what they want.

For a 'religion of peace', Jafar, that's an awful lot of terrorism !!!

Now, let's see you embark upon yet more sanitation of Islam in response !!

Oh, by the way ...

http://www.meforum.org/1003/the-religious-foundations-of-suicide-bombings

'Islam is a religion of peace'. Keep telling yourself that, Jafar ...

Also ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/honour-crimes-cases

'Lovely' stuff, eh ? Can't you just sense all those 'peaceful vibes' ?

Just imagine what kind of hatred amd sick religion breeds people that will savagely attack and brutally murder
one of their own family members for transgressing one of that religion' s laws/commands. What feaking animals and in your examples none of them received a death sentence which is a travesty of justice if there ever was one!
Consider this..from the Washingtontimes no less..

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/2012/nov/4/radical-islamic-violence-against-girls-anybody-lis/

Malalal Yousufzal and Radical Islamic violence against girls globally ignored

Comment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#comments) | Share on twitterTweet (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) | Share on emailShare (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) | | <IFRAME style="POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 70px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 15px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=I0_1352466703500 title=+1 tabIndex=0 vspace=0 marginHeight=0 src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=m&count=true&size=small&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtontimes.co m&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtontimes.com%2 Fneighborhood%2Fpolitical-potpourri%2F2012%2Fnov%2F4%2Fradical-islamic-violence-against-girls-anybody-lis%2F&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.XJTi6Kd7iCs.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DAQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTMuDqa8X-wcqu_PJIpexU10Q9kWDQ#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2 C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concir cled&id=I0_1352466703500&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtontimes.co m" frameBorder=0 width="100%" allowTransparency name=I0_1352466703500 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no hspace=0></IFRAME>
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)| http://s7.addthis.com/button1-email.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) | Share on facebook_likeMore (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pubid=washtimes) | <IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 90px; HEIGHT: 25px; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; scrollbars: no; scrolling: no" src="//www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtont imes.com%2Fneighborhood%2Fpolitical-potpourri%2F2012%2Fnov%2F4%2Fradical-islamic-violence-against-girls-anybody-lis%2F&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=100&action=like&font=arial&layout=button_count" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no scrollbars="no"></IFRAME> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)



http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2012/11/04/woman-abused-by-taliban_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5ad b253919b641
Sunday, November 4, 2012 - Political Potpourri (http://www.debatepolicy.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/)by Bob Taylor (http://www.debatepolicy.com/staff/bob-taylor/)

<ST1:CITY><ST1:PLACE>CHARLOTTE</ST1:PLACE></ST1:CITY>, November 4, 2012 – Most of us have heard about Malala Yousufzal, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban for her mission to promote education for girls.
Now known only as Malala, she has become the face of global outrage against radical Islamic attempts to prevent women from having the same educational opportunities as men.
The question becomes does cruelty have any limitations among these people? Apparently not, because CNN is reporting a new tactic that is even more sinister, if that is possible.
<IFRAME height=225 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MQWZAqyUfXk" frameBorder=0 width=300></IFRAME>
The most recent outrage came in Parachinar in northern <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION><ST1:PLACE>Pakistan</ST1:PLACE></ST1:COUNTRY-REGION> where the Taliban attacked a girl’s by throwing acid in their faces. This is not unheard of, actually it is very common.
When CNN contacted Qari Muhavia, the local Taliban leader, by phone the response was, “We will never allow the girls of this area to go and get a Western education.”
Muhavia went on to say, “If and when we find any girl from Parachinar going to university for an education we will target her (in) the same way, so that she might not be able to unveil her face before others.”
Such events sound like isolated incidents, but the truth is that they are the rule rather than the exception on a global scale where radical Islam is in control. How long will we continue to turn a blind eye to such events?
In 2002, a school fire in <ST1:PLACE><ST1:CITY>Mecca</ST1:CITY>, <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>Saudi Arabia</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION></ST1:PLACE> resulted in the deaths of 15 girls when religious police blocked the doors because they were not wearing head coverings and/or abayas. The incident was not even terrorism related. It was caused by an archaic, medieval, uncivilized ideology that continues to be the core of a religion that insists it belongs within the brotherhood of man.
All too often Americans focus on the periphery of problems rather than striking at their heart. We tend to get bogged down in trivial, unrelated minutia until we are backed into a corner and have no alternative but to fight back. That is when we are at our most resourceful best.

Dilloduck

11-09-2012, 11:07 AM

I'm wondering -- does this song make Slayer "Sharia Defenders?"

<iframe height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/15ETwFKcwWI" frameBorder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Yes--those are the japanese sharia defenders but have picked on the wrong woman.

gabosaurus

11-09-2012, 12:26 PM

OK, let's try The Clash instead. Back Sharia law or Go Straight To Hell boy.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bkyCrx4DyMk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

jafar00

11-09-2012, 01:32 PM

Just imagine what kind of hatred amd sick religion breeds people that will savagely attack and brutally murder
one of their own family members for transgressing one of that religion' s laws/commands. What feaking animals and in your examples none of them received a death sentence which is a travesty of justice if there ever was one!
Consider this..from the Washingtontimes no less..

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/2012/nov/4/radical-islamic-violence-against-girls-anybody-lis/

Malalal Yousufzal and Radical Islamic violence against girls globally ignored

Comment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#comments) | Share on twitterTweet (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) | Share on emailShare (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) | | <iframe style="POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 70px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 15px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id="I0_1352466703500" title="+1" tabindex="0" vspace="0" marginheight="0" src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=m&count=true&size=small&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtontimes.co m&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtontimes.com%2 Fneighborhood%2Fpolitical-potpourri%2F2012%2Fnov%2F4%2Fradical-islamic-violence-against-girls-anybody-lis%2F&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.XJTi6Kd7iCs.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DAQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTMuDqa8X-wcqu_PJIpexU10Q9kWDQ#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2 C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concir cled&id=I0_1352466703500&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtontimes.co m" frameborder="0" width="100%" allowtransparency="" name="I0_1352466703500" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" hspace="0"></iframe>
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)| http://s7.addthis.com/button1-email.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) | Share on facebook_likeMore (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pubid=washtimes) | <iframe style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 90px; HEIGHT: 25px; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; scrollbars: no; scrolling: no" src="//www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunities.washingtont imes.com%2Fneighborhood%2Fpolitical-potpourri%2F2012%2Fnov%2F4%2Fradical-islamic-violence-against-girls-anybody-lis%2F&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=100&action=like&font=arial&layout=button_count" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="" scrolling="no" scrollbars="no"></iframe> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)



http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2012/11/04/woman-abused-by-taliban_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5ad b253919b641
Sunday, November 4, 2012 - Political Potpourri (http://www.debatepolicy.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/)by Bob Taylor (http://www.debatepolicy.com/staff/bob-taylor/)

<st1:city><st1:place>CHARLOTTE</st1:place></st1:city>, November 4, 2012 – Most of us have heard about Malala Yousufzal, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban for her mission to promote education for girls.
Now known only as Malala, she has become the face of global outrage against radical Islamic attempts to prevent women from having the same educational opportunities as men.
The question becomes does cruelty have any limitations among these people? Apparently not, because CNN is reporting a new tactic that is even more sinister, if that is possible.
<iframe height="225" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MQWZAqyUfXk" frameborder="0" width="300"></iframe>
The most recent outrage came in Parachinar in northern <st1:country-region><st1:place>Pakistan</st1:place></st1:country-region> where the Taliban attacked a girl’s by throwing acid in their faces. This is not unheard of, actually it is very common.
When CNN contacted Qari Muhavia, the local Taliban leader, by phone the response was, “We will never allow the girls of this area to go and get a Western education.”
Muhavia went on to say, “If and when we find any girl from Parachinar going to university for an education we will target her (in) the same way, so that she might not be able to unveil her face before others.”
Such events sound like isolated incidents, but the truth is that they are the rule rather than the exception on a global scale where radical Islam is in control. How long will we continue to turn a blind eye to such events?
In 2002, a school fire in <st1:place><st1:city>Mecca</st1:city>, <st1:country-region>Saudi Arabia</st1:country-region></st1:place> resulted in the deaths of 15 girls when religious police blocked the doors because they were not wearing head coverings and/or abayas. The incident was not even terrorism related. It was caused by an archaic, medieval, uncivilized ideology that continues to be the core of a religion that insists it belongs within the brotherhood of man.
All too often Americans focus on the periphery of problems rather than striking at their heart. We tend to get bogged down in trivial, unrelated minutia until we are backed into a corner and have no alternative but to fight back. That is when we are at our most resourceful best.

Again, there is no concept of honour killing in Islam. You cannot show me scripture to back up your claims. And as I said before, the Taliban are not representative of Islam. They are a deviant sect of criminals.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-09-2012, 06:49 PM

Again, there is no concept of honour killing in Islam. You cannot show me scripture to back up your claims. And as I said before, the Taliban are not representative of Islam. They are a deviant sect of criminals.

Here is one..-Tyr

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/03/blogging-the-quran-sura-18-the-cave-verses-60-82.html

Maududi enunciates the point of all this: “You should have full faith in the wisdom of what is happening in the Divine Factory in accordance with the will of Allah. As the reality is hidden from you, you are at a loss to understand the wisdom of what is happening, and sometimes if it appears that things are going against you, you cry out, ‘How and why has this happened’. The fact is that if the curtain be removed from the ‘unseen’, you would yourselves come to know that what is happening here is for the best. Even if some times it appears that something is going against you, you will see that in the end it also produces some good results for you.’”
The Qur’an translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali offers these four lessons from the story, including the idea that “even as the whole stock of the knowledge of the present day, the sciences and the arts, and in literature, (if it could be supposed to be gathered in one individual), does not include all knowledge. Divine knowledge, as far as man is concerned, is unlimited,” and “There are paradoxes in life: apparent loss may be real gain; apparent cruelty may be real mercy; returning good for evil may really be justice and not generosity (18:79-82). Allah’s wisdom transcends all human calculation.”
Another point emerges in Islamic tradition: don’t kill children, unless you know they’re going to grow up to be unbelievers. “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.” The assumption thus enunciated may help explain the persistence of the phenomenon of honor-killing in Islamic countries and even among Muslims in the West.

jafar00

11-09-2012, 11:38 PM

Here is one..-Tyr

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/03/blogging-the-quran-sura-18-the-cave-verses-60-82.html

Maududi enunciates the point of all this: “You should have full faith in the wisdom of what is happening in the Divine Factory in accordance with the will of Allah. As the reality is hidden from you, you are at a loss to understand the wisdom of what is happening, and sometimes if it appears that things are going against you, you cry out, ‘How and why has this happened’. The fact is that if the curtain be removed from the ‘unseen’, you would yourselves come to know that what is happening here is for the best. Even if some times it appears that something is going against you, you will see that in the end it also produces some good results for you.’”
The Qur’an translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali offers these four lessons from the story, including the idea that “even as the whole stock of the knowledge of the present day, the sciences and the arts, and in literature, (if it could be supposed to be gathered in one individual), does not include all knowledge. Divine knowledge, as far as man is concerned, is unlimited,” and “There are paradoxes in life: apparent loss may be real gain; apparent cruelty may be real mercy; returning good for evil may really be justice and not generosity (18:79-82). Allah’s wisdom transcends all human calculation.”
Another point emerges in Islamic tradition: don’t kill children, unless you know they’re going to grow up to be unbelievers. “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.” The assumption thus enunciated may help explain the persistence of the phenomenon of honor-killing in Islamic countries and even among Muslims in the West.

I still don't see how this author's opinion from a hate site with an anti-Islamic agenda supports your assumption that honour killing is an Islamic concept.

Drummond

11-10-2012, 07:41 AM

I still don't see how this author's opinion from a hate site with an anti-Islamic agenda supports your assumption that honour killing is an Islamic concept.

I see. So, you won't accept truth if it comes from a source you don't happen to like ?

Truth is TRUTH, Jafar. Wherever it comes from.

Since you have such an issue with recognising barbarism as being a part of Islam, and since you're so choosy about sources .. try THIS ...

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

That, Jafar, is a translation of Surat An-Nūr (The Light) 24:1. Here's the link for it .. check it ...

http://quran.com/24/2

So, OK, Tell us of your disapproval of THAT source .. !!

Jafar. FACE THE TRUTH about ISLAM.

Drummond

11-10-2012, 08:02 AM

He feared not getting 99% of the vote in "elections" every time. Egyptian prisons used to be crowded with political prisoners who's only crime was being against Mubarak.

If Mubarak could really expect to get 99% of the vote, he must have been running a dictatorship. If he was, he had the power not to fear democratic challenge. So I can't make much sense of your point.

No the wiki didn't lie. It also didn't mention that incident.

OK, that's fair .. to a point.

Nonetheless, what about cause and effect ? What about resentments, caused by prolonged persecution and barbarities having already emanated from the Muslim side ? WHY (.. this may be a very silly question ..) are you so dismissive of that ?

The violence and persecution is not at all one sided as the copts report it to be. They want you to think they are nice and peaceful like your local Presbyterian lady's bridge club, but they aren't. I have an example which is extremely tame but I once went into a coptic run pharmacy to get some paracetamol. Instead of just being sold paracetamol, they tried to convert me to their religion and when I refused and talked about Islam instead I was abused and run out of the shop.... without my paracetamol.

Same answer as before, Jafar.

As for your personal example, just how provocative was your action to them ? Were you perceived as a would-be enemy ? OR .. here's a thought. What if they understood just how repressive Islam was, and interpreted your presence as a Muslim trying to find some covert way of resisting that faith ?

Perhaps that pharmacy was seen by others as an 'underground' way of meeting non-Muslims, by Muslims, those who had doubts about Islam and wanted to meet its natural opposition ? After all, the penalty (this from a 'peaceful' religion !) for apostacy is DEATH .. so, you'd have to expect that breaking away from it would be considerably less than straightforward.

My point is this: you may entirely lack any proper understanding of the mindset of those Copts. Yet, you're happy to judge them ...

Naturally I will dismiss this opinion piece by a non Muslim. I take my Islamic education from teachers who are Muslims and who have spent their lives studying the subject.

'Naturally', indeed ... do Muslims get instruction which teaches them to shun any 'non-approved of' sources ?

There is no concept such as honour killing in Islam. Honour killing is a pre-Islamic tribal tradition that has unfortunately not died out.

BUT, if Islam is a 'religion of peace', WHY hasn't it died out ???!? Surely Islamic teachings, if 'so very peaceful', should've had a corrective influence ... and certainly several CENTURIES after Islam's creation !!

I ask: those who see fit to descend to such barbarity as that ... don't THEY say they are Islamic ?

You see, Jafar, it really doesn't take much reflection to establish the truth. Does it ?

Dilloduck

11-10-2012, 09:32 AM

If Mubarak could really expect to get 99% of the vote, he must have been running a dictatorship. If he was, he had the power not to fear democratic challenge. So I can't make much sense of your point.

OK, that's fair .. to a point.

Nonetheless, what about cause and effect ? What about resentments, caused by prolonged persecution and barbarities having already emanated from the Muslim side ? WHY (.. this may be a very silly question ..) are you so dismissive of that ?

Same answer as before, Jafar.

As for your personal example, just how provocative was your action to them ? Were you perceived as a would-be enemy ? OR .. here's a thought. What if they understood just how repressive Islam was, and interpreted your presence as a Muslim trying to find some covert way of resisting that faith ?

Perhaps that pharmacy was seen by others as an 'underground' way of meeting non-Muslims, by Muslims, those who had doubts about Islam and wanted to meet its natural opposition ? After all, the penalty (this from a 'peaceful' religion !) for apostacy is DEATH .. so, you'd have to expect that breaking away from it would be considerably less than straightforward.

My point is this: you may entirely lack any proper understanding of the mindset of those Copts. Yet, you're happy to judge them ...

'Naturally', indeed ... do Muslims get instruction which teaches them to shun any 'non-approved of' sources ?

BUT, if Islam is a 'religion of peace', WHY hasn't it died out ???!? Surely Islamic teachings, if 'so very peaceful', should've had a corrective influence ... and certainly several CENTURIES after Islam's creation !!

I ask: those who see fit to descend to such barbarity as that ... don't THEY say they are Islamic ?

You see, Jafar, it really doesn't take much reflection to establish the truth. Does it ?

How many CENTURIES did it take for "corrective influences" to take effect with Christianity ?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-10-2012, 09:41 AM

How many CENTURIES did it take for "corrective influences" to take effect with Christianity ?

Islam has had over 1400 years!!!! Crap, its getting worse not better!-Tyr

Dilloduck

11-10-2012, 10:08 AM

in 1500 AD we had the spanish inquisition.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-10-2012, 11:00 AM

in 1500 AD we had the spanish inquisition.

So, go shoot the Spanish people...that was one nation..Nobody denies that happened.

How does that excuse what the muslims currently do? It does not and we havent time to give them another 1400 years..-Tyr

jafar00

11-10-2012, 07:09 PM

I see. So, you won't accept truth if it comes from a source you don't happen to like ?

Truth is TRUTH, Jafar. Wherever it comes from.

Since you have such an issue with recognising barbarism as being a part of Islam, and since you're so choosy about sources .. try THIS ...

That, Jafar, is a translation of Surat An-Nūr (The Light) 24:1. Here's the link for it .. check it ...

http://quran.com/24/2

So, OK, Tell us of your disapproval of THAT source .. !!

Jafar. FACE THE TRUTH about ISLAM.

And? That also has nothing to do with honour killing. It is about sex before marriage and lashes as a punishment.

If Mubarak could really expect to get 99% of the vote, he must have been running a dictatorship. If he was, he had the power not to fear democratic challenge. So I can't make much sense of your point.

Yes he was running a dictatorship and a corrupt one at that. He allowed other parties, but did everything to stop them from being allowed to run in elections.

OK, that's fair .. to a point.

Nonetheless, what about cause and effect ? What about resentments, caused by prolonged persecution and barbarities having already emanated from the Muslim side ? WHY (.. this may be a very silly question ..) are you so dismissive of that ?

Likewise, the other side of the equation haven't exactly been behaving well.

As for your personal example, just how provocative was your action to them ? Were you perceived as a would-be enemy ? OR .. here's a thought. What if they understood just how repressive Islam was, and interpreted your presence as a Muslim trying to find some covert way of resisting that faith ?

Perhaps that pharmacy was seen by others as an 'underground' way of meeting non-Muslims, by Muslims, those who had doubts about Islam and wanted to meet its natural opposition ? After all, the penalty (this from a 'peaceful' religion !) for apostacy is DEATH .. so, you'd have to expect that breaking away from it would be considerably less than straightforward.

My point is this: you may entirely lack any proper understanding of the mindset of those Copts. Yet, you're happy to judge them ...

All I did was go in for some paracetamol. How was that provocative?

'Naturally', indeed ... do Muslims get instruction which teaches them to shun any 'non-approved of' sources ?

Yes.

BUT, if Islam is a 'religion of peace', WHY hasn't it died out ???!? Surely Islamic teachings, if 'so very peaceful', should've had a corrective influence ... and certainly several CENTURIES after Islam's creation !!

I ask: those who see fit to descend to such barbarity as that ... don't THEY say they are Islamic ?

You see, Jafar, it really doesn't take much reflection to establish the truth. Does it ?

There is no basis in the religion to support honour killing and those who do it should be convicted of murder under Sharia law.

Marcus Aurelius

11-12-2012, 08:53 AM

I wonder why Jafar had no response to post #116?

Dilloduck

11-12-2012, 10:45 AM

So, go shoot the Spanish people...that was one nation..Nobody denies that happened.

How does that excuse what the muslims currently do? It does not and we havent time to give them another 1400 years..-Tyr

It doesn't excuse a thing. Nothing excuses killing and inspite of you attempts to prove otherwise I have never tried to excuse a killing. I does point out that at least 1500 years into Christianity there were still barbaric acts of torture and murder going on in the name of religion.
That does not happen anymore so perhaps Islam will reform as Christianity did. Those who were active in reforming Christianity were often killed and tortured in the process too.

gabosaurus

11-12-2012, 11:27 AM

in 1500 AD we had the spanish inquisition.

And certainly no one expected the Spanish Inquisition!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vt0Y39eMvpI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Drummond

11-12-2012, 04:39 PM

And? That also has nothing to do with honour killing. It is about sex before marriage and lashes as a punishment.

But it has everything to do with showing us how Islam sanctions barbarism, Jafar !

So tell me. Do you have respect, even reverence, for the origin of that edict ?? Yes, or no ?

Yes he was running a dictatorship and a corrupt one at that. He allowed other parties, but did everything to stop them from being allowed to run in elections.

Then I fail to see why, if he had the absolute power of a dictatorship, why he'd 'fear' Muslims. This reinforces my point, does it not .. perhaps he feared them because he knew what they were capable of ?

Likewise, the other side of the equation haven't exactly been behaving well.

This was in reply to ..

Nonetheless, what about cause and effect ? What about resentments, caused by prolonged persecution and barbarities having already emanated from the Muslim side ? WHY (.. this may be a very silly question ..) are you so dismissive of that ?

... and your dismissiveness persists. You persist in ignoring cause and effect. I can only think that this is because you know how much of the tensions come from the Muslim side of the fence.

All I did was go in for some paracetamol. How was that provocative?

Not knowing the country or its problems from personal experience .. though I assume that you DO ? .. I can't properly answer you. But equally, since I don't know the dynamics involved, I can't say that it WASN'T, either.

Yes.

... this in answer to ...

... do Muslims get instruction which teaches them to shun any 'non-approved of' sources ?

Well, now. Doesn't this say it all ??

What are your masters afraid of, anyway ? Are they afraid that some un-approved of source might let a little daylight into the thinking of Muslims ? Are they perhaps afraid that the stranglehold Islam has over attitudes and imperatives might be weakened BY THE MODERN WORLD ??

If this is true .. maybe it's little wonder why progress doesn't happen. How it can be that, in today's 21st century world, barbarisms can persist that come straight out of the 14th century !!

.. and how it can be that honour killings remain a feature of Muslim behaviour .. floggings for adulterers, likewise. How, in the 21st century, Muslims think that beheadings and the chopping off of hands belongs to today's world, not consigned to the dustbin of history !

There is no basis in the religion to support honour killing and those who do it should be convicted of murder under Sharia law.

Yet it persists, Jafar. How can you explain that in any other terms ?

I see your apparent insistence on having Sharia Law involved. Most interesting. OK ... how about where honour killings happen in countries where Sharia Law is NOT, repeat NOT, the law of the land, AND SO IS NOT LEGALLY RECOGNISED ?? Must Sharia preside over such cases, having jurisdiction over them, IN DEFIANCE OF NATIVE LAWS ???

[Think carefully before you answer that one, Jafar ...]

Drummond

11-12-2012, 04:55 PM

How many CENTURIES did it take for "corrective influences" to take effect with Christianity ?

... your point being, therefore, that centuries more must pass before Islam reaches some sort of 'civilised' level of its own ?

Two points.

1. What makes you think that the world can wait that long ? Given even your supposition that Christianity completed a reformation centuries ago .. consider the societal attitudes existing at the time, and perhaps more importantly, the primitive nature of munitions hundreds of years ago. Today, we have nuclear, biological and chemical WMD capabilities .. and that's NOW !!! .. what do you think will exist a century from now ?? THE WORLD IS A VERY MUCH MORE DANGEROUS PLACE, TODAY, THAN IT WAS THREE CENTURIES AGO !!

2. How is it that Muslims, and the Islamic faith driving them, remain resistant to modern civilising attitudes .. in today's world of global communications ? Newspapers, radio, television, the Internet, Facebook, Twitter ... many communications mediums exist, each of which having the capacity to educate, inform, influence to an extent most certainly NOT in existence two centuries ago. So .. how come, Dilloduck, that change isn't rapid ?

There is but just one ultimate answer .. surely ?

ISLAM EXISTS TO CONQUER, TO HOLD DOMINION OVER EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. IT IS JUST NOT OPEN TO MODERN INFLUENCE .. BECAUSE THIS IS SO.

Dilloduck

11-12-2012, 05:11 PM

... your point being, therefore, that centuries more must pass before Islam reaches some sort of 'civilised' level of its own ?

Two points.

1. What makes you think that the world can wait that long ? Given even your supposition that Christianity completed a reformation centuries ago .. consider the societal attitudes existing at the time, and perhaps more importantly, the primitive nature of munitions hundreds of years ago. Today, we have nuclear, biological and chemical WMD capabilities .. and that's NOW !!! .. what do you think will exist a century from now ?? THE WORLD IS A VERY MUCH MORE DANGEROUS PLACE, TODAY, THAN IT WAS THREE CENTURIES AGO !!

2. How is it that Muslims, and the Islamic faith driving them, remain resistant to modern civilising attitudes .. in today's world of global communications ? Newspapers, radio, television, the Internet, Facebook, Twitter ... many communications mediums exist, each of which having the capacity to educate, inform, influence to an extent most certainly NOT in existence two centuries ago. So .. how come, Dilloduck, that change isn't rapid ?

There is but just one ultimate answer .. surely ?

ISLAM EXISTS TO CONQUER, TO HOLD DOMINION OVER EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE. IT IS JUST NOT OPEN TO MODERN INFLUENCE .. BECAUSE THIS IS SO.

:laugh2: Whatever you say.

jafar00

11-12-2012, 07:25 PM

I wonder why Jafar had no response to post #116?

I take a while to formulate replies. I don't just copy/paste so I must have missed your post.

I lived in Malaysia for 3 years and at every step Sharia was applied to everything I still have an Islamic bank account there which is governed by Sharia law. All Muslims in Malaysia are governed by Sharia. Only non-Muslims are judged by common law or their own law, which is in itself, Sharia!

But it has everything to do with showing us how Islam sanctions barbarism, Jafar !

So tell me. Do you have respect, even reverence, for the origin of that edict ?? Yes, or no ?

How is that barbaric? My ex wife's brother was guilty of unmarried sexual relations and received lashes for it. The punishment fits with the crime.

Then I fail to see why, if he had the absolute power of a dictatorship, why he'd 'fear' Muslims. This reinforces my point, does it not .. perhaps he feared them because he knew what they were capable of ?

Indeed he did. Popular support for "Islamist" parties would have toppled him from power decades ago had he not acted to preserve his rule.

I see your apparent insistence on having Sharia Law involved. Most interesting. OK ... how about where honour killings happen in countries where Sharia Law is NOT, repeat NOT, the law of the land, AND SO IS NOT LEGALLY RECOGNISED ?? Must Sharia preside over such cases, having jurisdiction over them, IN DEFIANCE OF NATIVE LAWS ???

[Think carefully before you answer that one, Jafar ...]

If Muslims are the murderers, there is no reason why they shouldn't be tried under Sharia is there?

Drummond

11-12-2012, 10:13 PM

How is that barbaric? My ex wife's brother was guilty of unmarried sexual relations and received lashes for it. The punishment fits with the crime.

You REALLY can't see that this is a barbaric practice ? Seriously ?

NO, that punishment certainly - in a civilised society, anyway - does NOT fit the crime. It's vicious, way over the top. Cruel. And as I say .. barbaric.

If you can't see this, I feel sorry for you .. that your sense of humanity can't recoil in disgust at such a 'punishment'.

Indeed he did. Popular support for "Islamist" parties would have toppled him from power decades ago had he not acted to preserve his rule.

But still, he should've felt secure. His 'fear' of Islamists indicates his understanding of them.

I asked previously ...

.. how about where honour killings happen in countries where Sharia Law is NOT, repeat NOT, the law of the land, AND SO IS NOT LEGALLY RECOGNISED ?? Must Sharia preside over such cases, having jurisdiction over them, IN DEFIANCE OF NATIVE LAWS ???

You answered, with ...

If Muslims are the murderers, there is no reason why they shouldn't be tried under Sharia is there?

You think so ? Well .. never let a little thing like LEGALITY get in the way of Sharia, eh ?

Breaking the law, Jafar, is breaking the law. In countries where Sharia Law isn't the legal system, then it cannot legally be applied as though it were.

If I go to a country and fail to obey that country's laws ... do I have a right to stand up in court and say 'Sorry, but I am immune to your brand of justice, and have no need to recognise this court, because I'm British' ? I wouldn't automatically carry a form of 'get out of jail free card', or 'diplomatic immunity', just because I'd more normally be subject to the laws of the UK, and not those of the country I found myself being prosecuted within !!

Are tourists abroad completely immune to arrest ? Can they wave their passports at the police, say 'here's proof that you can't touch me, oh and by the way, stand aside while I rob this bank' ?

So, by what right do you think that Sharia Law, YOUR chosen system, and not other laws, should determine the fate of the accused ?

Here's the thing, Jafar. By coming out in favour of Sharia Law overriding 'native' law, as evidently you're doing, you place yourself in the same position as Anjem Choudary, an especially militant Muslim operating out of the UK. His position is that he'll ONLY respect Sharia Law. And further, his position is that he wants Sharia Law applied worldwide, without exceptions. So, he, too, would take the position that you have.

And yes, he also wants the death of democracy .. and a worldwide Muslim Caliphate.

You agree with him, don't you, Jafar ? Am I not right ?

Drummond

11-12-2012, 10:30 PM

:laugh2: Whatever you say.

I'm so glad you agree.

It's not as though you've offered any countering argument, is it ? But then, I can't see how you could ...

Marcus Aurelius

11-13-2012, 12:49 PM

I take a while to formulate replies. I don't just copy/paste so I must have missed your post.

I lived in Malaysia for 3 years and at every step Sharia was applied to everything I still have an Islamic bank account there which is governed by Sharia law. All Muslims in Malaysia are governed by Sharia. Only non-Muslims are judged by common law or their own law, which is in itself, Sharia!

interesting. Multiple sources say you are not correct... yet we are supposed to take your word for what happens in Malaysia? Not to mention the fact you just contradicted yourself with this one...

Only non-Muslims are judged by common law or their own law, which is in itself, Sharia! So, common law, is also Sharia... There is no difference?

You really aren't very good at this, you know.

jafar00

11-13-2012, 03:38 PM

You REALLY can't see that this is a barbaric practice ? Seriously ?

NO, that punishment certainly - in a civilised society, anyway - does NOT fit the crime. It's vicious, way over the top. Cruel. And as I say .. barbaric.

If you can't see this, I feel sorry for you .. that your sense of humanity can't recoil in disgust at such a 'punishment'.

But still, he should've felt secure. His 'fear' of Islamists indicates his understanding of them.

I asked previously ...

You answered, with ...

You think so ? Well .. never let a little thing like LEGALITY get in the way of Sharia, eh ?

Breaking the law, Jafar, is breaking the law. In countries where Sharia Law isn't the legal system, then it cannot legally be applied as though it were.

If I go to a country and fail to obey that country's laws ... do I have a right to stand up in court and say 'Sorry, but I am immune to your brand of justice, and have no need to recognise this court, because I'm British' ? I wouldn't automatically carry a form of 'get out of jail free card', or 'diplomatic immunity', just because I'd more normally be subject to the laws of the UK, and not those of the country I found myself being prosecuted within !!

Are tourists abroad completely immune to arrest ? Can they wave their passports at the police, say 'here's proof that you can't touch me, oh and by the way, stand aside while I rob this bank' ?

So, by what right do you think that Sharia Law, YOUR chosen system, and not other laws, should determine the fate of the accused ?

Here's the thing, Jafar. By coming out in favour of Sharia Law overriding 'native' law, as evidently you're doing, you place yourself in the same position as Anjem Choudary, an especially militant Muslim operating out of the UK. His position is that he'll ONLY respect Sharia Law. And further, his position is that he wants Sharia Law applied worldwide, without exceptions. So, he, too, would take the position that you have.

And yes, he also wants the death of democracy .. and a worldwide Muslim Caliphate.

You agree with him, don't you, Jafar ? Am I not right ?

No I don't agree with this Choudary guy. According to Sharia, Sharia is applied to Muslims only. Non Muslims are tried by their own law.

interesting. Multiple sources say you are not correct... yet we are supposed to take your word for what happens in Malaysia? Not to mention the fact you just contradicted yourself with this one...

So, common law, is also Sharia... There is no difference?

You really aren't very good at this, you know.

I actually lived there not that it makes me any more an authority on life in Malaysia. They shut down bars if Muslims are found there. I once went to a bar with some chinese friends and security forced us to sit in the beer garden which was normally closed at that time of night and I was separated onto a separate table because the chinese were drinking. If I was even sitting near the alcohol, the place would be closed, and the owners jailed. I would also be jailed and given lashes. The chinese would just head over the road to another bar.

aboutime

11-13-2012, 03:44 PM

interesting. Multiple sources say you are not correct... yet we are supposed to take your word for what happens in Malaysia? Not to mention the fact you just contradicted yourself with this one...

So, common law, is also Sharia... There is no difference?

You really aren't very good at this, you know.

Marcus. What jafar is doing here, is nothing more than what all Terrorist sympathizers do in keeping the plans of the DEAD OBL in force, and reminding those who disagree with the thoughts of the 'jafar's...how they are placing themselves in danger. Which is why jafar has been pretending to be powerful enough to demand what he does...on one hand, while on the other hand. Jafar is merely hiding his fears of appearing to be friendly to the enemies he swears...are his friends. Like the Jews, and Israel.

In other words. Be careful of jafar. He may extend his hand in friendship here. But that very SHARP knife he holds in his other hand, hidden behind his back is the REAL JAFAR.

Drummond

11-13-2012, 03:55 PM

No I don't agree with this Choudary guy. According to Sharia, Sharia is applied to Muslims only. Non Muslims are tried by their own law.

... BUT, the long term aim is for the entire world to become Islamic ! Choudary wants a caliphate to dominate the world.

In Choudary's dreams, Sharia Law would ultimately become universal. He wants democracies to be replaced by strict Islamic rule.

I've said it before, I'll doubtless say it a lot more - Islam's goal is dominion over all of us.

Did you see the link I posted some time ago of a Muslim standing ahead of a makeshift police barrier which barricaded off the damaged part of Tottenham, north London, where he'd recorded a video timed just after the Tottenham riot .. in which he asserted that the English riots of last year were symptomatic of the failure of Western values ? It was a shameless attempt to recruit people to Islam, riding on the back of the aftermath-shock of the Tottenham riot.

Muslims will use any excuse to recruit as many people as they can to their cause. They'll try anything as a means to that end .. from terrorism, to the exploitation of others' misery ....

Conquest is all. Whatever it takes, whether decent OR NOT.

Marcus Aurelius

11-13-2012, 04:31 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=592342#post592342)

interesting. Multiple sources say you are not correct... yet we are supposed to take your word for what happens in Malaysia?

Not to mention the fact you just contradicted yourself with this one...

Only non-Muslims are judged by common law or their own law, which is in itself, Sharia!
So, common law, is also Sharia... There is no difference?

You really aren't very good at this, you know.

I actually lived there not that it makes me any more an authority on life in Malaysia. They shut down bars if Muslims are found there. I once went to a bar with some chinese friends and security forced us to sit in the beer garden which was normally closed at that time of night and I was separated onto a separate table because the chinese were drinking. If I was even sitting near the alcohol, the place would be closed, and the owners jailed. I would also be jailed and given lashes. The chinese would just head over the road to another bar.

you just completely ignored what I posted.

YOU claimed common law IS Sharia. That is simply not true. Now, when called on it, you ignore it.

jafar00

11-13-2012, 07:54 PM

... BUT, the long term aim is for the entire world to become Islamic ! Choudary wants a caliphate to dominate the world.

In Choudary's dreams, Sharia Law would ultimately become universal. He wants democracies to be replaced by strict Islamic rule.

I've said it before, I'll doubtless say it a lot more - Islam's goal is dominion over all of us.

Did you see the link I posted some time ago of a Muslim standing ahead of a makeshift police barrier which barricaded off the damaged part of Tottenham, north London, where he'd recorded a video timed just after the Tottenham riot .. in which he asserted that the English riots of last year were symptomatic of the failure of Western values ? It was a shameless attempt to recruit people to Islam, riding on the back of the aftermath-shock of the Tottenham riot.

Muslims will use any excuse to recruit as many people as they can to their cause. They'll try anything as a means to that end .. from terrorism, to the exploitation of others' misery ....

Conquest is all. Whatever it takes, whether decent OR NOT.

I think you are being a little paranoid. One fringe spokesperson doesn't represent all of us.

you just completely ignored what I posted.

YOU claimed common law IS Sharia. That is simply not true. Now, when called on it, you ignore it.

I didn't ignore it. It is a fact that Islamic Law is used for Muslims only in Malaysia. Every Malaysian knows that.

Marcus Aurelius

11-13-2012, 11:26 PM

I didn't ignore it. It is a fact that Islamic Law is used for Muslims only in Malaysia. Every Malaysian knows that.

You're ignoring it again...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=592410#post592410)

you just completely ignored what I posted.

YOU claimed common law IS Sharia. That is simply not true. Now, when called on it, you ignore it.

Common law, which most cultures and nations follow, is NOT Sharia Law. You are ignoring making that claim. Why? Can't support it?

jafar00

11-14-2012, 04:33 AM

You're ignoring it again...

Common law, which most cultures and nations follow, is NOT Sharia Law. You are ignoring making that claim. Why? Can't support it?

Common Law can be mixed with Sharia. If you run a red light = common law. If you are a Muslim who drinks in a bar = Sharia

Par exemple....

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, a 32-year-old mother of two, insisted she is ready to be lashed six times with a rattan cane next week for breaching the country's Shariah law, which forbids Muslims to consume alcohol.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207643/Muslim-model-woman-Malaysia-caned-caught-drinking-beer.html#ixzz2CBi2awyG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

Kathianne

11-14-2012, 04:35 AM

Common Law can be mixed with Sharia. If you run a red light = common law. If you are a Muslim who drinks in a bar = Sharia

Par exemple....

Running a red light is not 'common law.' There are traffic laws.

com·mon law
<tbody>
Noun:

<tbody>

The part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.
The body of English law as adopted and modified separately by the different states of the US and by the federal government.

</tbody>

</tbody>

Marcus Aurelius

11-14-2012, 12:04 PM

Common Law can be mixed with Sharia. If you run a red light = common law. If you are a Muslim who drinks in a bar = Sharia

Par exemple....

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, a 32-year-old mother of two, insisted she is ready to be lashed six times with a rattan cane next week for breaching the country's Shariah law, which forbids Muslims to consume alcohol.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2CBi2awyG (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207643/Muslim-model-woman-Malaysia-caned-caught-drinking-beer.html#ixzz2CBi2awyG)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

You are moving the goalposts in the conversation.

You said 'Sharia Law is the same as Common Law'.

Your exact words were...

Only non-Muslims are judged by common law or their own law, which is in itself, Sharia!

Saying common law is the same as Sharia, is NOT the same as now saying the application of the two is mixed together.

aboutime

11-14-2012, 03:28 PM

You are moving the goalposts in the conversation.

You said 'Sharia Law is the same as Common Law'.

Your exact words were...

Saying common law is the same as Sharia, is NOT the same as now saying the application of the two is mixed together.

Marcus. jafar is just a vendor of Rhetoric, and Semantics who will use any methods to defend, and support those who are destined to destroy other Human beings who DARE to disagree with him, or his Bastardized Religious beliefs.
jafar has no other reasons for coming here, other than to prove...everyone else is ALWAYS WRONG if they disagree with his plea's of accepting Sharia Law...as the Only law.

Drummond

11-14-2012, 04:15 PM

I think you are being a little paranoid. One fringe spokesperson doesn't represent all of us.

I don't agree at all. Neither do I agree that Choudary is a 'fringe' spokesperson. 'Islam4uk' - until it ultimately had to be banned - was, at one stage, seen as one of the more mainstream Islamic groups. And Choudary was at the head of that organisation.

I am grateful to him. There, Jafar, is one Muslim who makes it clear what Islam's goals are, and how determined he is to advance them. As loathsome as his rants are, at least he's refreshingly candid. From him, we can learn much of the truth of what Islam truly exists to achieve.

Besides ... I haven't JUST limited myself to considering Anjem Choudary. I also addressed a certain propagandist video designed to promote Islam on the back of the misery that came out of the Tottenham riot (and as we learned, subsequent riots across England). This individual - NOT Choudary .. tried to make capital out of it, to try and advertise Islam as something superior to Western culture.

This is what I'm referring to ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbfTNZBahZY

I'll tell you what you WON'T hear mentioned. No reference at all, specifically anyway, to honour killings. Nothing about terrorism. Nothing about stonings. Nothing about treating women as second class citizens, or as mere property. Sharia Law is mentioned .. but not in proper detail.

A propaganda piece .. opportunistic, using social breakdown to advance an alien creed.

There are no depths Muslims wont stoop to, to win out, to achieve their dominance.

Dilloduck

11-14-2012, 04:20 PM

Just like politicians. Hell we deal with them every day.

Drummond

11-14-2012, 04:42 PM

Jafar, you posted ...

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, a 32-year-old mother of two, insisted she is ready to be lashed six times with a rattan cane next week for breaching the country's Shariah law, which forbids Muslims to consume alcohol.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2CBi2awyG (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207643/Muslim-model-woman-Malaysia-caned-caught-drinking-beer.html#ixzz2CBi2awyG)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

This is actually fascinating. Jafar, what on EARTH were you thinking of, in posting that ? If I were in your position (not, of course, that I ever could be !!) .. I'd be trying to HIDE the truth of Islam's gratuitous barbarism, not promoting it !! Jafar, to make any headway in selling Islam to anybody, you HAVE to hide its true nature ! Don't you GET THAT ??

But since you've seen fit to make us aware of this woman's plight, let's consider it, shall we ?

First off .. what was her 'terrible' offence ?

Answer ... shock, horror ... SHE WAS CAUGHT DRINKING BEER !! Why, how absolutely TERRIBLE !

For this 'truly scandalous' act, she will already be sent to prison. But on top of that, she'll receive a CANING. According to the Daily Mail article, this is the first sentence of its type in Malaysia ... as retrograde surely, as it can get in these circumstances !

From the article ..

Muslims, who make up two-thirds of Malaysia's 28million population, are governed by sharia law. Although most alcohol offenders are fined, they can also be caned.

Women's rights groups attacked the penalty as being 'too harsh'.

Yesterday the court set a one-week period starting next Monday for the sentence to be carried out in a woman's prison, Saiful said. Prison authorities will decide when to cane her during that period.

He said Kartika will remain in prison during that time and will be released 'as soon as possible' after the caning is carried out.

Caning, administered on the buttocks, breaks the skin and leaves permanent scars. Kartika said earlier that she wanted authorities to cane her as soon as possible so she can resume her life with her husband and children.

I guarantee you this much .. Jafar, if she was NOT Muslim, she would have more respect for herself !

Jafar, tell me .. in printing that story, is it your belief that the Mail approved of what it was they were reporting ? Can you SERIOUSLY think that ?? Or, to put it another way, tell me, WHY do you think the Daily Mail would've considered this newsworthy enough to print an article on it ?

Those of us who oppose Islam and what blights it promises for humanity, will see your link as evidence of what we say, that Islamic practise is gratuitously brutal and of an age from which much of humanity has improved itself .. as in fact it did, HUNDREDS of years ago.

But you just don't get it, do you, Jafar ?

jafar00

11-14-2012, 09:41 PM

You are moving the goalposts in the conversation.

You said 'Sharia Law is the same as Common Law'.

Your exact words were...

Saying common law is the same as Sharia, is NOT the same as now saying the application of the two is mixed together.

I didn't say that. Sharia says that Non Muslims should be regulated by their own law. I didn't say Sharia = Common Law.

I don't agree at all. Neither do I agree that Choudary is a 'fringe' spokesperson. 'Islam4uk' - until it ultimately had to be banned - was, at one stage, seen as one of the more mainstream Islamic groups. And Choudary was at the head of that organisation.

If he is head of a small group of people in the UK that is unheard of outside his community, it is a fringe group. Maybe they are more on your mind since they are probably in the local news, but for the rest of us, they are unkowns.

Besides ... I haven't JUST limited myself to considering Anjem Choudary. I also addressed a certain propagandist video designed to promote Islam on the back of the misery that came out of the Tottenham riot (and as we learned, subsequent riots across England). This individual - NOT Choudary .. tried to make capital out of it, to try and advertise Islam as something superior to Western culture.

This is what I'm referring to ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbfTNZBahZY

I'll tell you what you WON'T hear mentioned. No reference at all, specifically anyway, to honour killings. Nothing about terrorism. Nothing about stonings. Nothing about treating women as second class citizens, or as mere property. Sharia Law is mentioned .. but not in proper detail.

A propaganda piece .. opportunistic, using social breakdown to advance an alien creed.

There are no depths Muslims wont stoop to, to win out, to achieve their dominance.

What was wrong about this video exactly? He was talking about something that was happening in the community and urging believing Muslims to do the right thing, don't get involved in rioting and looting and to take heed that Allah is watching and to take refuge from evil deeds. Why should he talk about completely unrelated topics? Should he have also dealt with Waterloo, Hitler invading Poland and the Battle of Hastings in the same video too?

Jafar, you posted ...

This is actually fascinating. Jafar, what on EARTH were you thinking of, in posting that ? If I were in your position (not, of course, that I ever could be !!) .. I'd be trying to HIDE the truth of Islam's gratuitous barbarism, not promoting it !! Jafar, to make any headway in selling Islam to anybody, you HAVE to hide its true nature ! Don't you GET THAT ??

But since you've seen fit to make us aware of this woman's plight, let's consider it, shall we ?

First off .. what was her 'terrible' offence ?

Answer ... shock, horror ... SHE WAS CAUGHT DRINKING BEER !! Why, how absolutely TERRIBLE !

For this 'truly scandalous' act, she will already be sent to prison. But on top of that, she'll receive a CANING. According to the Daily Mail article, this is the first sentence of its type in Malaysia ... as retrograde surely, as it can get in these circumstances !

From the article ..

I guarantee you this much .. Jafar, if she was NOT Muslim, she would have more respect for herself !

Jafar, tell me .. in printing that story, is it your belief that the Mail approved of what it was they were reporting ? Can you SERIOUSLY think that ?? Or, to put it another way, tell me, WHY do you think the Daily Mail would've considered this newsworthy enough to print an article on it ?

Those of us who oppose Islam and what blights it promises for humanity, will see your link as evidence of what we say, that Islamic practise is gratuitously brutal and of an age from which much of humanity has improved itself .. as in fact it did, HUNDREDS of years ago.

But you just don't get it, do you, Jafar ?

You may not like it, but Muslims accept Sharia. We live by it. Drinking alcohol is a sin which carries a punishment. It is against the law. The woman in the article realised that she had done wrong and welcomed the punishment.

If it is the same case I am thinking of, I believe this woman was pardoned after Ramadan finished and the punishment of lashes was not given.

Bottom line. If something is illegal in the country that you reside and you do not avoid breaking the law, you should be punished for it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-14-2012, 11:06 PM

I didn't say that. Sharia says that Non Muslims should be regulated by their own law. I didn't say Sharia = Common Law.

If he is head of a small group of people in the UK that is unheard of outside his community, it is a fringe group. Maybe they are more on your mind since they are probably in the local news, but for the rest of us, they are unkowns.

What was wrong about this video exactly? He was talking about something that was happening in the community and urging believing Muslims to do the right thing, don't get involved in rioting and looting and to take heed that Allah is watching and to take refuge from evil deeds. Why should he talk about completely unrelated topics? Should he have also dealt with Waterloo, Hitler invading Poland and the Battle of Hastings in the same video too?

You may not like it, but Muslims accept Sharia. We live by it. Drinking alcohol is a sin which carries a punishment. It is against the law. The woman in the article realised that she had done wrong and welcomed the punishment.

If it is the same case I am thinking of, I believe this woman was pardoned after Ramadan finished and the punishment of lashes was not given.

Bottom line. If something is illegal in the country that you reside and you do not avoid breaking the law, you should be punished for it.

Our Constitution and our laws say that Sharia law is utter rubbish. This is our nation so anybody applying Sharia law should be imprisoned. No room for Satan worship laws here.-Tyr

Drummond

11-14-2012, 11:45 PM

If he is head of a small group of people in the UK that is unheard of outside his community, it is a fringe group. Maybe they are more on your mind since they are probably in the local news, but for the rest of us, they are unkowns.

You say 'if'. But the truth of it, Jafar, is that he is widely known. He SHOULD be, not least considering how much air-time he gets !

I first became aware of him because of his appearances on television, Jafar. He has appeared a number of times on a discussion show called 'The Big Questions, aired on BBC1 on Sunday mornings (until the programme was recently replaced) .. to put 'the Muslim point of view'. He has done various interviews, both domestically and internationally .. check YouTube for them (you will find his interview with Sean Hannity especially illuminating !). Oh, and also posted on YouTube, check for an interview with Jeremy Paxman .. a fascinating study in evasiveness, where another gentleman present kept asking him questions he refused to directly answer.

So, far from being 'unheard of' outside his community, Jafar, I assure you he is known INTERNATIONALLY.

What was wrong about this video exactly? He was talking about something that was happening in the community and urging believing Muslims to do the right thing, don't get involved in rioting and looting and to take heed that Allah is watching and to take refuge from evil deeds. Why should he talk about completely unrelated topics? Should he have also dealt with Waterloo, Hitler invading Poland and the Battle of Hastings in the same video too?

What he SHOULD have done, Jafar, is to not post a video with the intention of cynically selling Islam to people who might have been looking for an alternative to violent riots ... when that alternative is a system of barbarity including all of the evils I listed to you previously !! I suggest to you that 'taking refuge from evil deeds' does NOT mean that you join up with people whose beliefs sanction stonings of people, or (as in Saudi Arabia) getting your hands chopped off !!

Indeed, if instead of selling Islam, he'd tried talking about Hitler invading Poland, that would've been a more meritorious video !!

You may not like it, but Muslims accept Sharia. We live by it. Drinking alcohol is a sin which carries a punishment. It is against the law. The woman in the article realised that she had done wrong and welcomed the punishment.

There's no 'MAY' about it !! Muslims would be far better off trying to shake off its barbarities, and conducting themselves as decent, caring human beings do, in a CIVILISED society. You may have a taboo against drinking alcohol, but it is ONLY a taboo, not a 'sin'. That a bunch of control-freaks, once headed by a pervert with a 'thing' for sex with children, chose to declare it a sin, doesn't of itself make it one.

'The law' you refer to is Sharia Law, which drinking alcohol may defy .. but laws of civilised communities don't agree. Tell me, when you were in London, did you see 'The George' get regularly raided by police, on account of all those lager-swilling patrons who congregated in there every lunchtime ? OR, Jafar, did they just go about their business, doing no harm to anybody, just enjoying a nice, convivial break from the rigours of their workplaces ??

I'm asking you, because you should know ... you were in the pub with them at the time !!

If it is the same case I am thinking of, I believe this woman was pardoned after Ramadan finished and the punishment of lashes was not given.

Pardoned ? Really ? Could that have happened AFTER the international coverage it got ??? And .. why pardoned, if it was all so .. ahem .. 'DESERVED' ??

Bottom line. If something is illegal in the country that you reside and you do not avoid breaking the law, you should be punished for it.

In that case, Jafar, you should have quite an issue with Sharia Law being practised in countries where activities it's against do NOT contravene the laws of the land .. such as, for example, drinking alcohol in a place like Britain, or the US !

But, Jafar, regardless of 'local' laws, Sharia courts are set up in countries in the West and they try to hand out punishments according to Sharia 'Law', rather than fully heed, and regard as paramount, the laws of the country that those Muslims choose to live in. It's an ongoing battle, Jafar .. Muslims trying to make inroads into the societies they live in, rather than integrate.

And it's caused concern, not least in the UK. Sharia courts, and their judgments, are tolerated here, but only under strict conditions .. these being that there must be no clash between such judgments arrived at and the law of the land. Nonetheless, Muslims KEEP trying to encroach upon the Societies they live in, insisting that Sharia is to be obeyed and respected first and foremost.

This may interest you (?) ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8686504/Sharia-a-law-unto-itself.html

After being beaten repeatedly by her husband – who had also threatened to kill her – Jameela turned to her local Sharia council in a desperate bid for a way out of her marriage. Today she discovers the verdict. Playing nervously with her hands, the young mother-of-three listens as the panel of judges discuss whether they should grant her a divorce.

The council meets once a month at the Birmingham Central Mosque. Many of the cases relate to divorce and involve the husbands and wives entering the room separately to make their appeals.

In an airless room in the bowels of the mosque, Jameela is asked to explain why she wants a divorce. She replies that her husband spends most of his time with his second wife – Islamic law allows men to have up to four wives – but complains he is abusive whenever he returns to her home.

Across the desk, Dr Mohammed Naseem, chair of the mosque’s Sharia council, sits alongside Talha Bokhari, a white-robed imam, and Amra Bone, the only woman sitting on an Islamic court in this country.

While a husband is not required to go through official channels to gain a divorce – being able to achieve this merely by uttering the word “talaq” – Islamic law requires that the wife must persuade the judges to grant her a dissolution.

Although the judges appear sympathetic, they are concerned about the rights of the father, as Islamic law says he is still responsible for his children’s education. “For the sake of the children, you must keep up the façade of cordial relations,” says Dr Naseem. “The worst thing that can happen to a child is to see the father and mother quarrelling.”

Jameela is one of hundreds of Muslims applying to Islamic courts every week for a ruling on family and financial issues. While these courts may be the cornerstone of many of Britain’s Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, there are growing concerns that they are creating a parallel legal system – and one that is developing completely unchecked.

Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who was born in Pakistan, was accused of scaremongering after he said, in this newspaper three years ago, that parts of the country were being turned into “no-go” areas for non-Muslims. “To understand the impact of Sharia law you have to look at other countries,” he says. “At its heart it has basic inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women.”

Last month, Islamic extremists put up posters in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham, warning residents that they were entering a “Sharia-controlled zone” where Islamic rules were enforced and gambling, alcohol and music was banned. The posters were later removed by police.

Alan Craig, a former Newham councillor who has lived in the area for 30 years, says: “I can no longer walk to my local shops and find anywhere to buy conventional, non-halal meat. Posters at bus stops of swimwear models are spray-painted over with a burka. The pavements are crowded with women wearing not just the face-veil, but black gloves to hide their hands.”

He recalls that last September, staff at a local primary school assured Muslim parents that they would ensure their children observed Ramadan by refusing them food and drink, even though Britain was in the middle of a heatwave. “I was stunned. This is where we’ve got ourselves to. Secular authorities policing Ramadan for Muslim parents.”

It is only a few minutes’ walk from Newham to Leyton, home to the headquarters of the Islamic Sharia Council, a body set up in 1982 that oversees about a dozen Sharia courts across the country. It is estmated that there are as many as 85 Sharia courts in Britain. One of the judges who sits on the Leyton council, Dr Suhaib Hasan, wants Britain to introduce the penal law where women are stoned for committing adultery, and robbers have their hands amputated.

The contrast between this and the council at Birmingham Central Mosque reflects how the interpretation of Sharia – which unlike Western law has never been codified – can differ markedly between communities.

Based on the Koran and the Sunnah, the two main Islamic texts that deal with how Muslims should lead their lives, Sharia covers everything from diet and hygiene to bigger issues such as crime and relationships.

In an attempt to counter the proliferation of these courts, a Bill has been tabled in the House of Lords by Baroness Cox calling for Sharia courts to be outlawed where they conflict with the British legal system.

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Phillips, the former Lord Chief Justice, argued in 2008 that Sharia courts should be used to resolve disputes among Muslims. But since then, according to Baroness Cox, the problem has become more entrenched.

“My Bill seeks to stop parallel legal, or quasi-legal, systems taking root in our nation,” she says. “There is widespread concern that some tribunals applying Sharia are going well beyond their legal remit, and some rulings are being misrepresented as having the force of UK law. Cases of criminal law and family law are matters reserved for the English courts alone.

“I hope the Bill gets through, as I believe it is vital for securing the rights of women in this country.”

Family disputes – like Jameela’s – are common. After listening to Jameela’s husband, who agrees to the divorce, the judges grant her wish – but advise Jameela that if she remarries she should have the union officially registered.

Indeed, like many Muslim women in Britain today, Jameela had an Islamic marriage – or nikah – in a mosque, yet has not had it recognised in British law, leaving her in a much weaker legal position with regards to property and the custody of her children. This lack of regulation is one of the many areas that concern campaigners.

“Muslim women who have a poor grasp of English or are unaware of their legal rights are likely to believe whatever their Sharia court tells them,” says Baroness Cox.

Though the Sharia council in Birmingham is relatively liberal in its interpretation of the Koran, others are more fundamental in applying Islamic law, which gives the testimony of a woman only half the weight of that of a man.

“Sharia courts are utterly opposed to equal rights and they discriminate against women,” says Jim Fitzpatrick, the Labour MP for Poplar and Canning Town, an area with a population now dominated by Bangladeshi Muslims.

Fitzpatrick recently chaired a debate in the House of Commons on Sharia. “I’m concerned that they are creating a cultural stranglehold over their communities and leading to the Islamification of our society,” he says.

Try responding to all of THAT, Jafar ... come on, let's see you justify all of this. Most especially ...

Suhaib Hasan, wants Britain to introduce the penal law where women are stoned for committing adultery, and robbers have their hands amputated.
Sheer barbarism, Jafar, and an attempt to import the worst excesses of Sharia into our legal system, in total defiance of our culture, our existing laws, and of civilised human decency !!!

Drummond

11-15-2012, 12:22 AM

Our Constitution and our laws say that Sharia law is utter rubbish. This is our nation so anybody applying Sharia law should be imprisoned. No room for Satan worship laws here.-Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

Ah, if ONLY Britain had reacted similarly, Tyr ! See my rather long-winded reply to Jafar ... though there are people, important, influential people here willing to stand up against Sharia Law, toleration of their 'courts' is all too widespread in the UK, and has been for DECADES. And, surprise surprise ... Muslims have exploited our cultural tolerances and played (or is it 'preyed') upon them to the fullest extent they can.

Give a Muslim an inch, and they'll take a light year. Time and again.

Marcus Aurelius

11-15-2012, 12:32 AM

I didn't say that. Sharia says that Non Muslims should be regulated by their own law. I didn't say Sharia = Common Law.

You said...

Only non-Muslims are judged by common law or their own law, which is in itself, Sharia!
You called Common law, Sharia Law. It isn't.

It's ok to admit you misspoke to an infidel. Allah will not punish you.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-15-2012, 09:25 AM

:clap::clap::clap:

Ah, if ONLY Britain had reacted similarly, Tyr ! See my rather long-winded reply to Jafar ... though there are people, important, influential people here willing to stand up against Sharia Law, toleration of their 'courts' is all too widespread in the UK, and has been for DECADES. And, surprise surprise ... Muslims have exploited our cultural tolerances and played (or is it 'preyed') upon them to the fullest extent they can.

Give a Muslim an inch, and they'll take a light year. Time and again.

Just read your reply to jafar, excellent post my friend. I am convinced that jafar is to far gone to ever be teached, thus he is a typical faithful muslim. Someday most likely they will have to be eliminated or else we will be . Its called survival and the muslims intend on ending ours one way or the other. Americans will eventually figure it out but my guess is it most likely will be too late. Obama is a clear example of not figuring it out. Britain will be destroyed, sad to say it but its true. Given what I've seen the last decade Americans are too damn stupid to even understand when and how they are being attacked. Either we have a revolution to overthrow this false government we have or else we too shall be destroyed. This I believe 100% now. Those that will scoff and jeer at this post are a huge reason why that statement is true!
Jafar is happy because the treachery of his religion has allowed it to exist and go about destroying millions of nonbelievers, in 1400+ years over 270 million so far.. And he sees the ignorance of most Americans as the cause of their demise and he is right. His muslim in hiding boy obama leads the way.. .-Tyr

aboutime

11-15-2012, 09:27 AM

jafar has one purpose for coming here. And one purpose only. jafar is only continuing the instructions OBL began before he became FISH BAIT in the Indian Ocean.

People like jafar have a religious...twisted, distorted duty to incite, offend, and Bastardize not only his own religious beliefs, but those of anyone else who needs to be radicalized.

jafar00

11-15-2012, 05:56 PM

You say 'if'. But the truth of it, Jafar, is that he is widely known. He SHOULD be, not least considering how much air-time he gets !

I first became aware of him because of his appearances on television, Jafar. He has appeared a number of times on a discussion show called 'The Big Questions, aired on BBC1 on Sunday mornings (until the programme was recently replaced) .. to put 'the Muslim point of view'. He has done various interviews, both domestically and internationally .. check YouTube for them (you will find his interview with Sean Hannity especially illuminating !). Oh, and also posted on YouTube, check for an interview with Jeremy Paxman .. a fascinating study in evasiveness, where another gentleman present kept asking him questions he refused to directly answer.

So, far from being 'unheard of' outside his community, Jafar, I assure you he is known INTERNATIONALLY.

Well, he is unknown around these parts and unknown to every Egyptian I have asked. I know it is easy to think that he is well known if he is plastered all over your local media.

We just haven't heard of him.

What he SHOULD have done, Jafar, is to not post a video with the intention of cynically selling Islam to people who might have been looking for an alternative to violent riots ... when that alternative is a system of barbarity including all of the evils I listed to you previously !! I suggest to you that 'taking refuge from evil deeds' does NOT mean that you join up with people whose beliefs sanction stonings of people, or (as in Saudi Arabia) getting your hands chopped off !!

Indeed, if instead of selling Islam, he'd tried talking about Hitler invading Poland, that would've been a more meritorious video !!

All I see is that the video was all about the right thing. Calling Muslims to be good citizens and not join in on the riots. Or would you have preferred him to call all the Muslims out to make the riots bigger?

There's no 'MAY' about it !! Muslims would be far better off trying to shake off its barbarities, and conducting themselves as decent, caring human beings do, in a CIVILISED society. You may have a taboo against drinking alcohol, but it is ONLY a taboo, not a 'sin'. That a bunch of control-freaks, once headed by a pervert with a 'thing' for sex with children, chose to declare it a sin, doesn't of itself make it one.

'The law' you refer to is Sharia Law, which drinking alcohol may defy .. but laws of civilised communities don't agree. Tell me, when you were in London, did you see 'The George' get regularly raided by police, on account of all those lager-swilling patrons who congregated in there every lunchtime ? OR, Jafar, did they just go about their business, doing no harm to anybody, just enjoying a nice, convivial break from the rigours of their workplaces ??

I'm asking you, because you should know ... you were in the pub with them at the time !!

Ignoring the insults (as I often do around here), the law in Malaysia is that if a Muslim is caught drinking alcohol, they can be punished. I don't know why you are going on about a pub in London. Last I checked, drinking is legal in the UK. Drinking is also legal for non Muslims in Malaysia BTW.

There's no 'MAY' about it !! Muslims would be far better off trying to shake off its barbarities, and conducting themselves as decent, caring humanPardoned ? Really ? Could that have happened AFTER the international coverage it got ??? And .. why pardoned, if it was all so .. ahem .. 'DESERVED' ??

It's non unusual for people to be pardoned for Eid in the Muslim world. Doesn't the Queen also pardon people on her birthday or something?

In that case, Jafar, you should have quite an issue with Sharia Law being practised in countries where activities it's against do NOT contravene the laws of the land .. such as, for example, drinking alcohol in a place like Britain, or the US !

But, Jafar, regardless of 'local' laws, Sharia courts are set up in countries in the West and they try to hand out punishments according to Sharia 'Law', rather than fully heed, and regard as paramount, the laws of the country that those Muslims choose to live in. It's an ongoing battle, Jafar .. Muslims trying to make inroads into the societies they live in, rather than integrate.

And it's caused concern, not least in the UK. Sharia courts, and their judgments, are tolerated here, but only under strict conditions .. these being that there must be no clash between such judgments arrived at and the law of the land. Nonetheless, Muslims KEEP trying to encroach upon the Societies they live in, insisting that Sharia is to be obeyed and respected first and foremost.

Muslims are required to follow the laws where they reside if in a Non Muslim country anyway as long as those laws do not contradict God's decree such as anti hijab laws or forbidding prayer. It is my understanding anyway that Sharia courts in the UK abide by UK law and only deal with things like marriage.

You said...

You called Common law, Sharia Law. It isn't.

It's ok to admit you misspoke to an infidel. Allah will not punish you.

Twist and shout.

I'll say it again differently so you comprehend it.

In an Islamic country like Malaysia, Sharia states that non Muslims are governed by their own law.

jafar has one purpose for coming here. And one purpose only. jafar is only continuing the instructions OBL began before he became FISH BAIT in the Indian Ocean.

People like jafar have a religious...twisted, distorted duty to incite, offend, and Bastardize not only his own religious beliefs, but those of anyone else who needs to be radicalized.

Insults are all you have. Enjoy your time.

Marcus Aurelius

11-16-2012, 12:22 PM

It's non unusual for people to be pardoned for Eid in the Muslim world. Doesn't the Queen also pardon people on her birthday or something?

The Queen of England is a figurehead. She has no political power. That all rests in Parliament.

Marcus Aurelius

11-16-2012, 12:24 PM

I find it a interesting how Jafar seems to think everyone else is wrong, all the time... yet he thinks he is always right, all the time.

I sense a little narcissism in jafar.

aboutime

11-16-2012, 01:00 PM

I find it a interesting how Jafar seems to think everyone else is wrong, all the time... yet he thinks he is always right, all the time.

I sense a little narcissism in jafar.

Marcus. The endless attempts by jafar to prove such things cannot be 'narcissism'. That only applies to Human beings, since animals never brag, or look into a mirror to Impress themselves. Especially the Terrorist supportive kind of animals who secretly would prefer. YOU AND I were dead.

jafar00

11-16-2012, 01:08 PM

I find it a interesting how Jafar seems to think everyone else is wrong, all the time... yet he thinks he is always right, all the time.

I sense a little narcissism in jafar.

You're wrong about Islam and I am trying my best to help you understand. That is not narcissism.

Marcus. The endless attempts by jafar to prove such things cannot be 'narcissism'. That only applies to Human beings, since animals never brag, or look into a mirror to Impress themselves. Especially the Terrorist supportive kind of animals who secretly would prefer. YOU AND I were dead.

Which animal am I? You're such a charmer.

aboutime

11-16-2012, 01:16 PM

You're wrong about Islam and I am trying my best to help you understand. That is not narcissism.

Which animal am I? You're such a charmer.

I see anyone who pretends to dislike terrorism, but secretly supports it to gain that narcissism as a Deadly Animal. Beneath human, and far below Whale dung. Does that answer your question?

I am not a charmer. Charmer's are also phony, False Prophets. Much like you.

Marcus Aurelius

11-16-2012, 01:24 PM

aboutime

11-16-2012, 01:32 PM

Actually, it is you who are wrong about Christianity, and we are just trying our best to help you.

Marcus. Keep this sentence in mind when responding to 'jafar'.

"It is impossible to hold an Intelligent conversation with anyone who has Little, or No Intelligence."

No matter what you, or I say to jafar. His background, and life-long training of hearing someone tell him ONLY HE IS RIGHT, and everyone else IS WRONG.
Nothing we say means anything to jafar. That's how Brainwashing works so effectively, and jafar continues to prove how well it works.

Drummond

11-16-2012, 05:09 PM

Well, he is unknown around these parts and unknown to every Egyptian I have asked. I know it is easy to think that he is well known if he is plastered all over your local media.

We just haven't heard of him.

Do no Egyptians ever visit YouTube ? A collection of video links detailing his interviews - and rants - is there, just waiting to be examined by all who care to.

All I see is that the video was all about the right thing. Calling Muslims to be good citizens and not join in on the riots. Or would you have preferred him to call all the Muslims out to make the riots bigger?

You saw the speaker make no reference to so-called 'deficiencies' of Western culture ? REALLY ?You heard him make no attempt to sell Islamic 'standards' as offering something 'superior' ? Then I suggest you view it again.

The point I found particularly objectionable was that it all amounted to a sanitising of Islam, and this within a context of exploitation of a time of social misery. As I've pointed out already .. a FAIR, BALANCED video should also have made references to Islam's various cruelties and barbarities. Those offered by the punishments from Sharia Law. Or, a consideration of all the terrorism it spawns.

What, in your view, Jafar, was worse ? The Tottenham riot .. or, say, 9/11 .. ??

Ignoring the insults (as I often do around here), the law in Malaysia is that if a Muslim is caught drinking alcohol, they can be punished.

Including JAIL time for it, evidently. Also including (even if it was the first judgment of its type) the option in their law to see a CANING administered !!

And for what ? DRINKING SOME BEER ????

I don't know why you are going on about a pub in London.

Well .. why not ? Didn't you say you frequented that pub ?

To be fair, you never stated that you drank in that pub .. it would've been curious indeed if you had !! Even so .. I'm rather struck by the thought of you, as a loyal Muslim, who presumably must forever see imbibing alcoholic beverages as 'sinful', sitting around in what both of us will know was usually a crowded pub, totally surrounded by such, ahem, 'terrible sinners', OUT OF CHOICE, DURING YOUR BREAK TIMES !!

Jafar .. really .. how ever did you tolerate any of it, much less deliberately CHOOSE such surroundings ? I mean .. they were all 'disgusting sinners' .. eh ??

Now THAT, Jafar, is funny !!!

Last I checked, drinking is legal in the UK. Drinking is also legal for non Muslims in Malaysia BTW.

Well, quite. I mean, to be fair, it's not as though it's truly a 'sin', or anything ...

It's non unusual for people to be pardoned for Eid in the Muslim world.

I'll take your word for it. Though, international pressure helps, too ...

Doesn't the Queen also pardon people on her birthday or something?

Not that I'm aware of. It's not as though she can boast of having powers equivalent to some other ruling monarchs in the world.

That said .. I have in mind that she's not just Queen of England, but also of Australia, where you came from ? Possibly her duties vary when applied to your country. I can't say 'yes' or 'no' to that one.

Muslims are required to follow the laws where they reside if in a Non Muslim country anyway as long as those laws do not contradict God's decree such as anti hijab laws or forbidding prayer.

I basically accept your statement, but simultaneously view it as just a little disingenuous. In practical terms, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for Muslims to adopt a 'headbutting' approach to legal systems they don't like. HOWEVER .. this is not the whole of the story. I've already posted you a Telegraph link showing what concerns some of us have about Muslim encroachments, even to the extent of 'creeping Islamisation' being perceived as an ongoing threat.

Here's the point. Muslims, in the main, may obey local laws. Nonetheless, they ALSO have community pressure groups pressing for deferences to be made to Islamic practises.

Take the example of Waltham Forest (an East London suburb). It has a large Muslim contingent, as you may be aware of yourself. There, posters were put on walls, trees and suchlike, declaring it to be a 'Muslim area', where strict Muslim behaviours were demanded (e.g prohibitions on public music). Now, the police came along and removed those posters .. nonetheless, there was a case, right there, of Muslim hardliner types 'trying it on'.

So I ask this: how many Muslims in that locality were recent arrivals to the UK, believing that all of that nonsense was fully sanctioned by British law ? Because, Jafar .. and as my link from the article ALSO made clear .. Muslims may attend Sharia courts in the mistaken belief that Sharia Laws always have the backing of British law.

It is my understanding anyway that Sharia courts in the UK abide by UK law and only deal with things like marriage.

I understand that they do more than that. Divorce is also a 'province' of theirs. Also, advice and judgments on fiscal matters.

Talaq divorce, Jafar. Because of a job I was involved with decades ago, I just happen to have a cursory knowledge about Talaq divorces. This, Jafar and folks, is a somewhat barbaric practice which permits a man to stand, in front of witnesses, and humiliate his soon-to-be-divorced wife and say 'I divorce thee' three times. After the third recitation, in Islamic law, the divorce is considered final.

I UNDERSTAND THAT ONLY MEN HAVE THIS 'RIGHT'. WOMEN ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DO THIS THEMSELVES.

Now, to a Sharia court, Talaq divorces are recognised. In British law, THEY ARE NOT. So, what are 'divorced' Muslims to do ? Respect Sharia courts, or instead respect the reality of British law, as applicable to all citizens in the UK ? How many Sharia courts will be willing to admit that a Talaq divorce has no actual value, or meaning ???

It's a greater problem than that. Sharia practises often differ from what British law will recognise or permit. As my Daily Telegraph article pointed out, not all Sharia courts are entirely honest about British law. Some Muslims attending those courts are misled into thinking that Sharia courts have a greater standing in British law than in fact they do.

Now, folks .. HOW'S ALL THAT FOR EVIDENCE OF THE MUSLIM WILLINGNESS TO INTEGRATE ?

aboutime

11-16-2012, 05:53 PM

Do no Egyptians ever visit YouTube ? A collection of video links detailing his interviews - and rants - is there, just waiting to be examined by all who care to.

You saw the speaker make no reference to so-called 'deficiencies' of Western culture ? REALLY ?You heard him make no attempt to sell Islamic 'standards' as offering something 'superior' ? Then I suggest you view it again.

The point I found particularly objectionable was that it all amounted to a sanitising of Islam, and this within a context of exploitation of a time of social misery. As I've pointed out already .. a FAIR, BALANCED video should also have made references to Islam's various cruelties and barbarities. Those offered by the punishments from Sharia Law. Or, a consideration of all the terrorism it spawns.

What, in your view, Jafar, was worse ? The Tottenham riot .. or, say, 9/11 .. ??

Including JAIL time for it, evidently. Also including (even if it was the first judgment of its type) the option in their law to see a CANING administered !!

And for what ? DRINKING SOME BEER ????

Well .. why not ? Didn't you say you frequented that pub ?

To be fair, you never stated that you drank in that pub .. it would've been curious indeed if you had !! Even so .. I'm rather struck by the thought of you, as a loyal Muslim, who presumably must forever see imbibing alcoholic beverages as 'sinful', sitting around in what both of us will know was usually a crowded pub, totally surrounded by such, ahem, 'terrible sinners', OUT OF CHOICE, DURING YOUR BREAK TIMES !!

Jafar .. really .. how ever did you tolerate any of it, much less deliberately CHOOSE such surroundings ? I mean .. they were all 'disgusting sinners' .. eh ??

Now THAT, Jafar, is funny !!!

Well, quite. I mean, to be fair, it's not as though it's truly a 'sin', or anything ...

I'll take your word for it. Though, international pressure helps, too ...

Not that I'm aware of. It's not as though she can boast of having powers equivalent to some other ruling monarchs in the world.

That said .. I have in mind that she's not just Queen of England, but also of Australia, where you came from ? Possibly her duties vary when applied to your country. I can't say 'yes' or 'no' to that one.

I basically accept your statement, but simultaneously view it as just a little disingenuous. In practical terms, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for Muslims to adopt a 'headbutting' approach to legal systems they don't like. HOWEVER .. this is not the whole of the story. I've already posted you a Telegraph link showing what concerns some of us have about Muslim encroachments, even to the extent of 'creeping Islamisation' being perceived as an ongoing threat.

Here's the point. Muslims, in the main, may obey local laws. Nonetheless, they ALSO have community pressure groups pressing for deferences to be made to Islamic practises.

Take the example of Waltham Forest (an East London suburb). It has a large Muslim contingent, as you may be aware of yourself. There, posters were put on walls, trees and suchlike, declaring it to be a 'Muslim area', where strict Muslim behaviours were demanded (e.g prohibitions on public music). Now, the police came along and removed those posters .. nonetheless, there was a case, right there, of Muslim hardliner types 'trying it on'.

So I ask this: how many Muslims in that locality were recent arrivals to the UK, believing that all of that nonsense was fully sanctioned by British law ? Because, Jafar .. and as my link from the article ALSO made clear .. Muslims may attend Sharia courts in the mistaken belief that Sharia Laws always have the backing of British law.

I understand that they do more than that. Divorce is also a 'province' of theirs. Also, advice and judgments on fiscal matters.

Talaq divorce, Jafar. Because of a job I was involved with decades ago, I just happen to have a cursory knowledge about Talaq divorces. This, Jafar and folks, is a somewhat barbaric practice which permits a man to stand, in front of witnesses, and humiliate his soon-to-be-divorced wife and say 'I divorce thee' three times. After the third recitation, in Islamic law, the divorce is considered final.

I UNDERSTAND THAT ONLY MEN HAVE THIS 'RIGHT'. WOMEN ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DO THIS THEMSELVES.

Now, to a Sharia court, Talaq divorces are recognised. In British law, THEY ARE NOT. So, what are 'divorced' Muslims to do ? Respect Sharia courts, or instead respect the reality of British law, as applicable to all citizens in the UK ? How many Sharia courts will be willing to admit that a Talaq divorce has no actual value, or meaning ???

It's a greater problem than that. Sharia practises often differ from what British law will recognise or permit. As my Daily Telegraph article pointed out, not all Sharia courts are entirely honest about British law. Some Muslims attending those courts are misled into thinking that Sharia courts have a greater standing in British law than in fact they do.

Now, folks .. HOW'S ALL THAT FOR EVIDENCE OF THE MUSLIM WILLINGNESS TO INTEGRATE ?

Drummond. Jafar will spend the rest of the weekend, trying to find more Defensive excuses to disagree with everything you presented above.
Just watch. Your evidence will be declared a Pack of Lies by jafar. It's not fair to Honestly present known, documented facts that force the 'jafar's' to search for more hate filled excuses.

jafar00

11-16-2012, 10:40 PM

Do no Egyptians ever visit YouTube ? A collection of video links detailing his interviews - and rants - is there, just waiting to be examined by all who care to.

Yes Egyptians do visit youtube. However you would have to search for this Choudary guy specifically.

BTW, do you know Sa'd Al Soghayar? No? Why not? He is very popular in Arab countries and particular his native Egypt.

This is the Arab equivalent of Gangnam style in terms of popularity.

This is a song about fruit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebQ69jrrxk4

How about Huba. Do you know him? Why not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKVDEV83FGo

I think they are almost unknown outside of Arab countries.

You saw the speaker make no reference to so-called 'deficiencies' of Western culture ? REALLY ?You heard him make no attempt to sell Islamic 'standards' as offering something 'superior' ? Then I suggest you view it again.

The point I found particularly objectionable was that it all amounted to a sanitising of Islam, and this within a context of exploitation of a time of social misery. As I've pointed out already .. a FAIR, BALANCED video should also have made references to Islam's various cruelties and barbarities. Those offered by the punishments from Sharia Law. Or, a consideration of all the terrorism it spawns.

What, in your view, Jafar, was worse ? The Tottenham riot .. or, say, 9/11 .. ??

9/11 was worse of course. However I fail to see what that has to do with Islam or all the other stuff you are talking about.

Including JAIL time for it, evidently. Also including (even if it was the first judgment of its type) the option in their law to see a CANING administered !!

And for what ? DRINKING SOME BEER ????

I can be fined for walking across the road the wrong way in Australia. I may not like the law, but if I break it I am punished. Likewise for this woman. She broke the law.

Well .. why not ? Didn't you say you frequented that pub ?

To be fair, you never stated that you drank in that pub .. it would've been curious indeed if you had !! Even so .. I'm rather struck by the thought of you, as a loyal Muslim, who presumably must forever see imbibing alcoholic beverages as 'sinful', sitting around in what both of us will know was usually a crowded pub, totally surrounded by such, ahem, 'terrible sinners', OUT OF CHOICE, DURING YOUR BREAK TIMES !!

Jafar .. really .. how ever did you tolerate any of it, much less deliberately CHOOSE such surroundings ? I mean .. they were all 'disgusting sinners' .. eh ??

Now THAT, Jafar, is funny !!!

More than one Muslim went to the George at lunchtimes and as a result, more than one of the drinkers there are now Muslims. The good that came out of mixing with "terrible sinners" far outweighed the bad of being where alcohol is served.

Besides. Their chips were really good!

Take the example of Waltham Forest (an East London suburb). It has a large Muslim contingent, as you may be aware of yourself. There, posters were put on walls, trees and suchlike, declaring it to be a 'Muslim area', where strict Muslim behaviours were demanded (e.g prohibitions on public music). Now, the police came along and removed those posters .. nonetheless, there was a case, right there, of Muslim hardliner types 'trying it on'.

Youngsters behaving badly I guess. <shrugs>:unsure:

Talaq divorce, Jafar. Because of a job I was involved with decades ago, I just happen to have a cursory knowledge about Talaq divorces. This, Jafar and folks, is a somewhat barbaric practice which permits a man to stand, in front of witnesses, and humiliate his soon-to-be-divorced wife and say 'I divorce thee' three times. After the third recitation, in Islamic law, the divorce is considered final.

I UNDERSTAND THAT ONLY MEN HAVE THIS 'RIGHT'. WOMEN ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DO THIS THEMSELVES.

Now, to a Sharia court, Talaq divorces are recognised. In British law, THEY ARE NOT. So, what are 'divorced' Muslims to do ? Respect Sharia courts, or instead respect the reality of British law, as applicable to all citizens in the UK ? How many Sharia courts will be willing to admit that a Talaq divorce has no actual value, or meaning ???

It's a greater problem than that. Sharia practises often differ from what British law will recognise or permit. As my Daily Telegraph article pointed out, not all Sharia courts are entirely honest about British law. Some Muslims attending those courts are misled into thinking that Sharia courts have a greater standing in British law than in fact they do.

Now, folks .. HOW'S ALL THAT FOR EVIDENCE OF THE MUSLIM WILLINGNESS TO INTEGRATE ?

Most Muslims in Islamic countries have both civil and religious marriage ceremonies. My wife and I are an example of that.

I think you will find that a Muslim woman can divorce her husband as long as she renounces any claim to her dowery and the family home. </shrugs>

Drummond

11-17-2012, 08:55 AM

Yes Egyptians do visit youtube. However you would have to search for this Choudary guy specifically.

BTW, do you know Sa'd Al Soghayar? No? Why not? He is very popular in Arab countries and particular his native Egypt.

This is the Arab equivalent of Gangnam style in terms of popularity.

This is a song about fruit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebQ69jrrxk4

Ah, but, is it a song about fruit filled with Semtex ? I shall expand on my point below.

How about Huba. Do you know him? Why not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKVDEV83FGo

I think they are almost unknown outside of Arab countries.

Well, perhaps so (.. until now, anyway ..)

Unless I'm somehow missing the point, Jafar, these are merely entertainment material. Those involved set out to entertain. Unless, of course, they're Jihadist bomb-wielders in their spare time, or preach the importance of converting the world into being subservient to an Islamic Caliphate ? Yes ??

Because, you see, the likes of Choudary are working to establish JUST such a worldwide subservience to Islam. Choudary doesn't use his time to entertain one single country .. he uses his time in the furtherance of his cause of Islamic conquest. In so doing, he spreads his message not JUST for the 'home market', but across the world. Indeed, he's been concentrating some of his efforts on AMERICA.

He's appeared on the Sean Hannity Show, on Fox News .. which I know is syndicated nationally. I've also seen a clip of him being interviewed on CNN. I've even seen evidence from Google that he tried to arrange a Muslim protest outside the White House !!

With all this going on, with Choudary doing what he's doing, the likelihood of international notoriety increases.

Would you care to watch the CNN clip ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-lxlzdFXI

Watch it to the end. Note Choudary's insistence that what HE describes for Islam is the true vision. Note also that, in fact, his description (from just 50 seconds into it) of the Muslim Brotherhood's dominance ACTUALLY is an excellent point !

Oh, and note his comment around 8 minutes 40 seconds in .. a VERY candid insistence that Britain 'belongs to Allah' and 'we will implement the Sharia in Britain'.

As I've said very recently, I'm grateful to Choudary. From him, you get a clear, candid, honest, picture of the truth of Islam. Loathsome as his stuff is, we all know where we stand with him.

.. well, DON'T WE ????

9/11 was worse of course. However I fail to see what that has to do with Islam or all the other stuff you are talking about.

You do realise that the vast majority of people on this forum will read that comment of yours with incredulity ??!?? Are you trying to rewrite history ??

9/11 was the day AMERICA WAS ATTACKED BY MUSLIM TERRORISTS !! UNLESS YOU HAVE A WAY OF PROVING THAT MUSLIMS AREN'T ISLAMIC (!!), YOUR ASSERTION IS TOTAL ROT !!

I have no need to comment further on that one.

I can be fined for walking across the road the wrong way in Australia. I may not like the law, but if I break it I am punished. Likewise for this woman. She broke the law.

There are good laws, and then there are bad laws. Good laws serve people, contribute to the greater good. Bad laws mete out misery to no good end and lack proper remedial purpose.

All the lady you're discussing did, Jafar, was DRINK BEER.

Now, as societies across the world prove every day, people can drink beer and not need to be JAILED for it !! But, worse, Malaysia has gone a brutal step further and accepted a principle that says women can be CANED for it, whilst in prison ! THAT, Jafar, is wholly gratuitous, it's a step that does nothing except satisfy someone's sick enthusiasm for needless sadism and cruelty.

Or, to put it another way .. it's acceptable on Islamic grounds.

More than one Muslim went to the George at lunchtimes

I don't doubt that for a single second !

... and as a result, more than one of the drinkers there are now Muslims. The good that came out of mixing with "terrible sinners" far outweighed the bad of being where alcohol is served.

This illustrates a truth, does it not, that Tyr and I have each made clear about the practitioners of Islam, how it works, what it does in social terms.

Now, your average Brit, Jafar, just happily takes a break from work at lunchtimes, and uses that break to have a meal, indulge in recreational mixing with others .. that kind of thing (or maybe a bit of lunchtime shopping). People fortunate enough to have the resources that you had in and around the general vicinity of Lincolns Inn Fields are highly likely to pile into restaurants or pubs nearby .. of which there are several, in High Holborn, Fleet Street, or in your case, around Portugal Street. What they invariably NOT do is visit churches (there are a couple nearby, e.g St Clement Danes) or seek out Muslim gatherings .. yet, regardless of all that, STILL, your goal has been not to just respect the status quo, but INSTEAD, work to further the Muslim objective of theological conquest.

It's the way of things in the Muslim world .. to expand that world, to 'terraform' other territories and their populations, so that these territories become Islamic. YOU DO NOT INTEGRATE .. YOU CHANGE EVERYTHING, AND EVERYONE, TO FORCE YOUR ENVIRONMENT TO A SHAPE AND CHARACTER OF YOUR CHOOSING.

In a word .. CONQUEST.

Choudary is honest about it.

You can't simply fit in, and let that be the end of it, not as a typical Muslim. But you expect OTHERS to fit in with YOU.

Besides. Their chips were really good!

True. Likewise their meat pies.

Hey - their bacon sarnies weren't bad, either ... :cool:

Youngsters behaving badly I guess. :unsure:

AU CONTRAIRE ...

Here's a taste of the REALITY involved, Jafar. And do take a look at the link. There are some rather professional-looking posters to be seen in the photo ..

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/9165986.WALTHAM_FOREST__Extremists_plan_rival_prot ests/

EXTREMIST Islamist group Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) is planning a demonstration in the borough this weekend.

Police previously said the far right English Defence League (EDL) were expected to hold a counter demonstration, but the group has only said it "may" take action.

Officers are expecting around 50 to 100 members of MAC to meet outside Leyton underground station at 12noon on Saturday (July 30) before marching to Walthamstow.

The Guardian has also heard rumours that a third counter-demonstration by an unnamed anti-fascist organisation is also planned.

A spokesman said MAC wanted to "declare the beginning of a shift in Europe that will see high profile campaigns firmly asserting Islam’s presence in the west and the unstoppable resurgence of a Muslim fifth column determined to see the domination of the Shariah worldwide."

The planned demonstrations come following attempts by two extremists to put up stickers and posters in Waltham Forest declaring it a 'Sharia Law' zone.

Police and the council say they are only aware of 12 of the posters being spotted in the borough.

Anjem Choudary, who ran the now banned Islam4UK group, has declared he is responsible for the posters which claim that "Islamic rules are enforced" banning music, alcohol, gambling, drug use and prostitution.

So there you have it .. not a kid, but Choudary again, enjoying himself. At the expense of others, not least by wasting police time.

You, Jafar, and others reading this, will correctly get a picture of a community being filled with strife, with community pressures caused by Islamists utterly determined to exert their will on the territory in which they live. Are their non-Islamists living in Walthamstow, and the Waltham Forest area ? OF COURSE THERE ARE .. THOUSANDS OF THEM. And they have to enjoy the power-play of extremist Islamic influences brought to bear in their neighbourhood ... not because they asked for it, but because Muslims INSIST on it.

I trust my point is made, Jafar.

Skipping across to ..

I think you will find that a Muslim woman can divorce her husband as long as she renounces any claim to her dowery and the family home.

I acknowledge that basic point. But will you, in turn, acknowledge that this does not reflect equality within the sexes .. not EVEN within the terms you've described ?

My previous point remains valid. 'TALAQ' is something that only the man can do. There is no precise equivalent for the woman.

But there is a version of something 'LIKE' it, for a woman .. called 'Kulah'. My understanding is that, through 'Kulah', a woman may ASK her husband to divorce her.

Now, does that sound equal to you ? Or, does it instead sound like a reversion back to primitive times, where the woman is forced into a subservient position .. for no other good reason that a religion, and some old pervert from a bygone age, wanted it that way ?

aboutime

11-17-2012, 02:47 PM

jafar00

11-17-2012, 07:17 PM

Ah, but, is it a song about fruit filled with Semtex ? I shall expand on my point below.

Well, perhaps so (.. until now, anyway ..)

Unless I'm somehow missing the point, Jafar, these are merely entertainment material. Those involved set out to entertain. Unless, of course, they're Jihadist bomb-wielders in their spare time, or preach the importance of converting the world into being subservient to an Islamic Caliphate ? Yes ??

Ok, you lost me in that passing cloud of paranoia.

The point I'm making is that you won't necessarily know of something obscure unless you are looking specifically for it.

Because, you see, the likes of Choudary are working to establish JUST such a worldwide subservience to Islam. Choudary doesn't use his time to entertain one single country .. he uses his time in the furtherance of his cause of Islamic conquest. In so doing, he spreads his message not JUST for the 'home market', but across the world. Indeed, he's been concentrating some of his efforts on AMERICA.

To be honest, I don't really care much about a guy I've never heard of. He has some opinions and that is all well and good. Doesn't the UK also have freedom of speech?

You do realise that the vast majority of people on this forum will read that comment of yours with incredulity ??!?? Are you trying to rewrite history ??

9/11 was the day AMERICA WAS ATTACKED BY MUSLIM TERRORISTS !! UNLESS YOU HAVE A WAY OF PROVING THAT MUSLIMS AREN'T ISLAMIC (!!), YOUR ASSERTION IS TOTAL ROT !!

I know a lot of westerners bought the "It was the big bad Muslims that did it" line but the truth is, the attack was again Islam 100% and was done by people of questionable character who's adherence to Islam was suspect at best. The fact that the hijackers were known to be hard drinkers who liked gambling and lap dances tells me a lot about their devotion to God who forbade Muslims from doing all of those things. Anyone who disobeys the Qur'aan directly and who's last acts on this Earth are acts of kufr(disbelief) will end up in hellfire. That's where these people will go for sure.

There are good laws, and then there are bad laws. Good laws serve people, contribute to the greater good. Bad laws mete out misery to no good end and lack proper remedial purpose.

All the lady you're discussing did, Jafar, was DRINK BEER.

What she did was against the law. If you don't like the law, do something to have it repealed. Break the law and be prepared to pay for it. That's it.

Here's a taste of the REALITY involved, Jafar. And do take a look at the link. There are some rather professional-looking posters to be seen in the photo ..

Anyone with a copy of Word, a printer and some pretty yellow paper can do the same these days.

I acknowledge that basic point. But will you, in turn, acknowledge that this does not reflect equality within the sexes .. not EVEN within the terms you've described ?

My previous point remains valid. 'TALAQ' is something that only the man can do. There is no precise equivalent for the woman.

But there is a version of something 'LIKE' it, for a woman .. called 'Kulah'. My understanding is that, through 'Kulah', a woman may ASK her husband to divorce her.

Now, does that sound equal to you ? Or, does it instead sound like a reversion back to primitive times, where the woman is forced into a subservient position .. for no other good reason that a religion, and some old pervert from a bygone age, wanted it that way ?

Regardless of Talaq or not, you will find that a man who wants a divorce in any Arab country these days still needs to go through the court system to get divorced. At least the civil marriage contract part of it.

Does the religious part of a Christian marriage have any significance these days?

Drummond

11-18-2012, 01:08 PM

Ok, you lost me in that passing cloud of paranoia.

????????????????

The point I'm making is that you won't necessarily know of something obscure unless you are looking specifically for it.

Choudary has done his utmost to be anything but 'obscure'. I've already described to you his efforts to gain international exposure.

To be honest, I don't really care much about a guy I've never heard of. He has some opinions and that is all well and good. Doesn't the UK also have freedom of speech?

Let's be honest here, shall we ? What you really want is to be dismissive about somebody who exposes some ugly truths about Islam. Better that than have to face up to questioning about what he says and wants.

I know a lot of westerners bought the "It was the big bad Muslims that did it" line but the truth is, the attack was again Islam 100% and was done by people of questionable character who's adherence to Islam was suspect at best. The fact that the hijackers were known to be hard drinkers who liked gambling and lap dances tells me a lot about their devotion to God who forbade Muslims from doing all of those things. Anyone who disobeys the Qur'aan directly and who's last acts on this Earth are acts of kufr(disbelief) will end up in hellfire. That's where these people will go for sure.

Like many people who say they're loyal to a particular faith, Jafar, they don't always adhere to its doctrines. A Christian sinner is nonetheless Christian. A Muslim who drinks doesn't cease to be Muslim because of it (as a certain un-caned lady in Malaysia will doubtless be very happy to tell you is true).

Perhaps, Jafar, those Muslim terrorists were motivated, in part, to please their supposed 'god' BY committing their terrorism ? Maybe they wanted to redress the balance thrown out of kilter by past 'sins', and thought the 9/11 outrage was a great way to do it .. because 'Islam is a religion of peace' ?

Besides ... wouldn't a lap-dancing Muslim enthusiast perhaps find the prospect of scores of virgins waiting for him in 'heaven' a tad appealing .. ??

Oh, by the way, Jafar, this in passing .. tell me, those Hamas terrorists that Israel is busy depriving of their earthly lives .. where do you think THEY will go, to heaven or hell ? Do tell us !

Perhaps your version of 'heaven' is supposed to WELCOME terrorists .. h'mmm ???

What she did was against the law. If you don't like the law, do something to have it repealed. Break the law and be prepared to pay for it. That's it.

Is jail time for drinking good, in your view, or not ? Is being CANED for it, good or bad ?

Just how barbaric IS Islam, anyway ??

Anyone with a copy of Word, a printer and some pretty yellow paper can do the same these days.

And it helps if his name is Anjem Choudary, noted supporter of Osama bin Laden, seeker of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, would-be killer of democracies around the world ... and implacable supporter of the furtherance of Islam ?

Regardless of Talaq or not, you will find that a man who wants a divorce in any Arab country these days still needs to go through the court system to get divorced. At least the civil marriage contract part of it.

You'd be surprised at how indignant some Muslims get when they find that their Talaq divorce isn't recognised by British law. Some of the nastiest exchanges I've ever witnessed have this very issue as the cause of them.

Does the religious part of a Christian marriage have any significance these days?

Very much so. Although .. Secularists are doing their utmost to stop this.

jafar00

11-18-2012, 09:15 PM

Let's be honest here, shall we ? What you really want is to be dismissive about somebody who exposes some ugly truths about Islam. Better that than have to face up to questioning about what he says and wants.

If someone has extremist views that only appeal to a very limited audience, it's not good but since that audience is limited, I don't see too much harm coming from it. From what you have shown me so far, I can reassure you that 99% of Muslims would strongly disagree with him.

Perhaps, Jafar, those Muslim terrorists were motivated, in part, to please their supposed 'god' BY committing their terrorism ? Maybe they wanted to redress the balance thrown out of kilter by past 'sins', and thought the 9/11 outrage was a great way to do it .. because 'Islam is a religion of peace' ?

If they did it to please God, they have been led astray by quite a wide margin. There is nothing in Islam that could possibly support what they did.

Oh, by the way, Jafar, this in passing .. tell me, those Hamas terrorists that Israel is busy depriving of their earthly lives .. where do you think THEY will go, to heaven or hell ? Do tell us !

I don't know the people that are being killed in Gaza, but I do know that the all the children being killed are most likely to end up straight in heaven.

Is jail time for drinking good, in your view, or not ? Is being CANED for it, good or bad ?

I think a few drunkards I have seen in my time could do with a good caning. ;)

And it helps if his name is Anjem Choudary, noted supporter of Osama bin Laden, seeker of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, would-be killer of democracies around the world ... and implacable supporter of the furtherance of Islam ?

I wouldn't worry too much. Osama never had much of a following outside of his own little circle so his dream of world domination was never going to happen. Oh, and he's dead now.

Besides. Have you seen what is happening in the Arab world today? The "would-be killer of democracies around the world" appears to have had a totally opposite effect.

You'd be surprised at how indignant some Muslims get when they find that their Talaq divorce isn't recognised by British law. Some of the nastiest exchanges I've ever witnessed have this very issue as the cause of them.

All they need is for a good Sheikh to remind them of their obligation to follow the law of the land where they live as long as the law doesn't make them sin.

jimnyc

11-18-2012, 09:17 PM

I think a few drunkards I have seen in my time could do with a good caning. ;)

Caning for drinking alcohol? Wow! I know drinking is against what being a Muslim stands for, but give someone a brutal beating for drinking? That's barbaric for an 'innocent' sin in which there is no victim.

tailfins

11-18-2012, 09:26 PM

Caning for drinking alcohol? Wow! I know drinking is against what being a Muslim stands for, but give someone a brutal beating for drinking? That's barbaric for an 'innocent' sin in which there is no victim.

No victim? Are you kidding me? I know of a few battered wives and children who would disagree with you! Walk the favelas of Rio de Janeiro if you want to see victims of alcohol first hand. You will see it unvarnished because cops become blind when they see hundred Real notes.

http://www.dormiu.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fotos-novo-real-banco-central-2010.jpg

jimnyc

11-18-2012, 09:34 PM

No victim? Are you kidding me? I know of a few battered wives and children who would disagree with you! Walk the favelas of Rio de Janeiro if you want to see victims of alcohol first hand. You will see it unvarnished because cops become blind when they see hundred Real notes.

http://www.dormiu.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fotos-novo-real-banco-central-2010.jpg

i believe i spoke solely of drinking, but if you want to toss in violence, which i never addressed, and then act like i dismissed it... thats just you being dishonest. simply drinking is a victimless sin and not deserving of punishment. care to make more stuff up now?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-18-2012, 09:38 PM

i believe i spoke solely of drinking, but if you want to toss in violence, which i never addressed, and then act like i dismissed it... thats just you being dishonest. simply drinking is a victimless sin and not deserving of punishment. care to make more stuff up now?

The disciples drank wine and it wasnt just grape juice.Just sayin.'-Tyr

jafar00

11-18-2012, 11:23 PM

i believe i spoke solely of drinking, but if you want to toss in violence, which i never addressed, and then act like i dismissed it... thats just you being dishonest. simply drinking is a victimless sin and not deserving of punishment. care to make more stuff up now?

I used to work in the entertainment industry both as a Musician and as the manager of Merchandise stalls. I have seen enough of the effects of alcohol to see that it is a very bad thing.

jimnyc

11-18-2012, 11:34 PM

I used to work in the entertainment industry both as a Musician and as the manager of Merchandise stalls. I have seen enough of the effects of alcohol to see that it is a very bad thing.

i have little doubt myself that its good for someone, but i wouldnt condone caning someone for smoking either, which is more harmful to an individual.

gabosaurus

11-18-2012, 11:45 PM

Caning for drinking alcohol? Wow! I know drinking is against what being a Muslim stands for, but give someone a brutal beating for drinking? That's barbaric for an 'innocent' sin in which there is no victim.

You should visit Singapore. You can get six months in jail for littering or spitting on the sidewalk. My cousin was there on business several years back and almost got arrested for blocking the entrance to a mosque (it's a crime there).
Interesting that drinking draws severe penalties (drug possession is punishable by death, no trial necessary), but many people spend long hours smoking hookah and chewing khat, which is more addictive than most drugs.

jafar00

11-19-2012, 02:32 AM

You should visit Singapore. You can get six months in jail for littering or spitting on the sidewalk. My cousin was there on business several years back and almost got arrested for blocking the entrance to a mosque (it's a crime there).
Interesting that drinking draws severe penalties (drug possession is punishable by death, no trial necessary), but many people spend long hours smoking hookah and chewing khat, which is more addictive than most drugs.

Men with long hair and cigarettes also can cop penalties in Singapore. That said, it's a good place to visit and I recommend spending a few days there as a tourist if you find your way there.

tailfins

11-19-2012, 07:56 AM

i believe i spoke solely of drinking, but if you want to toss in violence, which i never addressed, and then act like i dismissed it... thats just you being dishonest. simply drinking is a victimless sin and not deserving of punishment. care to make more stuff up now?

I'm not making anything up. I saw it with my own eyes.

jimnyc

11-19-2012, 12:11 PM

I'm not making anything up. I saw it with my own eyes.

I'm talking about things towards me - I mentioned caning solely for drinking, and said drinking is a victimless crime. You mentioned a crime, violence, domestic violence. I NEVER said anything about that. MILLIONS of people drink everyday without resorting to violence. You added that to make drinking sound as if it were a crime, but it's not. Not until you added another element anyway.

jafar00

11-19-2012, 06:24 PM

I'm talking about things towards me - I mentioned caning solely for drinking, and said drinking is a victimless crime. You mentioned a crime, violence, domestic violence. I NEVER said anything about that. MILLIONS of people drink everyday without resorting to violence. You added that to make drinking sound as if it were a crime, but it's not. Not until you added another element anyway.

What it all boils down to Jim, is that for you drinking is ok and that is all well and good, but for Muslims, it is forbidden. If you don't agree with it, don't become a Muslim :)

O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed.
Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from (His) worship. Will ye then have done?
(Qur'aan 5:90-91)

jimnyc

11-19-2012, 06:38 PM

What it all boils down to Jim, is that for you drinking is ok and that is all well and good, but for Muslims, it is forbidden. If you don't agree with it, don't become a Muslim :)

O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed.
Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from (His) worship. Will ye then have done?
(Qur'aan 5:90-91)

I understand you now, Jafar - it's ok to support terrorists when they kill the Jews - but we must cane those who dare sip some alcohol!

Drummond

11-19-2012, 08:32 PM

I used to work in the entertainment industry both as a Musician and as the manager of Merchandise stalls. I have seen enough of the effects of alcohol to see that it is a very bad thing.

... and also in a certain pub in London ?

You must have seen 'the effects of alcohol' in that pub. But, did that ever stop you visiting it ?

Oh, and did you ever feel tempted to go around caning any of its patrons ?? If not ... WHY not, since, according to Muslim reckoning, surely some of them would've needed to be caned ? H'm ?

Or, could it JUST be, that Muslim draconian punishments are entirely gratuitous, needless, pointless, done ONLY to satisfy someone's cruel streak ??

aboutime

11-19-2012, 09:29 PM

What it all boils down to Jim, is that for you drinking is ok and that is all well and good, but for Muslims, it is forbidden. If you don't agree with it, don't become a Muslim :)

O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed.
Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from (His) worship. Will ye then have done?
(Qur'aan 5:90-91)

jafar. Do you have access to an English Dictionary?

If so. Look up the definition of STUPID, or HYPOCRITE. Maybe you'll see an image of yourself next to that word.

If not. Just look up STUPID, or LIAR.

They all apply EQUALLY.

jafar00

11-19-2012, 09:54 PM

... and also in a certain pub in London ?

You must have seen 'the effects of alcohol' in that pub. But, did that ever stop you visiting it ?

Oh, and did you ever feel tempted to go around caning any of its patrons ?? If not ... WHY not, since, according to Muslim reckoning, surely some of them would've needed to be caned ? H'm ?

Or, could it JUST be, that Muslim draconian punishments are entirely gratuitous, needless, pointless, done ONLY to satisfy someone's cruel streak ??

That's pretty ridiculous, but I'll bite...

1) Its legal to drink in the UK
2) I am not law inforcement

So no, I didn't feel tempted to hit anyone.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-20-2012, 12:15 AM

That's pretty ridiculous, but I'll bite...

1) Its legal to drink in the UK
2) I am not law inforcement

So no, I didn't feel tempted to hit anyone.

Yet you support Hamas a terrorist organisation. And refuse to admit they started firing into Israel until Israel was forced to return fire.
How many times would you let a man hit you before you returned the favor!?? -Tyr

Drummond

11-20-2012, 02:51 PM

That's pretty ridiculous, but I'll bite...

1) Its legal to drink in the UK
2) I am not law inforcement

So no, I didn't feel tempted to hit anyone.

... BUT .... drinking alcohol is a 'sin' .. right ??

And aren't you a Muslim loyal enough to his creed to care about such 'sin' ?

Look. If Anjem Choudary and his goons can declare an entire London borough to be a Muslim-only zone, SURELY you could've done your small bit by walking into one of our pubs and whacking a few patrons with a cane ???

If Choudary can put Sharia law above 'man made' laws .. as he professes to do .. how can you think of doing any less ? If you saw someone nicking someone else's pint of beer, for example, why .. right there, you'd have the perfect right to chop his hands off !!

You really need to get into the spirit of things, Jafar. :cheers2:

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 03:47 PM

Yet you support Hamas a terrorist organisation. And refuse to admit they started firing into Israel until Israel was forced to return fire.
How many times would you let a man hit you before you returned the favor!?? -Tyr

A better question would be how many times a woman can do something before she gets beat. No direct accusations made, but I believe that anyone who supports a terrorist organization wouldn't be beneath such actions.

Marcus Aurelius

11-20-2012, 03:53 PM

A better question would be how many times a woman can do something before she gets beat. No direct accusations made, but I believe that anyone who supports a terrorist organization wouldn't be beneath such actions.

Jafar has already said he would fully support Sharia Law punishment for his wife if it were assigned.

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 03:55 PM

Jafar has already said he would fully support Sharia Law punishment for his wife if it were assigned.

And I would rather die myself than see my wife caned or anything remotely close to it. I would fight to the death, even against the law, before I would allow such to happen to the woman I married. I guess that's the difference between us.

aboutime

11-20-2012, 03:56 PM

Jafar has already said he would fully support Sharia Law punishment for his wife if it were assigned.

Marcus. And you are speaking of "THIS" Jafar?...... That could be jafar's wife as well?

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 04:50 PM

Marcus. And you are speaking of "THIS" Jafar?...... That could be jafar's wife as well?

Sorry, AT, I deleted the image. I think it's way too offensive for some and why I added a disclaimer to the image when I posted that story. Also, while it's obvious you weren't literally saying that was someone's wife, I'd rather we didn't post images claiming as much, or even better, keep our comments directed at those who can be here to defend themselves.

jafar00

11-20-2012, 06:24 PM

... BUT .... drinking alcohol is a 'sin' .. right ??

And aren't you a Muslim loyal enough to his creed to care about such 'sin' ?

Look. If Anjem Choudary and his goons can declare an entire London borough to be a Muslim-only zone, SURELY you could've done your small bit by walking into one of our pubs and whacking a few patrons with a cane ???

If Choudary can put Sharia law above 'man made' laws .. as he professes to do .. how can you think of doing any less ? If you saw someone nicking someone else's pint of beer, for example, why .. right there, you'd have the perfect right to chop his hands off !!

You really need to get into the spirit of things, Jafar. :cheers2:

Again...

1) Its legal to drink in the UK
2) I am not law inforcement

I would also probably be arrested and charged with assault which is pretty ironic since I'm a pacifist who hasn't as much as raised a fist in anger since I beat up the school bully when I was 11 y/o.

A better question would be how many times a woman can do something before she gets beat. No direct accusations made, but I believe that anyone who supports a terrorist organization wouldn't be beneath such actions.

I have never hit my wife, nor any other woman. I never will either.

Jafar has already said he would fully support Sharia Law punishment for his wife if it were assigned.

She is a good Muslim and would insist on the punishment herself.

aboutime

11-20-2012, 06:47 PM

Sorry, AT, I deleted the image. I think it's way too offensive for some and why I added a disclaimer to the image when I posted that story. Also, while it's obvious you weren't literally saying that was someone's wife, I'd rather we didn't post images claiming as much, or even better, keep our comments directed at those who can be here to defend themselves.

Understood jimnyc. But sadly. That photo represents the Reality of Life jafar denies exists. Those who have seen it uncensored know. Far worse has appeared on TV.

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 07:03 PM

I have never hit my wife, nor any other woman. I never will either.

She is a good Muslim and would insist on the punishment herself.

No, just like a "good muslim", you would allow someone else to do it. Sick.

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 07:04 PM

Understood jimnyc. But sadly. That photo represents the Reality of Life jafar denies exists. Those who have seen it uncensored know. Far worse has appeared on TV.

That may be true, but here at DP we try and avoid posting things like that in which others may not want to see without a disclaimer. If Jafar chooses to post his propaganda and faked pictures, let him do so, but don't lower yourself to his level.

logroller

11-20-2012, 07:08 PM

No, just like a "good muslim", you would allow someone else to do it. Sick.
While technically correct, if she were a good Muslim she wouldn't have committed the offense. Catch 22???

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 07:21 PM

While technically correct, if she were a good Muslim she wouldn't have committed the offense. Catch 22???

This is true. But I can say this much, if my wife were in ANY country, and say she was convicted of some lame Sharia crime, and sentenced to caning, my ass would be dead before that was allowed to happen. No religion and no women beating savages would be allowed to touch her while I was still alive. But some think a little beating here and there is necessary to keep the women in line. It will be denied of course, but ALL of their teachings call for it an allow for it.

It will be shown from the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and other Islamic writings that this "Islamic" wife beating is physical and painful.

From the Quran:

Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great! Rodwell

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. Dawood[2]
Men are in charge of women, because Allah has 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 has guarded. As for those from whom you 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. Pickthall[3]
Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great. Arberry[4]
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 their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. Shakir[5]
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). Ali[6]

COMMENT ON 4:34
The introduction emphasized the husband’s superiority over the wife. 4:34 starts by establishing that precedent. The beginning states: men are "superior", men have "authority", men are "in charge", etc. Muhammad placed the man over the wife; he is her custodian and she obeys him. Then the Quran proceeds to lay out their respective roles, then lists a progression of steps to be followed when dealing with a rebellious wife:

admonish them: The husband is to verbally admonish her
send them to beds apart: If that fails the husband is to sexually desert his wife
beat them: If both measures above fail the husband is commanded to beat his wife.

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm

Marcus Aurelius

11-20-2012, 08:38 PM

She is a good Muslim and would insist on the punishment herself.

And if the prescribed punishment were death, she'd insist on that?

you're full of shit.

aboutime

11-20-2012, 09:35 PM

And if the prescribed punishment were death, she'd insist on that?

you're full of shit.

Marcus. Say it with more feeling, and with a fitting jafar photo....4063

jafar00

11-20-2012, 10:48 PM

While technically correct, if she were a good Muslim she wouldn't have committed the offense. Catch 22???

10 points for you good sir.

This is true. But I can say this much, if my wife were in ANY country, and say she was convicted of some lame Sharia crime, and sentenced to caning, my ass would be dead before that was allowed to happen. No religion and no women beating savages would be allowed to touch her while I was still alive. But some think a little beating here and there is necessary to keep the women in line. It will be denied of course, but ALL of their teachings call for it an allow for it.

From the Quran:

Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great! Rodwell

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. Dawood[2]
Men are in charge of women, because Allah has 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 has guarded. As for those from whom you 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. Pickthall[3]
Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great. Arberry[4]
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 their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. Shakir[5]
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). Ali[6]

COMMENT ON 4:34
The introduction emphasized the husband’s superiority over the wife. 4:34 starts by establishing that precedent. The beginning states: men are "superior", men have "authority", men are "in charge", etc. Muhammad placed the man over the wife; he is her custodian and she obeys him. Then the Quran proceeds to lay out their respective roles, then lists a progression of steps to be followed when dealing with a rebellious wife:

admonish them: The husband is to verbally admonish her
send them to beds apart: If that fails the husband is to sexually desert his wife
beat them: If both measures above fail the husband is commanded to beat his wife.

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm

<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">Wife beating is not allowed in Islam in any case!</center>
<tbody>

</tbody><colgroup style="width: 1500px" valign="top"></colgroup><tbody>
The sections of this article are:
1- Wife beating is not allowed in Islam!
2- Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of
wife beating.
3- The Prophet forbade striking on the face.
4- What about the saying about striking the wife lightly on her hand with a siwak?
This saying doesn't belong to Prophet Muhammad.
5- More proofs about the translation of Noble Verse 4:34.
6- Conclusion.
Wife beating anytime and for any reason is never allowed in Islam. There is however a questionable condition where Allah Almighty seems to allow the husband to beat his wife, and that is after he gives her two warnings to stop showing ill-conduct and disloyalty.
Let us look at Noble Verses 4:34-36 "(34). Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
(35). If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.
(36). Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;"
The Arabic word used in Noble Verse 4:34 above is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The issue with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" is that they don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.
Allah Almighty used the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens". "daraba" here meant "give an example". If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example".
Allah Almighty also used the word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" in the sake of Allah Almighty:
"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: 'Thou art none of a Believer!' Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)"
So "daraba" literally means "beat", or "go abroad", or "give" but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.
Important Note: Notice how Allah Almighty in Noble Chapter (Surah) 4 He used "daraba (4:34" and "darabtum (4:94)", which are both derived from the same root. He used both words in the same Chapter, which tells me that "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:34 means to desert or leave, since that's what its derived word meant in Noble Verse 4:94. The next section below will further prove my point.
I am sure there are more Noble Verses that used words derived from "daraba" in the Noble Quran, but these are the only ones I know of so far. In the case of Noble Verse 4:34 where Allah Almighty seems to allow men to hit their wives after the two warnings for ill-conduct and disloyalty, it could very well be that Allah Almighty meant to command the Muslims to "leave" the home all together and desert their wives for a long time in a hope that the wives would then come back to their senses and repent.

<big><big>Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of wife beating:</big></big>
The following Noble Verses and Sayings from the Noble Quran and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him respectively seem to very well support the above interpretation:
"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"
Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"
Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: "He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)"
"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"
"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)"
"Women impure for men impure. And women of purity for men of purity. These are not affected by what people say. For them is forgiveness and an honorable provision. (The Noble Quran 24:26)"
Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)"
Narrated Abu Huraira: "A man said to the Prophet , 'Advise me! 'The Prophet said, 'Do not become angry and furious.' The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, 'Do not become angry and furious.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 137)"
Abu Huraira reported: "I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: One is not strong because of one's wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah's Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa'l-Adab), Book 032, Number 6314)"
Allah Almighty loves those who restrain anger: "Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good. (The Noble Quran, 3:134)"

<big><big>The Prophet forbade striking on the face:</big></big>
Let us look at the following narrations about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:
Narrated Salim: "....Umar said: 'The Prophet forbade beating on the face.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Hunting, Slaughtering, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 449)"
Narrated AbuHurayrah: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you inflicts a beating, he should avoid striking the face. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud), Number 4478)"
These narrations do not prove the interpretation that wife beating being ok as long as it is not done on the face, because the narrations are general and do not mention any wives. The striking could be done on our children when we discipline them. In this case, the above two narrations would fit perfectly with the situation, because while we can still physically discipline our children, we are not allowed to hit them on the face.

<big><big>What about the saying about striking the wife lightly on her hand with a siwak?</big></big>
There is not a single Saying or Noble Verse from Prophet Muhammad or the Noble Quran respectively that mentions any such beating.
A siwak is a small piece of wood that is approximately twice as long as an index finger and as thick as a thumb, which was used 1400 years ago to brush the teeth and the bad breath.
This saying actually belongs to Imam Shafie, and not to Prophet Muhammad. Imam Shafie or Minister Shafie is a popular Muslim scholar that came 100s of years after Prophet Muhammad. I used to have the reference information to his saying about this subject, but unfortunately I lost it. When I find it insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty wills it) I will post it.

<big><big>More proofs about the translation of Noble Verse 4:34:</big></big>
The following is an email that sent to me by brother A. Tilling (ARJTilling@aol.com); may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.
From: ARJTilling@aol.com
To: ISLM4EVR1@aol.com
Subj: Another Reply to Mr O Abdallah
Date: 3/28/02 3:16:15 AM Central Standard Time
Peace,
I have visited the link and it was what I expected. But the question I am asking is a linguistic one, not one based on interpretations and jurisprudence. Here again is the extract I provided:
>>>>>>>
(4:34) [...]as for those women on whose part ye fear rebellion (nushuz), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (adriboo) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them.
Note from me Osama Abdallah: Actually the Arabic word is not "adriboo" which is a plural for beating men. It is "idribuhunna" which is a plural for beating women. But the two Arabic words mean the same thing, which is "beating".
Continuing with brother A. Tilling email....
The key to the problem is the mistranslation of the two key words nushuz and adriboo. Some of the possible meanings for both the words, according to the lexicon,3 are given below. Again, the appropriate meaning will depend on the context of the verse.
Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.
Adriboo (root: daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part.
In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is 'marital discord' (ill-will, animosity etc), and for adriboo is 'to separate' or 'to part'. Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure. Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur'anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below. Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:
(4:34) [...]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.
The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure. Such as construction is legitimate within the terms of the language and fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur'an (see 8.5).
The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.
(4:35) And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware.
Added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse 4:128 quoted below. Here, in the case of a man, the same word nushuz is used, but it is rendered as 'ill-treatment' as against 'rebellion' in the case of a woman as shown earlier in the traditional translation of verse 4:34. One find oneself asking whether since the ill-treatment is on the part of the husband, a process of reconciliation is here to be encouraged!
(4:128) If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best[...]
This, obviously, is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of adriboo as: 'to separate' or to 'part'. In this connection I would like to refer the reader to an excellent article by Rachael Tibbet from which I quote:
(a) Qur'anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur'an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. 'Daraba' can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.
(b) The translation of adribu as 'to strike' in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than:
(i) The authority of hadiths (Abu Daud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what Adribu means in this context.
(ii) The prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur'an which led them to assume that 'to strike', given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of adribu.
>>>>>>>>>

Thanks
A Tilling

<big><big>Conclusion:</big></big>
According to the Noble Quran and the Sayings of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him above, wife beating in Islam is definetly prohibited, possibly even in the case where the wife fails after she was warned twice for her ill-conduct and disloyalty.
It is definetly a valid interpretation for Noble Verse 4:34 that Allah Almighty commanded the Muslim men to desert and leave their wives, and not to physically beat them as many scholars believe.
I personally favor this non-violent interpretation, because (1) It is very well supported in Islam as clearly and unquestionably shown above; and (2) It makes more sense and seems more practical in dealing with the bad wife who insists on showing ill-conduct and disloyalty toward her husband and family.
And Allah Almighty knows best, and may He forgive me if I made any mistake here.

http://www.islamawareness.net/Wife/beating1.html

</tbody>

And if the prescribed punishment were death, she'd insist on that?

you're full of shit.

Yes, she would.

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 10:59 PM

what a joke!say that beating isnt allowed and yet number 6 states light beating is allowex. either way, forgive me if i dont follow the word of someone who admits to supporting terrorists. i'll go with what i have read myself, and from the statistics i have seen from muslims around the world.

jimnyc

11-20-2012, 11:06 PM

<tbody>

3- The Prophet forbade striking on the face.

6- Conclusion.
Wife beating anytime and for any reason is never allowed in Islam. There is however a questionable condition where Allah Almighty seems to allow the husband to beat his wife, and that is after he gives her two warnings to stop showing ill-conduct and disloyalty.
Let us look at Noble Verses 4:34-36 "(34). Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

</tbody>

So the pedoprophet forbid striking, only in the face of course. And beating isn't allowed, but until after 2 warnings. And maybe again, but not until after one refuses to share their bed, and so long as you do so lightly. Sorry, I stopped there, as it's too sick to read any further, making excuses and giving "reasoning" to make it ok to beat a woman. Women should NEVER be beaten, EVER, even with ENDLESS warnings and NO MATTER what transpired previously.

Marcus Aurelius

11-20-2012, 11:36 PM

Jafar... do you approve of sex with 9 year old girls, assuming she is Muslim? Your prophet did.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 62: (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html)
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years

Before you try to spin your way out of this, here is the definition of the word 'consummate'...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consummate

to complete (the union of a marriage) by the first marital sexual intercourse.

That is the ONLY definition which matches the context of the quoted verse.

Essentially, your 'prophet' was a pedophile.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-20-2012, 11:42 PM

10 points for you good sir. .

Bravo. Log scores but he never supports muslims or thier evil teachings. And he is not a muslim appeasor.
Thats why Jafar just thanked him and gave him brownie points..--Tyr

Jafar first you say beating women is not allowed in Islam then you acknowledge that beting them lightly is allowed.
I guess Allah has shown you guys how yes and no both mean the same thing.. Your defender log agrees too.. :laugh2:

logroller

11-21-2012, 03:37 AM

Bravo. Log scores but he never supports muslims or thier evil teachings. And he is not a muslim appeasor.
Thats why Jafar just thanked him and gave him brownie points..--Tyr

Jafar first you say beating women is not allowed in Islam then you acknowledge that beting them lightly is allowed.
I guess Allah has shown you guys how yes and no both mean the same thing.. Your defender log agrees too.. :laugh2:
Please show me where I defended him. You cannot, for i did not. Nor can you show where I agreed with him. I agreed with Jim, with the caveat that Jafar's statement was a paradox, a catch-22. Jafar agreed with me, not I with him. So I scored using logic and, not surprisingly, you failed to comprehend.

jafar00

11-21-2012, 06:02 AM

Sorry, I stopped there, as it's too sick to read any further,

Then there is no point in debating the point any further if you stop at using an English interpretation of a word that can have 10 different meanings. One of which is separation which is supported by the verses after (oh context is a bitch) which talk about how to deal with separation or divorce.

Jafar... do you approve of sex with 9 year old girls, assuming she is Muslim? Your prophet did.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 62: (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html)
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Before you try to spin your way out of this, here is the definition of the word 'consummate'...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consummate

That is the ONLY definition which matches the context of the quoted verse.

Essentially, your 'prophet' was a pedophile.

Nice diversion, but I have already posted extensively about this in another thread. Try going back 1500 years to call all the Kings, Queens and Noble paedophiles for marrying young. It was the custom AT THE TIME. I'm not going to say that again if you won't listen.

Jafar first you say beating women is not allowed in Islam then you acknowledge that beting them lightly is allowed.
I guess Allah has shown you guys how yes and no both mean the same thing.. Your defender log agrees too.. :laugh2:

Since there are other verses saying do not beat your wife, and hadiths to support not beating your wife, there is more evidence to say that wife beating is forbidden than evidence to support beatings. However the subject has still been debated and if you were to do it, it should be done with a small stick the size of your finger, without harming her and not on the face.

Try it now. Tap yourself on the arm with a pencil.........

Did it hurt?

Marcus Aurelius

11-21-2012, 07:52 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=594312#post594312)

Jafar... do you approve of sex with 9 year old girls, assuming she is Muslim? Your prophet did.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sun...i/062.sbt.html (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html)
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 62: (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/sunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html)
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Before you try to spin your way out of this, here is the definition of the word 'consummate'...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consummate

That is the ONLY definition which matches the context of the quoted verse.

Essentially, your 'prophet' was a pedophile.

Nice diversion, but I have already posted extensively about this in another thread. Try going back 1500 years to call all the Kings, Queens and Noble paedophiles for marrying young. It was the custom AT THE TIME. I'm not going to say that again if you won't listen.

First, I'd like you to provide some supporting evidence that sex with 9 year old girls was customary at that time. Please link to your sources for this statement. Marrying a 14 year old girl (post pubescent) is vastly different than marrying a 9 year old girl (pre-pubescent).

Second, whether or not it was custom at the time is immaterial. Your prophet had sex with a 9 year old girl. Do you approve of that? A simple yes or no is all that is needed here.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-21-2012, 10:25 AM

Since there are other verses saying do not beat your wife, and hadiths to support not beating your wife, there is more evidence to say that wife beating is forbidden than evidence to support beatings. However the subject has still been debated and if you were to do it, it should be done with a small stick the size of your finger, without harming her and not on the face.

Try it now. Tap yourself on the arm with a pencil.........

Did it hurt?

Jafar the entire purpose for beating a person for transgressions is to inflict enough pain so that person will choose not to make the same transgression again! Its called corporal punishment and pain is its entire purpose, yet you now attempt to say pain is not the purpose for beating a wife. If it inflicts no pain( although it does actually inflict pain) then pray tell what is its purpose? If you say shame then shame needs not physical actions to be applied when words and other penalties apply much better.
We know that wife beating is to inflict pain. It is barbaric punishment and your religion endorses it on a great scale.
By the way , I promise you that I could make a man cry out by hitting him with a small stick the size of my little finger. You must have some damn small fingers if your little finger is the size of a pencil.;)--Tyr

Marcus Aurelius

11-21-2012, 10:33 AM

...You must have some damn small fingers if your little finger is the size of a pencil.;)--Tyr

Oh, it was his 'finger' that he was comparing to a pencil??? ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-21-2012, 10:35 AM

Oh, it was his 'finger' that he was comparing to a pencil??? ;)

:laugh: :laugh2: :laugh:. I thought it was , maybe not..;)--Tyr

jimnyc

11-21-2012, 11:02 AM

Then there is no point in debating the point any further if you stop at using an English interpretation of a word that can have 10 different meanings. One of which is separation which is supported by the verses after (oh context is a bitch) which talk about how to deal with separation or divorce.

YOU posted it, not me, but we ALL know that ALL of the Muslim writings teach that it is ok to give beatings to ones wife. How does one poorly translate Arabic into "beat someone lightly", and then post it, and then claim afterwards that it was a poor translation. I'll simply have it further clarified from a friend today, who is not a psycho and isn't afraid to admit the tons of problems within Islam. Its is ALL over the writings that men are superior to women. But it's no big deal, as of course the women are "obedient" and they've been given 2 warnings already, so I suppose the beating is needed to bring them back to obedience.

"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.""

…So I informed him [Muhammad]. (By that time) Mu'awiya, Abu Jahm and Usama b. Zaid had given her the proposal of marriage. Allah's Messenger said: So far as Mu'awiya is concerned, he is a poor man without any property. So far as Abu Jahm is concerned, he is a great beater of women, but Usama b. Zaid... She pointed with her hand (that she did not approve of the idea of marrying) Usama. But Allah's Messenger said: Obedience to Allah and obedience to His Messenger is better for thee. She said: So I married him, and I became an object of envy.

…She said: Mu'awiya and Abu'l-Jahm were among those who had given me the proposal of marriage. Thereupon Allah's Apostle said: Mu'awiya is destitute and in poor condition and Abu'l-Jahm is very harsh with women (or he beats women, or like that), you should take Usama b. Zaid (as your husband).

These three Hadith illustrate that some Muslim husbands could legally beat their wives without any retaliatory consequences. Abu Jahm was known to beat his wives and to treat them harshly. Although Muhammad may not have cared for it, wife beating was certainly allowed within the Islamic community.

Disciplining the wife was important enough in Islamic thought that Abu Dawud devoted a small chapter dedicated to wife beating in his Hadith collection. Below are two of them.

Iyas Dhubab reported the apostle of Allah as saying: "Do not beat Allah's handmaidens", but when Umar came to the apostle of Allah and said: "Women have become emboldened towards their husbands", he (the prophet), gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the apostle of Allah said, "Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you"

Umar reported the prophet as saying: "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife".

Like Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah also has a short chapter dedicated to the topic of wife beating.

Iyas b. ‘Abdullah, the son of Abu Dhubab reported that Allah’s Messenger said, "Do not beat the slave girls (women folk)." Then Umar visited the Holy Prophet and said, "Allah’s Messenger, women have become emboldened towards their husbands. So allow us to beat them. So, they were beaten (when permission was granted). upon this many groups of women went round the family of Muhammad. When it was morning, he, (the Holy Prophet), said, "Seventy women went round the family of Muhammad this night. Every woman was making a complaint against her spouse. You will not find them (1) the best among you.

Ash’ath b. Qais is reported to have said, "One night Umar arranged a feast. When it was midnight, he got up and went towards his wife to beat her. I separated them both. When he went to bed, he said to me, "O Ash’ath, preserve from me a thing that I heard from Allah’s messenger. (These things are): A man will not be taken to task for beating his wife (for valid reasons) and do not sleep without observing witr prayer." I forgot the third (exhortation).

…When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger. He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Kharija when she asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr then got up went to 'Aisha and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger for anything he does not possess…

Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.

"Narrated Zam'a, "The prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.""

Shortly before he died as a result of poisoning by a Jewish woman [12], Muhammad addressed a crowd of Muslims in Mecca. He commented on several issues including the treatment of women. Below is the pertinent quote from Guillaume’s translation of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah".

"You have rights over your wives, and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not with severity. If they refrain from these things and obey you, they have right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are your wards having no control of their persons."

The Muslim scholar Ali Dashti translates the fourth sentence from the above passage and comments:

Look after women kindly! They are prisoners, not having control of themselves at all". The passage's word in Arabic "awan" translated as "ward" or "prisoners" implies that women are in-between slave and free. In other words, because women are unable control their emotions, men are given authority over them

Below is a large selection of commentary from some of the greatest scholars in Islam on 4:34.

COMMENTARY OF AL TABARI[15]

Tabari was a Shafi’i scholar and wrote one of the most extensive Quranic commentaries which was used by other Muslim scholars when writing their commentaries. Additionally, Tabari wrote a detailed history focusing primarily upon the Islamic world. This history is available in English as "The History of al-Tabari".

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others

This means that men are in charge of their wives in leadership and discipline, because of paying them the dowry; spending their money on them; and providing for their needs. That’s how Allah chooses to excel men over them. That’s what the commentators have agreed on.

Ibn Abbas said {Men are the maintainers of women} means that the woman has to obey her man in all of what Allah has commanded her, this includes the kind treatment of his family, the protection of his money.

Al Dhahaak said: the man is the maintainer of his wife by ordering her to obey Allah. If she refused; then he can beat her not severely.

It was said that this verse was revealed because a man hit his wife on her face, so she came to the prophet (saw). The prophet then wanted to judge in her favor. But Allah revealed { Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others}. Then the prophet called on the man and recited this verse to him and said: "I wanted one thing, but Allah wanted another".

Al Zahry said: if a man hit his wife or wounded her, he is not to be charged, unless he kills her, then he shall be killed for murdering her.

and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion

Some scholars said: it means those whom you know that they are doing something disobedient. Others said: if you see a questionable behavior by them. Then you ought to advise them and refuse to sleep with them.

{desertion} means: disobeying her husband. Ibn Abbas said: it is when the wife undermined her husband’s position and disobey him.

{admonish them} Ibn Abbas said: by following the Quran. Mujahid said: if a woman deserted her bed and her husband told her : fear Allah and come back to bed and she obeyed him, then he has no right to admonish her.

and leave them alone in the sleeping-places

There are different opinions in interpreting this part of the verse. Some said: it means, do not have intercourse with them. Others like Ibn Abbas said: it means not to share bed with them (not intercourse). Others said: it means, to abandon speaking to them in bed.

Ibn Abbas also said: it means, to stop talking to them, and to be mean to them and not have intercourse with them.

and beat them

It means: admonish them, but if they refused to repent, then tie them up in their homes and beat them until they obey Allah’s commands toward you. Scholars said: the beating that is allowed by Allah is not the severe kind. Ibn Abbas said: not severe.

Also, Ibn Abbas said: abandon her in bed, but if she refused to return, then beat her not severely and do not break her bone. Ibn Abbas said: the beating has to be with light stick or the like.

Al Qassem narrated, the prophet said: "do not abandon your wives except in bed, and when you beat them, do not beat them severely".

COMMENTARY OF IBN KATHIR[16]

Ibn Kathir was also a Shafi’i scholar and is one of the distinguished Islamic scholars. His commentary (tafseer) is a favorite of Sunni Muslims. Excerpts from his commentary on 4:34 follow. The quote is very long, but it is of great value in describing how the woman is positioned in Islam, and it provides the theological justification for her beating. I quote from pages 50 through 53.

"In this verse Allah says that the man is the leader over the woman and is the one who disciplines her if she does wrong. "Because Allah has made one of them excel the other", this is because men are better than women, and a man is better than a woman. Therefore, prophethood and great kingship were confined to men, as the Prophet said, "A people that choose a woman as their leader will not succeed." This Hadith was narrated by Al-Bukhari. Added to that positions such as the judiciary, etc, … "And because they spend from their means." Here, Allah refers to the dowry and expenses, which Allah has prescribed in the Quran and Sunnah; and given a man is better than a woman, it is appropriate that he be her protector and maintainer, as Allah says: "But men have a degree over them." 2:228

Therefore, a woman should obey her husband in what Allah has commanded her with regards to his obedience and Allah’s obedience. She should be kind towards his family, protective of his wealth. The statement was also held by Muqatil, As-Sudiy and Adh-Dhahhak.

On the authority of Ali, Ibn Mardawaih narrated: "A man from al-Ansar came with a woman to the Prophet, then the woman said: "O Allah’s messenger! Her husband who was known as so and so from al-Ansar had hit her and that had affected her face." The Prophet replied: "He should not have done that." Then, the verse, "men are the protectors and maintainers of women", as far as discipline is concerned, was revealed. Therefore, the Prophet said, "You wanted something and Allah wanted something else.""

"Because Allah has made one of them excel the other and because they spend from their means." Ash-Sha’bi stated that this excellence refers to the bridal money; for if the husband reprimands her, he shall not be punished and if she reprimands him, she will be lashed. "Therefore the righteous among women, are devoutly obedient" to their husbands. "And guard in the husband’s absence" her honor and his wealth. "What Allah orders them to guard." This part of the verse means that the guarded is he whom Allah has guarded.

Quoting Abu Hurairah, Ibn Jarir narrated: "The Prophet said: "The best among women are the ones who pleases you when you look at her, obeys you when you give her an order and guards herself and your wealth during your absence." Then the Prophet recited: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women…""

"As to those women on whose part you see misconduct (nushuzuhunna)." The reference is made to those who show disobedience. It is said that a nashiza – from the verb nashaza = to disobey – is a woman who disobeys her husband’s order, opposes and dislikes him. Therefore, if a husband feels the signs of her disobedience, he should give her advice, threaten her with Allah’s Punishment for her disobedience to her husband. This is because Allah has prescribed that a wife has a duty towards her husband and she should obey him, and that it is unlawful for her to disobey him due to his excellence. The Prophet said in this context: "If I were to order one to prostrate to another, I would order a women to prostrate to her husband due to the greatness of her duty towards him."

"Refuse to share their beds." Ibn Abbas said: "A man should advise her if she accepts. Otherwise, he should refuse to share their bed." Quoting Ibn Abbas, "Sharing the bed means: a man should not have sexual intercourse with his wife, and should turn his back on her in bed. Quoting Muawiyyah Ibn Hida al-Qushairi, it is narrated in the books of Sunan (Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, etc…) and Musnad: "O Allah Messenger! What is a man’s duty towards his wife?" The Prophet replied: "Feed her when you feed yourself, buy her clothes when you buy yourself clothes, do not hit her in the face, do not scold and do not desert her except in the house.""

"And beat them." If they do not abstain from their disobedience through both advice and desertion. However, the beating should be dharbun ghayru nubrah, i.e. light, according to the Hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Jabir, who had quoted the Prophet as saying in his farewell pilgrimage: "And fear Allah in women, for they are your aides, and their duties towards you is that your beds should not be shared with someone you dislike. Therefore, if they disobey you, beat them lightly, and your duty towards them is that you should maintain and buy them clothes in a reasonable manner."

Scholars said: dharbun ghayru nubrah means: The husband should beat his wife lightly, in a way which does not result in breaking one of her limbs or affecting her badly.

"But if they obey, seek not against them means (of annoyance)." If a woman obeys her husband in all what he wants from her, as long as within the boundaries of what is lawful, he should not beat nor desert her."

COMMENTARY OF BAIDAWI[17]

Baidawi was a Persian Shafi’l scholar who was so respected that he was referred to as "The Judge".

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others

Men are the maintainers over women just as rulers are over their populous, and Allah gave two reasons for this exaltation:

One is due to the completeness of men’s brain over women’s deficiency, their management skills, and their extra requirement of worship; this is why men were chosen to be prophets; religious leaders; rulers; and enforcers of commandments; legal witnesses in a court of law; fighters in the cause of Allah; receivers of more share of the inheritance and in control of divorce. The other is their duty to pay dowry to their wives and provide for them.

It was told that Sa’ad bin Al Rabee’a wife became disobedient so he smacked her. Then her father went to the messenger (saw) to file his complaint, wherein the messenger ruled in her favor. Then this verse was sent down, at which point the messenger said: we wanted something but Allah wanted another, and Allah knows better.

and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion

if you fear their disobedient

Admonish them

Then advise them

and leave them alone in the sleeping-places

Do not share bed with them, or do not face them when sleeping on the same bed or do not have intercourse with them.

and beat them

Means in a non severe manner.

And these three options have to be followed in the same order

COMMENTARY OF THE JALALAIN[18]

This commentary is the work of two men named Jalal. The second Jalal (Suyuti), who was a Shafi’i scholar and a Sufi, and was regarded as being one the greatest Islamic scholars. He finished the work of the first.

Men are in charge of, they have authority over, women, disciplining them and keeping them in check, because of that with which God has preferred the one over the other, that is, because God has given them the advantage over women, in knowledge, reason, authority and otherwise, and because of what they expend, on them [the women], of their property. Therefore righteous women, among them, are obedient, to their husbands, guarding in the unseen, that is, [guarding] their private parts and otherwise during their spouses' absence, because of what God has guarded, for them, when He enjoined their male spouses to look after them well. And those you fear may be rebellious, disobedient to you, when such signs appear, admonish them, make them fear God, and share not beds with them, retire to other beds if they manifest such disobedience, and strike them, but not violently, if they refuse to desist [from their rebellion] after leaving them [in separate beds]. If they then obey you, in what is desired from them, do not seek a way against them, a reason to strike them unjustly. God is ever High, Great, so beware of Him, lest He punish you for treating them unjustly.

COMMENTARY OF IBN ABBAS[19]

Ibn Abbas was Muhammad’s cousin and spent much time with him. He was regarded as being one of the great Muslim scholars of his time.

(Men are in charge of women) they are in charge of overseeing the proper conduct of women, (because Allah hath made the one of them) the men through reason and the division of booty and estates (to excel the other) the women, (and because they spend of their property (for the support of women) through paying the dowry and spending on them, which the women are not required to do. (So good women) He says: those wives who are kind to their husbands (are the obedient) they are obedient to Allah regarding their husbands, (guarding) their own persons and the wealth of their husbands (in secret) when their husbands are not present (that which Allah hath guarded) through Allah's protection of them in that He gave them the success to do so. (As for those from whom ye fear) know (rebellion) their disobedience to you in bed, (admonish them) by means of sacred knowledge and the Qur'an (and banish them to beds apart) turn your faces away from them in bed, (and scourge them) in a mild, unexaggerated manner. (Then if they obey you) in bed, (seek not a way against them) as regard love. (Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted) above every single thing, (Great) greater than every single thing. Allah has not burdened you with that which you cannot bear, so do not burden women with that which they cannot bear of affection.

COMMENTARY OF AL QURTUBI[20]

"Qurtubi was from Cordova, Spain, a Maliki scholar and hadith specialist, he was one of the greatest Imams of Koranic exegesis."[21]

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others

They provide for them, and from men come out rulers; princes & warriors, whereas this is not found among women.

This verse was revealed because Sa’ad ibn Al Rabee’a slapped his wife Habibah bint Zaid after she deserted him. After which, her father said: O’ Messenger of Allah, I gave him my daughter (as a bed spread for him) but he slapped her. Then the messenger said: let us judge her husband. So she left with her father seeking judgment. But then the messenger said: come back, this is the angel Gabriel has come down to me. Then Allah revealed: (we willed something but Allah willed another). And in another story: (I willed something, but Allah willed something better).

It was told that due to this incident, Sura 20:114 "…and do not make haste with the Quran before its revelation is made complete to you…" Was revealed.

Abu Raouq said: this verse was revealed because of Jamilah bint Obey and her husband Thabit bin Qais. Al Kalby said: it was revealed because of Omayrah bint Muhammad bin Muslamah and her husband Sa’ad bin Al Rabee’a…Allah has revealed that the reason why men are excelled over women because men are the providers, and hence women will benefit from that. It is also said: men are excelled over women because they have more brain ability…

and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion

If the wife hates and desert her husband

Admonish them

By using Allah’s scripture. It means to remind them of their duties, toward their husbands, which were ordained to them by Allah. The prophet of Allah (saw) said: (if I was to order someone to prostrate to another person, I would have ordered the wife to prostrate to her husband)

and leave them alone in the sleeping-places

Ibn Masud said: it is the intercourse. As said Ibn Abbas and others.

I (Al Qurtubi) said, it is a good thing; since if she loves her husband then this abandonment will be hard on her. But if she despises him, then her disobedient attitude towards him will become the more clearer.

Ibn Abbas said: to leave them alone is to tie them up in their homes just as you would tie your ride. And this is Al Tabari’s own view on this. However, Judge Abu Bakr bin Al Araby renounced Al Tabari’s interpretation on the ground of tying the wife, as he believe that Al Tabari based his view on a strange hadith regarding Asma’ the daughter of Abu Bakr who was married to Al Zubair bin Al Awaam. She used to leave her home often until people began to gossip and fault her husband for that, As a result, Al Zubair blamed his second wife for this and tied Asma’s hair and the hair of his second wife together, then he beat both of them up very severely.

This abandonment is believed by many scholars to be around a period of one month.

and beat them

Allah ordered that men begin by admonishing their wives as a first step, then abandonment, then beating if they refused to repent. This is because men are responsible to straighten their wives up. The beating mentioned in this verse has to do with the kind that is not severe and used for discipline. The kind that does not break the bone. However, it is not a crime if it leads to death. In the same manner a disciplinary will beat his son or student to teach him the Quran and manners.

In a hadith in Sahih Muslim the Prophet said: (fear Allah with your wives. You were given them by Allah’s provision, and you were entrusted with their private parts by Allah’s word. You have the right that they do not allow anyone you dislike into your bed, but if they do, then beat them but not severely) the hadith. It was narrated on the authority of Jabir Al Taweel during Hajj. This means that they should not allow anyone into your home that you dislike whether relatives or foreign women.

Al Tirmithi reported that Amro bin Al Ahwas had attended the Farewell Hajj and heard the messenger of Allah say: "Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that - EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY (fahisha mubina = adultery). If they do, then refuse to share their beds and beat them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE (fadribuhunna darban ghayra mubarrih*). Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision."

Atta asked Ibn Abbas: what is the non severer beating. Ibn Abbas answered: using a small stick or the like.

It was reported also that Omar beat his wife and said, I heard the messenger of Allah say: (No man should be asked why he beat his wife).

You need to know that Allah did not allow for beating in his book except in this situation and when the major sins have been committed. Therefore, Allah has made the disobedient of wives equivalent to the commitment of major sins.

And Allah granted this privilege to the husbands over the Islamic authorities (Rulers), and allowed it for them without the need for a judge or witnesses or evidences. They were allowed this because they were entrusted by Allah to handle to take care of their wives.

Al Muhallab said: the permission was given to beat the wives when they refuse to sleep with their husbands. By comparison, if she refuses to serve him too then he is permitted to beat her too.

Her disobedient and refusal to sleep with her husband is a ground for the husband to deny her her allowance and all of her spousal rights, along with that, the husband is allowed to admonish her; refuse to sleep with her; and to beat her. But if she repented, then all of her rights will be reinstituted. The prophet (saw) said: (Allah’s mercy is on the man who hang his beating lash (stick) and disciplined his wife).

AL-NAWAWI (Reliance of the Traveller)[22]

Nawawi is one of the great Islamic jurisprudence scholars. He was a 13th century Shafi’i scholar. His work was used by Ahmad Naqib in writing "Reliance of the Traveller". This book is a "Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law". From the section m10.12, "Dealing with a Rebellious Wife", page 540,

"When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz), whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, "fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me," or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, "Your obeying me is religiously obligatory"). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (bruise her), break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (It is unlawful to strike another’s face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may hot hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness."

If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed "rebellious" (nashiz), and the husband takes the following steps to correct matters:

(a) admonition and advice, by explaining the unlawfulness of rebellion, its harmful effect on married life, and by listening to her viewpoint on the matter;

(b) if admonition is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her, by which both learn the degree to which they need each other;

(c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her if he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family.

(d) if the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.

COMMENTARY OF E. M. WHERRY[23]

Wherry was a Christian scholar who studied Islam and compiled a 4-volume set of various commentaries on the Quran. He was also able to identify the criticality of how the women is positioned in Islam and makes some in-depth comments.

Men shall have the pre-eminence. The ground of the pre-eminence of man over woman is here said to be man’s natural superiority over woman. Women are an inferior class of human beings. "The advantages wherein God hath causes the one of them to excel the other" are said by the commentators to be "superior understanding and strength, and the other privileges of the male sex, e.g., ruling in church and state, warring for the faith, and receiving double portions of the estates of deceased ancestors (see Sale in loco). Men are the lords of the women, and women become the virtual slaves of the men. The holy, happy estate of Eve in Eden can never be even approximately secured for her daughters under Islam.

…

The difference between the home-life of the Christian and that of the Muslim cannot be more clearly indicated than by a comparison of this verse with Gen. ii. 23, Eph. v. 28, and 1 Pet. iii. 7.

aboutime

11-21-2012, 03:19 PM

jafar00

11-21-2012, 07:38 PM

First, I'd like you to provide some supporting evidence that sex with 9 year old girls was customary at that time. Please link to your sources for this statement. Marrying a 14 year old girl (post pubescent) is vastly different than marrying a 9 year old girl (pre-pubescent).

Second, whether or not it was custom at the time is immaterial. Your prophet had sex with a 9 year old girl. Do you approve of that? A simple yes or no is all that is needed here.

See http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37148-How-Khomeini-founder-of-the-Islamic-Republic-condemns-pedophilia&p=581796#post581796 for a small list with supporting evidence.

The marriage was consumated at puberty. There are records that she had breasts at the time. As was the custom among thousands of other people 1400 years ago.

You can come back to me when you also condemn in the same breath...

* Henry XI of Głogów who married Barbara of Brandenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_of_Brandenburg) when she was 8 y/o
* Isaac II Angelos the Byzantine emperor who married Margaret of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Hungary) at the age of 9 y/o
* Humphrey IV of Toron who married Isabella I of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem) when she was 11 y/o after betrothal at 8
* Stephen Uroš I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Uro%C5%A1_I) (Uros the Great) who was king of Serbia who married Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou) when she was 9 y/o
* Stephen Dragutin of Serbia who married Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Hungary,_Queen_of_Serbia) at age 11 or 12.
* King Stephen Uroš II Milutin who married Simonida Nemanjić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonida) when she was 5 y/o

...... and many more

Early marriage to unite clans, royal families was normal practise. Girls and boys were betrothed at early ages in order to secure alliances. In fact Aicha's betrothal was intended to strengthen Mohammed's (saw) ties with the family of Abu Bakr (as). She later became one of Islam's most revered figures.

No more debate is needed on the subject.

Jafar the entire purpose for beating a person for transgressions is to inflict enough pain so that person will choose not to make the same transgression again! Its called corporal punishment and pain is its entire purpose, yet you now attempt to say pain is not the purpose for beating a wife. If it inflicts no pain( although it does actually inflict pain) then pray tell what is its purpose? If you say shame then shame needs not physical actions to be applied when words and other penalties apply much better.
We know that wife beating is to inflict pain. It is barbaric punishment and your religion endorses it on a great scale.
By the way , I promise you that I could make a man cry out by hitting him with a small stick the size of my little finger. You must have some damn small fingers if your little finger is the size of a pencil.;)--Tyr

While I do agree you may inflict pain with a pencil, perhaps by poking an eye out, but tapping someone with one is merely going to get their attention.

YOU posted it, not me, but we ALL know that ALL of the Muslim writings teach that it is ok to give beatings to ones wife. How does one poorly translate Arabic into "beat someone lightly", and then post it, and then claim afterwards that it was a poor translation. I'll simply have it further clarified from a friend today, who is not a psycho and isn't afraid to admit the tons of problems within Islam. Its is ALL over the writings that men are superior to women. But it's no big deal, as of course the women are "obedient" and they've been given 2 warnings already, so I suppose the beating is needed to bring them back to obedience.

I don't see anything in what you posted to support beating one's wife.

jimnyc

11-21-2012, 08:32 PM

I don't see anything in what you posted to support beating one's wife.

Then you are lying, I just posted a VERY LONG list of commentary direct from Islamic scholars. To say you don't see this CLEAR writing BY ISLAMIC SCHOLARS IS LYING. I'll give a few snippets for those not being ignorant, and again, ALL FROM ISLAMIC SCHOLARS:

Ibn Abbas said {Men are the maintainers of women} means that the woman has to obey her man in all of what Allah has commanded her, this includes the kind treatment of his family, the protection of his money.

Al Dhahaak said: the man is the maintainer of his wife by ordering her to obey Allah. If she refused; then he can beat her not severely.

Al Zahry said: if a man hit his wife or wounded her, he is not to be charged, unless he kills her, then he shall be killed for murdering her.

It means: admonish them, but if they refused to repent, then tie them up in their homes and beat them until they obey Allah’s commands toward you. Scholars said: the beating that is allowed by Allah is not the severe kind. Ibn Abbas said: not severe.

Also, Ibn Abbas said: abandon her in bed, but if she refused to return, then beat her not severely and do not break her bone. Ibn Abbas said: the beating has to be with light stick or the like.

Al Qassem narrated, the prophet said: "do not abandon your wives except in bed, and when you beat them, do not beat them severely".

Ibn Kathir was also a Shafi’i scholar and is one of the distinguished Islamic scholars. His commentary (tafseer) is a favorite of Sunni Muslims. Excerpts from his commentary on 4:34 follow. The quote is very long, but it is of great value in describing how the woman is positioned in Islam, and it provides the theological justification for her beating. I quote from pages 50 through 53.

"Because Allah has made one of them excel the other and because they spend from their means." Ash-Sha’bi stated that this excellence refers to the bridal money; for if the husband reprimands her, he shall not be punished and if she reprimands him, she will be lashed. "Therefore the righteous among women, are devoutly obedient" to their husbands. "And guard in the husband’s absence" her honor and his wealth. "What Allah orders them to guard." This part of the verse means that the guarded is he whom Allah has guarded.

"As to those women on whose part you see misconduct (nushuzuhunna)." The reference is made to those who show disobedience. It is said that a nashiza – from the verb nashaza = to disobey – is a woman who disobeys her husband’s order, opposes and dislikes him. Therefore, if a husband feels the signs of her disobedience, he should give her advice, threaten her with Allah’s Punishment for her disobedience to her husband. This is because Allah has prescribed that a wife has a duty towards her husband and she should obey him, and that it is unlawful for her to disobey him due to his excellence. The Prophet said in this context: "If I were to order one to prostrate to another, I would order a women to prostrate to her husband due to the greatness of her duty towards him."

"And beat them." If they do not abstain from their disobedience through both advice and desertion. However, the beating should be dharbun ghayru nubrah, i.e. light, according to the Hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Jabir, who had quoted the Prophet as saying in his farewell pilgrimage: "And fear Allah in women, for they are your aides, and their duties towards you is that your beds should not be shared with someone you dislike. Therefore, if they disobey you, beat them lightly, and your duty towards them is that you should maintain and buy them clothes in a reasonable manner."

Scholars said: dharbun ghayru nubrah means: The husband should beat his wife lightly, in a way which does not result in breaking one of her limbs or affecting her badly.

One is due to the completeness of men’s brain over women’s deficiency, their management skills, and their extra requirement of worship; this is why men were chosen to be prophets; religious leaders; rulers; and enforcers of commandments; legal witnesses in a court of law; fighters in the cause of Allah; receivers of more share of the inheritance and in control of divorce. The other is their duty to pay dowry to their wives and provide for them.

Admonish them

Then advise them

and leave them alone in the sleeping-places

Do not share bed with them, or do not face them when sleeping on the same bed or do not have intercourse with them.

and beat them

Means in a non severe manner.

And these three options have to be followed in the same order

Men are in charge of, they have authority over, women, disciplining them and keeping them in check, because of that with which God has preferred the one over the other, that is, because God has given them the advantage over women, in knowledge, reason, authority and otherwise, and because of what they expend, on them [the women], of their property. Therefore righteous women, among them, are obedient, to their husbands, guarding in the unseen, that is, [guarding] their private parts and otherwise during their spouses' absence, because of what God has guarded, for them, when He enjoined their male spouses to look after them well. And those you fear may be rebellious, disobedient to you, when such signs appear, admonish them, make them fear God, and share not beds with them, retire to other beds if they manifest such disobedience, and strike them, but not violently, if they refuse to desist [from their rebellion] after leaving them [in separate beds]. If they then obey you, in what is desired from them, do not seek a way against them, a reason to strike them unjustly. God is ever High, Great, so beware of Him, lest He punish you for treating them unjustly.

Abu Raouq said: this verse was revealed because of Jamilah bint Obey and her husband Thabit bin Qais. Al Kalby said: it was revealed because of Omayrah bint Muhammad bin Muslamah and her husband Sa’ad bin Al Rabee’a…Allah has revealed that the reason why men are excelled over women because men are the providers, and hence women will benefit from that. It is also said: men are excelled over women because they have more brain ability…

Admonish them

By using Allah’s scripture. It means to remind them of their duties, toward their husbands, which were ordained to them by Allah. The prophet of Allah (saw) said: (if I was to order someone to prostrate to another person, I would have ordered the wife to prostrate to her husband)

and leave them alone in the sleeping-places

Ibn Masud said: it is the intercourse. As said Ibn Abbas and others.

I (Al Qurtubi) said, it is a good thing; since if she loves her husband then this abandonment will be hard on her. But if she despises him, then her disobedient attitude towards him will become the more clearer.

Ibn Abbas said: to leave them alone is to tie them up in their homes just as you would tie your ride. And this is Al Tabari’s own view on this. However, Judge Abu Bakr bin Al Araby renounced Al Tabari’s interpretation on the ground of tying the wife, as he believe that Al Tabari based his view on a strange hadith regarding Asma’ the daughter of Abu Bakr who was married to Al Zubair bin Al Awaam. She used to leave her home often until people began to gossip and fault her husband for that, As a result, Al Zubair blamed his second wife for this and tied Asma’s hair and the hair of his second wife together, then he beat both of them up very severely.

This abandonment is believed by many scholars to be around a period of one month.

and beat them

Allah ordered that men begin by admonishing their wives as a first step, then abandonment, then beating if they refused to repent. This is because men are responsible to straighten their wives up. The beating mentioned in this verse has to do with the kind that is not severe and used for discipline. The kind that does not break the bone. However, it is not a crime if it leads to death. In the same manner a disciplinary will beat his son or student to teach him the Quran and manners.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-21-2012, 09:14 PM

Then you are lying, I just posted a VERY LONG list of commentary direct from Islamic scholars. To say you don't see this CLEAR writing BY ISLAMIC SCHOLARS IS LYING. I'll give a few snippets for those not being ignorant, and again, ALL FROM ISLAMIC SCHOLARS:

No way did he miss that . He just refuses to acknowledge the truth. Such blindness is so typical with the muslims.
Their delusion is massive and bone deep.-Tyr

aboutime

11-21-2012, 10:09 PM

jafar MUST Lie! To do anything else would be totally counter to his beliefs, and the teachings of those whom he is sworn to follow, and obey in whatever they care to call it. Be it the Brotherhood, or just plain Terrorist activities.

If jafar doesn't lie. He becomes one of us. And that could be deadly for him.

jafar00

11-21-2012, 10:27 PM

When the website you pasted all that from went through all of those opinions, you can be sure they cherry picked the ones that supported their agenda for sure.

And surely when the Prophet Mohamed (saw) gave his last sermon, the following actually meant something??

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and comitted helpers

jimnyc

11-21-2012, 10:47 PM

jafar00

11-21-2012, 11:12 PM

Even if it were cherry picked, they were the TRUTH, and as much was proven by the Islamic scholars - PROOF that the Quran, Haidth and other writings encourage beating of ones wife - which is probably why it is so prevalent in Islam.

No they don't. There is no proof there. There are some opinions, some of which may be right, some of which may be wrong. When studying Hadith, you need to know what is right, what is wrong, what is strong, what is weak and what is simply fabricated. Cherry picking is what people like the Taliban do and you know what that can lead to.

jimnyc

11-22-2012, 10:41 AM

No they don't. There is no proof there. There are some opinions, some of which may be right, some of which may be wrong. When studying Hadith, you need to know what is right, what is wrong, what is strong, what is weak and what is simply fabricated. Cherry picking is what people like the Taliban do and you know what that can lead to.

Sure, all the scholars come to the SAME conclusion on the SAME verse 4:34 and YOU know better than they do. Let's face it, I can find hundreds of translations, and have Arabic speaking friends translate - it clearly states in all of the writings that Allah made men superior to women, they are in charge of the women, and it's ok to beat the women, so long as it's not severe. All the major scholars agree as well, and that was no less than 4 of them clearly quoted there. It's not a matter of reading code and determining what it leads to - it's simply reading what it says. You will try to obfuscate the issue, but it's clear as scotch tape. I can do this all day long by posting what Muslims themselves state about men being superior and having the right to beat their woman if she is disobedient and you will just deny, deny, deny. Save it for someone naive enough to fall for the denials, I can read and have a brain and have Arabic friends, I know damn well what is written.

jimnyc

11-22-2012, 10:43 AM

Here is right from QURAN.COM:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

http://quran.com/4/34

jimnyc

11-22-2012, 10:50 AM

This Muslim scholar tells Muslims that they shouldn't be ashamed about the Islamic practice of wife-beating. He declares that there are three types of women that a man can only live with if he carries a rod on his shoulder: (1) women who are accustomed to beating because their parents constantly beat them, (2) women who are condescending towards their husbands, and (3) women who will not obey their husbands.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iWGA8i6scYY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

According to the next Muslim scholar, the restrictions on beating one's wife are: (1) he must not do it in front of the children; (2) he must not cause bleeding, bruising, or broken bones; and (3) he should not hit her in the face.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wp3Eam5FX58" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

According our next scholar, (1) a man should not beat his wife in the face, (2) he should not beat her where the beating will leave marks, (3) he should not beat her on her hands, and (4) "he should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child--smacking them right and left."

(video removed)

The following scholar agrees with much of the above discussion. He adds that "beatings are indispensable."

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wseFgBocQrw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So far we can see (1) that Muslim scholars rightly acknowledge that Islam permits wife-beating, and (2) that Muslims should follow certain rules when they beat their wives.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-22-2012, 11:32 AM

aboutime

11-22-2012, 12:57 PM

JAFAR JIM IS GIVING PROOF. YET YOU SIMPLY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE TEACHINGS OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS!
I find that strange . That you will call those scholars liars. Dont try to rethread the needle for thats what you have just called them.--Tyr

Tyr. Let's all agree to just address the FORMER 'jafar' as 'Denial', and let it go at that.

jafar....I mean Denial has been programmed to always deny, and refuse any attempts by anyone...who is not a Muslim radical. Even if the Proof has been Documented...by persons who claim to be more knowledgeable than jafer...I mean Denial.

It does not matter how much proof anyone presents in the form of video, writings, or even the Holy Books. jafar...I mean Denial must DENY, DENY, DENY.

It's how they operate.
In fact. Watch how this ENTIRE post is denied by 'Denial'.

jafar00

11-22-2012, 02:02 PM

aboutime

11-22-2012, 02:21 PM

jimnyc

11-22-2012, 02:36 PM

Even those videos do not say that the husband has the right to beat his wife in the way that you think (beat her to a pulp). The overwhelming opinion, even among the extreme is that the "beating" is symbolic and should be done with a cloth or a miswak stick and even then only in the most extreme of circumstances. It's to get her attention.

I'll go back to what I asked Tyr.

Hit yourself on the arm with a pencil. Does it hurt?

First off, condoning ANY beating of a woman is disgusting and unacceptable.

Secondly, I find it odd that you went from no proof of beating allowed at all, and now it's light beating with a cloth or miswak.

Third, you either didn't watch the videos or your denials continue AND you still refuse to see what even Muslim scholars say.

Lastly, hilarious AND sad that you don't even acknowledge the portions where Allah states men are superior, and the scholars say the same.

Real life is even better than your denials:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ChnpaMK1oLQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Muslim Women are LUCKY to be Beaten!
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EGHAFxwI2qU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Iranian student arrested and imprisoned for three years, because she refused to wear a Islamic head scarf. After two years in prison Nazanin was then beaten and raped five times.

Islam and women:

"Men are the maintainers of women, for Allah has made some better than the other and men spend their wealth on them. Righteous women are thus obedient, guarding the secret which Allah has guarded. Those from whom you fear rebellion, scold them, desert them in the bed and beat them." Quran 4:34 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

Narrated Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse.' (Bukhari V7 B62 N30)

Narrated Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women." (Bukhari V7 B62 N33)

"O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women). ...You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you...." (Bukhari V1 B6 N301)

Raping women allowed, even if she's not single: "whom your right hands possess" in Islam means women taken as war booty, sex slave. Muslim men are allowed four wives and slave girls in Islam.

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise." Quran 4:24 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

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." (Bukhari V7 B62 N137)

Lewdness punishment:
"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." Quran 4:15 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

Muslim men allowed 4 wives:
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice." Quran 4:3

Prophet Muhammad had more:
Narrated Anas: The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives. (Bukhari V7 B62 N6)

Pimping non Muslim women allowed (women taken as war booty):

"do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; [And here's the freedom to pimp card:] and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Quran 24:33 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ggQXpeSQ-rg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K1FYvtjH5uM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wcgOAkoWNZc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0bFVAlij_Xw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TJNU2xx83nw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wh7qiO3Ygnk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wife Beating in Islam - "Men have authority over women"
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vJkmRBEOC3o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jimnyc

11-22-2012, 02:56 PM

jimnyc

11-22-2012, 03:10 PM

jafar00

11-22-2012, 06:26 PM

jimnyc

11-22-2012, 06:50 PM

Seriously. You can post all the videos you like. It doesn't change the fact that what you consider a beating and what has been discussed at length over hundreds of years between Muslims is a completely different concept.

Besides, if the Qur'aan is followed, such "beatings" would be extremely rare.

The verse cannot be used as an excuse to abuse your wife.

Being Muslim gives NO excuse for a different meaning or the allowance to beat a woman, it's disgraceful no matter what. And you can claim it's not used as an excuse, and yet women are abused highly in EVERY Muslim nation and in more ways than just beatings. The rights of women in Islamic countries is downright despicable. And it's stated in the Quran that a man is superior to women and the Muslim men still treat the women in Islam as such today, and horribly so in some countries. Muslim men are NOT superior to women, not in any way, shape or form. The only time I EVER see Muslim men NOT treating women in such ways is in non-Islamic countries, as they probably hide their actions then, as civilized countries will arrest them for their disgusting treatment of women - which is called ABUSE in any other nation.

aboutime

11-22-2012, 08:24 PM

Being Muslim gives NO excuse for a different meaning or the allowance to beat a woman, it's disgraceful no matter what. And you can claim it's not used as an excuse, and yet women are abused highly in EVERY Muslim nation and in more ways than just beatings. The rights of women in Islamic countries is downright despicable. And it's stated in the Quran that a man is superior to women and the Muslim men still treat the women in Islam as such today, and horribly so in some countries. Muslim men are NOT superior to women, not in any way, shape or form. The only time I EVER see Muslim men NOT treating women in such ways is in non-Islamic countries, as they probably hide their actions then, as civilized countries will arrest them for their disgusting treatment of women - which is called ABUSE in any other nation.

jimnyc. TAKE NOTE about how jafar is now backing down after most of us have proven him to be a liar?

aboutime

11-22-2012, 08:27 PM

Marcus Aurelius

11-23-2012, 08:01 AM

See http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37148-How-Khomeini-founder-of-the-Islamic-Republic-condemns-pedophilia&p=581796#post581796 for a small list with supporting evidence.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=594340#post594340)

First, I'd like you to provide some supporting evidence that sex with 9 year old girls was customary at that time. Please link to your sources for this statement. Marrying a 14 year old girl (post pubescent) is vastly different than marrying a 9 year old girl (pre-pubescent).

Second, whether or not it was custom at the time is immaterial. Your prophet had sex with a 9 year old girl. Do you approve of that? A simple yes or no is all that is needed here.
See http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...796#post581796 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37148-How-Khomeini-founder-of-the-Islamic-Republic-condemns-pedophilia&p=581796#post581796) for a small list with supporting evidence.

The marriage was consumated at puberty. There are records that she had breasts at the time. As was the custom among thousands of other people 1400 years ago.

You can come back to me when you also condemn in the same breath...

* Henry XI of Głogów who married Barbara of Brandenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_of_Brandenburg) when she was 8 y/o
* Isaac II Angelos the Byzantine emperor who married Margaret of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Hungary) at the age of 9 y/o
* Humphrey IV of Toron who married Isabella I of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem) when she was 11 y/o after betrothal at 8
* Stephen Uroš I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Uro%C5%A1_I) (Uros the Great) who was king of Serbia who married Helen of Anjou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_of_Anjou) when she was 9 y/o
* Stephen Dragutin of Serbia who married Catherine of Hungary, Queen of Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Hungary,_Queen_of_Serbia) at age 11 or 12.
* King Stephen Uroš II Milutin who married Simonida Nemanjić (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonida) when she was 5 y/o

...... and many more

Early marriage to unite clans, royal families was normal practise. Girls and boys were betrothed at early ages in order to secure alliances. In fact Aicha's betrothal was intended to strengthen Mohammed's (saw) ties with the family of Abu Bakr (as). She later became one of Islam's most revered figures.

No more debate is needed on the subject.

So, as evidence to prove what you say, you offer something else you said without supporting evidence. Are you high, or just stupid?

Also, I asked for evidence that sex with 9 year old girls was common at the time, not marriage. Even a hack like you should be able to tell the difference.

As for your examples, please show me a link to a credible source stating they had sex with the a fore mentioned girls. Just to remind you, linking to another one of your own unsubstantiated posts does NOT qualify as evidence or proof.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

11-23-2012, 09:48 AM

First off, condoning ANY beating of a woman is disgusting and unacceptable.

Secondly, I find it odd that you went from no proof of beating allowed at all, and now it's light beating with a cloth or miswak.

Third, you either didn't watch the videos or your denials continue AND you still refuse to see what even Muslim scholars say.

Lastly, hilarious AND sad that you don't even acknowledge the portions where Allah states men are superior, and the scholars say the same.

Real life is even better than your denials:

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ChnpaMK1oLQ" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Muslim Women are LUCKY to be Beaten!

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EGHAFxwI2qU" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Iranian student arrested and imprisoned for three years, because she refused to wear a Islamic head scarf. After two years in prison Nazanin was then beaten and raped five times.

Islam and women:

"Men are the maintainers of women, for Allah has made some better than the other and men spend their wealth on them. Righteous women are thus obedient, guarding the secret which Allah has guarded. Those from whom you fear rebellion, scold them, desert them in the bed and beat them." Quran 4:34 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

Narrated Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse.' (Bukhari V7 B62 N30)

Narrated Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women." (Bukhari V7 B62 N33)

"O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women). ...You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you...." (Bukhari V1 B6 N301)

Raping women allowed, even if she's not single: "whom your right hands possess" in Islam means women taken as war booty, sex slave. Muslim men are allowed four wives and slave girls in Islam.

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise." Quran 4:24 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

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." (Bukhari V7 B62 N137)

Lewdness punishment:
"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." Quran 4:15 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

Muslim men allowed 4 wives:
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice." Quran 4:3

Prophet Muhammad had more:
Narrated Anas: The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives. (Bukhari V7 B62 N6)

Pimping non Muslim women allowed (women taken as war booty):

"do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; [And here's the freedom to pimp card:] and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Quran 24:33 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggQXpeSQ-rg#)

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ggQXpeSQ-rg" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K1FYvtjH5uM" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wcgOAkoWNZc" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0bFVAlij_Xw" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TJNU2xx83nw" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wh7qiO3Ygnk" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Wife Beating in Islam - "Men have authority over women"

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vJkmRBEOC3o" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

I strongly urge everybody to watch that first video, where the young Iranian woman was sent to prison for three years, beaten , raped 5 times and how they broke her leg, left it for days unattended with maggots in it and how that leg looks now -absolutely grotesque, they deliberately did that to this woman's leg to disfigure her body because she refused to wear a scarf on her head. Folks , these kinds of animals need to be destroyed!! They are far , far worse than even the NAZI'S WERE! We in the West have no concept of how truly brutal they are!!! Of how truly intolerant they are! --Tyr

aboutime

11-23-2012, 01:28 PM

Tyr. In spite of each of those graphic video's you posted below. Jafar will, and must find some way to further DENY the authenticity, or the facts shown.

It's just the way the Defenders of Violet, Radical Islam, and Muslim thinking must speak.

It's actually a small wonder that 'jafar'..."Denial", hasn't stolen Gabby's Bragging Rights, and her line about being the Smartest here.

Liars honestly have no idea they are lying. They have been trained to lie so much, and so often...almost from Birth. They have no idea, or concept that would cause them to reverse their Hate-filled thinking, or change for anyone.

Fear of being exposed as a Liar is minor, compared to their need to always get the 4070 only they can speak.