Criticism of Islam is not a hate crime, nor racist, nor enophobic
Scroll to see replies
Original post by silverzee
Prophet Muhammad did not consummate the marriage with the child. There were zero acts of pedophilia by him. Please dont slander other people's name just for the satisfaction of your ego. If you want proof I suggest you read his biography by Martin Lings. If you're so invested in a discussion about the actions of a man who lived 1400 years ago then it'd be well worth your time ordering a copy of the biography. You might as well grab a free copy of an English translation of the quran while you're at it (the quran project do them for free just order online) Happy reading!
Original post by silverzee
Prophet Muhammad did not consummate the marriage with the child. There were zero acts of pedophilia by him. Please dont slander other people's name just for the satisfaction of your ego. If you want proof I suggest you read his biography by Martin Lings.
some months after the marriage of Sawdah, 'A'ishah also became the Prophet's wife, through a marriage contracted by him and her father, at which she herself was not present.
(When Muhammad married Sawdah, he was 50. This also looks like an arranged marriage)
after a month or two it was decided that 'A'ishah's wedding should take place. She was then only nine years old, a child of remarkable beauty
his body had the grace of a man whose age was only the half of those fifty-three years
This shows that there were two "marriages", one when she was 6 (the betrothal) and one when she was 9 (the consumation).
So even ignoring all the sahih hadith that confirm this, even Lings acknowledges her age.
It all depends. If my criticism is based on racial grounds or driven by racial motives then my criticism is racist.
There's a popular website on the internet where such criticisms occur without any censorship. Usually, you find a lot of racist remarks accompanying the criticism, which implies that race is an important factor/motivator for a lot of people in that camp.
There's a popular website on the internet where such criticisms occur without any censorship. Usually, you find a lot of racist remarks accompanying the criticism, which implies that race is an important factor/motivator for a lot of people in that camp.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by _gcx
Not to start an argument here but: Aisha? He, allegedly, married her when she was 6 years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
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 (i.e., till his death).
Original post by mariachi
why should we believe Martin Lings instead of, e.g. the Sahih Bukhari and Muslim ?
even Ling confirms she was 9 years old when he raped her.
Original post by Inour
People can you please stop saying things that are not true, I appreciate what this thread is about, but the problem is that you don't even say right things.
Mohammad wasn't a paedophile, and that is not even allowed in Islam, and then you say that we get offended for no reason, actually I would never say anything like that about any prophet even if i disagree with that believe.
I just want you to know that if I talk about your prophet like that you will get offended, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just normal.
But that doesn't mean I disagree with the first comment, actually I agree with it to certain limits and with real ideas not things that you here from people who don't know anything about Islam
Mohammad wasn't a paedophile, and that is not even allowed in Islam, and then you say that we get offended for no reason, actually I would never say anything like that about any prophet even if i disagree with that believe.
I just want you to know that if I talk about your prophet like that you will get offended, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just normal.
But that doesn't mean I disagree with the first comment, actually I agree with it to certain limits and with real ideas not things that you here from people who don't know anything about Islam
it can be upsetting when you learn the truth but it is the truth.
Original post by Inour
What is (it) you are talking about ?
Anyways you are free to believe whatever you want but sheikh el-an is not even a prophet, and I said before that we only follow Qur'an.
Hope I convinced you but I think that you did the right think trying to ask questions and understand even if you still don't agree with me, At least you didn't just say thins without asking 👍🏻🙂
Anyways you are free to believe whatever you want but sheikh el-an is not even a prophet, and I said before that we only follow Qur'an.
Hope I convinced you but I think that you did the right think trying to ask questions and understand even if you still don't agree with me, At least you didn't just say thins without asking 👍🏻🙂
who do you mean by 'we'?
Original post by BaconandSauce
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
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 (i.e., till his death).
Narrated 'Aisha:
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 (i.e., till his death).
Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't quite sure where it was mentioned at the time
Original post by _gcx
Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't quite sure where it was mentioned at the time
NP
Hard for some to argue about this when the source is their own texts
Its just thoroughly poor judgement. The real islam (not the media caricature) is the antidote to the atheist, nihilistic, cuckolded, gender bending chav bound society that is so typical of white Britain these days. Apply these arab asian moral standards to our ailing white 'communities' and living standards would sky rocket.
Original post by NewMorality88
Its just thoroughly poor judgement. The real islam (not the media caricature) is the antidote to the atheist, nihilistic, cuckolded, gender bending chav bound society that is so typical of white Britain these days. Apply these arab asian moral standards to our ailing white 'communities' and living standards would sky rocket.
Define "the real Islam". Note that your perception of Islam is not the only perception, and all perceptions are equally valid.
Original post by WBZ144
It's not a "gross generalisation", it is a fact. Just as how misogyny and homophobia is an issue among Muslim communities which needs to be tackled,
Can you give me an example of this 'misogyny' in muslim communities?*
* As for 'homophobia'. Homosexuality is considered a sin in islam. Muslims believe it is wrong. You want to tackle this belief you will have to make a case for people to leave islam. There is no other way about it. Put your ideas forward as to why homosexually is correct and not sinful and go from there. Stay away from derogatory terminology like 'homophobia'. It is insulting and far from the reality of the situation. **
Original post by CookieButter
Can you give me an example of this 'misogyny' in muslim communities?*
Original post by Shipreck
Saudi Arabia, a government run by Muslims that enforce Sharia Law. It is illegal for a woman to drive. It is illegal for a woman to leave the house without a male companion. If a woman is raped it requires four witnesses to come forward, or she will be killed for adultery. It's not possible for a woman to be raped by her husband. Etc.
All of the points you raised are distortions and based on what you are told by people who follow feminism, a gendered sexist ideology based on lies. Lets deal with all of your points one at a time:
1. Saudi Arabia is not a country run by muslims but rather a dictatorship run by arab nationalists, namely the house of Saud after whom the country is named. They came into power 100 years ago after they toppled the ISLAMIC Ottoman rule over the region by the help of the British government.
2. In regards to what you call 'Sharia law'. Firstly, Sharia is the Arabic word for law. Sharia law quiet literally translates into 'law law'. It is a nonsensical, comical term used by uninformed people who do not know the basics but like parroting others without questioning what they are told. The correct term you are looking for is Sharia El-Islamieh or in English, Islamic law. This brings me to my second point. In islamic law there is no law against women driving cars but in Saudi Arabia, an Arab nationalist country ruled over by Arabian beduins, brought into power by colonial powers, there's a ban on female drivers. This ban is driven by the culture of the bedouin Arabian family ruling over the country and has nothing to do with Islam. If you can prove otherwise please do so. The same can be said for the women leaving their house without a male companion thing.
The Saudi Arabian regime is one that runs a tyrannical, racist, Arab nationalist state that is despised by the Islamic world and best chums with the West. They are despised by the Islamic world because they are in disagreement with Islamic beliefs. Now where does that leave the West being the Saudi chums that they are?*
3. *In any just society there's a burden of proof on the claimant. One that requires the claimant to prove their claim. All people are innocent until proven guilty. This is how justice works. This idea of justice is in disagreement with feminist, female supremacist ideology which has for the past couple of decades *been campaigning to remove the burden of proof from women claiming rape and they have been successful in many countries in the west where false rape accusations have now become prevalent.
A week doesn't go by here in the UK without a new celebrity being accused of rape by hundreds of women. They don't need any proof, their word is enough and if they are caught lying their identity is kept anonymous. So they literally have nothing to loose and everything to gain, compensation, sympathy, fame etc...The latest controversial case involved that poor guy that was falsely accused of rape by that famous actress from game of thrones after passing by her for less than 1.5seconds in a tube station in London. Turned out later that the crown prosecution service (a heavily feminised institution) tampered with evidence to make her case against him stronger. i am of course referring to the case of Mark Pearson here. It is note worthy that the identity of the claimant in this case was only exposed by egalitarians and mens' rights activists.*
4. in regards to the death penalty and women adulterers. Again, that rigorous concept of Justice applies to these cases in the same way that it does to rape. *As in, there is a strict, tough, burden of proof on the claimant, one that requires the claimant to prove that a person has committed adultery and if you think 4 witness is too much to prove rape than you will be shocked at how difficult it is to prove adultery in countries that consider this act a crime. This is how justice works. All genders, all races, all crimes are treated with equity.*
* 5. it is possible for a woman to be raped by her husband in muslim countries. Similarly, it is possible for women to rape their husbands in islamic countries. If you have any proof to support this nonsensical, sexist claim of yours, that men can rape their wives with impunity in islamic countries, then please put it forward.
* P.S. You want to talk about sexism? true sexism? lets talk about misandry. In the UK, thanks to feminist activism the definition for rape was changed in 2013 to exclude most female perpetrators of rape from prosecution for the crime. Thanks to feminism, in the uk women can no longer be charged with the rape of a man. Same thing was done in 'Israel' where feminists recently, successfully managed to cancel a law charging women with rape of men citing that men are physically stronger than women and therefore women are unable to rape men, as their reason for wanting to cancel said law, which they did.*
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
All of the points you raised are distortions and based on what you are told by people who follow feminism, a gendered sexist ideology based on lies. Lets deal with all of your points one at a time:
1. Saudi Arabia is not a country run by muslims but rather a dictatorship run by arab nationalists, namely the house of Saud after whom the country is named. They came into power 100 years ago after they toppled the ISLAMIC Ottoman rule over the region by the help of the British government.
2. In regards to what you call 'Sharia law'. Firstly, Sharia is the Arabic word for law. Sharia law quiet literally translates into 'law law'. It is a nonsensical, comical term used by uninformed people who do not know the basics but like parroting others without questioning what they are told. The correct term you are looking for is Sharia El-Islamieh or in English, Islamic law. This brings me to my second point. In islamic law there is no law against women driving cars but in Saudi Arabia, an Arab nationalist country ruled over by Arabian beduins, brought into power by colonial powers, there's a ban on female drivers. This ban is driven by the culture of the bedouin Arabian family ruling over the country and has nothing to do with Islam. If you can prove otherwise please do so. The same can be said for the women leaving their house without a male companion thing.
The Saudi Arabian regime is one that runs a tyrannical, racist, Arab nationalist state that is despised by the Islamic world and best chums with the West. They are despised by the Islamic world because they are in disagreement with Islamic beliefs. Now where does that leave the West being the Saudi chums that they are?*
3. *In any just society there's a burden of proof on the claimant. One that requires the claimant to prove their claim. All people are innocent until proven guilty. This is how justice works. This idea of justice is in disagreement with feminist, female supremacist ideology which has for the past couple of decades *been campaigning to remove the burden of proof from women claiming rape and they have been successful in many countries in the west where false rape accusations have now become prevalent.
A week doesn't go by here in the UK without a new celebrity being accused of rape by hundreds of women. They don't need any proof, their word is enough and if they are caught lying their identity is kept anonymous. So they literally have nothing to loose and everything to gain, compensation, sympathy, fame etc...The latest controversial case involved that poor guy that was falsely accused of rape by that famous actress from game of thrones after passing by her for less than 1.5seconds in a tube station in London. Turned out later that the crown prosecution service (a heavily feminised institution) tampered with evidence to make her case against him stronger. i am of course referring to the case of Mark Pearson here. It is note worthy that the identity of the claimant in this case was only exposed by egalitarians and mens' rights activists.*
4. in regards to the death penalty and women adulterers. Again, that rigorous concept of Justice applies to these cases in the same way that it does to rape. *As in, there is a strict, tough, burden of proof on the claimant, one that requires the claimant to prove that a person has committed adultery and if you think 4 witness is too much to prove rape than you will be shocked at how difficult it is to prove adultery in countries that consider this act a crime. This is how justice works. All genders, all races, all crimes are treated with equity.*
* 5. it is possible for a woman to be raped by her husband in muslim countries. Similarly, it is possible for women to rape their husbands in islamic countries. If you have any proof to support this nonsensical, sexist claim of yours, that men can rape their wives with impunity in islamic countries, then please put it forward.
* P.S. You want to talk about sexism? true sexism? lets talk about misandry. In the UK, thanks to feminist activism the definition for rape was changed in 2013 to exclude most female perpetrators of rape from prosecution for the crime. Thanks to feminism, in the uk women can no longer be charged with the rape of a man. Same thing was done in 'Israel' where feminists recently, successfully managed to cancel a law charging women with rape of men citing that men are physically stronger than women and therefore women are unable to rape men, as their reason for wanting to cancel said law, which they did.*
1. Saudi Arabia is not a country run by muslims but rather a dictatorship run by arab nationalists, namely the house of Saud after whom the country is named. They came into power 100 years ago after they toppled the ISLAMIC Ottoman rule over the region by the help of the British government.
2. In regards to what you call 'Sharia law'. Firstly, Sharia is the Arabic word for law. Sharia law quiet literally translates into 'law law'. It is a nonsensical, comical term used by uninformed people who do not know the basics but like parroting others without questioning what they are told. The correct term you are looking for is Sharia El-Islamieh or in English, Islamic law. This brings me to my second point. In islamic law there is no law against women driving cars but in Saudi Arabia, an Arab nationalist country ruled over by Arabian beduins, brought into power by colonial powers, there's a ban on female drivers. This ban is driven by the culture of the bedouin Arabian family ruling over the country and has nothing to do with Islam. If you can prove otherwise please do so. The same can be said for the women leaving their house without a male companion thing.
The Saudi Arabian regime is one that runs a tyrannical, racist, Arab nationalist state that is despised by the Islamic world and best chums with the West. They are despised by the Islamic world because they are in disagreement with Islamic beliefs. Now where does that leave the West being the Saudi chums that they are?*
3. *In any just society there's a burden of proof on the claimant. One that requires the claimant to prove their claim. All people are innocent until proven guilty. This is how justice works. This idea of justice is in disagreement with feminist, female supremacist ideology which has for the past couple of decades *been campaigning to remove the burden of proof from women claiming rape and they have been successful in many countries in the west where false rape accusations have now become prevalent.
A week doesn't go by here in the UK without a new celebrity being accused of rape by hundreds of women. They don't need any proof, their word is enough and if they are caught lying their identity is kept anonymous. So they literally have nothing to loose and everything to gain, compensation, sympathy, fame etc...The latest controversial case involved that poor guy that was falsely accused of rape by that famous actress from game of thrones after passing by her for less than 1.5seconds in a tube station in London. Turned out later that the crown prosecution service (a heavily feminised institution) tampered with evidence to make her case against him stronger. i am of course referring to the case of Mark Pearson here. It is note worthy that the identity of the claimant in this case was only exposed by egalitarians and mens' rights activists.*
4. in regards to the death penalty and women adulterers. Again, that rigorous concept of Justice applies to these cases in the same way that it does to rape. *As in, there is a strict, tough, burden of proof on the claimant, one that requires the claimant to prove that a person has committed adultery and if you think 4 witness is too much to prove rape than you will be shocked at how difficult it is to prove adultery in countries that consider this act a crime. This is how justice works. All genders, all races, all crimes are treated with equity.*
* 5. it is possible for a woman to be raped by her husband in muslim countries. Similarly, it is possible for women to rape their husbands in islamic countries. If you have any proof to support this nonsensical, sexist claim of yours, that men can rape their wives with impunity in islamic countries, then please put it forward.
* P.S. You want to talk about sexism? true sexism? lets talk about misandry. In the UK, thanks to feminist activism the definition for rape was changed in 2013 to exclude most female perpetrators of rape from prosecution for the crime. Thanks to feminism, in the uk women can no longer be charged with the rape of a man. Same thing was done in 'Israel' where feminists recently, successfully managed to cancel a law charging women with rape of men citing that men are physically stronger than women and therefore women are unable to rape men, as their reason for wanting to cancel said law, which they did.*
1. You're wrong. The Saudi Arabian constitution is the Quran. "Article one of the 1992 Saudi "Basic Law of Governance" states,
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion is Islam. Its constitution is Almighty God's Book, The Holy Qur'an, and the Sunna (the authentic saying of prophet Muhhamed ) of the Prophet (PBUH). Arabic is the language of the Kingdom."2. Sharia Law means Islamic law to all English speaking people. "Muslim countries that retain or adopt Sharia usually determine which parts of the Sharia are enforceable and codify (and thereby modernize) them. Unlike other Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia regards uncodified Sharia in its entirety as the law of the land and does not interfere with it. "
I did some research and "Although there is no written ban on women driving cars, a Saudi driving license is required by law and these are not issued to women."I also found that women can leave the house without a male companion, but they can do very little without one. "Every adult woman has to have a close male relative as her "guardian". As a result, Human Rights Watch has described the position of Saudi women as no different from being a minor, with little authority over their own lives. The guardian is entitled to make a number of critical decisions on a woman's behalf. These include giving approval for the woman to travel, to hold some types of business licenses, to study at a university or college and to work if the type of business is not "deemed appropriate for a woman.""
Which to me is still ****ed up.3 and 5. What I said was it's not possible for a husband to rape his wife. Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will... " Pretty outright in my eyes.4.
If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, which is pretty high chance if they don't use condoms, and it wasn't watched by at least 2 other men, or 4 women (Quran 2:282 - "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found, then a man and 2 women."), it is impossible for her to get the rapist prosecuted, and because she got pregnant before marriage and wasn't raped in the eyes of the court, she would be killed. PS: Misandry isn't getting people killed.
Original post by Shipreck
1. You're wrong. The Saudi Arabian constitution is the Quran. "Article one of the 1992 Saudi "Basic Law of Governance" states,
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion is Islam. Its constitution is Almighty God's Book, The Holy Qur'an, and the Sunna (the authentic saying of prophet Muhhamed ) of the Prophet (PBUH). Arabic is the language of the Kingdom."2. Sharia Law means Islamic law to all English speaking people. "Muslim countries that retain or adopt Sharia usually determine which parts of the Sharia are enforceable and codify (and thereby modernize) them. Unlike other Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia regards uncodified Sharia in its entirety as the law of the land and does not interfere with it. "
I did some research and "Although there is no written ban on women driving cars, a Saudi driving license is required by law and these are not issued to women."I also found that women can leave the house without a male companion, but they can do very little without one. "Every adult woman has to have a close male relative as her "guardian". As a result, Human Rights Watch has described the position of Saudi women as no different from being a minor, with little authority over their own lives. The guardian is entitled to make a number of critical decisions on a woman's behalf. These include giving approval for the woman to travel, to hold some types of business licenses, to study at a university or college and to work if the type of business is not "deemed appropriate for a woman.""
Which to me is still ****ed up.3 and 5. What I said was it's not possible for a husband to rape his wife. Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will... " Pretty outright in my eyes.4.
If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, which is pretty high chance if they don't use condoms, and it wasn't watched by at least 2 other men, or 4 women (Quran 2:282 - "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found, then a man and 2 women."), it is impossible for her to get the rapist prosecuted, and because she got pregnant before marriage and wasn't raped in the eyes of the court, she would be killed. PS: Misandry isn't getting people killed.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion is Islam. Its constitution is Almighty God's Book, The Holy Qur'an, and the Sunna (the authentic saying of prophet Muhhamed ) of the Prophet (PBUH). Arabic is the language of the Kingdom."2. Sharia Law means Islamic law to all English speaking people. "Muslim countries that retain or adopt Sharia usually determine which parts of the Sharia are enforceable and codify (and thereby modernize) them. Unlike other Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia regards uncodified Sharia in its entirety as the law of the land and does not interfere with it. "
I did some research and "Although there is no written ban on women driving cars, a Saudi driving license is required by law and these are not issued to women."I also found that women can leave the house without a male companion, but they can do very little without one. "Every adult woman has to have a close male relative as her "guardian". As a result, Human Rights Watch has described the position of Saudi women as no different from being a minor, with little authority over their own lives. The guardian is entitled to make a number of critical decisions on a woman's behalf. These include giving approval for the woman to travel, to hold some types of business licenses, to study at a university or college and to work if the type of business is not "deemed appropriate for a woman.""
Which to me is still ****ed up.3 and 5. What I said was it's not possible for a husband to rape his wife. Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will... " Pretty outright in my eyes.4.
If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, which is pretty high chance if they don't use condoms, and it wasn't watched by at least 2 other men, or 4 women (Quran 2:282 - "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found, then a man and 2 women."), it is impossible for her to get the rapist prosecuted, and because she got pregnant before marriage and wasn't raped in the eyes of the court, she would be killed. PS: Misandry isn't getting people killed.
1. I am wrong how? You called a dictatorship, a country RUN by muslims. In what world does that make sense? Do you understand the meaning of the word 'dictatorship'? Secondly, what does it being sovereign have anything to do with anything? Thirdly, I could care less what their constitution says. We are not talking about a democratic, rational state here. We are talking about a criminal dictatorship run by a hypocritical family that forbids people from making music but who's sons and daughters are regulars at the pubs, strip clubs and prostitution joints in London.*
*You don't seem to understand what Arab nationalism is. Back in the early 1900s, the islamic Ottoman empire used to rule over the middle-east. It had been ruling over the region for hundreds of years up until that point when it started to collapse in a way much like that of the USSR. The British amongst other western powers moved into the region and started taking over Ottoman territory with the help of local tribes that wanted a new system of control over the region. These tribes followed a racist, Arab nationalist ideology. They were Arab and the Ottomans were Turk. They fought against these Turks based on a racial premise. These tribes included the tribe of Al-Saud that now reigns over Saudi Arabia and the tribe of the great grandfather of the current king of Jordan. As a prize for supporting the British the Brits gave them control over the Arabian peninsula. The Saud family renamed the arabian peninsula that was previously called after the name of the prophet (pbuh) to that of the name of their tribe. They founded an Arab nationalist state and they allowed Wahabism (extremist form of Sunni Islam) to run certain facets of that state under their control.
**Saddam Hussein is another example of an Arab nationalist that was brought into power by Britain and the USA, though in the 1960s. He believed in a baathist Arab nationalist ideology which viewed religion as a form of evil yet he inscribed 'islamic law' into the Iraqi constitution or one that was agreeable with his Arab nationalist ideology despite him being against Islam. You clearly have no grasp of Middle-eastern history which is fundamental to understanding my previous comment about Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries in the Mid-east being Arab nationalist despite fronting an Islamic Facade.
*The Saudi system is disagreeable with Islam but no muslim cleric could criticise the saudi state's dictates. As such it is not a country run by muslims but rather a dictatorship run by an unislamic family. Their ruling in regards to women not being allowed to drive are unislamic and you failed to prove otherwise in your reply. Nobody living in Saudi Arabia or Iraq during Saddam's rule can say that what the government is doing is un-islamic The few clerics that do open their mouths wind up dead the most recent example of which being the cleric Nimr El Nimr who's head was chopped off earlier this year for standing up against the 'islamic' saudi state. Similarly saddam executed thousands of clerics who stood up against his version of 'islamic' rule. Saddam much like his saudi counterparts was an unislamic uneducated criminal who new nothing about Islam yet he saw fit to implement his version of islam into the state that he ran. You can’t call his country Islamic when it contradicts Islam in its very core, the core *core being Arab nationalism.
*The middle-east is far more complicated than your basic interpretations. When I mentioned Arab nationalism I wasn't referring to the Saudi language. I was referring to Arab nationalist ideology. As i described earlier, it is an anti-islamic ideology prevalent amongst powers in the middle-east but unpopular amongst the masses. it is the equivalent of nazi ideology. It preaches that arabs are a superior race. It is one of the main driving forces behind the hatred between Saudi Arabia (an arab country) and Iran (a persian country). The Saudi state hates iranians, asians and westerners because they are non-arabs. They use many derogatory terms to refer to asians and iranians and europeans which is all considered a great sin in islam. They treat all non-arabs living in their country with great distain and much racism. This isn’t a state run by muslims but rather like i said previously, an arab nationalist state run by racist dictators whom no-one can criticise for being wrong or unislamic.
*I don't think you're equipped with the basic background required to make judgments about islam in regards to Saudi-Arabia. its far more complicated than *your surface 'saudi arabia is a country run by muslims' comment.*
*2. "Sharia Law is Islamic law to all English people" ... speaks volumes doesn't it? when the very title of your argument is based on a misunderstanding and mistranslation, what does that say about everything else you believe in, in regards to this matter? Now, this brings me to my next point
*3. "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will...Pretty outright in my eyes"
*This quranic verse is one, not the complete verse, two not the correct english translation and three not how you interpreted it.
The following is the complete verse, as it is correctly translated by ibn kathr:
*“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will” it is followed by this warning “And fear Allah, and know that you are to meet Him (in the Hereafter)”
This verse is in reference to sexual intercourse between a man and woman.This is how it is interpreted:
* “(...so go to your tilth, when or how you will,) meaning, wherever you wish from the front or from behind, as long as sex takes place in one valve (the female sexual organ), as the authentic Hadiths have indicated.” (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=189&Itemid=36)
*4. You write “If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, which is pretty high chance if they don't use condoms, and it wasn't watched by at least 2 other men, or 4 women (Quran 2:282 - "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found, then a man and 2 women."), it is impossible for her to get the rapist prosecuted”
What a load of feminist nonsense. firstly, the quranic verse you quoted is in refernce to witnessing in trials and not rape as your comment seems to imply. One cannot witness a rape if it is done in private. The quranic verse you quoted refers to one male witness as being the equivalent of two female witnesses in trials. It has nothing to do with rape or crimes of any nature. When a crime of rape is committed against anyone in any middle-eastern country be they man or woman this is what usaully happens to the rapist:
*Warning, these pictures are graphic.
*Rapist In yemen
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/06/article-0-059D0D4A000005DC-644_468x600.jpg
Rapist in Saudi Arabia: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/29/01/2928D3F600000578-3101743-image-a-39_1432860356802.jpg
Rapist in Iran (later hanged): http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2005/03/16/d051ec68-a642-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/thumbnail/620x350/672af68952677e86dd75328e22b17c24/image681045x.jpg
*no woman is killed for being raped that is all based on feminist lies. i am going to make you a challenge. Find me one case of woman being executed for being raped in any country in the middle-east or asia. Just one. Don't go looking for adulteresses who feminists claim were raped despite all evidence pointing otherwise, or things like that. I want one of a woman who was found to be raped impregnated by the rapist and executed.*
*5. You write “Misandry isn't getting people killed.”
The death penalty for adultery applies to both men and women with equity. its interesting how you ignore the men and concentrate on the women to make it look like its a crime of sexism.
Additionally, misandry is getting people killed. I am just going to give you a quick example of which there are hundreds in the UK alone. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/mother-of-son-who-hanged-himself--after-being-accused-of/. And what of the millions of young boys working the streets of poorer countries to feed their sisters and mothers? deprived an education and safety forced to provide for the women in their families, simply because they were born male. How many of them die every day victims of the matriarchy? misandry isn't getting people killed?...what an insult of a statement.*
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by KINGYusuf
hahahaha haters gonna hate. Right-wing cretins lol. You can complain all you want. You ain't changing ****. Yes criticizing Islam isn't racist. But I bet each one of you is an closet racist.
I like how you just jump to a conclusion and say everyone of us is a closet racist whilst having the audacity of saying 'haters gonna hate. Right-wing cretins'. You sound immensely hypocritical buddy. If anything, your hating on people who critcise your religion, which isn't the same as hating on it.
Original post by KINGYusuf
hahahaha haters gonna hate. Right-wing cretins lol.
You can't really get more "right-wing" than following an ideology like Islam. If anything, objections to the religion come from liberal progressive (modernist) arguments.
Original post by Ladbants
Jesus never married a six year old...
Is it true that Muhammad consummated his marriage with the girl while she was still a child?
Is it true that Muhammad consummated his marriage with the girl while she was still a child?
No
the marriage was only consummated after she reached puberty, so islamically she was not a child at that point.
Spoiler
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Bellway Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
BAE Systems pre employment medical record checkLast reply 7 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
A Day in the Life of a Third-year Dance Student at the University of RoehamptonLast reply 7 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
British Airways Graduate Programme 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 12 minutes ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 13 minutes ago
year 13 gyg journal : trying not to become an academic victim 🤡📖Last reply 14 minutes ago
My boyfriend left me because he said my breasts and butt were too smallLast reply 17 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 19 minutes ago
Using Underbars in TeX sometimes gets treated as italicsLast reply 20 minutes ago
University of OXford Postgraduate and Graduate funding 2022Last reply 20 minutes ago
Heriot Watt University or Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityPosted 24 minutes ago
What's the best path into a wildlife/conservation course?Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxesTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
