This Medinan sura was revealed after the Muslims’ defeat of a pagan Arab tribe, the Banu al-Mustaliq. Much of it is preoccupied with one of the most notorious events in early Islamic history: the rumors that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, had committed adultery – an incident that has repercussions for Muslim women down to this day. Verses 1-10 lay down general laws for adultery: adulterers are to receive a hundred lashes (v. 2); a man guilty of adultery may only marry a woman guilty of the same crime or a non-Muslim (v. 3); four witnesses are required to establish guilt, and false accusers should get eighty lashes (v. 4); husbands can establish charges of adultery against their wives if they testify four times under oath (v. 6) and invoke Allah’s curse on themselves if they’re lying (v. 7); a wife so accused can head off being punished by testifying four times that her husband is lying (v. 8) and likewise calls Allah’s curse on herself if she is lying (v. 9).
Lashes for adultery? Then why do some Islamic states sentence adulteresses to be stoned to death? Because of a hadith that says that the Qur’an originally mandated stoning for adulterers, but the passage somehow dropped out. Umar, the second successor of Muhammad as caliph, the leader of the believers, explained: “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed.”
Umar didn’t want to see that happening, so he lent his own weight to the legitimacy of stoning for adultery: “Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle [that is, Muhammad] carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”
In verses 11-20 Allah furiously castigates a group that has “brought forward a lie” (v. 11) against a chaste woman, without producing four witnesses (v. 13). The deity scolds the believers as well, for crediting this obvious slander (vv. 12, 16). This is a most serious matter (v. 15), but the Qur’an doesn’t tell us what it’s all about. This hadith fills in the details. Allah had recently ordered the veiling of women (a command that is transmitted in v. 31), so Aisha, when she accompanied Muhammad to a battle, was carried in a curtained howdah on the back of a camel. The caravan stopped and Aisha got out to answer “the call of nature.” While returning she lost her necklace, and stopped to search for it. Meanwhile, her attendants, forbidden to look at her or speak to her, loaded the howdah back onto the camel without realizing that she wasn’t in it. “At that time,” Aisha explains, “I was still a young lady,” and what’s more, “women were light in weight for they did not get fat.”
And so the caravan left without her, and Muhammad’s favorite wife was stranded. Presently a Muslim warrior who was traveling behind the army came along, and was considerably started to find Aisha alone. “I veiled my face with my head cover at once,” Aisha insisted, “and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’” – a prayer spoken in times of distress. The warrior carried Aisha on his camel to the Muslims’ camp – and almost immediately the rumors started. Even Muhammad was affected by them. Aisha explains: “After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the usual kindness from Allah’s Messenger which I used to receive when I got sick.”
Aisha was deeply distressed: “I kept on weeping that night till dawn, I could neither stop weeping nor sleep, then in the morning again, I kept on weeping.” Ali bin Abi Talib, who later became the great saint and hero of the Shi’ite Muslims, ungallantly reminds Muhammad that there are “plenty of women” available to the Prophet (Aisha never forgot or forgave this, and after Muhammad’s death, warred against Ali herself.) But Ali also advises Muhammad to ask Barira, Aisha’s slave girl, if she has seen anything, and Barira maintained that Aisha had done nothing wrong. Muhammad left the matter in Allah’s hands, telling Aisha: “I have been informed such-and-such about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness, for when a person confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.”
Muhammad then received a revelation from Allah, as Aisha watched: “So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him (when he was Divinely Inspired) so that the drops of his sweat were running down, like pearls, though it was a (cold) winter day, and that was because of the heaviness of the Statement which was revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, ‘Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.’” Allah had revealed vv. 11-20.
Aisha, however, was still angry: “My mother said to me, ‘Get up and go to him.’ I said, ‘By Allah, I will not go to him and I will not thank anybody but Allah.’” Yet she was amazed by the revelation: “By Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal in my favor a revelation which would be recited, for I considered myself too unimportant to be talked about by Allah in the Divine Revelation that was to be recited.”
But she was. And the false accusations against her brought about the requirement that four male Muslim witnesses must be produced in order to establish a crime of adultery or related indiscretions. Islamic law still requires the testimony of four male witnesses to establish sexual crimes (v. 13).
Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape. When the Musharraf government instituted measures removing the crime of rape from the sphere of Islamic law and establishing that it be judged by modern canons of forensic evidence, a group of Islamic clerics were furious. They demanded that the new law be withdrawn: it would turn Pakistan into a “free-sex zone.” Clerics thundered that the new law was “against the teachings of Islam,” and had been passed only to appease the West.
Next week: Women receive the order to veil themselves.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
This, so I heard, is the classic forerunner of the "the dog ate my homework" explaination: a goat ate "the verses of Rajam.
Why must there be four witnesses to establish rape and adultery?
What I want to know is, why did the "four witnesses" rule protect women in the beginning, but now it protects men?
"Why must there be four witnesses to establish rape and adultery?"
bragging rights..
l can see the logic with muslims love of stones, since they love to cirle the black stone of mecca
and daily bow down to the black stone of mecca. its a stone age cult.
Once again, we see Allah intervening in the personal affairs (pun intended) of his prophet. How can you read the Qur'an and NOT realize that it was written by human beings and not a divine source?
You would think that Allah would be busy with cosmological matters and would not interfere with Aisha's difficulties.
"By Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal in my favor a revelation which would be recited, for I considered myself too unimportant to be talked about by Allah in the Divine Revelation that was to be recited.”
The women are raped and convicted of adultry, but the men do not get convicted of adultry.
Robert, Mohammad took Safiya and Zainab and others but did not have to wait the prescribed three months to have sex with her. Only one menses.
Does anyone ever question that he broke that rule?
Did Mohammad have any children after Kahdija? Other than the one son with Mary the slave girl.
What happened to Aisha after Mohammad died? What happened to his other wives?
He divorced quite a few women. How do muslims explain he actions? Especially two who died right after turning down his offer of marriage.
And if no one was allowed to speak to his wives, how did all these stories get told?
I know you were not there! But your best researched opinion, please.
"... the Qur’an originally mandated stoning for adulterers, but the passage somehow dropped out"
Doesn't this mean that the Qur'an (as we have it) cannot be the undistorted, complete rendition of Revelation?
Borg:
Does anyone ever question that he broke that rule?
He didn't break any rule. With Safiya, she was a war captive. According to Islamic law (to this day), the marriage of a woman who is a war captive is immediately annulled. No waiting period needed. Re Zainab, Allah married her to Muhammad -- special circumstances.
No, just Fatima by Khadija and Ibrahim by Mary.
Aisha was prominent among the opponents of Ali and even led battles against what came to be known as the Shia. His other wives were not as prominent, but all were revered as his wives.
What's to explain? Divorce is not forbidden in Islam. And as for the women who died, no Muslims suggest foul play, if that's what you mean, but it wouldn't trouble them if he had had them killed, since after all, he had other people killed -- Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, etc.
There was no rule that no one was allowed to speak to them. They could speak to other women and male relatives. Thus the stories got told.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Occupant,
From a believing Muslim's perspective, maybe Allah willed that these verse drop out.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
All those wives and no children. Aisha didn't have any children? Strange. Coitus interruptus? or impotence, maybe?
So the children of captives could be the dead husband's child if no waiting period is observed.
Maybe that is where Ibrahim by Mary came from.
The divorce question was in regard to the women he divorced because "she was too old" and two had leprosy. So many times I see muslims who say 4 wives was so that the women would be taken care of but his actions belie that statement.
Thanks, Robert, for all you do to enlighten us.
Those are good questions Borg. In Aiesha's description of Mohammad's physical condition while he was receiving this revelation, she mentioned his profuse sweating, and hardening of his body.
It could be that Mohammad was faking to get this revelation, but there is one fatal flaw in that argument. You can't make yourself sweat on command.
At least I can't, and don't know anyone that can.
He may have been having a petite mall seizure. Aiesha indicated a recovery time. She does not say how long it took. It's interesting that he maintained his chain of thoughts. Usually there is confusion, and it takes a while for the afflicted to
even know where they are. It is possible to have his symptoms and remain lucid. I have seen psychotic epileptics remain conscious during a seizure, and think they were having a spiritual experience.
None of them could sweat on command either...
>>When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, ‘Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.’” Allah had revealed vv. 11-20.
My opinion of this event, since in no way did "Allah" speak to Mohammed since there is no Allah, is that Mo knew that Aeisha was innocent, but she couldn't be publicly exonerated until Allah said. So, Mo had one of his "convenient" revelations and voila she's cleared.
What is Aeisha's comment on Mo's "convenient" revelations? "How my Lord (Allah) hurries to do your business," - something like that. No fool, Aeisha!
Darcy:
Aisha said to Muhammad: "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.311
It might be helpful if I learned to spell Aisha...
Aisha's story is worthy of a movie. She was intelligent and had spunk. Her opposition to Ali and Shia, could make a movie plot in itself. Ali wanted to be the first Caliph, and tried to claim it, but Aisha said she had been with Mohammad the whole time and he never mentioned Ali as his successor to her.
And as we know, her dad got the job. It's all there, every element of a great movie. Intrigue, betrayal, murder, lust for power and money, and Allah willing every bit of it...Allah likes a good movie too, thats why he invented popcorn...
The Day of Enlightenment
That day will be a day of enlightenment for all of us, the day when Robert Spencer after having done such a deep research will also declares that the Holy Quran is a Divine Book sent by the God Almighty for the whole of mankind through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); The Quran which is the Last Book of revelation sent to complete the religion so selected by God Almighty. Quran is a solution and Guidance for the mankind which supersedes, validates and confirms all the old true earlier teachings of various prophets; and that those teachings were the stepping stones to achieve the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam.
---------
Adabarez
She was probably guilty (wouldn't you be?), but he didn't want to give up his underage sweetie. Pedophile.
Why must there be 4 witnesses to establish rape and adultery?
For the same reason that voting instructions for black americans in Mississipi circa 1965 were written in Chinese.
Robert,please answer the troll above.
This troll is one you previously banned under a new name.
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:
Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
Great! Thank You, RS. I've copied this passage so I won't have to inquire again.
Again, no fool Aeisha! She saw through Mohammed's charade!
duh_swami - do you realize what would happen if the West began making a movie about Aeisha? Good God - the Mohammedans would run amuck. And much more so than what has transpired over the Mo'Toons. That's what I think, anyway. Run amuck or Run amok, whichever spelling you favor: (Run) in a violent, frenzied, uncontrolled manner. Yep, that's it!
To one Adabarez: LOL! LAUGH OUT LOUD at Allah, Mohammed and Islam! Oh, and at the Qur'an, too. LOL!
husbands can establish charges of adultery against their wives if they testify four times under oath (v. 6) and invoke Allah’s curse on themselves if they’re lying (v. 7); a wife so accused can head off being punished by testifying four times that her husband is lying (v. 8) and likewise calls Allah’s curse on herself if she is lying (v. 9).
So how did any wife ever get convicted? One spouse will lie four times and the other will tell the truth four times. What does it get anyone? Unless the wife is caught in the act, it's no more than he said, she said.
he didn't want to give up his underage sweetie. Pedophile.
Posted by: CGW at May 5, 2008 10:26 AM
I thought of that, too, CGW. So, in order to retain her, he had to perform his "Allah Shazam" thingy.
Adabarez...I think the fires will go out in Allah's furnace on the day Spencer declares the Quran to be a Holy revelation from God. It has been made clear however that you think that's what it is.
Do you break out in a sweat while reading this superior wisdom and guide from Allah? Has Allah taught you yet how to sweat on command? Mohammad seems to have been able to do it, unless he was sick and delusional when having these revelations.
You can't get the truth out of a delusional man, Prophet or not. Do you ask a delusional man for advice? Do you ask him how to live your life?
If you ask a delusional man a question, what kind of answer would you expect? If you accept the delusional answer, then you are sharing the delusion with him, and you yourself have become delusional.
That's Mohammadism, and Islam...
the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam - by Adabarez
Pepsi = A Zionist Plot - some ME sheikh
What's wrong with this picture?
The adult hood of conscious(?) is calling a product invented when most Americans couldn't find Israel on a map (because it didn't exist!)a Zionist plot?.
If Islam is the summit, I'll remain in the valley of Christianity, thank you. The valley has its own beauty.
"Summit?" LOL, try "Nadir." Islam is the nadir of man's intelligence.
That's Mohammadism, and Islam...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 5, 2008 10:42 AM
"How dreadful are the curses Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!" --Winston Churchill
In addition to the actual rape, what is equally repugnant is that Allah would allow four muslim males to stand around and watch a woman being raped.
"
"In addition to the actual rape, what is equally repugnant is that Allah would allow four muslim males to stand around and watch a woman being raped.
Posted by: 3812Michelle"
while watching the rape, instead of helping the woman, they were probably shouting; "I'm next, I'm next"
did you ever notice the four "witnesses" never pull the Muslim moron off the woman, but they are there to watch..maybe it is a school field trip and they are learning...yeah ...learning the ways of Allah.
Darcy,
I'd let Islam remain at the summit. Most summits are barren, devoid of all life. Even the trees are puny. The valley is where almost everything grows, where man is nourished.
Hello, Robert. I'm a muslim and i'd just like to point where you have gotten things wrong.
1. The subject of stoning- Recitation abrogated, practice was not. Proof:
And the companions of the Prophet abandoning the writing of this verse is clear evidence that the abrogated should not be written in the Quran and that Umar's statement about the stoning as he is on the pulpit and the silence of the companions and other than them from who were present from opposing him is evidence about the ruling of the stoning (still being implemented) (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Thayb fil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 3201)
In the verse whose recitation has been abrogated but its ruling remained, and it has happened what Umar feared. A tribe from the Khawarij or most of them and some of the Mu'tazilites rejected the stoning.
And it was reported by Abd al Razzaq and Al Tabari from another view that Ibn Abbas said that Umar said "There will come a people that will lie (or disbelieve) in the stoning" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Hublah min Zana Eezha Ahsanat, Commentary on Hadith no. 6328,
I'm sure Robert, you are aware of who the 2 scholars i have cited as proof, are.
2. 4 witnesses for Rape:
Rape victims, do not require 4 witnesses in order to prove their Innocence.
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=72338&ln=eng
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503548970&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1122819225850
Although i've not entirely used these websites to prove my point, they are what i've been already been told by scholars that i know.
I'm sure you can dig a little deeper if needed, to find out the correct Islamic postion on the matter.
But in any case, you are wrong on the matter.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Adabarez is a troll? I thought that he was comic relief?
I have heard Mr. Spencer once say, "I will not submit."
Do you know what else? I will not submit either.
In addition to the actual rape, what is equally repugnant is that Allah would allow four muslim males to stand around and watch a woman being raped.
Posted by: 3812Michelle
__________________________________________________
I'm sorry you think this way. I think you have very little understanding about Islamic Teachings on how Muslims are meant to behave. Perhaps you do not want to, because you think the behavior of muslims you read or see in the media is the result of what Islam teaches.
In the case you are refering to, that would not be it at all.
No real Muslim men would just stand there and not do something. In any case, 4 witnesses are not needed to prove rape, so your basis for saying it is wrong.
I'm sure you're aware of the story last year about a group of Police man that raped a Sunni woman? The terrorists then hunted these people down and killed them because they dishonored one of their sisters and they offered to marry her.
Now, i'm not condoning what they did, because it wasn't even proven that it was them who did it, but the story proves what i am refering to.
Could you people at least try to be a bit more open-minded and not make such snide remarks about Muslims based on your ignorance of the Islamic faith and its teachings.
Islam is a complex religion and way of life. We muslims ( those that can be bothered that is) spend a great deal of time learning it from Scholars, their books & lectures.
Do not assume that just because a person is a muslim, every aspect of his behavior which you see is in accordance with Islamic teachings.
Not every muslim out there even spends their time learning about Islam. At best, many will just have a basic level of knowledge about it.
Thank you.
Phoenix,
You wrote: "No real Muslim men would just stand there and not do something. In any case, 4 witnesses are not needed to prove rape, so your basis for saying it is wrong."
But wait, the Qu'ran says "four witnesses are required to establish guilt, and false accusers should get eighty lashes (v. 4);"
So, should I believe you or the Qu'ran?
O.K., Phoenix, so, if, as you state, many Muslims have only a rudimentary knowledge of their religion, why do so many of them riot when faced with criticism of their religion? I personally believe that Mo was a demented idiot, but that is my opinion. However, I have a right to believe it and you have no right whatsoever to be offended by my belief. Islam is about as complicated as any other male invented religion. If one were to comply with all of the 623 mandates in the Jewish one would not have much time to do anything else. Do you have any idea how many "laws" there are in Islam and how many of them you are expected to comply with on a daily basis? And, yes, I can easily conceive of Muslim men standing around to watch a rape, especially if they were relatives of the rapist.
Face it, Phoenix, Islam is a misogynistic, bigoted, abomination. It was designed by 7th and 8th century camel herders and tribesmen to control their enemies and to give themselves the benefit of every doubt. There is absolutely no suggestion anywhere in either the Qu'ran nor any of the ahadith nor in Mo biographies which have any small intimation of "do only that unto your neighbor which you would have him do unto you." Nope, just odes to rape, ravage, and murder. Oh, and no usury but charge any fees you can get away with.
"because you think the behavior of muslims you read or see in the media is the result of what Islam teaches."
Posted by: Phoenix
It is odd that all the Muslims seen in the news reports and in the film clips the Muslims put out with their own cameras and reports are always quoting some verse from the Qur'an or other Islamic religious texts as justification for the violence their followers have just inflicted upon someone somewhere.
I believe the Muslims are following exactly what Islam preaches.
I wonder if the reports on Aisha demonstrate the first (inadvertently) documented case of Stockholm Syndrome. Dragged away from her dolls to begin sexually servicing a man old enough to be her grandfather, her parents protesting only weakly if at all, Aisha shows an interesting set of responses over time. Sometimes wryly critical, sometimes abjectly afraid, sometimes vain and pompous,she seems very human.
Yet in the end, she became as spiteful, vicious and inhumanly violent as Mohammed. It would make a hell of a story, if one wouldn't get one's throat cut over writing it.
FYI: Adabarez is definitively identified as the banned bloviater,A Khokar.
Dear All,
The extremely painful incident referred to in the subject verses took place when on the return from the expedition against Bani Mustaliq in 5 A.D., the Muslim Army had to halt at a place, at a short distance from Medina. In the early hours when the caravan moved out, Hazrat Aisha (as), the distinguished wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), was left out because she had gone away for a natural call. Any how she was rescued by the person, Safwan from the rear guard party and obviously she reached next last bound- Medina with the rear party late. Some hypocrites of Medina sought to make capital out of it that these elements are always there in all the societies; they tried to spread out a malicious scandalous rumour about Hazrat Aisha (as) to blemish her character. Any how those who had taken part in fabrication and spreading the accusation were punished and injunctions were revealed by God Almighty to deal effectively with scandalmongers and their evil design and activities.
The commandment of 4 witnesses is set just to curb the rumours and put a stop to suspicion and slander-mongering. Islam takes a serious view of spreading and circulation of false accusation as that of crime against chastity.
The commandments condemned and prescribed, punishment for both the crimes for scandlemongring; even a severer punishment since it is calculated to produce more grievous consequences as for as the prevalence of sexual immorality in a community is concerned than the stray act of sexual misconduct. If scandal mongering is allowed to be indulged in community, it will come to lose all sense of horror and abhorrence at the commission of immoral act with the result that immorality will become rampant thus shaking the whole moral foundation.
We can also recall the case of ‘Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman’ as described in Luke chapter 7:36-50. This should be borne in mind that Prophets are the teachers and are there to set the examples for us and be seen that they are the saviours of the people from all walks of life; pious or even the sinful. But we have seen that there has never been a dearth of Hypocrites that even today; they are all out to malign the prophets and even many a thrilling and scandalous movies are being circulated around.
------------
Adabarez
Phoenix,
You wrote: "No real Muslim men would just stand there and not do something. In any case, 4 witnesses are not needed to prove rape, so your basis for saying it is wrong."
But wait, the Qu'ran says "four witnesses are required to establish guilt, and false accusers should get eighty lashes (v. 4);"
So, should I believe you or the Qu'ran?
Posted by: Mo Foe
__________________________________________
To that i say, you do not understand the verse.
The verse speaks of those that slander chaste women. If the accuser cannot prove what he is saying, then he will be lashed, his testimony will be rejected forever.
If he does produce 4 people, each one of them will be interogated to see if they are telling them truth.
This verse has absolutely nothing to do with Rape and never has.
I've certainly never seen any scholar or Fatwa issued on the subject of rape, ever refer to that verse.
From a believing Muslim's perspective, maybe Allah willed that these verse drop out.
In that case, wouldn't Umar reinstating that rule contradict Allah's will? Moreover, wouldn't the mere existence of Umar's rule contradict the Muslim idea that Sharia isn't man-made law, it's divine law? It sounds to me more likely that there never were such verses, but Umar couldn't add that law himself because it would be a man-made law, so he lied about the missing verses to justify adding it. Posted by: aynrandgirl
________________________________________________
Hi.
You're wrong there. I made a post responding to Robert's post but it hasn't come up yet, because it has to be approved as it was my first post.
But i'll say here what i did there.
From the commentaries of the hadith that have been written, it has been shown that the verse was never meant to be written down in the Qu'ran.
The recitation of the verse was abrogated but the practice remained.
Here is a referance:
Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down?' It is as if he hated that" Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al I'tiraaf bil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 6327)
spinoneone
O.K., Phoenix, so, if, as you state, many Muslims have only a rudimentary knowledge of their religion, why do so many of them riot when faced with criticism of their religion?
_____________________________________
I think that question has already been answered. Lack of knowledge or they let their emotions over rule their senses and therefore they behave in the manner you've seen on the news many times.
---------------------------------------------
I personally believe that Mo was a demented idiot, but that is my opinion. However, I have a right to believe it and you have no right whatsoever to be offended by my belief. Islam is about as complicated as any other male invented religion.
----------------------------------------------
Thats fine with me, you can believe what-ever you like, that is your right. It does not bother me if you hate Islam.
-------------------------------------------------
And, yes, I can easily conceive of Muslim men standing around to watch a rape, especially if they were relatives of the rapist.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, well then they're not exactly model citizens or muslims because they're not following Islamic teachings and are just inhuman monsters/
_______________________________________________
There is absolutely no suggestion anywhere in either the Qu'ran nor any of the ahadith nor in Mo biographies which have any small intimation of "do only that unto your neighbor which you would have him do unto you."
_____________________________________________
That is not true. Regardless of how you may think the Qu'ran speaks about Non-muslims, it does not say what you claim.
The rights of neighbours and dealing with non-muslims is covered in the Qu'ran and Hadith.
Example:
Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, 'Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"
112. Ibn 'Abbas told Ibn az-Zubayr, "I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'A man is not a believer who fills his stomach while his neighbour is hungry.'"
Mujahid said, "I was with 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr while his slave was skinning a sheep. He said, 'Boy! When you finish, start with the Jewish neighbour.' A man there exclaimed, 'Jewish? May Allah correct you!' He replied, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, recommend that we treat our neighbours well until we feared (or we thought) that he would order us to make them our heirs.'"
(Bukhari- Al Adab, Al-Mufrad)
Now, i could have posted ones that just said neighbour, but i chose ones that mentioned those that were not muslims, to prove Islam teaches you must treat everyone nicely, be they muslim or not.
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
60:8
There are plenty more.
Thanks for your reply.
It is odd that all the Muslims seen in the news reports and in the film clips the Muslims put out with their own cameras and reports are always quoting some verse from the Qur'an or other Islamic religious texts as justification for the violence their followers have just inflicted upon someone somewhere.
I believe the Muslims are following exactly what Islam preaches.
Posted by: pulsar182
__________________________________________________
I'm sure you're aware, when it comes to religious scripture, you can use verses to justify anything if you interpret to mean something totally opposite to what it means.
That is the importance of having knowledge about something. That way, you know when someone is right when they're quoting something or when they're wrong.
The best examples of muslim you'll find in behavior are Muslim Scholars. They're the inheritors of the Prophets and people who know best what the religion teaches.
Thanks and regards
-Phoenix
Dear Phoenix,
Please explain the pact of Umar.
Concerned Citizen,
Is this your credential that, who so ever comes up with a different view on JW are not admitted and be seen banned…on some pretext or the other?
What a fixation of a pie in the sky… by you and your high held apex in the freedom of speech and Expression?
CC; Do you hate diversity of opinion on this website and seek that only yes men are seen on the line?
--------------
Adabarez
Dear Adabarez,
You should know TWO things about these sites: FIRST, that these are privately-run forums with the stated purposes of describing and confronting JIHAD as a religious imperative inimical to the interests of the non-Muslim world; and SECOND, comments posted here must follow a clear set of rules congruent with these purposes. Thus, digressing from the topic given, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, insincerity and incivility, posting patently offensive matter, and acting in bad faith will surely and inevitably cause the offender to be banished.
Free speech, yes; but a private forum, like a parliament or legislative assembly anywhere on Earth, has rules of decorum and rules to preserve that legislature's integrity and further its purposes.
Adabarez,
"The Day of Enlightenment
That day will be a day of enlightenment for all of us, the day when Robert Spencer after having done such a deep research will also declares that the Holy Quran is a Divine Book sent by the God Almighty for the whole of mankind through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); The Quran which is the Last Book of revelation sent to complete the religion so selected by God Almighty. Quran is a solution and Guidance for the mankind which supersedes, validates and confirms all the old true earlier teachings of various prophets; and that those teachings were the stepping stones to achieve the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam. "
If your Koran is so great, why is it that the number one best selling book of all time ( #1 ) is the Holy Bible? Could it be because the Holy Bible is a TRULY DIVINE INSPIRED BOOK and gives HOPE to those who read it? The Holy Bible is not only God's LOVE LETTER to humanity but also God working in the lives of others. It not only teaches and guides humanity but proves the LOVE of God towards this same humanity.
Khokar,
No, I just want to see people post something other than pontificating essays that they have cut and pasted from other websites on issues not even related to the current thread, resulting in "madhattery". I want to see people not start spouting again the same "opinions" previously refuted on another thread as though the presentation of facts on the prior dialogue never occurred. I want to see people post things that are actually TRUE rather than falsehood or spin, especially Ahmadi spin as though it applied the entire ummah, and not some fantasy ummah. I want to see some dialogue, and admission that the problems MIGHT, just MIGHT, relate to your CORELIGIONISTS having the exact same opinions about Islam as most of the JW posters, and what YOU are going to do about it, rather than spouting about as though there were no problem except Islamophobes.
Write an essay about THEM, or are you scared?
Oh, and stop the da'wa. This is a non-sectarian site. If you proselytize, expect to get it back until we both get banned.
"the adult hood of conscious of man to reach at its summit-Islam - by Adabarez"
If that be so, why was a former Muslim baptized on the eve before Easter in Rome by Pope Benedict XVI? Could it be that he simply wanted to make the journey home?
I would rather go to the true summit of faith, Christanity myself.
In Pakistan the Pakistani Panchayat (Tribal Councils), had ordered a gang rape. After the gang rape was carried out, No Muslim cleric issued a fatwa against such activity..It appears to me that the Muslim clerics by their lack of action approved of the activity..such is the way of Islam.
oh did I forget?..there were four witnesses and many more and that they were ordered to be there by the Muslim clerics..
Even with four witnesses the Muslim female is still F***ed.
So much for womens rights in Islam.
To Phoenix - you have been deceived by con man Mohammed. There is no "allah" - except for the pagan moon deity worshipped as the chief god in pre-Islamic mythology. "allah" doesn't exist.
Your "prophet" fabricated a new religion in the early 7th century AD which has NOTHING to do with Judaism and Christianity. NOTHING. Mohammedans are never mentioned in the Bible. Your Terrorist Manual called the Qur'an in no way "supersedes" the Bible, which is real. Your religion is fake. As Mohammed was, is, a fake prophet.
We are not "ignorant." In fact, YOU are the ignorant sheep following a fake religion and a fake prophet. You're to be pitiedfor your ignorance and indoctrination by a Warlord who claimed prophethood only to gain power.
Mujahid said, "I was with 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr while his slave was skinning a sheep. He said, 'Boy! When you finish, start with the Jewish neighbour.' ......
So when he finished with the sheep, he skinned his Jewish neighbor!
(Good thing he wasn't having relations with the sheep, or Jewish folks would have to worry about alot more than suicide bombers and Kassams!)
Dear John C,
Thanks a lot for your kind post. John; have you noticed how flagrant people can be found in the choice of their vocabulary and its usage; when they address the Holy Prophet of Islam and all other scholars and cleric, etc on this site? I hope they only know as in Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,….?'
Although my endeavour to keep on coming on this site is to look for the common grounds and make sure that people see Islam; in its right prospective (which I feel is every body’s future). You may not find a single reviling or cursing, blasphemous word (God forbid) about God Almighty, the prophets, Holy Scriptures or any one on this web site that I would have ever uttered in my entire submissions; however rude my addressee was.
We learn from each other and it will be my earnest desire that we all find our tomorrow; a better day than today!
----------------
Adabarez
The best examples of muslim you'll find in behavior are Muslim Scholars. They're the inheritors of the Prophets and people who know best what the religion teaches. - posted by Phoenix
In Pakistan the Pakistani Panchayat (Tribal Councils), had ordered a gang rape. After the gang rape was carried out, No Muslim cleric issued a fatwa against such activity Posted by: pulsar182
Sounds like these guys need some more in-service training to identify and utilize best practices for muslim behaviour.
"the Holy Prophet of Islam" --Adabarez
That's your opinion. NOBODY has to consider Mohammed either "holy" or a "prophet." Indeed, the LAST thing Mohammed the Mass-Murdering Warlord is is "holy" and he is certainly NOT a "prophet" - in fact, he's a fraud. If you want to believe in your Islamic "prophet" that's your right, but NOBODY ELSE has to buy into that bull.
I couldn't care less if you think I'm "rude." I think the mass-murder of over 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001, was rude, don't you? Indeed, that's just the utter height of rudeness, wouldn't you agree?
Your Islamic "God Almighty" (Allah) is NOT, let me repeat, NOT, the Jewish or Christian God Almighty. Do you understand that? Islam, invented in the early 7th century AD, has NOTHING to do with the already-established religions of Judaism and Christianity. NOTHING.
OH, we are seeing Islam in it's "right perspective" - no need to worry about that. No matter how many meaningless platitudes you utter.
People, read the gang-rape story of Pakistani woman Mukhataran Mai (2005):
http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2005/06/islamic_mysoginy_in_pakistan.php
Khokar,
As I've said before, our "common ground" begins with 1) vocabulary free of doublespeak and 2) an understanding the concept of "peace" means ONLY vigilant perpetual egalitarian coexistence, not the establishment of worldwide hegemony of dar-al-Islam.
Why not start with its realistic, actual current perspective, instead of some Ahmadi dreamland.
and if that includes violence, rapes and mutilations, as you've said before, "do you bring your enemies flowers?"
Well, good for you. Except, when you declare Allah to be God, I find that blasphemous. When you declare Jesus' divinity to be blasphemous, I find that blasphemous. When you call Mohammed uswa hosana, al-insan al-kamil, I find that blasphemous. When you call the morally repugnant Qur'an and Sunnah to be more excellent than the JudaeoChristian scriptures, I find that blasphemous. And I know you don't follow the ten commandments, but you lie near constantly.
By the way, if an "epithet" is by definition true, it is not an epithet, it is a descriptor.
Like pedophile, murderer, robber baron, gold-digger, rapist, double-crosser, wife-stealer, etc., for Mohammed. It's not blasphemy, it's the truth.
If you come here pontificating and confabulating about your pretend Islam, and you knowingly say something false, you're a liar. That's not "name-calling", it's the truth.
"Well, good for you. Except, when you declare Allah to be God, I find that blasphemous. When you declare Jesus' divinity to be blasphemous, I find that blasphemous. When you call Mohammed uswa hosana, al-insan al-kamil, I find that blasphemous. When you call the morally repugnant Qur'an and Sunnah to be more excellent than the JudaeoChristian scriptures, I find that blasphemous. And I know you don't follow the ten commandments, but you lie near constantly." --Concerned Citizen
Oh Yeah. Tell it, Tell it, CC!
There's got to be at least 6 blasphemies in there from my perspective.
Darcy,
Thanks for reminding us the above category of Islamic rape*. This would, I suppose complete the categories of:
Spousal rape (Muslim on Muslim, no pun intended)
"Defensive" wartime rape (Muslim on Infidel)
Judicial rape (Muslim on Muslim)*
Slave rape (Muslim on Infidel)
Pedophilic rape (Muslim on Muslim or Infidel)
Incestuous rape (Muslim on Muslim)
Prosecutable rape (Muslim on Muslim) --this is the kind that HAS four sane, adult, pious, male, Muslim witnesses to the actual penetration. All of the others above are almost always condoned or ignored.
Did I leave out any?
Adabarez,
I, too, believe in striving to overcome differences, or to understand and accept differences. I would not directly insult or offend you, but you would find many things I say to be dissmissive or contemptuous of Islam's Prophet, traditions, and of Sharia--sometimes outrageously so. I react to these as affronts, as I see them, to Reason and to Truth, which I see as God's Attributes
I am glad that you choose to read Jewish and Christian scriptures for yourself, and I understand that you read these as a pious Muslim.
For myself, I will try to keep the channels of dialog open, and avoid unnecessary and gratuitous abuse of that which Muslims hold sacred.
That said, I must say that I hold little regard for Sharia, as it does not protect women's inherent rights and dignity; in this example, it provides no protection against rape or remedy for the pychic injuries of rape. It is simply barbaric in its applications, and irrational and regressive--that modern forensic science and the testimony of an authoritative medical examiner have no weight or place in Sharia courts clearly proves this, not to mention the IMPOSSIBLE and LUDICROUSLY IMPROBABLE standard of proof for a rape victim, who thus has no legal recourse or relief.
The All-Knowing, the Almighty and the Merciful cannot possibly be the Source for such irrationality and cruelty.
Typo: I misspelled "dismissive," above.
PS: With best wishes for you, John C
Khokar,
I appreciate John C's comments above, and I believe he has a good heart. I myself have had some mutually beneficial, protracted dialogues with Muslims at this site, including some that I wish could have gone on further.
On the other hand, when you come hear with your pretend pious platitudes, your contemptuous and confrontational dismissiveness of fundamentals of Christianity, your selective whitewashes of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and your feigned unawareness of sacralized malignant teachings rampant throughout the Muslim world, well, no amount of warm, fuzzy da'wa can make up for that.
When you do that, I solemnly promise to you that I will make each visit as uncomfortable, revealing, and embarrassing to you as I possibly can, may God and many others help me.
So, when you are prepared to
1) recognize and confront the real problems within the ummah and not blame them on imaginary externals like "Islamophobia", Palestine blah, blah, etc.,
2) jettison the disgenuous apologetics, spin, obfuscation, and doublespeak, by becoming conscious and repressive of your tendencies toward entendre, elision, and egocentrism, and by committing to using consistent, plain, perspicuous meanings of words,
3) recognize with comfortable resignation that some part of the earth will NEVER be part of Islam,
4) use simple, linear, unitary logic and ethics, and
5) quit insulting us by dumping pre-written, endless, pontificating essays that are only on topic by virtue of a limited shared vocabulary, which weren't even written for the site, much less the thread,
THEN, we might be able to begin an actual dialogue, and then you might earn respect. THEN we can attempt to find "common ground" (it won't be theological). You've already burned up some goodwill, however, so you're a bit behind.
Here's the clue. This is JihadWatch. You're being examined here. Play defense, but play fair.
Robert notes: “...But Ali also advises Muhammad to ask Barira, Aisha’s slave girl, if she has seen anything, and Barira maintained that Aisha had done nothing wrong.”
It is perhaps noting the manner in which Burayra was "asked":
Ishaq, p. 496. “As for Ali, he said: “Women are plentiful and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying, “Tell the apostle the truth” …”
Posted by: duh_swami at May 5, 2008 9:36 AM
duh_swami, I was 24/7 caregiver for a friend who died of cancer few years ago. He had a personality disorder and I witnessed "pseudo seizures" that suddenly overtook him. These are very real seizures, but they are called "pseudo seizures" to differentiate them from epileptic seizures. Frankly, I haven't seen anything in any bio of Muhammad that leads me to believe he actually had epilepsy. I have, however, read much to cause me to think he suffered from a personality disorder caused by early childhood circumstances.
My friend was brilliant with an IQ off the charts, but he was also delusional. He re-experienced certain early childhood events which caused paranoia and panic attacks and I've often thought that in another day and age he would have been another Muhammad.
excuse me, the above should say "perhaps worth noting..."
And so many of the West's "leaders" believe that we can have a reasonable dialog with these 7th century throwbacks? That we must negotiate with them? Just be nice to them and all the bad stuff will go away...every way of life they have is contrary to civilized people everywhere. They are insane, murderously dedicated to their cult of bloodshed, mayhem and violence. Insane, and so are those of the West who think they can tame them. Haven't these fools seen enough of the ultraNazis' behavior thru the years?
Posted by Darcy:
To Phoenix - you have been deceived by con man Mohammed. There is no "allah" - except for the pagan moon deity worshipped as the chief god in pre-Islamic mythology. "allah" doesn't exist.
Your "prophet" fabricated a new religion in the early 7th century AD which has NOTHING to do with Judaism and Christianity. NOTHING. Mohammedans are never mentioned in the Bible. Your Terrorist Manual called the Qur'an in no way "supersedes" the Bible, which is real. Your religion is fake. As Mohammed was, is, a fake prophet.
We are not "ignorant." In fact, YOU are the ignorant sheep following a fake religion and a fake prophet. You're to be pitiedfor your ignorance and indoctrination by a Warlord who claimed prophethood only to gain power.
_________________________________________________
You see Darcy, this is your view, which you clearly base on your own religious beliefs.
What makes you think the God in your Bible is the true God?
What proof do you have to suggest Christianity is even a true successor to Judaism? Does the fact that the people who created it were Jewish and followers of the Jewish scripture and that it orginated out of Palestine/Israel make it as legitimate as Judaism?
And lets not get started on the things Prophets did in the Jewish scriptures.
Good day to you.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon
[The best examples of muslim you'll find in behavior are Muslim Scholars. They're the inheritors of the Prophets and people who know best what the religion teaches. - posted by Phoenix]
In Pakistan the Pakistani Panchayat (Tribal Councils), had ordered a gang rape. After the gang rape was carried out, No Muslim cleric issued a fatwa against such activity Posted by: pulsar182
Sounds like these guys need some more in-service training to identify and utilize best practices for muslim behaviour.
________________________________________________
Ok first off, what Tribal councils do are not based on any religious law at all- it is their own tribal based laws which they follow.
Secondly, Fatwa against rape have already been issued many times and on issues relating to it.
And just how do you know none ever did issue one after this?
Do you read or speak Urdu, did you scour the Pakistani media to see?
Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,
Therefore if practices like that are going on, it is the fault of the government and the scholars, that have influence, for not helping to stamp it out by making people more aware of it.
That said, I must say that I hold little regard for Sharia, as it does not protect women's inherent rights and dignity; in this example, it provides no protection against rape or remedy for the pychic injuries of rape. It is simply barbaric in its applications, and irrational and regressive--that modern forensic science and the testimony of an authoritative medical examiner have no weight or place in Sharia courts clearly proves this, not to mention the IMPOSSIBLE and LUDICROUSLY IMPROBABLE standard of proof for a rape victim, who thus has no legal recourse or relief.
The All-Knowing, the Almighty and the Merciful cannot possibly be the Source for such irrationality and cruelty.
Posted by: John C
-------------------------------------------------
That is not true at all. Medical & Forensic evidence can be used and is used, like in Saudi Arabia for example.
*sigh*
It is a shame, so many people have been taken in by this nonsensical idea of women needing 4 witnessess to prove their own Innocence, they never bothered to find out for themselves but instead, take the word of people that are not even qualified in Islamic Law and the media as their only guide.
'phoenix'
the sins of certain figures within the Hebrew scriptures are NOT generally viewed by believers as examples to imitate, but rather as cautionary tales, examples of the types of conduct one must AVOID.
For example: King David committed adultery and murder; but these were NOT APPROVED OF. They are named as SIN. David himself collapsed in a heap and 'owned up' to it, when confronted by Nathan. No Jews or Christians think that David's sins should be imitated!
If you're thinking of Lot, Abraham's nephew - first, neither Jews nor Christians regard him as a prophet, anyway. Only the foolish Muslims do that. And what he and his daughters got up to is reported; it is NOT praised, indeed, one gets the general impression that it was severely disapproved of.
Abraham is the ancestor of the Hebrew people.
Lot, Abraham's NEPHEW, not his descendant, is not Hebrew; he is seen as the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
That's just a couple of cases that Muslim spin-doctors have tried to throw at us, in the past, by way of a feeble attempt at tu quoque when we criticise the deplorable behaviour of Ubul Kassim ha-Meshugga, called by Muslims 'mohammed'. Sorry, the tu quoque falls completely flat.
And as for the difference between 'allah' and YHWH - allah is a capricious slavemaster of terrified, cringing slaves; YHWH is loving, faithful, forgiving, patient, and holy, and relates to His people as a father to children, or as a loving husband to a beloved wife.
If I were an atheist I would still say that Christians and Jews have a faith that - because it teaches the Golden Rule in a particularly clear and vivid manner, and encourages forgiveness, honesty [with oneself and others], patience and willingness to compromise - makes in general for more psychologically healthy human beings, and social orders, than does Islam, which does NOT teach the Golden Rule, and which actively fosters fear, deception, paralysis and aggression.
The fruits of following YHWH and the fruits of following 'allah' are radically different.
Me, I prefer what grows from faith in YHWH. Despite our many failures and follies, among Jews and Christians there does seem to be a self-renewing energy of life and love that is - tragically - simply not matched within the Muslim world [though I freely acknowledge that there have been individual Muslims who have been truly decent human beings, not in obedience to Quranic Islam, but in despite of it!].
Phoenix, it was a very simple question.
Please explain the Pact of Umar in the light of your Islamic Golden Rule thesis above. Also, please explain Mohammed's deathbed order to rid Arabia of Jews.
BTW, Judaism and Christianity are supported by archaeology and parabiblical accounts (even hostile ones) supporting the supernatural claims within it. They are internally consistent, though they span millenia. The ceremonial observations and personal restrictions changed from Judaism to Christianity, but the moral codes did not. Real life metaphors became spiritually significant through type:antitype paired revelations. The dominant theme throughout is man's inability to please an infinitely holy God through his own effort, requiring atonement.
The largest difference is that there is no atonement in Islam. The moral code of Islam is indifferent to and in many respects antithetical to that in the JudaeoChristian scriptures. Islam is ahistorical and amoral, having spontaneously generated in the seventh century, and is tied to its claimed predecessors by neither geneology, geography, nor geniality.
BTW, you are a long way from "proving" there is an Islamic Golden Rule toward infidels. The burden of proof is on you. 1.2 billion Muslims say you're wrong; that's a lot. However, I do hope you will continue your efforts, and that you will focus upon teaching it to your coreligionists.
In answer to your above questions, Mr. Phoenix --Oh, please.
Jesus is God.
Allah is Not.
The Qur'an has 2 active characters in it - Mohammed and Allah. Mohammed, a man, and "Allah" a malevolent moon deity. No females. Of course.
The Bible, both OT and NT combined, is filled with hundreds of thousands of active people - hundreds of thousands. Both males and females. Including many prominent and heroic females such as Ruth, Naomi, Esther, Deborah, Judith, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha. In addition, there are over 40 authors of the Bible, all telling a similar story.
Unlike the Qur'an, upon which all of it's legitimacy and credibility resides in one -one- man, who happens to be a Warlord (!) and a mass-murderer beheader of Jews and Christians, a caravan-raider booty-lover thief, a torturer, a rapist, a slave-owner, a pedophile and a polygamist. Yeah right - that's a "Prophet of God!" LOL! Yeah sure - Mohammed was receiving revelations from a pagan moon god. Right.
Now, using your common sense (!), which Book is the real deal? Hello.
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
bwahahahahahaha.
"Therefore if practices like that are going on, it is the fault of the government and the scholars, that have influence, for not helping to stamp it out by making people more aware of it.
Posted by: Phoenix "
it is the fault of the Muslims who live there and who follow the Qur'an "religiously". They do not want to stamp it out and the people there are acutely aware of the ways of Islam. Painfully aware.
In answer to your above questions, Mr. Phoenix --Oh, please.
Jesus is God.
Allah is Not.
The Qur'an has 2 active characters in it - Mohammed and Allah. Mohammed, a man, and "Allah" a malevolent moon deity. No females. Of course.
The Bible, both OT and NT combined, is filled with hundreds of thousands of active people - hundreds of thousands. Both males and females. Including many prominent and heroic females such as Ruth, Naomi, Esther, Deborah, Judith, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha. In addition, there are over 40 authors of the Bible, all telling a similar story.
Unlike the Qur'an, upon which all of it's legitimacy and credibility resides in one -one- man, who happens to be a Warlord (!) and a mass-murderer beheader of Jews and Christians, a caravan-raider booty-lover thief, a torturer, a rapist, a slave-owner, a pedophile and a polygamist. Yeah right - that's a "Prophet of God!" LOL! Yeah sure - Mohammed was receiving revelations from a pagan moon god. Right.
Now, using your common sense (!), which Book is the real deal? Hello.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but that still doesn't prove your religion to be true or that the God you believe in to be the real one. It is your faith and belief that Jesus is God.
I knew you had no common sense! LOL.
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
bwahahahahahaha.
Posted by: pulsar182
--------------------------------------------------
I see you laughing, which must therefore mean, you clearly think that isn't the case. Care to explain why you think i'm wrong?
Are you one of those people that think a Muslim country = one ruled by Shariah or a muslim country that has elements of Shariah makes it an Islamic country?
__________________________________________________
it is the fault of the Muslims who live there and who follow the Qur'an "religiously". They do not want to stamp it out and the people there are acutely aware of the ways of Islam. Painfully aware.
Posted by: pulsar182
__________________________________________________
I think it is quite clear to me now, that you do not have any understanding of what it means to Follow the Qu'ran or Islam "religiously"
Pakistan is run by an incompetent government. It is full of corruption and they simply cannot be bothered to bring about changes to tackle these matters.
Most of these backward practices you see in Pakistan like Honor killings, Acid attacks etc are down to their own backward tribal beliefs they've held for many centuries, long before Islam came there.
Not to insult anyone here, but i don't think you people would know a "religious practicing muslim" if he was standing right infront of you.
Your definition of a good muslim is one that is Violent and behaves like a savage.
I'm starting to think it was a big mistake for me to even post here. You cannot deal with people who think they know it all about Islam already.
'phoenix'
the sins of certain figures within the Hebrew scriptures are NOT generally viewed by believers as examples to imitate, but rather as cautionary tales, examples of the types of conduct one must AVOID.
For example: King David committed adultery and murder; but these were NOT APPROVED OF. They are named as SIN. David himself collapsed in a heap and 'owned up' to it, when confronted by Nathan. No Jews or Christians think that David's sins should be imitated!
If you're thinking of Lot, Abraham's nephew - first, neither Jews nor Christians regard him as a prophet, anyway. Only the foolish Muslims do that. And what he and his daughters got up to is reported; it is NOT praised, indeed, one gets the general impression that it was severely disapproved of.
Abraham is the ancestor of the Hebrew people.
Lot, Abraham's NEPHEW, not his descendant, is not Hebrew; he is seen as the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
That's just a couple of cases that Muslim spin-doctors have tried to throw at us, in the past, by way of a feeble attempt at tu quoque when we criticise the deplorable behaviour of Ubul Kassim ha-Meshugga, called by Muslims 'mohammed'. Sorry, the tu quoque falls completely flat.
And as for the difference between 'allah' and YHWH - allah is a capricious slavemaster of terrified, cringing slaves; YHWH is loving, faithful, forgiving, patient, and holy, and relates to His people as a father to children, or as a loving husband to a beloved wife.
If I were an atheist I would still say that Christians and Jews have a faith that - because it teaches the Golden Rule in a particularly clear and vivid manner, and encourages forgiveness, honesty [with oneself and others], patience and willingness to compromise - makes in general for more psychologically healthy human beings, and social orders, than does Islam, which does NOT teach the Golden Rule, and which actively fosters fear, deception, paralysis and aggression.
The fruits of following YHWH and the fruits of following 'allah' are radically different.
Me, I prefer what grows from faith in YHWH. Despite our many failures and follies, among Jews and Christians there does seem to be a self-renewing energy of life and love that is - tragically - simply not matched within the Muslim world [though I freely acknowledge that there have been individual Muslims who have been truly decent human beings, not in obedience to Quranic Islam, but in despite of it!].
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
__________________________________________________
Yes i am already aware of what you wrote, and i was not using the actions of Biblical Prophets as an attack against anyone.
I am merely showing how they're not exactly got a clean image either with their actions, and they're still considered Prophets.
The situation here is, you seem to think Muslims are supposed to imitate everything our Prophet did. As far as you are concerned, a Muslim raping, murdering, looting etc is just following how he was, whilst completly ignoring everything about Islam teaches.
Darcy,
Could you please ask him my question? He's not answering me.
Thanks.
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
the Pakistani census data indicates that 96% of the population are Muslims,[64] (nearly 77% are Sunni Muslims and 20% are Shi'a Muslims).
While the Government of Pakistan does not officially put "Sharia Law" on its documents, it is a fact the "Sharia Law" or Islamic Law is what guides the everyday lives of most of its Inhabitants. Just travel anywhere you choose in Pakistan, ask the people who live there "do you follow the law of the government or do you follow Islamic Law (aka Sharia law), the answer will be Sharia Law. The lives of the Pakistani are ruled by Sharia Law whether or not it is official.
99.9% of incidents occurring in Pakistan you will find some Muslim cleric or Muslim official citing Sharia Law as the justisfication for the action taken. Sharia Law is the law of the land--it is just not official yet.
"Most of these backward practices you see in Pakistan like Honor killings, Acid attacks etc are down to their own backward tribal beliefs they've held for many centuries, long before Islam came there."
Funny - Honor Killings (daughter-slaughter) occur in EVERY Islamic/Muslim country. Not just Pakistan. In Jordan alone there were 47 documented events last year of Muslim girls/women murdered by their families. And, of course, there were more that escaped the statistics. So, I guess that means that ALL Islamic/Muslim countries are "backward" (your word). In addition, the West is now experiencing the "backwardness" of Honor Murders, as recent cases in Canada and Texas demonstrate. Isn't that just great? Mohammedans immigrate and bring their numerous "backwardnesses" with them.
As for the acid attacks, it's true I've only ever read about these evil abominations performed in Pakistan. The "Land of the Pure People" - Yeah, right. Acid attacks by Muslim males against Muslim females ("spurned suitors" is the usual motivation) are so depraved, so corrupt, so perverted - Allah would definitely approve.
Sorry, but i'll have to get back to you on your question. "The Pact of Umar" is not something i've ever come across inmy studies. I'm going to have to research it before i can say anything.
"...and they're still considered Prophets."
Yeah, the Biblical Prophets PROPHESIED!
Something your Con Man would know nothing about! Indeed, Mo never prophesied anything. Including his own death at the hands of a Jewish woman who poisoned his goat stew after he had all of her male relations beheaded. Real Prophets ALWAYS prophesy their own deaths. Like, for example, Jesus. The Prophet of Prophets. REAL Prophets, not dissembling, power-mad bedouins.
"Please explain the Pact of Umar in the light of your Islamic Golden Rule thesis above. Also, please explain Mohammed's deathbed order to rid Arabia of Jews."
Hi CC. Here are your two questions.
Phoenix answered you above. He doesn't know anything about the Pact of Umar, he says. How believable is that? Would a real Muslim already know about the Pact of Umar?
"Pakistan is not an Islamic country, it is a Muslim one. Pakistan is not ruled by Islamic Law,"
the Pakistani census data indicates that 96% of the population are Muslims,[64] (nearly 77% are Sunni Muslims and 20% are Shi'a Muslims).
While the Government of Pakistan does not officially put "Sharia Law" on its documents, it is a fact the "Sharia Law" or Islamic Law is what guides the everyday lives of most of its Inhabitants. Just travel anywhere you choose in Pakistan, ask the people who live there "do you follow the law of the government or do you follow Islamic Law (aka Sharia law), the answer will be Sharia Law. The lives of the Pakistani are ruled by Sharia Law whether or not it is official.
99.9% of incidents occurring in Pakistan you will find some Muslim cleric or Muslim official citing Sharia Law as the justisfication for the action taken. Sharia Law is the law of the land--it is just not official yet.
Posted by: pulsar182
_________________________________________________
Pakistan is a Democracy, or what it it Intends to become. No one intends for the country to be ruled by Shariah.
Are you Pakistani? Have you ever been there? Have you met or spoken to the average Pakistani?
The lives of Pakistanis are not ruled by Shariah.
Everyone implements some aspects of Islam into their lives, but to say Islamic Law dictate their daily lives is very far off the mark.
Shariah Law or as close as you'll get is what you see in Saudi. Pakistan never has been ruled by Shariah nor will it any time soon, judging by the way the way the new government that is in power.
I'm starting to think it was a big mistake for me to even post here. You cannot deal with people who think they know it all about Islam already.
Posted by: Phoenix at May 6, 2008 9:56 AM
Suggestion: Watch 1. "Submission," a film by Theo Van Gogh (murdered by a "savage" Mohammedan) and Ayyan Hirsi Ali. 2. "Islam - What the West Needs to Know," a film by Robert Spencer and other intellectuals, both non-Moslem and ex-Moslems. 3. "Fitna," a film by brave Geert Wilders of The Netherlands. For this film, he stands a chance of also being murdered by savage Mohammedans, like Theo Van Gogh. Yet, he stands fast.
All of these documentaries truthfully present Islam. They are IslamoRealism.
Remember that important word, Phoenix - IslamoRealism. Say it again: IslamoRealism. Roll it trippingly off your tongue - IslamoRealism.
Thanks!
Funny - Honor Killings (daughter-slaughter) occur in EVERY Islamic/Muslim country. Not just Pakistan. In Jordan alone there were 47 documented events last year of Muslim girls/women murdered by their families. And, of course, there were more that escaped the statistics. So, I guess that means that ALL Islamic/Muslim countries are "backward" (your word). In addition, the West is now experiencing the "backwardness" of Honor Murders, as recent cases in Canada and Texas demonstrate. Isn't that just great? Mohammedans immigrate and bring their numerous "backwardnesses" with them.
As for the acid attacks, it's true I've only ever read about these evil abominations performed in Pakistan. The "Land of the Pure People" - Yeah, right. Acid attacks by Muslim males against Muslim females ("spurned suitors" is the usual motivation) are so depraved, so corrupt, so perverted - Allah would definitely approve.
Posted by: darcy
_________________________________________________
Honor Killing occur in India as well by Hindus and Sikhs. They're at least dealt with by the Law. That is clearly not the case in places like Jordan or other countries where it happens, because of how their government and law system is set-up and therefore do not deal with it properly unfortunately.
Honor Killings are by no means Islamic. They are no means justifiable under Islamic Law or teachings.
Honor killings are all about saving face when faced with the prospect of humiliation.
Acid attacks are not a muslim exclusive act either. It is the action of some idiots that get rejected by a woman they want and therefore decide to ruin her life because of it.
I think if you understood the concept of Marriage in Islam and how you go about proposal, you'd understand it.
Alas, i feel you people are not interested in what the real Islamic stance on the matter is. You only seek to blame Islam for every action commited by a Muslim, because you do not understand it yourself.
Please read, people:
"Pakistan's acid-attack victims press for justice":
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1908/
"Please explain the Pact of Umar in the light of your Islamic Golden Rule thesis above. Also, please explain Mohammed's deathbed order to rid Arabia of Jews."
Hi CC. Here are your two questions.
Phoenix answered you above. He doesn't know anything about the Pact of Umar, he says. How believable is that? Would a real Muslim already know about the Pact of Umar?
Posted by: darcy
_________________________________________________
I never said i didn't know anything, i said i do not know much about it because i've never read much about it. I do not claim i know it all. I am merely a student who keeps on learning.
________________________________________________
Suggestion: Watch 1. "Submission," a film by Theo Van Gogh (murdered by a "savage" Mohammedan) and Ayyan Hirsi Ali. 2. "Islam - What the West Needs to Know," a film by Robert Spencer and other intellectuals, both non-Moslem and ex-Moslems. 3. "Fitna," a film by brave Geert Wilders of The Netherlands. For this film, he stands a chance of also being murdered by savage Mohammedans, like Theo Van Gogh. Yet, he stands fast.
All of these documentaries truthfully present Islam. They are IslamoRealism.
Remember that important word, Phoenix - IslamoRealism. Say it again: IslamoRealism. Roll it trippingly off your tongue - IslamoRealism.
_________________________________________________
I do not intend on watching anti-Islamic propaganda by these Individuals thank you. I've seen "What the west needs to know" for one.
All these things have in common is they want everyone to distrust muslims because they are religiously allowed to Lie if it furthers Islams cause and apparently, all muslims know about this concept. Oh and that we're trying to take over the world and out-breeding the westerners etc
I do not need to learn anything about my religion from people like Mr.Spencer, who interpret religiou texts their own way, and that is pretty evident in this Topic because he clearly didn't have any idea what he was talking about.
Because 1. He didn't know the correct Islamic postion on Adultery in the Qu'ran and the so called missing verse and 2. The so called "You need 4 witnsses to prove rape which he derived from a verse that does not even speak about rape"
No offense to any of them, but i believe they are heavily biased in how they present what they say and i do not believe for a second they Intend to accurately portray what Muslims really believe.
If the Muslims want to kill a Muslim man or a Muslim woman by stoning them to death for commiting a common and classical sin I have no problem with that. To me it is a classical case of rats killing rats to satisfy their thirst for blood.
Rats should never even accuse human beings (non Muslims) of any thing let alone killing them.
Please read, people:
"Pakistan's acid-attack victims press for justice":
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1908/
Posted by: darcy
_______________________________________________
I'd advise someone such as yourself, to at least visit a few Large Islamic Forums, and get the view of the Muslims about Honor killings and acts of violence against women.
You will ususally find the more knowledgeable Muslims there, as they go there to learn more from one another.
I'd hope you and others here could at least make an honest effort to do that.
I'm not asking you to love Islam or change your views on how evil you think it is, but just to ge honest answers from Muslims about views they hold about matters such as this.
Thanks and good day for now.
I've spent the best part of 2 hours responding to posts here and its a little tiring.
Phoenix,
Ours is a common understanding of Islam. Common to at least 20-30% of Muslims worldwide, and the ones that make the most headlines. Robert merely reports on how Islamists justify their actions based on the Qur'an. It is not his role to devise new interpretative schemes to excuse, negate or minimize their stance.
Instead of seeing us as adversaries, I would hope you could use us as "debate partners" as you develop some themes over time, assuming your intent is reform. I am impressed so far in your willingness to engage, and especially by your willingness to admit areas needing further study and reflection.
"Oh and that we're trying to take over the world and out-breeding the westerners etc" --Phoenix
Yep. These two go hand-in-hand, as you well know. Without doubt, statistics prove, Muslims are "out-breeding Westerners." And majority rules.
In addition, there have been many Muslim leaders in the past who have made comments such as "In the womb of our Muslim women lies the triumph of Islam," for example. Help me out, people - what Muslim leader said that - wasn't it some Mohammedan at the U.N. in 1961 or thereabouts who said that?
Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974 ("we will conquer you through the bellies of our women").
Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974 ("we will conquer you through the bellies of our women").
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 11:17 AM
THank You, CC, that's it. 1974.
So, ya see, Phoenix - your sarcasm about world domination and Muslim demographics is completely wrong - or is it taqiyya?
"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."
--Mohamed "Houari" Boumedienne
Algerian President, 1965 - 1978
"Pakistan never has been ruled by Shariah nor will it any time soon, judging by the way the way the new government that is in power.
Posted by: Phoenix "
well, not officially...besides the "new government" is weak and has a great number of Sharia Law sympathizers within its ranks..Sharia Law is closer to becoming official than you let it on to be...
Darcy,
I find it fascinating that that quote is expunged from Wikipedia, but still in the cached file as though it just now was deleted.
"Intend to accurately portray what Muslims really believe.
Posted by: Phoenix "
we do not intend to portray what Muslims believe, we do listen to what they say they believe.
expecially when they quote from the Qur'an immediately before and after beheading someone (usually , but not necessarily always), like a Non Muslim.
We listen to the Muslims quoting from the Qur'an when they make violent speeches threatening to kill all infidels.
we listen to the Muslims quoting from the Qur'an as they gleelfully boast about the new roadside bombing, or the suicide blast at the market, or the attack on the embassy, or the attack on the ship, or the attack at the airport, or the attack on the trains, or the attack on the buses..heck the Muslims even quote from the Qur'an after attacking a mosque..(some muslims think other muslims are not muslim enough)..
Why don't you give up some insight as to what a Muslim believes?..hmmm
Concerned Citizen - here's where I got the quote. Scroll down to "1974."
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/boumedie.htm
Darcy,
I find it fascinating that that quote is expunged from Wikipedia, but still in the cached file as though it just now was deleted.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 6, 2008 12:25 PM
Yeah, that's terrible. It's the most important thing Boumedienne ever said, and it's happening right now.
That's why it was deleted. By Mohammedans or Mohammedan Apologists. Terrible. Stupid dhimmis.
Phoenix,
You haven't presented anything like a smoking gun to show where Robert was "wrong." If you have something, show us Robert's quote that is "wrong" as compared to the Islamic laws you may wish to cite.
On another topic, you wrote,
"Honor Killings are by no means Islamic. They are no means justifiable under Islamic Law or teachings."
Nonsense. You say "by no means." Here is an example of the means, see #4:
[From the Reliance of the Traveler]
"o.1.0 WHO IS SUBJECT TO RETALIATION FOR INJURIOUS CRIMES
…
o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. ….
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
…
(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
(3) a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring."
That is, they can kill their offspring and be exempt or get a reduced penalty, as is the case in Jordan, now Iraq, and in many other Islamic countries.
Indeed, the Quran itself provides the necessary loopholes, where it says that people should not be killed except for a "just cause" or for spreading "mischief/corruption." It just so happens that adultery, apostasy, blasphemy, homosexual acts, a Muslim woman having relations with a non-Muslim man, and other actions, all overlap to some extent with what are popularly called "honour killings." Each of those actions mentioned in the previous sentence has the death penalty under classical Islamic law, hence it is Islamically permissible to kill those people who do those actions. So if a Muslim kills one of those people, his actions are not punished or there is a much-reduced penalty.
"Shariah Law or as close as you'll get is what you see in Saudi."
Please do elaborate, provinding concrete examples.
Also, Pakistan's blasphemy laws are sharia laws. There's no question about that.
I just popped on over to Mr Spencer's original Quran blog on this topic.
In it he observes:
"The schools of Islamic jurisprudence are agreed in ruling a woman’s testimony inadmissible in a sexual crime, even one in which she was the victim."
Mr Spencer - please include, on this thread, examples of ancient and modern rulings on the subject, representative of each of these four schools. It would help to prevent the troll from throwing sand in the eyes of any current or future readers of this discussion.
Think about it, everyone.
Think about how many rape trials we see, in our own countries, where the woman is perforce the chief witness, because there was no-one else around except the rapist; and the prosecution and defence and the jury have to weigh her word against that of the rapist, judging whose evidence, whose demeanour, best tallies with whatever other information the doctor and the police have been able to put together. It is hard enough on women, under those circumstances.
Now think what it would be like under a sharia regime, or under societies shaped for centuries by sharia: where all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that in a case of sexual crime a woman's evidence is - INADMISSIBLE. (And note: it seems that if a woman were raped and another woman witnessed it, say, from hiding, that woman's testimony would ALSO be INADMISSIBLE!!).
Why would a raped woman even bother reporting a rape, in the first place, if it took place under a circumstance where there was either no-one else present, or else another woman or girl; and she knew that no-one was going to listen to her testimony anyway, or be at all interested in believing her? (Say she was raped by a family member? - her brother? half-brother? Uncle? I understand that in 'Palestine' a girl was MURDERED by her mother...as punishment for the dreadful sin of being raped and impregnated by her own brother - dear darling brother, by the way, got off SCOT-FREE! Poor, poor little girl).
What an absolute GIFT sharia - and the attitudes it inculcates, even in those Islamised societies where it is not, currently, officially on the books - is for rape-minded men!!
Oh yes: and here are a couple of stories involving the rape of non-Muslim women by Muslim men, in Western countries.
Read and note well the attitude displayed by the men - attitudes shaped by Islamic culture.
First: Muslim rape of kafir girls in Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/27/1069825922999.html
Doctors' sons who became rapists
November 28, 2003
- They are the sons of a medical doctor and they are rapists. Lee Glendinning reports on two of four {Muslim} brothers found guilty of gang rape in attacks that upended the NSW legal system.
There was a moment when they nearly got away. Just before midnight a police van drove past East Hills railway station as the two girls walked along the road. The officers were finishing their shift but they turned the van around and stopped, thinking the girls might want a lift home. But the teenagers thanked them, said they were fine and walked on.
Waiting that night at the station for a black Nissan Skyline and a group of young men they had met the week before in George Street in the city, something made 17-year-old LS turn to 16-year-old HG and tell her to put the number 112 into her mobile phone memory. This was an emergency number, she said; it made you traceable.
Two hours later, after the pair had been taken to a house in Ashfield, they were attacked by four brothers and a friend. Forced into separate rooms, the girls were repeatedly raped at knife point, their attackers telling each that the other was dead.
It was the early hours of Sunday, July 28 last year and Sydney had been gripped for months by a series of trials of gang rapists in the south-western suburbs that had received widespread media coverage. Talkback radio had gone crazy over the expression "I'm going to f--- you Leb-style", the words one victim told the court were used during her assault.
Bilal Skaf's name was not yet known. He was a month from being sentenced to 55 years for his role in the gang rapes. But the workings of Skaf's mind had become etched into the public's imagination.
Brothers MSK, 25, and MAK, 23, knew all about the gang rapes, too. And that night, when they had finished with the girls, they warned against going to the police because they did not want what "happened in that other rape trial to happen to them". Later, once charged, they started to talk about the holes in Skaf's case, where Skaf went wrong. It would not happen to them, they said.
To these men, brotherhood was all. Nothing could come between fraternal bonds. It was more important than any perjury, any crime, any victim. They called wives and families as witnesses; court procedures meant nothing.
Bound by birth, culture and crime, each brother share the first name and surname. Only their middle names differ. The sons of a general practitioner, they came from Pakistan and lived in a house in Ashfield. It was here they took the school girls that night.
The two best friends were handed a Jim Beam and Coke. It was too strong. They did not like the taste. "Drink, drink!" MSK insisted. "Don't reject something when we give it to you." Another brother, MMK, told LS he was "horny" and asked if she would come to his room. She refused. MSK slapped her across the face with an open hand. She ran to the bathroom but MSK yelled "Get in the bedroom or I will kill you."
MRK walked into the room. LS grabbed him. This was the 17-year-old youth who was their friend, the one whom they knew better than the others. "Please help me. Help me get out," she begged. "Don't let this happen." He replied: "I am only new to the group. I can't tell them what to do. He's only drunk. Do what he says."
She ran to the window but it was barred. The oldest brother, MSK, walked into the room and forced her pants off. "I was screaming and crying and telling him not to do it but he just looked at me in the eye and started taking his pants off." He pushed LS into the corner of the bed and raped her three times.
MSK left and MAK walked into the room holding a knife. "Take off all your clothes or I'm going to kill you." He placed three gold bullets on the bedside table and then raped her.
HG had been forced into the other room when she tried to call 112. Another brother, MRK, grabbed the mobile. A call was recorded from her mobile at 2.18am.
MMK walked into the room and pushed HG to the floor. He flicked a cigarette lighter and ran it along a 20cm blade of a green-handled diving knife. "Look at this knife. If you don't do what I say, it will be in you." He forced her to perform oral sex and then raped her, telling her that her friend was dead.
Then RS, 25, entered the room and raped her. After, she closed her eyes. Somebody else came in and raped her. She was unable to say who. She no longer looked.
HG then walked into the loungeroom and RS offered her a cigarette. She stood in the centre of the room, crying, holding their belongings. The men forced the girls into the back of a car and dumped them in Campsie. As the car did a three-point turn, one of the men yelled: "You're just a slut." Later, the court would hear it was an incantation, something which absolved guilt or responsibility.
The girls ran down a street, but HG collapsed in pain. They hid in the bushes, scared the car might return. LS rang 000. "My friend and I have just been raped. We don't know where we are. I don't want them to come back. I don't want them to get us."
Fifteen minutes later, in the back of the ambulance, HG wailed: "Where is my dad? I just want my dad."
On Friday, October 24, MSK and MAK's trial began in court 3 of the Darlinghurst Criminal Court. A week earlier, their younger brothers, MRK and MMK, and RS had stood in the same court and were found guilty of nine counts each of aggravated sexual assault. The younger brothers had scratched their names into the wooden dock.
The four-week trial was to become the most trying in the long careers of Justice Brian Sully of the Supreme Court, prosecutor Margaret Cunneen and detectives working for Strike Force Westward investigating the gang rapes.
From the moment they were arraigned in March, MSK and MAK refused to be seated, throwing letters to the public gallery and raving about a police conspiracy. Over ensuing months, they sacked their barristers and began the mammoth task of mounting their own defence. Their brothers kept their legal counsel.
Around the Supreme Court, word got out about their antics and their numerous bail applications. It was Justice Sully who drew the short straw and, because two of the accused were unrepresented, he decided to split the trials and run them back-to-back. Exasperation built and he would say that it was a dark day when this matter came onto his list.
For weeks after the trial began, the possibility of reaching even an opening address grew increasingly remote.
First, MSK and MAK demanded six Muslim jurors. "They look at my name ... and I need six Muslim jurors in this trial, your honour, or I will be found guilty," MSK said. Then they asked for a trial by judge alone. This was refused by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery. They were warned not to make political speeches to the jury, but four days into the trial, MSK screamed that the laws had been changed because they were Muslim.
Changes to the Criminal Procedures Act have stopped self-represented accused in a sexual assault trial from cross-examining complainants. They can use a court-appointed intermediary.
Justice Sully cautioned the brothers to reconsider and take legal assistance. The judge had representatives from the Muslim community talk with them, and arranged for legal aid. Even then, the brothers had to be cajoled into talking but refused offers of assistance.
The trial sometimes threatened to degenerate into a circus. The brothers rarely kept quiet or heeded the ordinary civilities, they had no legal training, and phoned Pakistan nightly for advice - intent on conspiracy theories. They interrupted proceedings with mindless raves and sometimes appeared deluded.
As evidence mounted, the brothers seemed to become more convinced of their innocence. MAK laughed constantly and became hysterical during routine questioning. His replies were an echo: "Same as my brother." MSK was angry and waved to quieten his sibling. He controlled the situation.
When police arrived at their Ashfield home with a search warrant, MSK fled over the back fence. He was fleeing again when police arrested him at Melbourne Airport on his way to Pakistan. He was, Cunneen said, a person who could not keep track of his own lies. The brothers' defence was that they were at another brother's Ashfield house the night of the rapes.
Justice Sully had heard it all before. In the trial of the other brothers, MMK said he was not there and had no involvement. MRK said, however, he was there when something happened but he was drunk and being sick outside.
MSK and MAK stood day after day, repeatedly consulting copies of the Justices Act and beseeching Justice Sully to look up sections of the Crimes Act. When they spoke to the bench, they bowed ostentatiously to the judge, whom they repeatedly called "your honourable your honour".
During the fasting month of Ramadan, MSK complained that his mind was not working properly. "I am feeling headache in my head because of fasting, your honour. I can't break my fast. I want a cup of tea but I can't have one ... so I cannot continue today."
And so it went, day after day. At times Justice Sully seemed to seethe. He reddened sometimes but continued to patiently and repeatedly instruct the brothers, even when their arguments kept the court open two hours past the 4pm daily adjournment. "Mr ..., I cannot stop you making statements like that. You can make them until the proverbial cows come home," Justice Sully said on one occasion. Later he sighed: "Mr ... I am not a social worker. I am not a psychiatrist. I am not an expert in race relations. I am just a judge."
The brothers also poked their tongues out at Cunneen. During one recess she said she was going for coffee and asked if anyone wanted one; the brothers chimed in with their orders.
While Cunneen has a deftly soft talent of drawing emotional and sensitive evidence from sexual assault victims, her cross-examination technique was blunt and brutal. The brothers knew its sting and refused, as was their right, to give evidence. However, they told the jury they could not give evidence because they were depressed, had no stamina and were in shock.
They did not call other brothers. Instead, they called a wife, a sister and sister-in-law and their father.
MSK's wife was their first witness. She never lied, she told the court. He was not fleeing to Pakistan when he was caught at Melbourne Airport but going there to help as their son needed an operation. She was living in Pakistan at the time.
His sister-in-law had her statutory declaration torn to shreds during cross-examination but she answered "I won't tell lies because Islam says Islam followers should never lie."
No family members would swear on the Koran. They instead chose to make an affirmation on the witness stand. Others had written statutory declarations and some, like MAK's girlfriend of two years, admitted they were ordered to write the documents, destroy all mobile phone chips and disconnect the phones.
She told the court: "He [MRK] told me I was his sister. Then he said they did do it. They did rape them. When I asked why, he said, 'Just for fun."'
The father of the accused, a GP, told the court he was at the Ashfield house the night the girls said they were raped and recalled turning in just before sunrise, having prayed on a mat in the corridor for much of the night.
He told the Herald repeatedly that his boys were innocent. He also spoke about Australian girls who should not be out at that time. "What do they expect to happen to them? Girls from Pakistan don't go out at night," he said.
The doctor may never see his sons outside jail again. He said his wife in Pakistan knew about the trials. " The boys talk to her once a week on the phone. She is sobbing, crying 'How could this happen?"'
And if his sons were guilty? "It is to go before Allah," he said. "We all have to stand before God in the end.""
END OF ARTICLE.
Now for story #2, involving the rape of a British woman, in Britain, by the imam who taught at the mosque next door.
Here is the news story from British newspaper The Sun:
Mosque, seven members lied
18 Mar 2008
"A Muslim leader who claimed he was preaching at a mosque when he was really carrying out a brutal rape was jailed for ten years yesterday.
'Abdul Mukin Khalisadar held a knife to his victim’s throat as he attacked her in her home.
'He persuaded seven men to back up his story that he had been in the mosque at the time.
'Khalisadar later admitted raping the 27-year-old.
'He claimed a substance he took to help with fasting during Ramadan had made him “hyper.”
'The preacher forced his way into her home as she got back from a night out, the court was told.
'He threatened to kill her — even after she claimed to be pregnant with twins to put him off, prosecutor Simon Carr said.
'Khalisadar also stole a mobile from the house in Whitechapel, East London.
'He was caught by DNA. Judge Timothy King blasted his “hypocrisy”.
'Imam got 7½ years for rape and 2½ for conspiring to pervert justice.
'Seven members of East London Mosque admitted perverting justice and got 12 months each.
'Burka-clad women in the public gallery yelled abuse at the judge — and one screamed that the victim was a prostitute."
(Note that the Muslim community were probably absolutely infuriated by the following facts: 1. that the kafir court believed the word of a kafir and the evidence of kafir science, over the assertion of a Muslim 2. that the kafir court took seriously, in a sexual crime, the testimony of a woman - and a kafir woman to boot - over that of a MUSLIM MAN!!! and 3. that the kafir court was able to enforce kafir law upon a Muslim man. Note that the Muslim women call the rape victim 'a prostitute' - blaming the victim. One must note that in classical Islamic thinking, ALL kafir are 'guilty' and ALL Muslims are 'innocent'.)
The hurling of abuse at the judge is not exactly what it might have been in a kafir-on-kafir case; I would hazard a guess that what really got those burqa-clad women enraged, was having to endure watching a kafir in a position to judge a Muslim and enforce kafir law upon him. They are not specifically abusing the judge (as a 'western' criminal might); they are railing against what he represents, thereby showing their contempt for him, and for all British law, government and institutions.
In the link provided, the newspaper story is preceded by a sarcastic and blackly comic fictionalised 'meditation' upon it, written by a female ex-Muslim, in order to draw attention to the kinds of Muslim texts that may have influenced the imam's attitudes and actions.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AyeshaAhmed/London-Imam-Attempt-to-Carry-Out-Sunna.htm
You left out the best part:
During a question answer session in East London Mosque, preacher Imam Abdul Makin [same guy] was asked by a niqabi muslima about recent fatwa from a well known Imam .
Naqabi Woman: “One eyed hooked Imam Hamza Mesri said muslims can kill British infidels and have sex with their wives and daughters, Do you agree with him?”
Imam: “It is not what Imam Hamza said nor is there a question of my agreeing with him or not. It is in Quran thus those are Allah’s orders.”
N.W.: “But why would Allah tell muslims to kill and rape innocent non muslims?”
Imam: “Because Non-muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet. If you don’t believe me, here is the legal authority, the top muslim lawyer of Britain, Anjem Choudhary (Video).”
N.W. “ But our Prophet was sent as a mercy for all the humanity; he never hurt any body in his life”
Imam: “Yes he never hurt a muslim in his life. But Allah said non-muslim are lowest beasts and worst creatures in ayas 8.22,8.55,95.5 and 98.6 and muslim are ordered to kill them."
N.W.:” But did prophet approve of killing them and raping their wives?”
Imam: “Yes he did. He not only approved of such acts, he and his sahabas practiced it regularly under Allah’s orders. He was helpless in it... If you don’t believe me , you have to believe sahih hadiths. I will quote you two hadiths about his typical day after a raid. These hadiths are about the raid on jewish village Khaibar whose chief was Kinana who had gorgeous 17 year old wife Safia. Prophet tortured and beheaded Kinana in front of Safia and raped her all night afterwards.
Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, Book 59, Number 512: Narrated Anas: Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their men killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet (prophet took her away from him after giving Dahya two women and five men in exchange for Safia, Ref. Sahih Muslim 8:3328) .
Sirat e Rasulullah, Ibn Hisham, page 766 “Safiyah was captured in the Khaibar raid and was claimed by the apostle as his share of booty.. She was then seventeen. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. In the early dawn, the Prophet suspected some movement near the tent) . He went out to enquire and saw Abu Ayyub.. He asked him what he was doing near his tent. He replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account and was guarding you." The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766)
This may clarify this issue for Mufti Rob and his students.
Rape is defined as a “…crime of sexual intercourse … without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation”[1]. Scholars of Islamic Law are in agreement that Rape is a crime deserving punishment. Circumstances surrounding the case and the evidence presented dictate the sentencing of the crime. Of the issues surrounding the prosecution of rape that has gained public notoriety is the misconception that a woman must produce four witnesses in order to claim rape. We will briefly examine this claim in light of the texts of Islamic law. It goes without saying however, that in this answer we are speaking here about classical Islamic law and its principles and not the practice, customs, codes, or implementation of any particular country, Islamic or otherwise.
How is rape dealt with in Islamic law?
Rape cases are established like any other criminal case. Evidence is gathered, testimony is taken from witnesses, and a case is built. Suspects are apprehended and questioned, and if there is enough evidence they may be detained until trial.
Looking back to the formative period of Islamic law, there are numerous narrations from this era of Islamic history showing the legitimacy of a woman’s rape claim without the burden of presenting four witnesses. One such example of this is in the hadith collection known as Sunan Abı Dāwüd in which a woman reported rape, the case was investigated, and her attacker was prosecuted[2]. There is no mention in this hadith of the Prophet demanding from the accuser/woman to produce witnesses, or that she was guilty of slander for not doing so. Her claim was accepted and no further proof or witnesses were required from her in order for it to be investigated.
Similar occurred in the time of the righteous Caliphs, namely in the times of both Umar and Ali, where cases of rape occurred and the accusers were not asked to produce witnesses[3]. Looking to the corpus of Islamic law (books of fiqh and fatwa) it would seem that, if in fact four witnesses were a prerequisite for a rape case to be heard, we would find not just one or two but tens, if not hundreds, of jurists that had mentioned this. However, I was not able to find a single jurist who had mentioned that four witnesses must be produced in order for a rape claim to be valid.
Is court testimony synonymous to slander?
Those that claim a woman accusing a man of rape must produce four witnesses do so under the assumption that rape is synonymous to fornication or adultery, and as such she must produce witnesses, and if unable to she is slanderous; this however is not the case.
Slander (Arabic: فذق qadhf), where a person makes an accusation of fornication against another person with the intent to defame[4], is a private claim (i.e. one that is brought by a private citizen against another private citizen); reporting rape, as with reporting any other crime that endangers the public, is public claim. Public claims, or as they are also known “Claims of God’s Rights” (Huqüqullah) are not brought to trial by one of the two parties involved, instead public claims involve the State prosecuting a private citizen for a crime he or she is accused of. Being that the state is responsible for protection of public welfare and safety, it has the responsibility to investigate, prosecute, and convict crimes that threaten the public individually or collectively.
One reason for the confusion concerning a rape claim versus slander rests on the misunderstanding of what it means to testify in a public (state) case as opposed to accusing someone of a criminal or immoral act.
Anyone testifying in a state case would not be responsible for the claims of the state, because they are only reporting to the facts of the case, not making the case themselves. Scholars of the past and present have said that if we were to treat every witness as a slanderous individual, no one would ever testify and cases would never end as the defendant would immediately file a case of slander after trial. The victim’s testimony along with evidence gathered will make the case, and based on this the crime would be prosecuted.
In conclusion
In conclusion, we can see that historically and legally there is no basis for the claim that four witnesses must be produced to prosecute rape. A person reporting rape would not have to produce four witnesses; neither would one testifying in a rape case be considered slanderous for doing so.
Prosecution of rape would proceed based on the integrity of the evidence and the case built against the accused. I encourage everyone to learn more about Islamic law, as most popular myths concerning the application and implementation of Islamic law come from misunderstanding, misreading, and (in the case of some) misinterpreting the corpus of Islamic law.
And God Almighty knows best, and may he grace our Prophet Muhammad .
Sources:
[1] Click here for the definition source. This definition is synonymous in meaning to the definitions given in classical Islamic legal works.
[2] Sunan Abı Dāwüd (4366)
[3] Aq∂iyat √l-Khulafā√ √l-Rāshidın, 2/840-845
[4] alMawsüat √l-Fiqhiyyah √l-Kuwaytiyyah, entry (فذق)
Iserpas,
First, I would like to commend you for your bravery in coming here, to JihadWatch of all places, and expressing your opinions. How did you find the courage? My God, you are a true vanguard of the faith.
Secondly, why do you define as "myths" things that ACTUALLY OCCUR in countries that are claiming to be following Shari'ah?
Thirdly, are you defining a woman as any female, or only as a Muslimah? How does your analysis differ regarding a kufr (in Islamic as well as nonIslamic countries, wartime and at "peace"), a dhimmi, a captive, a slave, a prepubescent boy?
Fourthly, can a husband be found liable for raping his wife under Islam?
Fifthly, what have you personally done to correct the misperceptions in Pakistan (Land of the Pure) since 1979 when the Hudood requirement for four witnessess was introduced by the then military ruler Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq? Who have you publically debated with, and what was the outcome?
http://www.islam-democracy.org/documents/pdf/6th_Annual_Conference-JulieNorman.pdf
The questions remaining for you, Iserpas, are:
Opinions of numerous Islamic scholars (which result in actual penalties being prescribed) classify rape with zina under hadd instead of hirabah, and Robert merely reports on their conclusions and the reality of current legal jurisprudence of certain Islamic countries. Why then exactly is Robert the problem, merely because he does not provide your apologetic and does not portray your parallel reality as normative? Also, why is Islamic Law so easily misapplied by its votaries if it is divinely inspired?