[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
lixy wrote:
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Is it also true that Arab Muslims do not consider American Black Muslims “real” Muslims.
I heard a Middle Eastern professor (who was originally from Egypt) say something like that.
[/quote]
Do you realize how retarded you sound? That is a blanket statement. It may be true that SOME Arabs view other non-Arabs as beneath them, but that is due to their own prejudice, their own racism, nothing in Islam says that.
In fact, Islam preaches EQUALITY amongst all of its followers. The last speech Prophet Mohammed gave was about how the Muslim community must realize that they are all equal, no Arab is better then a non-Arab, etc.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Why is polygamy illegal?
That’s a tough one. I mean, if a supreme court can find nothing unconstitutional about same-sex marriage, then surely polygamy’s illegality can eventually be overturned.
I’m not sure, but those laws are probably quite old.
Does anyone doubt the intense effort underway to destroy the true concept of FAMILY? The concept is being totally uprooted — homosexual perverts adopting children and teaching rhem how to prance about, men having baby after baby with young girls in slave pens (aka religious compounds), teaching black men to have as many babies as possible with as many women as possible, on and on. Soon, we’ll be ‘intolerant’ if we want to kill every scumbag in NAMBLA (and other such Satanists).
[/quote]
Since the modern version of family is only around 200 years old I think we´ll be fine if it changes.
Actually, it is. The Qur’an contains no internal historical context. It isn’t understandable without help from the Hadith.
But for the sake of your argument, the Qur’an actually does sanction child marriage:
If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated. (Surah 65:4)
Here, Allah appears to be envisioning a scenario in which a pre-pubescent woman is not only married, but is being divorced by her husband. [/quote]
Where did you get that definition from? A lot of these sites that are up now actually have immensely false information. I suggest you do more research. For example, here is another interpretation of that same verse
Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.[/quote]
Yes, there are more levels of “scumbag-ery” then twisting/manipulating Quranic verses to imply a different meaning then what was originally intended. But it is low, and wrong. So is suicide bombing, and stoning women - but please don’t make the mistake of confusing that as part of something that Islam teaches its followers to do.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
lixy wrote:
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.
You don’t see the irony there?
Well, I suppose it makes it even more delectable.[/quote]
The delectable irony of sand shithole-loving nutjobs blowing themselves up in public markets for maximum civilian casualties?
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
lixy wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
lixy wrote:
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.
You don’t see the irony there?
Well, I suppose it makes it even more delectable.
The delectable irony of sand shithole-loving nutjobs blowing themselves up in public markets for maximum civilian casualties?[/quote]
Once again, I get the feeling that somehow you believe the suicide bombers are actually following Islamic teachings when they do what they do. It is a VERY SAD thing to see Muslims suicide bomb innocent civilians/anyone else, because nowhere in Islam does it ever, ever, say to kill yourself in the name of Allah. It says you can fight, not kill yourself (coward’s way out), and even then, to never harm innocent civilians who are minding their own business, just the enemy, whoever that may be.
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.
Yes, there are more levels of “scumbag-ery” then twisting/manipulating Quranic verses to imply a different meaning then what was originally intended. But it is low, and wrong. So is suicide bombing, and stoning women - but please don’t make the mistake of confusing that as part of something that Islam teaches its followers to do.
[/quote]
Actually I wasn’t implying that the koran or islam or shia or shiity or Gozer or whatever the fuck teaches this.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I normally don’t respond to what that sad excuse for a human being writes, but he is taking it too far. I don’t mind him ridiculing himself by telling us that he knows what “Muslims” believe, that there is a grand conspiracy by Muslims to take over the world by lying their ways through, or that any “leader” (read clergy-like figure) has authority over Islam.
But here, he is taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning in the most abhorrent way I could ever think of. Anyway aya 65:4 speaks of conditions for remarriage. Islam requires that the woman waits a period of 3 months before remarrying - whether she is menstruating or not. The obvious rationale being that, in 3 months time, the belly will start to show. The specification that the woman be menstruating or not is to discard false positives and false negatives. That is, a woman who didn’t leak is not necessarily pregnant, and the one who did is not necessarily not carrying something in her womb.
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.[/quote]
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.
Yes, there are more levels of “scumbag-ery” then twisting/manipulating Quranic verses to imply a different meaning then what was originally intended. But it is low, and wrong. So is suicide bombing, and stoning women - but please don’t make the mistake of confusing that as part of something that Islam teaches its followers to do.
[/quote]
So why, then, did Mohammed have the woman from Ghamid stoned for adultery? (Sahih Muslim 3.17 no 4026)
Since the modern version of family is only around 200 years old I think we´ll be fine if it changes.
[/quote]
Orion, what do you mean here - what other versions of family have there been? AFAIK, the only “recent” change is that extended families don’t generally live together any more.
[quote]mafzal4 wrote:
In fact, Islam preaches EQUALITY amongst all of its followers.
[/quote]
Well, that’s actually a blanket statement too - and one that doesn’t seem to square with all of the divisions within Islam that one hears about in the news. Anyway, does this same vision of equality extend to non-Muslims?
The penal punishment of a married adulterer under Islamic jurisdiction is by stoning to death, as per the preceding hadith and other hadiths. Ibn Mus �??ud (r.a) reported that Allah�??s Messenger (s.a.w) said: �??The blood of a Muslim, who testifies that there is no (true) god except Allah and that I am Allah�??s Messenger, does not become permissible except for one of three acts: a married person who commits zina, one soul for another (killed) soul, and a man who abandons his deen (religion) and departs from the Jamaa �??ah (of Muslims).�??(9) The Prophet (s.a.w) applied stoning to a number of people during his time. Maa �??iz bin Maalik is one of them as per the hadith collected by Bukhari, Muslim and others; another person stoned to death was the woman from the Ghamid tribe who came to the Prophet (s.a.w) demanding him to purify her from her sin.(10)
Know that punishment for the crime of zina acts an atonement of this sin. The Prophet (s.a.w) said regarding the woman from Ghamid who was stoned to death: �??She has repented such a repentance that, were it to be divided among seventy of Madina�??s residents it would cover them. Have you seen a better repentance than her giving away herself for Allah.�??(11) The idea behind the harsh and severe punishment does not contradict with the spirit of Islam, actually it serves as a deterrent to the society. It protects a person�??s family, lineage, and spread of moral decadence and diseases in society. When people realise the graveness of the sin, and that its punishment is most humiliating and painful, very few of them would dare to approach it.
As for married adulterers, they are to be stoned to death, according to this hadith passage:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah�??s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah�??s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person (Bukhari 8:6814; see also 8:6825; 8:6829)
But in either case, applying such harsh punishments to the sexual sins of fornication and adultery is wrong and misguided, as we explain, below.
Finally, it must be pointed out before we leave this step in our exegetical method that, amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God�??s law. Maududi cites a hadith that says a judge shall be taken to hell on judgment day because he commuted the sentence to one stripe, out of pity. “He will be asked, �??Why did you do so?�?? He [the judge] will say, �??It was out of pity for Your people.�?? Allah will say, �??Well, it means you were more compassionate towards those people than Myself.” Then it will be ordered: �??Take him to hell.�??"
This is one of the paradoxes of Islam. A Muslim judge feels as all reasonable persons do when they hear of such harsh punishments sent down from Allah. But Allah supposedly feels more compassion than the human judge, while the deity sends the compassionate human to hell�??for compassionately commuting Allah�??s uncompassionate punishment. This is indeed difficult to understand.
The penal punishment of a married adulterer under Islamic jurisdiction is by stoning to death, as per the preceding hadith and other hadiths. Ibn Mus �??ud (r.a) reported that Allah�??s Messenger (s.a.w) said: �??The blood of a Muslim, who testifies that there is no (true) god except Allah and that I am Allah�??s Messenger, does not become permissible except for one of three acts: a married person who commits zina, one soul for another (killed) soul, and a man who abandons his deen (religion) and departs from the Jamaa �??ah (of Muslims).�??(9) The Prophet (s.a.w) applied stoning to a number of people during his time. Maa �??iz bin Maalik is one of them as per the hadith collected by Bukhari, Muslim and others; another person stoned to death was the woman from the Ghamid tribe who came to the Prophet (s.a.w) demanding him to purify her from her sin.(10)
Know that punishment for the crime of zina acts an atonement of this sin. The Prophet (s.a.w) said regarding the woman from Ghamid who was stoned to death: �??She has repented such a repentance that, were it to be divided among seventy of Madina�??s residents it would cover them. Have you seen a better repentance than her giving away herself for Allah.�??(11) The idea behind the harsh and severe punishment does not contradict with the spirit of Islam, actually it serves as a deterrent to the society. It protects a person�??s family, lineage, and spread of moral decadence and diseases in society. When people realise the graveness of the sin, and that its punishment is most humiliating and painful, very few of them would dare to approach it.[/quote]
I got the impression from those ahadith that the woman wanted to be forgiven, not have rocks thrown at her head by Khalid.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
In fact, Islam preaches EQUALITY amongst all of its followers.
Well, that’s actually a blanket statement too - and one that doesn’t seem to square with all of the divisions within Islam that one hears about in the news. Anyway, does this same vision of equality extend to non-Muslims?
[/quote]
You’re right, it doesn’t seem to match up with what’s happening in the current world. It is a tragedy, to see Muslims not following what was clearly told to them by the Quran/Sunnah in many hadiths, (not just about equality amongst non-muslims/muslims, but with regard to Jihad, women, etc). But doesn’t that happen in all religions? By ‘that’, I’m referring to people not following what was originally told to them from whatever book/doctrine they are meant to follow?
Also, it can be found in the Quran that Islam preaches equality, so I’m not sure how that makes it a blanket statement. There is widespread ignorance citing the opposite, but its simply not true.
The penal punishment of a married adulterer under Islamic jurisdiction is by stoning to death, as per the preceding hadith and other hadiths. Ibn Mus �??ud (r.a) reported that Allah�??s Messenger (s.a.w) said: �??The blood of a Muslim, who testifies that there is no (true) god except Allah and that I am Allah�??s Messenger, does not become permissible except for one of three acts: a married person who commits zina, one soul for another (killed) soul, and a man who abandons his deen (religion) and departs from the Jamaa �??ah (of Muslims).�??(9) The Prophet (s.a.w) applied stoning to a number of people during his time. Maa �??iz bin Maalik is one of them as per the hadith collected by Bukhari, Muslim and others; another person stoned to death was the woman from the Ghamid tribe who came to the Prophet (s.a.w) demanding him to purify her from her sin.(10)
Know that punishment for the crime of zina acts an atonement of this sin. The Prophet (s.a.w) said regarding the woman from Ghamid who was stoned to death: �??She has repented such a repentance that, were it to be divided among seventy of Madina�??s residents it would cover them. Have you seen a better repentance than her giving away herself for Allah.�??(11) The idea behind the harsh and severe punishment does not contradict with the spirit of Islam, actually it serves as a deterrent to the society. It protects a person�??s family, lineage, and spread of moral decadence and diseases in society. When people realise the graveness of the sin, and that its punishment is most humiliating and painful, very few of them would dare to approach it.
I got the impression from those ahadith that the woman wanted to be forgiven, not have rocks thrown at her head by Khalid.
[/quote]
At that time, as it says in the article, that when someone wanted to be forgiven of one of the major crimes (adultery, etc), it was known that this (stoning) was the only way for it to be accomplished - the verse talking about this had already been revealed, so the woman would have known that when she came to the Prophet begging for forgiveness, this is how it would be accomplished.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I dunno. Mohammed married little six year old Aisha and took her virginity at 9 while she was “playing with dolls.” Mohammed, being “al-insan al-kamil,” seems to have legitimized the practice amongst Muslims.
Oral narration written down hundreds of years after the fact is a great source for your argument.
Oh wait, here’s something from the web site you shared…
Actually, it is. The Qur’an contains no internal historical context. It isn’t understandable without help from the Hadith.
But for the sake of your argument, the Qur’an actually does sanction child marriage:
If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated. (Surah 65:4)
Here, Allah appears to be envisioning a scenario in which a pre-pubescent woman is not only married, but is being divorced by her husband. [/quote]
I’m sorry. I seem to have missed where you addressed your claim that Mohammed fucked a little girl.
Or do you just want to skip that minor detail and cherry pick more quotes? And which Hadith are fair play? Sunni? Shi’a? Both?
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
lixy wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
lixy wrote:
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.
You don’t see the irony there?
Well, I suppose it makes it even more delectable.
The delectable irony of sand shithole-loving nutjobs blowing themselves up in public markets for maximum civilian casualties?[/quote]
Tho one about twisting Quranic verses to justify suicide bombing, you clod!