Start A Petition

Sharia Law and Middle Class Feminism

Society & Culture  (tags: Sharia, violence, women, abuse, feminism, law )

- 2131 days ago -
On Saturday, I was honoured to attend the launch of the International Sindhi Women's Organisation. Here was a group of brave, principled, and intelligent British Pakistani women who had come together to talk about their future, their fears, and

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Jason S (50)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 2:04 pm

Alexa R (319)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 2:08 pm
I quote from this article: "Here's how it seems to go: "We are feminists. We are incredibly right-on. We read the Guardian. We disapprove of women's breasts getting a public airing and we strongly object to the fact that boards of directors are not 50% female. We will go absolutely ballistic if anyone dare understate how vile domestic violence is, or attempt in any way to justify it. We are feminists you see. Oh, but only when it comes to white women – did we mention that?"

At this point you may, as I do, envisage them leaning forward a bit, hands back-to-back between knees and continuing - "You're different you see. You come from funny countries where people are a bit strange and where women don't seem to mind a punch in the mouth quite as much we would. You can't possibly expect us to stand up with you against violence. Violence is your culture. Now, stop being such a racist and accept it".

I'll now come back to the PhD student sitting next to me and falling over her good self to sell the beauty of sharia to us all. Following the meeting, I turned to her and said "I bet you think you're a feminist right?" She answered a very emphatic Yes. So I asked her if she condemns sharia. "Nope"."

Gillian M (218)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 2:20 pm
I believe that the sexes are equal but different. Each sex tends to have a survival specialism, men have spacial awareness but can't ask for directions, women can't find their way but can ask directions! Complementary abilities.

Sharia does not believe in complementary anything except the ability to drag a woman away from her oven and have sex with her then complain his dinner is late or burnt.

Robert S (111)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 2:22 pm
"Let's get this straight once and for all – a man who beats his wife is a criminal, and for the protection of the rights of all women, he must be punished and his actions condemned. Full stop. If you think this should apply only to white women and care nothing for the plight of your non-white sister, then you are a racist. Full stop."

Anne Marie Waters

Couldn't agree more.

Barb K (1688)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 2:36 pm
Well said, Robert S.! Well said! I couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks Alexandra!

Past Member (0)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 3:59 pm
Men in these countries are afraid of women. That's why they use these mobile prisons to isolate them. They are cowards who know deep inside that they are inferior and can only control them by phsical means.

divergent revolution (309)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 4:35 pm
Oedipal complex ring a bell?
Like how insecure people project self confidence rather than admit their true feelings.
I think homophobia and mamas babies lets these men live with these practices to keep themselves in check.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 6:44 pm
Thanks Alex. Ipso facto that this is now endemic in British society makes me weep.

pam w (139)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 6:51 pm
"Now let me explain. A feminist stands up for women because they are women, not because they are white, middle class, English speaking, Christian, atheist, Jew or Muslim – but because they are women. A feminist opposes all violence against women because they are women. Feminists oppose the rape of women, because they are women. Feminists oppose these all the time and for all women."

++++++++++++++++++++ This is a point I've tried to make here a hundred times when dealing with the female DEFENDERS OF ISLAM. They can't seem to get past their knee-jerk "ISLAM IS WONDERFUL AND YOU ARE A NASTY ISLAMOPHOBE" attitude for a second and realize that women are being oppressed by this system. (I won't call it a wants its own legal system! Religions don't have those, nor do they GET to have them in democratic societies.)

The women described here seem brainwashed.....they want Sharia which oppresses them and allows practices which are far more harmful than British laws. But they're so brainwashed, they don't seem to recognize it.

Come to think of it.....if the women ARE so brainwashed....why do the Muslims insist on Sharia? Could it be that they fully recognize how barbaric those laws are and want to defend themselves from British society? Could it be a "PASS" which says to the world, "NANNER, NANNER, NANNER! I can beat my wife and YOU can't!?

pam w (139)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 6:52 pm
(Good topic, Alex!)

MmAway M (506)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 11:07 pm
Thank you so much sweetie for posting!

Past Member (0)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 11:41 pm
It wasn't so long ago that Western women too felt unable to change their situation. Raising awareness takes time but when it begins then the world is made better forever.

Tommy S (11)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 1:06 am
quote..I'll now come back to the PhD student sitting next to me and falling over her good self to sell the beauty of sharia to us all. Following the meeting, I turned to her and said "I bet you think you're a feminist right?" She answered a very emphatic Yes. So I asked her if she condemns sharia. "Nope"." ..Unquote

Looking at the islamic world and its draconian sharia one could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps :-
"Stockholm Syndrome" ...
should be redefined as
"Islam Syndrome"

Giana P (398)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 1:59 am
I think that these women are speaking out of fear, and even out of the syndrome of the captive identifying with his capturer. I think that they don't believe there could ever by a change in their male dominated world and that is why the only way they can live with the violence and dominance is by accepting it psychologically. Old habits die hard and they have been brainwashed.

Past Member (0)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 2:04 am

Alexa R (319)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 3:10 am
I wonder Giana, who brainwashed the Western women to 'turn a decidedly blind eye' to this violence? Even when these brave Somali women are trying to speak out, their Western sisters are deaf to their horror pleas for support.

In fact, their Western sisters at this launch conference were extolling sharia to the extend of drowning out their horror pleas.

Teresa W (782)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 7:06 am
Down with Sharia law!

Jay S (116)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 9:15 am
We've asked this question many times: "Where are the feminists in fighting the oppression, degradation and abuse of women by Islamic doctrine and Orthodox Muslims?"

You see the same blind PC tolerance of intolerance and hate here on Care2 and this is supposed to be a progressive site that cares about all human and civil rights - BUT not if those rights are abused, tramples on and flaunted by Islam. How did we ever get to the point where Islam is the only ideology, and a very hateful harsh one to boot, that gets a free pass on all progressive ideals and causes?

Catholicism, Mormonism, the Republican Party, any Western democracy etc are all fair game (and rightly so) for attacks on their teachings, practices and speech whenever they show even a fraction of what Islam teaches as core doctrine. BUT mention the long list of Islamic scriptures and practices of hate against non-Muslims, women, polygamy, the condoning of sex with little children, the murder of those who criticize or leave Islam and gay people, and there is immediate silence from these defenders of human rights and values! Then they call you a bigot, racist (as if Islam was a race) and an 'islamophobe' even though you are only quoting the hate from Islam's own holy books and authorities and defending the victims. Very troubling.

Tolerating intolerance is disgusting and shameful. Why should Islam get a free pass on its abuse of all that supposed progressives hold dear? What happened to the concern for the victims?

(a news item today about true-believing orthodox Muslims crucifying opponents in Cairo and the greatest Islamic authority not only condoning it, but calling for more violence against opponents of the Islamist government there now that is silencing the opposition press! This isn't 'radical' - it is following Allah's commands to the letter. This is what Islam teaches. Where is the outrage?

Vlasta M (7)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 9:33 am
This is what political correctness does to people. They are willing to eat excrement and pretend that they are eating caviar or some other delicious dish ;-)!

ANY woman with half brain would see through this nonsense or lauding sharia as acceptable "cultural diversity" and scream her head off about this supremacist ideology of Islam which promotes misogyny, pedophilia, polygamy, dhimmitude, and murder for Allahu Akbar. There is NO HONOR in ANY murder in a civilized society. Islam is incompatible with either EC or US Constitution or with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and MUST REFORM rather then being white washed by women who claim to be feminists.

Shame on those women who behave like slaves when it comes to criticism of this abominable supremacist ideology hate, including hate and abuse of women and children.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 2:45 pm
Yup, this is old news, sadly predictable under one theory, and disturbing on a far larger scale than it seems as it supports a rival theory.

The old news is here:
I'm not saying the Niqab-ban is exactly the same issue as Sharia law, nor even that Niqabs are really anti-feminist. The issue is that feminist groups were the ones that originally pushed for the ban, and that some of the same groups became the largest opponents of the ban. (There was one large and notable case, but as this was years ago, I don't remember which organization was both a major supporter and then later opponent of burqa/niqab/etc. bans. Feminist groups have flipped on the feminism/religious freedom of women issue before.

The theory under which it is predictable is a theory of liberal culture, and one which I believe. The basic liberal assumption is that people will succeed (under whatever definition of "success") if there is no interference preventing them from doing so. Even Western conservatives, as a rule, take this assumption. The split is over the strength of the assumption, how much evidence it takes to deem it to be wrong in some case. Among self-declared Western liberals it is taken as an axiom, where even in the total absence of evidence of any interference, it is taken as a fact that any failure must be due to such interference. Between the Western/Christian paradigm of conflict as being between a force of good and one of evil (with no uninvolved or other parties), the world gets split into the poor or otherwise unsuccessful, who are always deemed to be oppressed, and those powerful enough to conduct the presumed oppression, who are assumed to be oppressors. (Some liberals will accept that not all wealthy/powerful people are oppressors, but the onus is on them to prove their non-oppressor status.) With the good/evil paradigm, liberals will always side with those they deem to be oppressed against their oppressors. The only measure used to determine the allegiance of liberal groups, then, is "success" (as they define it) or lack of it. This theory correctly predicts all liberal politics from campaign/platform-structures to economic policy, to affirmative action, to foreign policy. They always side with the apparently least powerful group that can get their attention. When was the last time you heard a liberal group say, in its function as a liberal group (not in directly partisan politics) "They're poor and it's their own fault," or "They're poor and with the way they've been acting, they totally had it coming"?

Women in Britain may now be seen as generally more successful, on average, than average Muslims. Between levels of education, average income, social integration, and whatever other reasonable measures of individual power, women may well be ahead of Muslims. Therefore Muslims, and especially those definitive of the group, religious Muslims, are seen as more oppressed in general than women. Therefore, in any contest between the two groups, religious Muslims are automatically seen as the moral superiors and gain the allegiance of those who will happily side with women against men (or in a non-zero-sum situation) in general.

The disturbing side is that it actually supports a different, far less flattering theory, even more. An important point to note here is that the flip happened during a time when Islamophobia was a popular subject of discussion. The other theory is that Western liberals, as a group, do not actually follow any self-consistent moral paradigm or code of ethics. In the place of one, and of a code of ethics liberal groups have only a set of rationalizations to support whatever cause is in fashion at the moment, with "fashion" driven by aesthetics rather than any sort of ethics. It is aesthetically pleasing to side with the underdog: When was the last time the central conflict of a piece of Western fiction featured a climactic battle between the enormous army of a righteous empire and a few villainous untrained ill-equipped rebels? The good guys almost always at least start out as the weaker side, so we get almost the same predictions out of this theory. This one is more strongly supported here because it seems that changes in the group whose trouble makes the news more at any given time, changes in "fashion", are correlated with flip-flops which are difficult to explain using a consistent moral paradigm (unless the actual conditions being described in the news have changed).

Joan H (20)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 3:15 pm
So basically there's very little hope for these "feminists", educated at that. It amazing to me that they think domestic violence only involves white women. These people, the Islamists, none of them belong in a civilized society. These racists, they should all stay in the hell holes they came from.

pam w (139)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 3:30 pm
"Shame on those women who behave like slaves when it comes to criticism of this abominable supremacist ideology hate, including hate and abuse of women and children."

+++++++++++++++++ JUST like the fate of women under Romney./Ryan. They, too, want to make women submit to degredations and hatred.

See how it goes? Not much difference, really.

Past Member (0)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 4:54 pm
A man that beats his wife is not a supreme being but a lo class scum bag !!. I love you always well said ! You said everything that I wanted to but better !

Marie W (67)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 10:41 pm
"save the reputation of sharia law" What a bunch of nonsense here. Like saying the slaveowners reputation should be saved.

Elaya Raja (39)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 10:45 pm

pam w (139)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 11:27 pm
"save the reputation of sharia law." & I are SNORTING in tandem here!

Shirley S (187)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 11:35 pm

Richelle Rausch (43)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 11:51 pm
Very interesting. But if these women want to wear the clothing, they have that right. The domestic violence does bother me. But that happens everywhere, no matter the country. culture, religion or class. It's wrong, but it's up to the woman to try to fix it. Unfortunately, it's not always as easy as it should be, especially if they fear for their children's and their lives.

Pamylle G (461)
Monday August 20, 2012, 4:20 am
I see no reason to get angry with "the Feminists" here. I agree with the author, but have no patience with the "more Feminist than thou" bit.

I think an attitude of multi-culturalism is a rather healthy default, although it need not apply in all cases. I don't think Sharia Law should be "tolerated". Our laws in Western Civilization ARE more evolved & humane, period. Accommodating "Freedom to Worship" ends with abuse, and the Muslims that can't bear to live without it ought to reside in the countries where these cruel, regressive Sharia Laws are in place.


Vlasta M (7)
Monday August 20, 2012, 6:25 am
Muslim women in GB and GB in general would be much better off if ALL of them abandon Islam which puts them into animal category, as far as treatment goes. Girls get murdered by their fathers and brothers for wearing jeans or dating a different kind of Muslim, wife beating is a religious duty, pedophilia and polygamy is sanctioned by Allahu Akbar, and so is the murder of infidels.

If those Muslim women left, perhaps the Muslim men in GB would start thinking with their heads rather then listening to imams and mullahs ranting against the Western society that keeps them on the dole and fed. Then maybe there is a chance that Islam would reform and be made compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As it is now, Islam is a supremacist ideology of hate of non-Muslims and a violator of human rights everywhere, while pretending to be a "peaceful religion". It has no place in ANY civilized society that respects human rights of individuals and particularly women and children which are treated as dirt under instructions from Koran and Hadith.

Any women who claims to be a feminist and still supports sharia and Islam is insane and needs to have her head examined by psychiatrists and , because her touch with reality is highly questionable;-)!

. (0)
Monday August 20, 2012, 11:51 am
Thanks for the post Alex. No woman should have to fear any man-anywhere.

Brenda Towers (0)
Monday August 20, 2012, 11:53 am
There is no place for Sharia law in the U.K.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Monday August 20, 2012, 12:01 pm
You pretend to care about women but the islamophobia you foment among the less intellectually gifted masses has led to a huge increase in attacks upon our Muslim sisters. Your supporters here in the UK are friends you could well do without (search for 'English Defence League').

We know why there are attempts to foment hatred against us; it is so your masters can steal oil from predominantly Muslim countries by invading and slaughtering before you install your puppets in their governments and infect Muslim lands with your corrupt banking scam which employs usury (charging interest is forbidden in all Great Faiths) to enslave them and steal everything else.

But what you actually achieve is encouraging research into Islam and its beauty is highly infectious; look on YouTube comments and see how many people are connecting Muslims with resistance to the New World Order; even atheists are supporting the cause of Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims who are being directly oppressed by the zionist regime. The truth movement is supporting the Iranian people in their rights and it is well that they do; The Republic of Iran showed us an interesting way to deal with your puppets in 1979; there is much to be learnt from their courageous example.

You wish to replace our faith with your immoral and shallow 'non-ideology' so your masters can control everything. You wish to 'divide and conquer' but we only gather strength. You are cowardly collaborators of the most evil men on this planet; they don't care about you or anyone else; you do not share their bloodlines and they respect me more than they do you. Why would you serve them? Is it so difficult to earn an honest living?

Barbara T (431)
Monday August 20, 2012, 2:02 pm
There are two separate issues here.
1] Multi-culturalism is FINE. Within limits. REASONABLE limits.
We shouldn't condone bullfighting in our countries that have gotten beyond that, just because some other countries do it. Or cock-fighting. Or dog-fighting. Or bear-baiting. Just because it is a "custom" in SOME countries, doesn't mean that immigrants have a "right" to practice such things HERE; or a different set of laws made for them. They have to obey OUR laws. Just like they have to obey OUR laws about which side of the road to drive on, regardless of how it was done where they came from.
The same as goes for our Animal Cruelty legislation, should apply to our Human Rights legislation. If we have laws against Child Marriage, ALL IMMIGRANTS have to observe those laws, no matter what the legislation might have been in their own countries.

2] However, in large immigrant communities, such as those in Great Britain, the question of Sharia law comes up. It is my understanding -- I may be wrong -- that Sharia courts were seen as a way of handling disputes that only involved the immigrant ethnic group -- the idea maybe being, that British courts couldn't "understand" the issues very well. For example, Islamic law regarding Usury, or Loans, can be very different from our law -- but equally valid and respected by an ethnic community that has grown up with such legal precedents in their culture. They might consider our rulings on businesses, property, loans, etc., to be the epitome of UNJUST compared to their law, and satisfying to no-one within the ethnic community.
{This would be similar to some Native American tribal courts, that handle issues between tribal members without drawing in "outsiders" who might have a skewed cultural perspective that violated some Native American cultural norms considered just and fair by all tribal members.}

HOWEVER -- and this is A BIG HOWEVER --
When it comes to HUMAN RIGHTS, then BRITISH LAW MUST PREVAIL. Or the Law of the Host Country that they have immigrated to, whether Belgium, Netherlands, etc.
And, HUMAN RIGHTS most often in these contexts, means WOMEN'S EQUAL RIGHTS WITH MEN.
THIS is where the problems come up.
A couple of examples from THIS culture: A while ago, in my State of Washington, a couple from India were found to be actually keeping SLAVES on their farm and in their home! {Other immigrants from India they were exploiting.} This was nominally "illegal" in India, but virtual slavery is still a "custom" in some backwards areas, if novels by Indian authors I have read have any validity! OF COURSE this was treated as a CRIMINAL ACT when finally discovered -- the couple from India did not get a "free pass" because of "cultural differences"!
Another example, from a while back, was a man from China, I think the case was in California, who claimed it was ok to beat his wife, as it was a "Chinese custom" -- and the stupid judge in the case, went along with it, until the verdict was repealed after a screaming outcry by feminists! This was a RACIST, not a "human rights" or "multiculturalism" ruling by the benighted judge!

Alexa R (319)
Monday August 20, 2012, 2:27 pm
Send a Green Star to BMutiny TCorporationsAreEvil
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to BMutiny because you have done so within the last week.

Barbara T (431)
Monday August 20, 2012, 2:52 pm
The author is calling out such "middle-class white women", who are RICH AND PRIVILEGED compared to most of the world, as being the RACISTS that they indeed ARE!
Besides being RACISTS, which they refuse to recognize in themselves, they are NOT REAL FEMINISTS, either.
They fit the horrible stereotype, unfortunately, that Feminism is ONLY FOR rich, white, middle-class, Western women.......
Just like that judge I mentioned above, who was a man by the way, who thot it was "ok" for a CHINESE immigrant man to beat his wife, 'cuz it was in his CULTURE....
In THAT case, Feminists SCREAMED ALOUD!
It is an interesting psychological study, hardly hinted at in the article, as to WHY SOME Feminists are not SCREAMING ALOUD about women in Islam....

I have TWO THINGS to say about that.
FIRST, #1 -- It does NO GOOD to scream and yell about EVERY member of an ethnic group, EVERY member of a religious group, etc.!
That is like yelling and screaming and blaming EVERY SINGLE MALE for being a brutal cad! MOST of us have sons, brothers, fathers, friends that we respect -- MOST of us Care2 members don't blame EVERY SINGLE MALE for the horrible acts of SOME!
It is JUST AS ILLOGICAL -- and there is FAR TOO MUCH OF THIS ON CARE2 -- to IRRATIONALLY BLAME ALL MUSLIMS, ALL ARABS, ISLAM ITSELF {what's the point?}, ALL ARAB OR MUSLIM MEN, everybody who wears a turban, everybody who wears a beard, everybody living in certain countries..... you see where this is taking me, I hope!
What's the point of this, except to EXPRESS YOUR OWN FEELINGS OF HATRED -- and, such expressed feelings of hatred are just SELF-hatred, turned outwards....
I hate INJUSTICE as much as anybody, and I get ANGRY, too, VERY angry.... but I try not to be IRRATIONAL about it....
Irrational anger and hatred and blind emotion DOES PLAY INTO THE WAR ATMOSPHERE THE "WESTERN" GOVTS WANT TO STIR UP AGAINST ARABS AND MUSLIMS -- *ALL* OF THEM -- IN A "CULTURE WAR"; which is REALLY about DEHUMANIZING Arabs and Muslims and making them EASIER TO KILL AS ENEMIES -- and that INCLUDES the Women and Children, that our war-promoting govts don't REALLY care about...
THINK about it!!!!! just REFLECT on it a while.....

SECOND, #2 -- What to do, if we are deprived of the EASY BUT POINTLESS, HATE HATE HATE MEME.....
Well, the solution for actual Progressive Action that makes a difference, is IMPLIED here.

You CAN'T HATE "all Arabs", "all Muslims", "all Pakistanis", "all immigrants", "all ethnic minorities", etc.
Among these, always, are GOOD PEOPLE. People I HAVE MET. People who SHARE YOUR VALUES.
People who are Arab, Pakistani, Muslim, male, dark-skinned, religious in their own way, etc. -- but are still HUMAN BEINGS WHO SHARE HUMANISTIC VALUES, PROGRESSIVE VALUES, DEMOCRATIC VALUES, VALUES OF EQUALITY.
It doesn't matter how MANY of them there are; or if they live under, or come from, oppressive regimes where they are afraid to speak out. The point is, THEY DO EXIST. I have met them, talked to them, read their writings, heard them speak. THEY EXIST. Yes, it IS possible to be a Muslim and to be for Equal Rights -- and there are Gay Muslims too! They are NOT "all the same". Even if the voices of the Progressive ones get drowned out -- and, by the way, OUR PRESS COVERS THE FANATICS MORE -- BECAUSE IT IS IN OUR GOVTS' INTERESTS TO STIR UP THE WAR FEVER. And that is the SUREST way to do so -- to cover ONLY the fanatics and ignore the voices of reason!!!
It is possible, that SOME Feminists, the ones excoriated in the article, don't want to be identified with the blind hatred of Muslim religion {which, just like Christianity, includes "moderates" as well as maniacs -- no matter what tripe is in the "Holy Book", it can be interpreted in a number of ways, the Koran as well as the Old Testament and New Testament}. Not wanting to be identified with the "Haters", these would-be "Feminists" go too far over to the other side, of BLIND "TOLERANCE" instead of "Blind Hatred". Both quite STUPID and avoiding any thought or analysis; BOTH are knee-jerk reactions.

TO SUM UP: What the author of the article wants, is for WHITE WESTERN WOMEN who call themselves "Feminists", to get off this "foreigners are all different and different standards apply" kick; and to TRULY apply the SAME FEMINISM AND FEMINIST STANDARDS, TO EVERYBODY.
In that way, and ONLY in that way, will they be ACTUALLY HELPING OUR PAKISTANI SISTERS {and other Arabs, Muslims, etc.} WHO ARE WORKING TO THROW OFF THEIR OPPRESSION.
Not by acting as if "all" Pakistani men were loathsome oppressors and "all" Pakistani women were taking oppression submissively -- which is a TOTAL LIE! As any MODICUM of research, would instantly show you!

Shouldn't we "privileged" women, be helping not hindering in the Women's and sympathetic men's brave and difficult fight in Pakistan and other Muslim countries?

Gillian M (218)
Monday August 20, 2012, 2:54 pm
Send a Green Star to pam w.

Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to pam because you have done so within the last week.

Stan B (123)
Monday August 20, 2012, 3:56 pm
Sharia law is wonderful. If you happen to be a MAN!!

Elaine Al Meqdad (283)
Monday August 20, 2012, 6:21 pm
I don't see a correlation with these two words in the same sentence.

pam w (139)
Monday August 20, 2012, 7:13 pm
Abu reminds us of the basic rules for defending Islam.

1. Deny, deny, deny! Islam is perfect and women are never mistreated and everyone stays because they WANT to. Nobody is ever beheaded, stoned, tortured or beaten.\

2.. Insult anyone who attempts to criticize Islam. Insult them with every phrase you can find, including "hater," "Islamophobe"...bigot, racist, etc.

3. Blame someone else....preferably Jews.

Alexa R (319)
Monday August 20, 2012, 11:06 pm
Thanks for that passionate and insightful second comment BMutiny.

Exactly! Your summary says it ALL very neatly!

With attitudes like yours we can change this world into a better place for ALL ..

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 12:04 am
BMutiny is full of wisdom.

A much better article than this one IMO, is found nearby from the same website

As usual there is always more than one way to look at things, and Vlasta and Rob and Jay are always fanatically fixated on THEIR one way of looking at things, and the worst way at that.

I don't condone any violence against women, but let me guess, there are more incidents of violence, rape, and murder against women done by non-Muslim boyfriends and husbands than by Muslim men in Great Britain, the U.S., and Canada. Now, you will never see an article about all or any of those incidents by Rob and Jay. So are they for all women or just for squashing Muslims in any way they can
It has nothing to do with PC anything on C2, it has to do with endless fixed one way views by the posters of the articles. And I don't include Alexandra in that category.


Alexa R (319)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 1:43 am
Thanks Kenneth for the link to the article on the rise of sharia in the west. Great article and reflects the sentiments of the author of this article that I posted here.

Kenneth, can you provide a well reasoned/evidenced argument against any of the other posters' arguments that differs from your point of view? It’s great when all sides of an argument is well presented!

But please try to refrain from unsubstantiated insults/claims about the posters themselves?

Robert S (111)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 5:42 am
There are of course those who will use any opportunity to slam Muslims. There are also many Muslims who would never beat their wives. Those who do should be prosecuted like any other regardless of the behaviors enshrinement in a Religion. Let us not be confused by a desire to do the right thing, into allowing something that is clearly wrong.

John J (0)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 5:45 am
Oh Kenneth L -- In your opinion,based on what-- Raheel Raza--- expert on dawa
From her book "Their jihad not my jihad"
Page 16,Part one
“Killing one person is as though he killed all of humanity”
At this point one has to wonder whether to accept this gross out of context statement as a mistake or intentional
and for your edification I repeat the context
sura 5:32 NQ Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a
person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it
would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as
if he saved the life of all mankind.
sura 5:33--NQ The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and
do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their
hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the

Dire threats indeed !!!

she goes on--The Qur’an says, “and slay not the life which Allah has made sacred, save in
the course of justice.”This means that killing one person is like killing all of humanity.
sura 6:151.....NQ Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited
you from: Join not anything in worship with Him; be good and dutiful to your
parents; kill not your children because of poverty - We provide sustenance for
you and for them; come not near to Al-Fawâhish (shameful sins, illegal sexual
intercourse, etc.) whether committed openly or secretly, and KILL NOT ANYONE WHOM ALLAH HAS FORBIDDEN EXCEPT FOR A JUST CAUSE (ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW)
She also quotes Karen Armstrong--not the person I would read for a serious view of islam
To sum up-- another touchy feely for dhimmi consumption

Sorry But Rob & J could give her an education -- You-I'm not even going to call you an ass as you have tried to make a serious if not quite informed post
Oh BTW from the manual of islamic law
09.0 JIHAD
(0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word
mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.
and Mischief reasonably well defined--sura 8:73-and sura 7:103-

Gillian M (218)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 6:03 am
Pakistani Muslim rapist admits women have no rights or opinions in Islam

A practicing Muslim man raped and threatened a young Norwegian girl for several hours. Numerous rapes in Sweden over the past several years have been committed by "non-Western men," e.g., Muslims. In fact, in the past year, all rapes in Oslo have been committed by non-Western men.

"He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. Why? Because that is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge."

Islam teaches utter disrespect for women, who are mere possessions of savage men, to be raped whenever the beasts feel like it. At least this rapist admitted that fact of Islamic misogyny and sexism, which should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

Muslim Rape Epidemic Puts Sweden at Top of Euro Rape Statistics (2010)

A Muslim rape epidemic in Sweden has ensured that it now tops the list as the European country with the most rapes per capita — 46 incidents per 100,000 residents.

Sweden: Muslim imams caught on tape covering up rape, violence against women

Dont know if u heard this but here in Sweden the tv program “uppdrag granskning” (a bit like your “60 minutes”) sent in 2 women in niqab with hidden cameras into mosques to ask the imams for advice.

They claimed they were beaten, forced to have sex and that they were unhappy to be in a polygamous relationship (their husband had married a second wife) things that are against Swedish law.

Almost all Imams told them not to go to the police and to simply accept these things.

After the program was shown on tv the muslims complained they were being “demonized by the media” and that the recordings were “edited”.

Gillian M (218)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 6:13 am
The difference between Islam and other religions is that rape is not allowed. Islam turns a blind eye and the extremists use this to hang little girls for being raped, honour kill them or force the family to leave their home if the nparents do not kill their daughter.

If the woman alleges rape there must be 4 MALE witnesses to say that it was rape.

Now, Islam has a clear stance which states that this repugnant action is haraam and imposes a deterrent punishment on the one who commits it. If that is true why am I able to show stories such as above or this one 'Strict Muslim' raped four women at knifepoint to 'punish them for being on the streets at night'

Perhaps extracts from the Koran commented on by Christopher Logan may help.

Koran verse 004.024
YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

The meaning of what “right hands possess” is explained in Islamic Law, the Koran, and the ahadith.

“The Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Scared Law”
This book has the stamp of approval of Al Azhar, the highest learning Islamic school in the world.

Justice Chapter: Jihad

o9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

This is backed up by other Koran verses.

YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

YUSUFALI: But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good: but fear Allah: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

While Islam does not consider this rape, it sure sounds like kidnapping, slavery, and rape to me.

The ahadith even go into more detail on how Mohammad approved of him, and his merry men raping women.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and
we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”

By Mohammad’s words we can see that he did not care that his men raped the women, nor did he care if the women were impregnated by their rapist. What a guy.

After raiding a town and defeating the “enemy”, Mohammad picked a female captive of his own.

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 437:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy’s defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha’ where her menses were over and he married her. Then Hais (a kind of meal) was prepared and served on a small leather sheet (used for serving meals). Allah’s Apostle then said to me, “Inform those who are around you (about the wedding banquet).” So that was the marriage banquet given by Allah’s Apostle for (his marriage with) Safiya. After that we proceeded to Medina and I saw that Allah’s Apostle was covering her with a cloak while she was behind him. Then he would sit beside his camel and let Safiya put her feet on his knees to ride (the camel).

Are we really supposed to believe that Safiya willingly married Mohammad, after him and his army killed her husband? Only a blind following Muslim would believe that.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 513:
Narrated ‘Abdul ‘Aziz bin Suhaib:

Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet took Safiya as a captive. He manumitted her and married her.” Thabit asked Anas, “What did he give her as Mahr (i.e. marriage gift)?” Anas replied. “Her Mahr was herself, for he manumitted her.”

Here we read of the official rape, of what was obviously a petrified girl. (She was a Jewish girl that was 17 at the time.)

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.


Gillian M (218)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 6:26 am
I will add that not all Muslims are rapists but extremists and young men with no self control cause such distress in communities that have welcomed them in. It is these people that need condemning, punishment and deporting NOT the decent law abiding ones.

Bear in mind that there is a difference between Islam and Muslims and the extremists who believe that Sharia law in a country which does not have it as the law of the land, override such laws. If someone lives in my country I expect them to abide by such laws and not the ones that they want.

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 8:06 am
Alexandra, my point of view/opinions have been stated many times before on many other threads. It's an endless circus, and I mean circus, of 'debate', especially since it isn't based on reason.

I validated BMutiny's post as what I agree with, and also the other article I posted. THERE is balance, THERE is more than one view of Sharia Law from someone who is a Muslim (in that article I provided). And BMutiny stated for the most part what my own opinion would be. That's it.



Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 8:08 am
I gave BMutiny a nice big fat whopping Green Star too. If someone wants to go one on one with her, I'm sure she would respond to them.

monica r (41)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 8:33 am
I think the point here is that those who say they care about women's rights stop caring pretty quickly when it's MUSLIM women's rights.

In NJ, USA, a muslima of Moroccan descent went to get a restraining order. Why? She was being serially beaten and raped by her muslim husband. So she SHOULD have gotten the restraining order, but the judge heard the husband describe how his religion requires her to be sexually available on his command, and that if she refuses, he is within his rights under Islamic law to also beat her. No restraining order.

Yes, she appealed the decision and ultimately got her restraining order, but an obvious domestic violence case, she should not have had to go to appeals. Her human rights, her right not to be forced to have sex against her will and her right not to get the crap beat out of her, were subjugated to his right to freely practice his religious beliefs. Sadly, this is just one example.

As this is being brought to the west's doorstep like a dead songbird caught by a cat, we are seeing more "honor" violence against muslim women and girls who are embracing western freedoms. We are seeing FGM in the west, and girls taken on "holiday" to be married off to older relatives. I think we need to decide whose side we are on, the oppressed women, or their oppressors.

I'm absolutely on the side of the oppressed women. If this means some muslim men are "offended" because they can't fully practice their faith, so be it. I don't think santeria practitioners should get to sacrifice animals, either. I don't think extremist mormon sects should be allowed to marry little girls, either. I don't think fundamentalists should be allowed to bully gays, either.

Freedom of religion is NOT the only freedom that matters.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 10:30 am
No matter how many real or fabricated cases of abuse you can find on the internet, you will never find anything in the Holy Quran that condones rape or murder. You cannot hold a religion accountable for human evils when that religion categorically forbids evil.

Islam protected women's rights that took the west 1350 years to match (ownership of their own money, the freedom to work, the ability to inherit and many more - the entire Quran protects society and all decent people). Even now, throughout the west, women are degraded and objectified on a daily basis on mainstream media and advertising. I heard the other day that there is a policy by some TV channels to have some form of mild pornography every fifteen seconds to hold people's attention! The lies about Islam on this thread are meaningless; anyone who knows Islam, knows the truth and that is why currently four out of five converts to Islam in the US are women.

Your hatred of human evil is ok by me but when you try to link this with any religion which forbids evil, you only expose your own propaganda agendas or ignorant bigotry.

Clearly you are simply trying to shift the blame from guilty individuals onto a larger group. This generalising, whether it be because of race, taxonomy or religion, is a seriously backward mentality. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I have reason to believe that what we are seeing here is US and zionist taxes at work, paying for propaganda; search for 'pay-per-blog' and the propaganda business - Robert Spencer became a millionaire because of your taxes being used to lie to you. Even General Petraeus and the Israeli Ministry of Information admitted using fraudulent methods to infiltrate social media with globalist propaganda.

But one truth is far more powerful than a million lies - all one has to do is read the Noble Quran to see the exquisite beauty and undeniable truth and righteous principles within it. I don't need to argue with these evil collaborators who have sold their souls and their principles to tyrants for a few dollars; the Generous Quran is widely available - you can read it yourselves and it won't take you long. Get yourselves a mainstream translation if you don't read Arabic and find one with a purport if it's your first read. You won't regret reading it - it is without a doubt, the most important book on this planet.

No matter how many filthy lies they spout about Muslims, it will never justify aggressing into genocidal wars, land-grabs, the stealing of natural resources (oil, minerals, farmland for the opium trade) or the ethnic cleansing, torture and oppression of the continued military occupation in Palestine by the zionist regime.

You will never eradicate Islam from among the pious. Can't you see that the harder you try to spread your poison and put Islam in the news constantly, the more converts there are to Islam. Now even the visionaries within the Truth Movement are flocking to Islam and the oppressed peoples everywhere are converting in droves. One cannot have total tyranny while there are still Muslims left alive; our religion forbids tyranny and our role models (alayhimus salaam) have taught us exactly how to deal with tyrants. Perhaps this is the main reason for the ugly hate-fest on this thread; the tyrants fear Islam and see it as their main obstacle to enslaving us all.

Gillian M (218)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 12:39 pm
Abu, how can Islam say that it protects women's rights when the founder was a rapist, a paedophile, a necrophiliac and he also took wives from family & followers that he felt like screwing. As for being untrustable, he arranged meetings with Jewish tribes and then killed the men to take the women. Strange that anytime he wanted a woman Allah (the moon god) told him to have her......

As for rape, if a woman/wife is not allowed to say no it still rape regardless. Also, as far as little girls are concerned, it is OK as long as the sex is anal. Now, we turn to prepubescent boys who are described as pearls in the Koran yet homosexuality is condemned.

Rape of little girls is condoned as long as they can be forcibly converted.

Then we turn to murder. If you know anything at all about Islam then there are any number of tracts that clearly state that the infidel can be killed. If you want I will dig them out but all I can say is shame on you for not knowing your own religion regardless of whether or not the relevant passages are quoted especially your lack of knowledge of the self serving hypocrite known as a prophet.

Robert S (111)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 2:47 pm
Leviticus 24:16

Whoever utters the name of the Lord must be put to death. The whole community must stone him, whether alien or native. If he utters the name, he must be put to death.

Much that is said in "holy" books is disregarded by reasonable men of all beliefs. Crazy crap is crazy crap. Haters cretins and misogynists exist draped in piety of all kinds.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 2:50 pm
Religion, all religion, is mind control to keep the powers that be in power and to keep the faithful as fearful as possible. Humanity will be a much better species when we reject the toxic poison of irrational belief.

pam w (139)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 3:05 pm
kenneth..."let me guess, there are more incidents of violence, rape, and murder against women done by non-Muslim boyfriends and husbands than by Muslim men in Great Britain, the U.S., and Canada. "

++++++++++++ Well...that IS a guess. Got any data? Statistics would be skewed because you'd need to look at percentages...we have far fewer Muslims than the UK. The statistics on rape in Scandanavian countries are rather shocking, considering how many are the result of "Asians."

Marie Therese Hanulak (30)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 3:24 pm
The sharia law gives males the right to abuse their poor defenselless women.
As if those Pr--ks needed permission to beat the hell out of their wives and daughters.
But I truly beleive that these poor mind-controled women will one day be free.
Women all over the world are joining in that effort and we will eventually get equality for all women.
Unfortuantely, this doesn't help the women of the present.

Robert S (111)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 3:25 pm
Thanks for the link Kenneth L. and thanks Mutiny, as usual, for your well thought out words. Also, I agree Brian M.... Much better off.


Robert S (111)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 3:53 pm
Until the late sixties here in the good old USA when legislation began to change things.... it was considered "lawful" to beat your wife, though it was more a lack of law and enforcement based on "custom" that was at the heart of this issue. Sharia law certainly had nothing to do with it. As we have evolved or like to think we have...we now are confronted with others who have not yet put down the stick. We must not as I said originally, let any bully hide behind "ANY" devise ANY might use to excuse brutality and bullying.


valda p (13)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 4:52 pm
In most cultures there is a history of male dominance,women- today are independant and are not reliant on men for survival,wasn't always the case -in my grandmothers time women did not go out to work -once married ,they could not leave an abusive marriage-especially with children-nowhere to go and no financial help, my mother who was married to an abusive -drunk (my stepfather )went to a police station for help -was told by -police -they couldn't interfere in a domestic-that was the attitude in those days.
Unfortunately in some cultures that attitude still exists-women are the only ones who can change this -the women of Islam are the most male dominated -sharia law -controls them ,they are confined to peering out of a slit in a black bag,women of the West would I am sure- help them but because they are so isolated -not allowed to assimilate -do not know who to trust -don't know where to go for help -they stay in their prison ,we in turn think as they -some mothers go along with the -honour killings as has been seen in cases where the -mother has also participated in the murders of their own -children -they are willing accompliances in this barbaric ideology of hate.

Human rights should come before -religion -which is man made and is all about control -especially of -women -read for youselves -their doctrine -no I am not a religious person nor a man hater-we are all -individuals -a human -a person and should be treated as such-with respect.

pam w (139)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 5:04 pm
Valda, your post reminded me of a visit I made to the island of Lamu, just off the Kenyan coast. It's totally Muslim in culture and history and I'd been curious about it for years. The women are heavily veiled...their eyes cast downward. I took several water taxies and sat among women who would NOT look at me!

I've never been in a situation where I couldn't strike up a "conversation" with another woman! Even if we don't speak the same language, we can make gestures, admire children or jewelry...that sort of thing. But these women were either afraid of me or afraid to be friendly to me! (I should say that I was very conservatively dressed...certainly not in shorts or a bathing suit, etc.) I sat smiling at them...but, since you couldn't see their mouths or their faces...I have no idea if they were smiling back. No eye contact....nothing.

These women were more "liberated" than many I did NOT see in Zanzibar! There--men do all the shopping and women stay hidden at home!

As much as we might WANT to help women like these--it would take a LOT of work to even open the first door!


pam w (139)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 5:11 pm
Just take a look at the photo up above....really THINK about it. Can you imagine a MAN having to put a bag over his head to go out of the house? Imagine how HOT it is inside that bag? (Lamu is a very tropical place with a drippingly humid climate and high temperatures. Men go about freely in thin shirts....women wear black BAGS/)

I found myself thinking about the women who sat around me on the water taxies...wondering....did they mutilate YOUR genitals? Did they shred YOUR clitoris? Will you do it to your daughter?

So...ABU....when you accuse me of this "You pretend to care about women but the islamophobia you foment among the less intellectually gifted masses has led to a huge increase in attacks upon our Muslim sisters."

+++++++++++++++++++++ YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT'S IN MY HEART! Don't you dare try to tell me what I'm feeling or NOT feeling for other women! I've traveled widely in 8 Muslim countries and I've seen personally the degradations and literally "second class" facilities for women. If I could, I'd educate every single one of them and give her the choice to travel as widely as I have. THEN she might have a chance to lead a full life or freedom and expression.

marie C (163)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 5:42 pm
Sorry Alexandra I do not see this as a white or middle class issue I see it as a religious issue.
Some one mentioned something about a speech the Prime Minister of Australia made about banning Sharia law
I must look it up perhaps someone else on the thread knows about it
Pam your post really saddens me and brings it home how gruesome life is for many Muslim women
I loved your last paragraph and hope for Muslim womens sake that one day very soon something will happen to change their lives
Sometimes I wonder why the world sits back and allows this to happen to these dear uneducated abused women its an outrage
This religion is a way to legalize so many atrocities against women

marie C (163)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 5:59 pm
Wish the world would follow Julia Gilliards speech
LIVE WITH OUR BELIEFS OR GET OUT to any Muslim who wants to live under sharia law
I think she is a very brave person lets hope they do not try to assassinate her after all she is a woman.

marie C (163)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 6:00 pm
Sorry forgot to say thank you for posting Alexandra always enjoy your threads

Natasha Oliveira (1)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 6:22 pm
I'm a little weary of this bit: "A feminist stands up for women because they are women, not because they are white, middle class, English speaking, Christian, atheist, Jew or Muslim – but because they are women. A feminist opposes all violence against women because they are women. Feminists oppose the rape of women, because they are women." Essencialist much?

marie C (163)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 6:36 pm

Feminists can only stand up for the women who decide to leave the Islamic Sharia
Feminists can not change sharia law It is a man made religion
I can assure you Muslim men will not listen to feminists its all a waste of time

Alexa R (319)
Tuesday August 21, 2012, 10:47 pm
Robert S, Brian M, you've both touched on something that I'm curious about, in fact I've been curious about it for a long time, but i yet have to find someone willing to satisfy my curiosity:

As a religious person myself, with very strong views, beliefs(a very strong faith) are you trying to tell me that you think this world will be a better place without me? Or that i personally would be a better person if i was not religious? If the second on what premise do you base this claim?

I'm obviously curious, as i constantly endeavor to be my best self. On my journey through life I discovered my best self within or through my faith/religion.

Just curious, not a demand for an explanation.


monica r (41)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 12:03 am

Are you kidding? I suppose the "One World Government" conspiracy bears NO resemblance to something like a "Global Caliphate"? And why are so many purported to be in on that kissing Saudi butt?

Tyranny is not allowed? Then why are so many muslim countries run by tyrants? Why did they all have revolutions to replace these tyrants with worse tyrants? Morsi has more power now than Mubarak did, and journalists who dare to criticize him actually got crucified within sight of the Presidential residence. I don't mean "crucified" figuratively. I mean literally stuck up on trees. Two people died, a bunch more injured. If that's not tyranny, what is?

No rape either, why? You just don't call it rape. You can't rape your wife under shari'a because she has no right to deny her husband sexual access to her. The prophet let us know she's a "field to plow" and women are "like domestic animals, possessing nothing for themselves." You can't rape an infidel because they are fair game, "uncovered meat" (as an Australian imam put it), and since they aren't attired in hefty bags, obviously slutty whores who are "asking for it." And as was pointed out, rape stats in Europe are absolutely appalling. In the UK, the most vulnerable British girls were targeted by muslim men and passed around for sex. You may not call it rape, but I think most decent people understand that what you call it doesn't change what it is.

Likewise there's no prostitution in islam. Some sects do have "temporary marriages" which WERE instituted by the prophet (the debate on it is whether he later reversed that or not). For a fee, a couple "marries" and have sexual relations for a set time, which can be a matter of hours, then they divorce. You can call it a marriage. It's just a john giving a woman money for the right to have sex with her for a time, which is pretty much the definition of prostitution.

I already HAVE read the quran. and ahadith. I'm not buying the goods you're selling. Women are held down and treated like property under shari'a, and shari'a is supposedly perfect because it's your allaah's law and supposedly not man-made. As for inheritance, shari'a stipulates that women can only inherit half what males do.

I don't hate muslims. I'm here saying we need to stand up for muslim women who are being treated like chattel. If you are implying there's no such thing, you are either delusional or lying.


Jana Puz (20)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 1:12 am
I'm glad the awareness of the women around the world is rising. We're in 21st century, why do women anywhere need to talk about their fears?! There should be no fears. I appologize to all gentle-men, but it seems we're really living in a man's world. As long as only men decide about women rights it's not correct.
I call all the women around the world (forget the word feminism, it's about respecting another human being. The matter of fact, we should respect all beings in our world) to love and respect themselves, their body and soul. Even if there is reincarnation, why should we suffer in this life? Love yourself and be happy - that's the goal! One day people will start realizing, we're all connected, we're all one.

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 3:17 am
Plenty of stars your way Jana, for your beautiful and wise comment. I concur!

BTW. I too have never liked the word 'feminist' and don't consider myself one at all..

Sara Allen (0)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 4:22 am
What I fail to understand is why, as a egalitarian society in Britain, we have allowed implementation of such laws in the name of multi-culturism, that are contrary to our beliefs and laws? And even worse we are not allowed to speak about it without being labelled "bigoted". Good on you Anne Marie for bringing this to the forefront for debate, and hopefully some kind of resolution will be found for those women who suffer because of it.

Robert S (111)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 5:10 am
Alexandra, I will get back to you when I have time. A quick of glib reply would not do the question justice.

pam w (139)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 9:00 am
Alex, you didn't ask ME about the meaning of this statement..."Humanity will be a much better species when we reject the toxic poison of irrational belief." but, if I might step in?

We're a tribal species and ONE of our most divisive "tribal" areas is that of religion! IN MY OPINION...religion is a "negative" because it's controlling, divisive and dangerous.

Look at the problems of the world YOU know so well....Muslims and Jews have been trying to eliminate one another for centuries, haven't they? And why? Because of religion. How many wars have been fought in the name of someone's god? How many gods/mythologies/doctrines of terror have been at the basis of human conflict?

Remember that it got started in times of great human ignorance....we had no science to explain the natural world for us, so we created mythologies to explain it all for us--it was MAGICAL DOINGS and only VERY SPECIAL PEOPLE could understand and interpret them! .

Once religion had been created, people quickly saw how useful it could be to CONTROL others! Since men have always had hidden fears about women, they learned to control us through the mythology of religion--we're "unclean" and "impure" and responsible for "original sin." Women need to be WATCHED...SUSPECTED...because, otherwise, they might be up to no good! They need to be kept "in line...obedient." Religions LOVE that control and intend to bring everyone ELSE (men AND women) under their heel, too. (You know that's true, don't you?)

Now, as time went on, women in Western cultures began to achieve equality and forced religion to release its grip on us. We grouped together (as "feminists" because it's as good a word as any) to gain attention to the inequality in our lives. It's improved...not perfect....but it's improved in Western cultures.

Women under the control of Islam, however, are still treated in the old ways, because men WANT it that way. Men have the power with NO intention of releasing it. They rule through terror, physical force and bloodshed..

Islam AND fundamental Christianity have the same problems...they can exist ONLY in a climate of ignorance. If you educate children in science and human history, they learn how much of religion is bullpucky! This is a terrible crime against humanity! It robs us of the use of our wonderful brains--brains which evolved to use logic, curiosity and SENSE--not myths, magic and superstition.

YOU are not your religion, Alex. YOU may use it as a guide to ethical personal behavior, but you don't need religion to do that! The Humanists have wonderful principles created to encourage the best possible human ethics...without religion! Knowing what I do about you, I'd bet a LOT that you would be exactly the person you are even if you were an atheist.

So, YES, the world would be better off without religion! We'd make our own ethics, use intelligence and stop trying to spread our superstitions around the world.


pam w (139)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 9:05 am the way....if you believe women should have equal opportunity to compete and secure jobs, salaries and're a feminist!

If you believe women should have equal partnerships in're a feminist.

If you believe it's unethical to treat women as nothing more than sexual're a feminist.

If you believe it's unethical to NOT support other women who struggle to obtain equal're a feminist.

Alex....I think you're one of us! :-)


Past Member (0)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 9:51 am
If, as the commercial said, "A mind is a horrible thing to waste...," then yes, the religious would be much better off if they freed their minds from the burden of primitive dogma and superstition.

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 10:17 am
I've a lot in common with feminists Pam, certainly the few points you listed and probably more, but there are equally things that I do not have in common with feminists. I find some feminist notions sexist (discriminatory towards men) such as 'affirmative action' to simply up the number of females in top managerial positions. To me that simply represents a forced equality. (Just one example, there are others.)

As regards your other post: even if you are confident that I can be my best self without my faith; should it not be my choice to decide (if I happen to observe that my religion/faith brings the best out of me) what influences bring the best out of me?

I obviously do not share your view, to which you’re as much entitled to as I am to mine, that the world will be a better place without religion or that religion is the cause of all that goes wrong. I’ve observed both personal and global catastrophes that have nothing to do with religion. Aids for one. Not to mention obesity, drug-abuse, etc. Even atheists commit rape.

If a path without religion works for you Pam, I’m happy for you. I know you're a great person. However, a path with religion, having my faith at my centre works for me and for many I know like me. I'm not interested in my own ethics, but in the ethics of G-d and becoming more like Him every day.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree .. but thanks for sharing. Always good to hear all sides of an argument.

Jane H (139)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 10:19 am
it is very sad how women are treated under Sharia law, but I have no way to stop it.

pam w (139)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 11:32 am
As regards your other post: even if you are confident that I can be my best self without my faith; should it not be my choice to decide (if I happen to observe that my religion/faith brings the best out of me) what influences bring the best out of me?

++++++++++++++++++ OF COURSE! Where did I say that atheism should be mandated? And certainly, there are other evils in the world....religion is only ONE of them. I don't think I ever said anything else. I HAVE quoted someone who said "Religion RUINS everything"...but that only means it ruins those things with which it's associated.

You don't give yourself enough credit for being as good a person as you are! But...that's part of your charm.
Didn't want to side-track your asked....I answered. :-)

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 11:56 am
Thank you for our comments Pam (and everyone else on this thread who contributed to the discussion), i don't think it's a side-track, as sharia law is also part of a religion and in conflict with feminism and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is a Jana also said, it is LOVE and not HATE that makes the world go round. The UDHR is a secular interpretation of what is LOVE. Many religions have an at-least equal if not perpahs better benchmark for LOVE, and LOVE does not ruin everything or those things associated with it, IMHO.

Glad we can agree that atheism is not/should not be mandated .. (-; How boring would that be ..

Kenneth L (314)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 11:57 am
From "So, YES, the world would be better off without religion!", a precise, clear, opinion by Pam W---- which then becomes 'OF COURSE it's okay for you to be religious Alexandra!" (paraphrased).. Seems contradictory and an oxymoron to me. I love you in spite of your harmful religious beliefs which are negative and the whole world would be better off without! Huh? And of course you're free to be religious and have your religious beliefs Alex! Let's just get rid of all religion on earth! Huh?
Luckily everyone has their opinion, and there's at least 7 billion of them. .

pam w (139)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 2:17 pm
kenneth....only someone determined to MISunderstand would criticize what I told Alex.

You're looking for a fight and I won't give you one.

pam w (139)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 2:20 pm
Alex..."Glad we can agree that atheism is not/should not be mandated .. (-; How boring would that be .. "

+++++++++++ Considering that there are many nations where ISLAM is "mandated"....atheism might be safer than living someplace where trying to be non-Muslim can get you killed!

marie C (163)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 2:36 pm
Can not send a green star to pam w as have sent one in the last week

Robert S (111)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 5:32 pm
Even as I watch the destruction, pain, suffering and oppression wrought by superstition imposed ignorance and morn the harm done in the name of Gods, I am aware many believers quietly do good, in that same name. So it is not so much belief at issue....but the zealots desire to spread... No, impose... his God on others, that brings about the most harm. Religions often resemble gangs which demand that those who do not join, must pay a price...
Our law states that one mans freedom ends where anothers begins. I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from it.

Beth S (330)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 6:12 pm

I agree with so much of what you say, and I think you are a great person.

I'm a little confused, though, by your statement:

"Look at the problems of the world YOU know so well....Muslims and Jews have been trying to eliminate one another for centuries, haven't they? ...."

I've read some histories of Islam, and I would say, according to what I know, No -- Jews have NOT been trying to eliminate Muslims for centuries. Jews have been subjugated in Muslim lands, forced to pay jizya, been murdered in islamic pogroms, made to wear yellow stars of david, treated in humiliating fashion, not allowed to ride higher than Muslims, etc. But in my research, Jews were on the receiving end of the killing, while Muslims were on the killing end.

Can you cite support for your contentions? Perhaps I have not run across your sources.


pam w (139)
Wednesday August 22, 2012, 7:42 pm
PLEASE don't take that statement to mean anything derogatory about Jews! Pull in your hackles and look at the statement as written....Jews have been defending themselves. Does that make you feel better?

Kenneth L (314)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 5:03 am
Not another one who 'misunderstands' Pam W? lol

Rather than address my last post you divert attention away from it onto me. You're caught with your pants down and no explanation. Not logical anyway.

And as Beth S. says, YOU stated '"Muslims and Jews have been trying to eliminate one another for centuries" and then says "Don't take that to mean anything derogatory about Jews!". Oh, in other words it's not the Jewish religion, it's Muslims.
Yet YOU also say ALL religion should be gone from the face of the earth because it's obviously negative worth and harmful enough. And while saying how Alex is a great person, but in spite of her deep Jewish religious beliefs.
Sounds like you're backpedalling like crazy, shapeshifting all over the place, and schmoozing in an attempt to come off as right no matter what.

And if it isn't Muslims, you attacked me elsewhere for being Amish, which I'm not, and elsewhere for being a 'warrior for Christ', which I'm not.

Pam W.
Making some sweeping, blanket generality of a statement such as 'So YES, the world would be better off without religion' is 100% opinion. It can't be proven as true because it is such a big generality. A few hundred thousand variables and factors would have to be figured into it as well as an enormous number of viewpoints taken concerning such a statement, so many as to be impossible.
It would be the same as saying 'Look at how many wars have been fought for money, how much crime has been committed for money, about money, regarding money; how many people have killed and been killed for money, about money, etc., therefore the world would be better off without money". .
Such statements SOUND impressive like they mean something, but such statements are completely inapplicable when it comes to reality.. They're unhandleable, unusable, unworkable.

It's impossible to have a world without religion because one of the rights every human must have is freedom of thought, that is free to think or believe whatever one wants. Including spiritual or religious beliefs or thoughts. And all a religion is is an organized body of those beliefs, composed of a group of individuals in agreement about those beliefs. You can't control what another thinks, and you can't control the formation of groups. Unless you have a police state.

Again, it SOUNDS good to say "YOU are a great person!" ---"but your beliefs and religious ideas and practices suck and they're harmful to the planet girl!!". Someone could say the same to an atheist "YOU are a great person and I love and respect YOU....but there shouldn't be a single iota of atheism or your atheistic ideas in this entire world because the world would be better off without it". I think anyone even slightly intelligent can see that might create PROBLEMS. Why? Because one person may place more importance on their beliefs than you do. And who are you to judge for another?

Jay S (116)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 8:50 am
Robert S, you are seriously uninformed about Islam. Have you read the Qur'an, hadith and sira? Obviously not or you wouldn't do what the average westerner does and assume all religion teaches the same thing. It does not. Despite the blatant lies of Abu s, which is typical of Muslims who are taught to lie to promote Islam (they even have 4 different kinds of lies to use), Islam does teach to kill 'unbelievers wherever you find them'.

There are 109 verses of hate and violence toward non-Muslims in the qur'an alone and many more in the hadith (the sayings and actions of Mohammed), and even the whitewashed sira, Mohammed's Muslim bio. Islam's own trilogy show clearly that Mohammed himself was a mass murderer, bandit, liar, torturer, womanizer, rapist, owner/taker/trader of sex slaves and 'regular' slaves, and a pedophile who 'married' and raped a little girl. It's all in their 'scriptures'. Islam doesn't teach love for non-Muslims, only for fellow Muslims. They aren't even to take non-Muslims for friends.

Islam has never been and can never be reformed and modernized because it says to change even one word of the Qur'an is heresy and that demands the death sentence. The Muslims who don't practice the awful tenets of Islam are the real 'radicals'. Those who do practice the violent jihad, intolerance, oppression of women and the killing of those who criticize or leave Islam and gay people are true believing Orthodox Muslims.

Ask Abu S and Muslims you know to tell you that they renounce the Islamic tents that command death for criticizing or leaving Islam and for gay people. They can deny all they want the ugly, primitive tribal commands of this death cult, but they can't offer any proofs of their claims that haven't been abrogated.

Abu S, do you really want us to list all the hate verses in the Qur'an? Hadith? Or are you telling us you renounce the hadith, even Bukhari? Hmm, how convenient. Are you going to renounce the premier Islamic text on Sharia law taken from all your holy books, The Reliance of the Traveller? You are a great deceiver indeed if you do:

KILLINGS NOT REQUIRING RETALIATION (therefore acceptable): (Reliance of the Traveller)
@O1.2 This book of Sharia law is accepted by Al Azhar Univ. in Cairo, the Vatican of Sunni Islam:

The following are not subject to retaliation (punishment):

-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam...killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir(sic) killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

Here's proof the Qur'an does condone murder and rape (just a few):

Qur'an 2:191 "And kill them(unbelievers) wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter."

"...for the Prophet said, "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." Bukhari 4:52:260

“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” QUR’AN 5:33 (Authoritative quranic commentator Ibn Kathis intreprets this to mean ‘criticism’ or ‘to engage in opposition’ to Islam)

“. . . slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. . .” Q 9:5

'I will terrorize the
unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and
incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers
and toes." Qur'an 8.12

Bukhari:V4B52N177 "Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say.
"O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."'"

On rape, Islamic texts make it very clear that Mohammed raped captive women & gave them out like party favors. He condoned, as Islam still does, 'temporary' marriage so they could pretend to be sexually moral while raping women (mut'a in Shi'ism/Misyar in Sunni Islam):

Qur'an (4:24) and Qur'an (33:50) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage. If this isn't rape, what is it? Note that the verse distinguishes wives from captives (those whom they right hand possesses)

Bukhari:V5B59N524 "The Muslims said among themselves, 'Will Safiyah be one of the Prophet's wives or just a lady captive and one of his possessions?'"(note the last half of that sentence - this poor woman's husband and whole family and tribe had just been murdered by Mohammed and his thugs and he takes her as booty, which Allah granted him. What kind of decent god allows evil like this?)

A female Arab physician who recently conducted an extensive study of childhood seduction reported that "most female children are exposed to … incidents of sexual assault" during their early years by "the brother, the cousin, the paternal uncle, the maternal uncle, the grandfather or even the father. If not a family member, he may be the guardian or porter of the house, the teacher, the neighbor's son, or any other man."(Nawal El Saadawi - The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World (p. 14) - Boston: Beacon Press, 1980)


Carola May (20)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 9:02 am
Someone actually said they 'guessed' that westerners commit more sex crimes than Muslims! Guessed?! This really doesn't even deserve to be responded to, but since it a typical leftist attitude showing hatred of all things western and bending down to patronise all things not western, no matter how awful - sort of like the old colonialist views of patronisation of native peoples with the old 'they're just like children so we must not expect civilised behaviour from them' kind of insulting talk. Muslims are just as capable of civilised behaviour as westerners and it is hateful to act and say differently.

Here are some studies that show that in the heart of Islam's birthplace, among the people that produced its creator, two studies have been issued on the issue of child abuse. The first one, conducted in the United States, claims one in six children would be subjected to sexual abuse.

The second study, conducted in Saudi Arabia by Dr. Nura Al-Suwaiyan, director of the family safety program at the National Guard Hospital, revealed one in four children is [sexually] abused in the Kingdom.

'This clearly shows that children are far more likely to be molested in the Kingdom (Saudi Arabia) than in the United States!
. . .
The reason for this is the way each country deals with the problem. From a legal point of view, while sexual harassment against children in the US is considered a heinous crime, we look at it as a mistake or a wrongdoing, not as a crime, unless the child has been raped' (Khalaf Al Harbi - Child abuse: We and the Americans - Arab News, July 9, 2010)

Quit patronising Muslims and Islam and expect the same moral standards that you would of a western person or Christian or Jew. It is demeaning and insulting to lower the bar of civilised behaviour for Muslims and Islam. And some of you leftists do just that. This is the same insulting attitude that has so-called feminists condoning the terrible abuse of women in Islam. This patronisation masks a deeper prejudice that these people are too 'primitive' to be any better, so we should pat them on the head and look away.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 9:30 am
Hi BMutiny :)

For the most part, I'm right there with you. I like the Roman method: People can use traditional rules, if all parties freely agree after being informed of all options for matters of civil law, but cases of criminal law must be judge by the law of the land. I'm also right there with you, mostly, about not blaming an entire group for the behaviour of some of its members.

Here's where I almost disagree: Individually, they are, like you said, certainly not to blame for the actions of others. However, there are many ways in which they interact with the rest of the society as a unit, as a community. In those interactions, any community must be held accountable for the behaviour of its members. Reactions to the behaviour in this case could run from an end to public support of ethnocentric or other cultural education-programs in the Islamic communities, to refusal to permit the use of Sharia-based traditions in settling legal disputes, to reduction of some public services in Muslim-dominated communities. (Specifically, if a community supports behaviour for which social workers would normally be called in, then there is nothing they can do anyways so they should not be assigned to those cases.)

Alexa R (319)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 11:19 am
Thanks for that succinct explanation of sharia law vs roman law, Stephen!

Send a Green Star to Stephen Brian
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Stephen because you have done so within the last week.

Kenneth L (314)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 1:04 pm
Carola May "Someone actually said they 'guessed' that westerners commit more sex crimes than Muslims! .

Who said that?

You must be referring to my post earlier on this thread in your gutless indirect way since I'm the only one who used the word 'guess' on this thread that I can find.


it is a twisted alteration of what I said. I never said 'westerners' as you are perverting it and I never said Muslims everywhere----I SAID IN THOSE 3 COUNTRIES. You never duplicate what someone says, you alter it, you create whopping generalities in order to worsen it---but hey, those are just attributes of your type.


This is why I earlier told Alexandra it is an endless circus of FALSE STATEMENTS said to me and about me regarding my views and opinions of Islam and Muslims. It's been the same thing over and over with you and Pam W. and the others in your little clique..

I said it was a guess, and if you can prove it's not true since you're in a pathetic manic about it that you think it isn't true, then YOU provide the statistics that is ISN'T.

ANOTHER LIE OF YOURS CAROLA " it a typical leftist attitude showing hatred of all things western and bending down to patronise all things not western, no matter how awful". I'm not 'leftist' you moron. Nor do is it true about the rest of your deluded idea in that sentence.

God, you waste my time.

Robert S (111)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 2:06 pm
Rob and Jay B.,

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” ― Stephen Hawking

You make no effort to hide our bias/hatred, Jaybob. No attempt to temper your argument with fairness. I could paste here endless examples a murderous maniacal gods supposed words taken from the old Testament but why bother. Keep your illusion. I know and love people who are of the Muslim faith. They are in fact family. I take people as I find them. Each deserving of respect until they they loose that respect as you just have. You did not have to earn it, but you could always throw it away...and so you did.

Robert S (111)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 3:40 pm
Jaybob....“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” ― Stephen Hawking

Robert S (111)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 3:52 pm
I wondered if my comment was there. It was simply hiding until I posted again. What a surprise...

Robert S (111)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 7:31 pm
Carola May, This discussion came about because of one on the left examining that left, and by a feminist examining that feminism as they both relate to women, Religion, and secular law. If those on the so called "right" were willing or perhaps capable of such self would allow me to read what you have written without laughter. The so called "rights" contribution is rather, to vent hatred here at Muslims and now in your case, you can not help but vent some of it at the very people looking inward, and at themselves for answers. This woman Anne Marie Waters speaks up here for a Secular Society. So am I. What are you for?

Robert S (111)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 7:35 pm

Robert S (111)
Thursday August 23, 2012, 8:01 pm
The Rise of Sharia in the West

Posted: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:11 by Raheel Raza
The Rise of Sharia in the West

I'm a Pakistani by birth, a Canadian by choice and Islam is my spiritual journey. I use the term spiritual intentionally, because it's important to clarify right at the beginning that faith is not politics, and politics is not faith. And this ladies and gentlemen is the difference between political Islam or Islamism and the spiritual message of my faith.

If you were to ask me whether I implement sharia in my life, my answer would be yes.

Before you get your backs up, let me inform you that the word sharia is mentioned only 3 times in the Quran, where it means moral and ethical guidance. Observant Muslims implement the moral and ethical guidelines of sharia in their life governing strictly PERSONAL religious matters such as diet, fasting, charity, prayer, pre-nuptial agreements, birth etc. without any side-effects because A, they are not forcing it in the public sphere and B) they are not using it as a parallel legal system in a non-Muslim environment.

Muslims are not new immigrants to the West and like us, did not come here to flaunt blatant religiosity but to enjoy religious freedom and in some cases freedom from religion – an asset we only find in western liberal democracies. If sharia had been such an important aspect of a Muslims life, we would have heard about it twenty years ago. Neither is thespread of shariah an intrinsic element in the life of every Muslim in the West. Therefore, the claim made by some Muslims that the "Shari'ah" is "divine" cannot be validated logically or theologically. Neither is it necessary to call the sharia the "holy" Sharia, as is the practice within these walls. But shariais a path, not an entity, and can oly be as holy as the intentions of its practiioners.

That "Shari'ah" played a pivotal role in Islamic history as a means of bringing diverse groups of Muslims within a single legal religious framework, is beyond dispute. But over time sharia was frozen, with no development, reasoning and logic and therefore started to stink - which is what happens when water is left stagnant. Eventually it became what we see today – man made law without ethical and moral boundaries, no regard for human life and specifically anti-women.

This is a recent phenomenon. Why? 35 years ago the Wahabbi ideology crashed in upon us, taking over the mosque structures. According to a Washington Post survey, almost 80 % of the mosques in America are now controlled by the Wahabbis, and some 60% of British mosques are now controlled by the equally hard-line Deoband.

In recent times, a more radical interpretation of Sharia has evolved, based upon relatively recent texts written by ideologues such as Abul Ala Mawdudi from Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb from Egypt, whose teachings promote violence leading to terrorism. These, as well as material published and disseminated by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, are primarily, if not exclusively, aimed at using Islam to advance a violent political agenda and treat women as second class citizens.

Where has this politicization and distortion of the message left us? The Center for Islamic Pluralism undertook a study: A guide to Sharia law and Islamist Ideology in Western Europe 2007 - 2009.

According to this study, the core argument of the Islamists pushing radical Sharia and parallel systems of law is that human law as represented by western canons can be superseded by the presumed-divine law embodied in Sharia, and therefore secular law may be avoided or violated at will.

So it's no surprise that a Muslim group in the United Kingdom has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including "Londonistan" – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence. The Islamic Emirates Project, launched by the Muslims Against the Crusades group, uses the motto "The end of man-made law, and the start of Sharia law," and was launched exactly six years after Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people and injured 800 others in London. A July 7, 2011 announcement posted on the Muslims Against the Crusades website, states:

"In the last 50 years, the United Kingdom has transformed beyond recognition. What was once a predominantly Christian country has now been overwhelmed by a rising Muslim population, which seeks to preserve its Islamic identity, and protect itself from the satanic values of the tyrannical British government."

By the way, this same "satanic, tyrannical" British government has allowed about 80 sharia courts to operate in the UK, so please don't miss the irony and hypocrisy of using Western freedoms to perpetuate religious ideologies.

It does not help that Baroness Warsi, chairman of Britain's ruling Conservative Party agreed with the Pope that securlarism is the enemy, without so much as mentioning the problems with British Islamists who are now spreading their tentacles into the USA. A well known Islamist, Anjem Choudary who once said 'the flag of Islam will fly over the White House' has announced he will lead a demonstration calling on Muslims to establish Sharia law across America. Some states in USA are considering sharia law as a parallel system despite strong protests.

A 20-year-old Muslim man in Australia was accused of whipping a Sydney man 40 times as part of an alleged sharia law punishment for drinking alcohol. Shockingly the accused has been granted bail. I am also aware of the presence of an extremist organization known as Hizb ut Tahrir, banned in other countries, who wish to establish a Caliphate in the West. When I wrote a scathing article about their annual conference in Australia, they replied in anger and scorn, threatening me, and implying that as a Muslim I should shut up because this applies only to Muslims"!

Well hello – We are Muslims who don't want sharia or a Caliphate in the West and have come here to get away from dogma, theocracy and forced religiosity.

In Canada, few years ago a group of Muslims tried to implement sharia law in the Province of Ontario, a move that was thwarted and the law allowing religious arbitration was trashed. However even today The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) declares on its website that it aims at applying Islam "as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan al Banna". Hasan al Banna for those of you who don't know was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and a well documented 50-point manifesto of the MB promotes an application of sharia that leads to a one-party State, the prohibition of dancing and music, the censorship of books and movies, the implementation of different curricula for boys and girls and even a dress code for all citizens enforced by religious police as in Iran and Saudi Arabia. I must say they believe in having fun!

These are the people who wish to impose sharia in the West and are gaining ground for three reasons.

One, because there is a failed attempt to understand the psyche of radical Islamists and uncover their covert methods in blackmailing and coercing immigrants into their way of thinking

Two, there is deafening silence from the majority of moderate Muslims who are sitting quietly on the fence

Three, Western governments have failed because of their mistaken acceptance of dominant religious leaders as the sole legitimate representatives of Islam in the West, while ignoring women and the more moderate liberal voices.

This is why the Islamists are still here in the West. Otherwise they would have left when politely asked to do so by the Australian PM. Many of us would be willing to pay for a one-way ticket. We are very proud of Stephen Harper, our PM in Canada who has also identified the Islamist threat as real. It's about time, that the leader of the free world, Barack Obama also spoke of this threat in the US where some recent disturbing events have taken place.

E.G. A coalition of organizations that includes the American Jewish Committee (AJC) is supporting use of Sharia law in United State's courts. They believe that banning Sharia law is "an attack on religious freedom".

Who are they kidding? Can an interpretation of a faith that legitimizes violence in the name of divinity qualify for religious freedom? Do they really believe that a man-made law that brutally violates religious freedom and kills apostates is about religious freedom? That a law that protects heads of State from punishment for theft, robbery and murder [Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 – 914C, Hanafi law Hedaya page 188] is about religious freedom?

This does not even touch the issues that relate to women. The entire discourse in Qur'an on women is rights-based but in the Shari'ah, thanks to man-made laws based on concocted hadiths, the entire discourse is duty-based for women and right-based for men. It was too hard for men to accept equal dignity for men and women in the feudal society within which Shari'ah rules were compiled. Sharia rules harsh punishments including lashing and stoning to death for women's voluntary sexual activities. And it's because of these perceived elements of religious support, few Islamic governments dare to enact any criminal law to ban these barbaric practices against innocent girls.

So must we in the West allow Female Genital Mutilation in the name of "religious freedom"? Of course not! Islamists will tell you FGM is not "Islamic but cultural"; but it has at least nine roots in secondary Islamic scriptures and man-made law.

The question we must ask ourselves why is anyone supporting the idea of a parallel legal system in the West?

We cannot support religious practices that violate human rights. Sharia law as it exists today, violates human rights. That is why it is not acceptable as a manifestation of religion. It kills its followers' natural instinct to relate to others, dehumanizing those who differ from them. Muslim women are its primary victims. It has destroyed countless lives, brought Islam a bad name, and launched the worst cultural assault on human civilization.

Are we going to look sideways when our women are murdered in the name of honour? In Canada recently four women from one family were murdered in an honour killing.

Furthermore, it's on record that the Sharia-lovers in the West are doing nothing to stop the terrible violence against Jews and Christians in Muslim countries. Yet in the West their tactic is to seek the support of ill-informed Jewish and Christian leaders. That gives the establishment of Sharia law a false credibility of "Interfaith action", a term that has now been tainted. A mix of what I call 'liberal white guilt' combined with ignorance of the details, and a false understanding of multiculturalism, has given Islamists wide scope to infiltrate governments and organizations where they relentlessly pursue their subversive agenda.

I would also like to suggest some solutions.

According to my friend, Hasan Mahmud who is a researcher with the Deen Research Center, and an on expert on sharia law, this is what western countries need to do.

Mahmud writes, "A constitution is a constitution only when it recognizes the limit of religious freedom and protects its citizens. The ban on using Sharia law in State courts in the USA perfectly complies with the constitution because it bans not Islam but the violent interpretation of Islam. The first major conspiracy against the spirit of Islam was when the sharia lovers changed the meaning of the word Sharia from "ethical guidance" to State Law. For Westerners, Islam and Sharia law became synonymous. Unbelievable as it may seem to some Westerners, traditional Islam is tolerant, peaceful, gender-just and pluralistic. Unlike Sharia law it does not play hide-and seek with scriptures. Its theological base is much stronger than that of Sharia law: the strongest weapon in the battle against the Sharia. Lest we forget Sharia-doctrine is the informal constitution of Radical Islam."

Let me also add that sharia itself states that it cannot be introduced into a non-Muslim country.

This perception is reinforced by a remarkable incident in Florida, where a local magistrate, Judge Richard Neilsen, ordered at the beginning of March that shariah-based arbitration should be recommended by the state authorities in a civil dispute between a Shia mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, and four members removed from its board of trustees.

An Islamic scholar in Texas decided that the quartet had been dropped from the board unjustly. In a ridiculous display of patronizing rhetoric presumably intended to flatter the Muslims and assure them of his goodwill, Judge Neilsen commented: "Islamic brothers should attempt to resolve a dispute among themselves. If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution."

The Shia mosque, however, rejected the adoption by the American court of shariah guidelines in their dispute, arguing through their attorney, as follows: "The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Koran and its teachings. They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts."

For Muslims living in a non-Muslim country, this is an exemplary position to take.

This speech was given at a meeting on "Religion, Law, Democracy and Human Rights" jointly hosted by the National Secular Society and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) on 14 March 2012 in conjunction with the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Alexa R (319)
Friday August 24, 2012, 12:17 am
Robert S: "I know and love people who are of the Muslim faith. They are in fact family. I take people as I find them."

So do I Robert, and I highly recommend it too.

Even during the time of Hitler and the Nazis, there would have been no point in hating all Germans and Nazis. I don't think anyone is disputing this aspect of what you're saying. The issue is not the people; it's rather the dangerous ideology (and for us today - this dangerous ideology is 80% of sharia law) that is for death, discrimination and destruction rather than for love and good will.

You remember Neville "Let's Keep Talking to Adolph" Chamberlain? Chamberlain's insistence on diplomacy bought Germany time to further prepare for war and emboldened Hitler to act when he thought the time was right.

THE idea sharia could operate as part of Australian law was ''misconceived'' and minority practices that offend moral standards should be abandoned, the former High Court judge Sir Gerard Brennan said last night.

''No court could apply and no government could administer two parallel systems of law, especially if they reflect - as they inevitably would reflect - different fundamental standards,'' he said.

To do so would result in two legal systems and confirm dual cultures, Sir Gerard said during a lecture in honour of the former law professor Hal Wootten at the University of NSW.

''The democratic principle prescribes that the culture of the majority is determinative of the legal structure,'' he said. In Islamic law, he said - quoting the president of the Abu Dhabi Supreme Court - customs and legal reasoning had to agree with the Koran. But in Australian common law there was a gap between the requirement of the law and individual moral standards.

''We call that gap 'freedom' and it allows Australian law to protect the cultural moral values of our minorities,'' he said.

The lecture also featured anecdotes from Sir Gerard's career and his reflections on the value of juries and the need for procedural fairness. He said in a multicultural society individuals were free to follow their own moral standards because of agreement about fundamental values, and Muslims were free to adhere to the beliefs, customs and practices prescribed by sharia ''insofar as they are consistent with the general law in force in this country''.

So a lot of people on the left, right, religious or secular and all the shades of grey inbetween are actually in agreement: former High Court judge Sir Gerard Brennan, Raheel Raza, Anne Marie Waters, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, etc.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri who became later on the second in command of Al-Qaeda. Some twenty-five years ago, he recognized the threat of Radical Islam and the need for a reformation based upon modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts.

Dr. Hamid provided a fresh and theologically valid interpretation for the Quran to counterbalance the radical teaching.

Alexa R (319)
Friday August 24, 2012, 12:19 am
Robert, my wish is to hear the horror pleas of these brave Somali Muslim women - and heed.

Alexa R (319)
Friday August 24, 2012, 12:21 am
Oops and Pakistani and whatever nationality ..

Robert S (111)
Friday August 24, 2012, 7:44 am
I too seek to heed the pleas of those as risk under extremists, though the Nazi/Muslim comparison is ridiculous and seems a pander to the haters here. It would be more reasonable and accurate to compare extreme Muslims to the extreme Christian Right. Both seek to have the rest of us live under their faiths laws. And the "war on women" is certainly another thing they have in common, though one might reasonably claim that this comparison is strained....given Wingers are not YET, those who disagree. Murder of doctors who perform abortions though, should be mentioned. Those on the Christian right who claim to be about helping woman must first remove the log from their own eyes.

Robert S (111)
Friday August 24, 2012, 7:46 am
given Wingers are not YET, stoning those who disagree

pam w (139)
Friday August 24, 2012, 8:11 am far as I know, the Christian "right" is not hosting camps to train suicide bombers...nor have they crashed planes into New York City. The Christian "right" is odious, indeed, but, to my knowledge...they haven't been sending women and children with bombs strapped to their bodies in order to kill hundreds of innocent people around the world...many of whom share their "religion."

Robert S (111)
Friday August 24, 2012, 8:56 am
"kill hundreds of innocent people around the world...many of whom share their "religion."

Thanks for pointing out that among those who suffer under extremist Muslims are non extremist Muslims. This is indeed the point of this discussion, specifically woman who suffer under Religious extremists, in this case Muslim extremists...

With a little would find that the author expands on this Muslim example, to include other Religions and their intrusion into government and therefor Secular law, as the larger problem though less extreme....problem.

One more thing. I can only surmise by your statements, that you do not hold "Christians" responsible for the body count of Muslim civilians in the "war on terror". Pray tell, why is it, you hold Muslims as a whole responsible for extremist acts of some who are Muslim....

Alexa R (319)
Friday August 24, 2012, 10:40 am
Robert S : “Both seek to have the rest of us live under their faiths laws.”

Robert; and secularists/atheists/humanists too have among their number some trying to force their rules on ALL .. so your point is?

As I cannot belief your point is that Muslim extremists should get away with crimes since there exist Christian extremists ..

Appeasing crime is a crime in itself, IMHO; if that’s what you’re pandering to..

Robert S (111)
Friday August 24, 2012, 12:58 pm
"secularists/atheists/humanists too have among their number some trying to force their rules on ALL"

You said it. Now back it up. Give examples. Who is doing this....and what rules do they seek to impose. Do you even know what those words "secularists/atheists/humanists" mean? Are they forcing Science on the ignorant? Are they, by not allowing Religious rules to govern the non Religious, forcing the Religious to mind their own damn biz and butt out of non Religious lives? Guilty as changed.

Do I think "Muslim extremists should get away with crimes since there exist Christian extremists " ?

Is that what I said? No. What I said (clearly to any paying attention) is that extremists exist on both sides, and that if you insist on blaming Muslims in general for the acts of some than you must apply the same standard to Christians. Duh.

"Appeasing crime is a crime in itself, IMHO; "

I appease nothing. You used the word appease to make your Chamberlain/Nazi/Muslim. concoction/connection.I have already stated position. It seems I must repeat it.

"Let's get this straight once and for all – a man who beats his wife is a criminal, and for the protection of the rights of all women, he must be punished and his actions condemned. Full stop. If you think this should apply only to white women and care nothing for the plight of your non-white sister, then you are a racist. Full stop."

Anne Marie Waters

I agreed. And on that point we agree it seems. But you go on past that point to compare Nazi and Muslim.

Using the Nazi/Muslim comparison seemed clearly aimed at pandering to the haters. You don't deny it, but simply ask to whom I pander...

" if that’s what you’re pandering to.."

That just a silly response. I appeal for fairness and reason. If Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal, then I suppose I Pander to those who are fair and reasonable, while you pander to those who irrationally hate an entire Religion. You do this by using hyperbole, comparing Muslims to Nazis. Full stop.


Alexa R (319)
Friday August 24, 2012, 1:52 pm
Robert, if you want a denial from me in so many words over and above my blindingly clear posts, no, I do not pander to haters, but I appeal for reason, fairness and justice in all my posts.

There are loads of things forced on all by humanists/atheists/secular society: ban on any religious expression (yet constantly having atheist/secular expression shoved down our throats), ban on headscarves for all at work except muslims, sometimes even muslims are not allowed, free sex, sex education, swearing, rude/crude pictures/jokes, abortion, halloween litter, etc, etc, etc. The list very long .. but this is not the point and off-topic.

The point of my news item is crimes committed against women, how to raise awareness of these and how we can best support these women. If you've any contribution to make, please be my guest, but if you wish to argue with me that secular/atheist is perfect or superior to religion, please try an appropriate thread topic, not this one.

Robert S (111)
Friday August 24, 2012, 4:24 pm
Your denial is noted. I did not ask for it, but simply noted its absence.

I find your "list" laughable but need not elaborate since as you say... its off topic.

I never used the words "perfect" or "superior", also I did not inject Nazi into the discussion. I will not further question your intent. I do not know it, having read little of you. I do think the words we choose are important or at least have value in translating our intent. My discernment is however not infallible. Your few posts escaped my notice till now. This is a good effort.

To make a point,
I would suggest that perhaps we should not judge all Germans, (as an example) even as we are repelled by the past or even present action/actions, of some of them. That is not to say the actions of some of them should not, or must not be stopped. Just sayin.

I will not, do not, allow my belief in Religious freedom, to be justification for passivity in the face of cruelty or injustice. That is one thing on its own.
Another is... Its important not to paint with too broad a brush if we desire to be taken seriously outside of bigoted circles where the idea of all Muslims speaking and behaving as one... is accepted. Peace


Abu Sajjad (6)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 4:00 am
The aim of many of post here seems to me to be yet another attack upon the religion of Islam by the same phoney crowd as always. I purposefully use the term 'phoney' because although there are genuinely misguided people, they are only so because of ignorance of the truth about Islam and those sorts of people do not write much more than one or two lines which are not false conjecture but are more about their primitive desire to harm members of the Muslim community and burn mosques. I know most of this crowed have seen Islam explained over and over again and all their slick lies and false 'evidence' has been torn to shreds. The very type of material often used is also conclusive proof of deliberate mischief; they will use just a small part of a verse to misrepresent the meaning which they know is perfectly reasonable when it is complete; this is proof of their deliberate and intentional mischief through lying.

If you are simply repeating lies from hate sites and are 'genuine' haters then I urge you to read the Quran so that you can see you have been completely misled. Those that claim to know the real Islam, and not the Robert Spencer Edition* of it, are either lying or they are definitely aware of the truth and beauty of Islam and are knowingly propagating lies as paid employment.
*Spencer is a professional islamophobe who has so far been paid [sold his soul] over a million dollars for his blatant lies.

I am sure it is neither natural for anyone to possess such vehement hatred for a beautiful religion nor is this forum representative of the public view of religion.

In my experience as a widely travelled Muslim living in the UK, I have never once come across anyone even vaguely hateful of Islam; let alone anyone who spends considerable amounts of time invested in pathetic attempts to malign it. I am surrounded by family and friends who are not interested in religion but none of them are bothered whether I am Christian, Muslim or Hare Krishna. This is a normal response; I have heard some racist jokes in my time but these people don't spend hours trying to get other to hate; this would be completely unnatural. If you don't want to be a Muslim or even to investigate this Great Faith then no worries; it is your loss. If you believe the Holy Quran is just a made up book then why make such a fuss about a made up book? There is a darker reason for the fabrication these lies and attempts to foment hatred of us; it wouldn't be the first time the media and politicians have lied to us nor the last. They will not succeed in any case; all they are doing is increasing interest in Islam and with it, the number of converts.

It is evident that there are at least two vastly differing views regarding the religion of Islam; one group says it is the absolute truth - a guidance for the God-aware and the other says it is evil. Clearly some proper investigation is warranted from an infallible and entirely trustworthy source. This source is obviously none other than the Holy Quran itself. No one can deny that it is the true fountainhead of our religion.
Popular wisdom is rarely infallible but if it were anything to take into account, it is worth remembering that there are around two billion Muslims in the world (one in four people are Muslims). When one takes the other religions into account, atheism is a minority viewpoint. The type of evil conjecture one can see on some posts here is extremely rare (thanks God) and confined largely to fanatical hate groups such as the violent and disorderly ultra-zionist 'English Defence League' (EDL). I am deeply ashamed to think I share the same colour passport of these Neanderthals but it is obvious where they get their inspiration for assaulting our gentle and modest sisters; it is from lies like those I see here. Please think about the consequences of fomenting hatred against a whole group of people; everything we do has consequences. It will come back on you sooner or later; this is God's law whether you like it or not - we reap what we sow.

It is an established and admitted fact, even by General Petraeus himself, that the Pentagon paid $2.4 million dollars to an arms dealing company (Ntrepid) for software which facilitates the saturation of social media with zionist propaganda by allowing a single agent to simultaneously run many fake online personas. This result is something like you can see here; an insanely imbalanced view which is not at all representative of public opinion. This would explain why many comments are so far from the truth and why the percentage of liars, racists and bigots is unnaturally high on this website and certain other social media. Their hope is that the 'sheep mentality' will cause others to mindlessly adopt their world view. Perhaps this is why intelligent people research for themselves and clowns like the EDL are sucked in by these blatant and easily provable lies and misrepresentations of Islam. Thankfully the number of EDL supporters is pitifully few and they are despised by everyone else.

Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) anticipated that Satan would adhere to his promise to drag us all to Hell by continuing to try and keep us from success in our path to God and salvation with propaganda like this. Indeed the Noble Quran even warns us of these unfortunates who collaborate with evil in order to lead the unthinking astray;

In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Merciful.

"Surely those who deny the truth spend their wealth to hinder people from the way of Allah, and will continue to so spend until their efforts become a source of intense regret for them, and then they will be vanquished, and then these deniers of the truth will be driven to Hell," Surah Al-Anfal: 36

Tyrants also want us to busy ourselves fighting each other rather than to uncover their banking scam and debt slavery so that we never get organised to resist their plutocracy - the result is that the ultra-rich get richer and the rest of us work harder while enjoying less and less freedom and quality of life. They also manage, with this same tactic, to convince the utterly weak-minded to invade the lands of others and murder innocent people for large corporations and the petty tyrants that serve them. No war was ever initiated except that the reason given to the public was a lie (or false flag event).

Does anyone really think this empire building will make us safer here in the west? The degree of oppression in Palestine is enormous - it is a prison with no roof and abject poverty - they are not even allowed basics needs in case they use it to defend themselves from their oppressors - yet still they were able to send rockets into Israel. I don't support harming civilians of course and Islam categorically and clearly forbids this but the point is that you cannot oppress people into submission - you will only give them more reason to retaliate and increase their determination and desperation; losing one's entire family and living amongst blood-soaked rubble might drive a Muslim to ignore the commandments of God and cause him to harm the non-combatants of an enemy nauz Billah (God forbid). The answer to 'terrorism' is to treat everyone fairly and better still, kindly, so we can all enjoy mutual love with our neighbours. If I am stealing from my neighbours and killing their friends and families, I will not be safe from them - why is this obvious fact ignored by the oligarchs and puppet politicians? They are not stupid; they are all educated - they know this too but they have an agenda to control the world by force; it is the only explanation for the current wars and for the 50 wars and military coups that the USA started since 1948.

The only sensible option for the discerning soul is to go directly to the source of Islam on which all Muslims agree is the verbatim word of God (Azza wa Jall) in order to know without any doubt, the truth of what is and what is not Islam. The Holy Quran is the only 100% accurate representation of Islam according to all Muslims and until one knows this entire book very well, they are in danger of being misled by mischief-makers.

I have no issue with those who wish to deny Islam and Islam does not encourage proselytising but I am pleased to have this opportunity to lessen the damage caused by deliberate misleading. It is easy for me to disprove every one of the filthy accusations against Islam using the Generous Quran and I have done this in the past on Care2 but the same filth keeps on coming - the same lies over and over. No normal person behaves like this. It is obvious they are reading from a script with a clear agenda and that is the only explanation why being proven wrong is not important to them; it doesn't even slow them down. There would be some point in presenting what is in the Quran if the haters were genuine but no amount of conclusive proof that they are wrong makes any difference; a few days later they are using the exact same mischief even though they know full well it is a lie. This must be because it is their job - they are not interested in facts; they just need to keep posting the lies in order to get paid. So I prefer to make people aware that these 'sock puppets' and 'pay-per-bloggers' exist and put a little doubt in genuine reader's minds as to whether these sock puppets are portraying the real Islam or whether they are serving another agenda entirely.

If we want to know the truth about a subject, it is important that we go to a bona fide source. It would be futile to ask a Satanist about any of the Great Faiths, just as it would be futile to seek knowledge about the beauty of African culture from a Klansman. Some of the people here obviously hate Muslims, as is their right; but it would be foolish to blindly believe anything they say about Islam. A wise soul would investigate Islam from the Holy Quran and read it in order and in context from a bona fide translation with added information on when the verse is revealed and under what circumstances. Or if you are not fond of reading then listen on YouTube to the lectures of Khalil Jaffer and Hassanain Rajabali or if the TV has wrecked your attention span, watch any of the amazingly blissful movies about our heroes and role models which are loyal to the Holy Teachings from websites such as

There is an endless supply of opinion about the Religion of Islam. Some of it is very beautiful and true to form but some sources are only created to mislead - propaganda is big business. A book already quoted here called 'The Reliance of the Traveller' is often quoted by the propagandists and those deluded by them in order to malign Islam but it is obvious to even a newcomer to Islam that this book does not represent Islam. There are even books of ahadith which appear genuine but contain clear fabrications. All scholars recognise systems of grading to show how likely or unlikely a narration is to be genuinely from the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) so it is best to start with the Holy Quran which all Muslims agree is perfectly preserved thanks to God - there is only one version of the Quran in Arabic and the most famous English translations all concur with each other.

Although I could be described as a male feminist, I abhor the gender war which is encouraged on the Zionist media and on social media. Islam clearly states that neither gender is superior. But for those that are cursed with genderism, and those who are not, there is a superb translation by Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar; an American Muslimah. Her translation, 'The Sublime Quran' is a masterpiece and has rightly earned enormous support and endorsements from many leading Muslim scholars and very little criticism.

Anti-Islamic media like to make a big deal about her translation simply because it does not advocate the alleged right 'to beat' but this is not uncommon at all. Like many translators, scholars, marjaa and lecturers, she also believes the Holy Quran does not permit beating of any kind against women under any circumstances. This is a view shared by the Ayatullah Mokarim Shirazi who is the highest authority for many Muslims concerning jurisprudence. There is ample evidence to prove this with several verses from Quran and the Sunnah and of course, the whole message and the principles of Islam of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Some less authoritative translators do indeed say that a man can eventually beat his wife if all else fails but their weak effort to attempt to justify contradicting such a weight of clear evidence in the Quran and Sunnah and the overall message of Islam is bizarre. This belief was not what she was criticised for; the most vocal critic seems to be from an American man from UCLA who didn't appreciate that she was not a native speaker of modern Arabic. This is preposterous since there are quite a few well loved and respected translations from non-native speakers and this is not a problem since Quranic Arabic is not the same as modern Arabic anyway; if anything it makes for a more poetic read with superior English skills.

Her translation has some glowing reviews in the Muslim world. Visit the website;

Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar’s translation is excellent in its own right and it makes no difference to me about her gender. I am planning to get myself a hardcover copy as soon as I can afford it. In softback is an absolute bargain at the moment (£3.67) so I just bought another copy to share; I would highly recommend it to anyone.

It is crucial for our continuing happiness that we all thoroughly study what God has sent to us in this miraculous Quran from the Quran itself. No other book is as loved or memorised in its entirety, even in the original language. Even though I am a westerner, I am slowly memorising it in Arabic and English - how many Christians know the Bible by heart in Aramaic? It would be such a shame if even one single soul was dissuaded from the ultimate truth of Islam by ridiculous lies; it is just not worth the risk to miss out of the most valuable asset that humans have been blessed with here on Earth, just because of unsubstantiated claims from a few rascals. At best these lies are written by ignorant and malleable victims of propaganda but more likely is that there are 'pay-per-blog' civilians who sell their souls to earn a pitiful few dollars for propagating lies which originate from either the Pentagon or the Israeli Ministry of Information (who have also openly admitted to employing bloggers to flood the internet with zionist* opinion). Your taxes are being wasted to lie to you and keep you ignorant to the bliss of God-Contact through Islam - the latest and final completed Revelation of God, subhan'Allah.

*Zionism could not be further from Judaism; in fact, my brethren in faith - the true [religious] Torah Jews (as salamu alaykum!) are also persecuted by zionists in a similar way to the Palestinian Christians and Muslims. Zionism is a century old political movement which is fundamentally racist; it states that Zionists are the master race and encourages the persecution of others - sounds familiar? That is because Zionism and Nazism were first introduced by the same man; Albert Pike, the Grand Master of World Freemasonry. Evidence of this is found in Pike's own Book, 'Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry' where he includes a letter dated August 15, 1871 to his European counterpart Giuseppe Mazzini which mentions both terms (Nazism and Zionism) for the first time in written history.

He also reveals the plan for three World Wars, two of which happened exactly for the reasons he described (and the third is already begun) - not because he was clairvoyant but because he and his organisation engineered and funded both sides. He believed he his master was Lucifer and even publically boasted about it, as have several other high ranking freemasons.

Doctor J. R. Church, a Christian man expands upon this very subject in this short presentation;

Albert Pike's 3 World Wars;

If you want to know more about this you can research the 'Khazar Empire'. Although this has long been widely understood among Muslim historians, this Christian man has also uncovered this history. May God protect him.

History of the Khazar Empire [Lecture by Jack Otto]

marie C (163)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 6:24 am
Dear Abu I feel you are the phoney one not some of the members of C2
You write pages and pages of the same drivvel just repeating your self
Some of your long drawn out comments sound so brain washed if you feel ashamed of your passport go somewhere where you won't have that dreadful feeling
I do not know which country you live it but it is insulting to any country to have a citizen make those comments
Obviously you do not live in a strict Muslim country so you are able to make those comments.
The Muslims I know are good people they openly condemn sharia law and the more educated we become we should be able to separate the past from the future. I am a Christian and I openly admit if Jesus was around today there would be a few changes but you appear to believe your good book from cover to cover.

Alexa R (319)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 6:55 am
As a zionist and devoted Torah Jewess myself Abu, I can assure you that whoever told you about zionists and Israel/Israelis were telling lies. We're positive people, who endeavour to make a positive difference in this world according to our Torah faith. If you wish to see evidence of our beauty, just google keywords like, "Israeli inventions", israeli art", "israeli music", israeli science", "israeli technology", "israeli eco or green projects", israeli humanitarian projects", "israeli pro-animal projects", etc. It's off topic, so it's up to you to google it or not.

Abu S wrote: "Pentagon paid $2.4 million dollars to an arms dealing company (Ntrepid) for software which facilitates the saturation of social media with zionist propaganda by allowing a single agent to simultaneously run many fake online personas"

IMHO, the vast majority of the media/blogging is extremely anti-zionist and anti-israel, so it would be rather laughable if we were truly so stupid to actually pay for all this anti-zionist and anti-israel propaganda. Once more, it's off-topic, thus it will be up to you to google the truth for yourself or not.

Abu, can you please try and stay on the topic of this thread, or find another thread for your zionist/israel bashing?

Robert S (111)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 12:30 pm

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 12:39 pm
Hi Robert,

I think you erred up above, and this may have led to the disagreement between you and Alexandra:

The best group to which to compare Islamic extremists is not the Christian Right of today's Western civilization. It is the Christian Right of about a thousand years ago, the Crusaders. Today's Christian Right is not stoning those who disagree with them, nor will it as long as it remains recognizably the same group that it is now. Things may change, and I expect them to go absolutely insane in the next decade in response to modern Islamic extremism and the degree to which discussion of it is suppressed, with something between a restoration of Nazism and something older and worse, but today's Christian Right is not appropriate for comparison.

Now, regarding the matter of secular groups trying to force their ideologies upon others, perhaps you should take a look at the German ban on circumcision, the French policy towards open display of religious symbols, and the very recent proposal by Pauline Marois in Quebec. (To those unfamiliar with the politics, in the Quebec case, it looks like Catholics trying to force dominance, but if you looks up the Quiet Revolution, you will find that these people are as secular as anyone gets. They see symbols of Catholicism more as symbols of Quebec heritage and difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada.) Then there are those who wish to have the teaching of religion banned in schools, even over the objections of students' parents and the schools' communities. I could cite more cases of secular supremacism if you want, even without glancing at the USSR's bans on religion.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 12:55 pm
Hi Abu,

It is possible that the "Islam" in which you believe and the "Islam" which some posters here consider abhorrent are two different things. The trouble is that some people, especially those who consider themselves of the religion in question, define it by their own interpretations of the religion's formative texts while outsiders define it by the practices and culture of the majority of its adherents. Now look at some large Islamic populations and things like women's rights:

Saudi Arabia just recently began addressing domestic abuse in its laws. Before last year, it was completely unchecked. It still maintains formal religion-police.

Iran, among the better ones, is looking to restrict access by women to university-programs which could bring them in contact with any foreign cultures. This is among the friendlier Islam-dominated cultures, and yet it maintains a government that supports multiple terrorist groups and violently puts down peaceful protests.

Pakistan, That is all that needs saying.

Malaysia kicks out anyone it finds helping refugees, including those working in the UNHCR office in the country.

Egypt appears incapable of functional liberal democracy.

Should I go on? Do you really want me to talk about Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places?

I consider "Muslims in general" and "Western Muslims" to be two distinct cultures.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 12:57 pm
Hi again Abu,

I should probably point out that Pakistan and Iran are not entirely bad cultures. There are subcultures within them that cause serious trouble. I identify those as the ones more definitive of Islam because they draw their distinct traits from interpretations of Islam while the rest of those societies draw their positions on the same issues from elsewhere.

Robert S (111)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 3:05 pm
Stephen B, You are entitled to your opinion, yet I have and do make the comparison and will continue to do so. Your only reasoning against the that the Christian "right" does not stone. I don't find this compelling, as I was certainly not comparing based on one thing alone. The Christian right seeks to impose its will on Sectarian law, and therefor all people living in this country. One could argue that they wish to follow the Islamic model while at the same time denouncing Islam. The "Christians" of today do not now burn so called witches....but it was not so long ago. Still even now this Patriarchal Religion seeks to hold women down albeit to a lesser degree than in their past or the Islamic present.

Fascism, is by definition a belief in a mystical superiority, of one group over all others. it were. I agree with Alexandra that it is the idea, not the people at fault. But any group of people may be, susceptible to the idea of their own superiority....can they not...
Its alluring. In the case of Religion, one must simply profess belief to be "in the club". Fascist were more about Race...ethnicity. On that basis and others, I find the reasoning for bringing up Nazi's, "strained"...thorough typical when one wants to invoke a Boogie man, simplistically.

Robert S (111)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 4:47 pm

Carola May (20)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 6:45 am
Robert S and Abu, and all other apologists for the hateful ideology of Islam, there's a new article on C2NN out of the most Islamic of all Islamic occupied countries - Saudi Arabia ( Islam is, after all, their religion. Mohammed was one of their people, and Islam and the Qur'an came directly out of their ancient religion (Allah is the ancient name of the pagan Arab chief deity, the Moon God - even Allahu Akbar was cried out before Islam - Allah is Greatest! That is because he was the greatest of all the other gods in their pantheon of deities. Allah does NOT mean 'god', that word in Arabic is Ilah).

The main practices noted in Islam, the hajj, stoning the 'devil', fasting for a lunar month (to honour the moon/lunar deity), praying toward the Ka'aba (the revered black rock of the pagans Mohammed kept), praying several times a day, the crescent moon on every mosque (symbol of the moon god, Allah) - ALL came directly out of the old pagan religion as Mohammed reached agreement with the pagan leaders to keep the name of Allah (the 4th name he used for his new religion's deity) and the familiar rites the people knew.

Even the Qur'an, what has survived the Riddah Wars after Mohammed died when Muslims were killing each other over leadership power and many tried to leave Islam, thinking with Mohammed's death they could safely escape from their forced conversions - wrongly it turned out, and many of those who had memorized parts of it were killed (Allah wasn't paying attention apparently) so those parts were lost, but a lot of the Qur'an was copied directly from ancient Arab poems and the sermons of the Yemeni Hanafi 'prophets' who gave Mohammed much of his ideas.

Anyway, Saudi Arabia is the true Orthodox Islamic country with its laws being Sharia law, so what they do is NOT 'extreme' or 'radical', it is true Orthodox Islam, straight from the Islamic trilogy and found in The Reliance of the Traveller, the premier text on jurisprudence. So this article shows true Islam's tenets as the Saudis, who allow zero freedom of religion, speech, conscience or press, as Mohammed didn't do either, are having a tizzy fit because a Saudi woman actually converted to Christianity and managed to flee the dictatorship without a man's permission! Shocking! So now the men accused of helping her are going to be put on trial, and the penalty for them under Islamic law is death.

Let's hear you Islamist appeasers defend this. Come on Abu, you talk a lot but you never give any proofs to counter the proofs we give from your own scriptures. You are talking about a religion that doesn't exist. That's why you can't prove it is the glorious, kind love-fest you want us to swallow.

Robert S, are you paying any attention at all? Of course there are educated, modern Muslims who ignore all the hate and violence. So? Who said there weren't? You seem to condemn the Tea Party, Evangelical Christians, Republicans et al without any difficulty, yet you insist no one can challenge the ugly teachings of Islam without being fascists, racists, bigots, haters, islamophobes etc. Well, that's a clever tactic to silence your opponents, but it stinks.

Are you saying there aren't any good people in those groups you hate? All Republicans and Tea Partyers are bigots and hatemongers? You can't have it both ways, my dhimmi friend.


Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 12:17 pm
Dear Alexander, you have every right to claim that you are a religious Torah Jewess and a Zionist, just as a meat-eater has every right to claim they are vegetarian. But equally, anyone who is well informed will know that these concepts are diametrically opposed.

A fundamental Jewish belief is that they are denied a homeland (by divine decree) before the return of the Messiah (according to Jews, their Messiah is yet to come). But Zionism is fundamentally about establishing a homeland. Clearly this is more than incompatible - it is equally as irreconcilable as a vegetarian meat-eater.

Judaism was a genuine religion of God (Mighty and Majestic), brought to us by a divinely inspired prophet of God (peace be upon him). As with every stage of God's religion, Jews are told to treat others as they would like to be treated; in fact, it is the main focus of Judaism, it is all about 'the Great Principle';

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

So how can 'Jewish' Zionists (there are also Christian and secular Zionists) bear the slaughter, dispossession and oppression of an entire nation so that they can have their illegitimate* homeland (*both religiously and under secular International Law) at the expense of others? Clearly this concept is also incompatible with the policies of the Zionist entity regarding the abuse and total disregard of the human and God-given rights of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims. How can they slaughter the same innocent men, women and children that had been kind and friendly neighbours to the Jews for centuries? I can show you several documentaries where the old folk in Palestine remember fondly the days when Jews and Muslims babysat each other's children and were best friends. It all changed with the advent of Zionism; this is what they say;

Israeli Jewish man says Zionism is the cause of the problems

There are so many irreconcilable differences between Judaism and Zionism that I could be writing for months and still not come close to describing them.

My knowledge of the Holy Torah comes directly from the Holy Torah and Jewish holy teachings from devout Jews who love their religion. I am an enthusiastic and devoted student of all Great Faiths; Islam encompasses all the previous prophets of God (peace be upon them all) and reverently refers to many of them by name in the Holy Quran. I believe that if you want to know the truth about a religion or ideology, go to someone who loves it - never trust someone who hates it because they will want to give you the wrong impression; it is folly to rely on their evidence.

It is not that I hate all Zionists - Richard Goldstone seems an ok guy at least and neither would I deny anyone's right to a homeland but not at the mortal expense of others. But the zionist policies speak volumes about zionism and it is difficult to stomach how the Palestinians were initially massacred and driven from their homeland and equally difficult to stomach how they are now treated in the militarily occupied Palestinian territories (Gaza and the West bank). Until this policy of ethnic cleansing changes, we should all reject Zionism as a racist and cruel political movement. It is responsible for operating what can only be described as an apartheid based on race.

Zionism has attempted to impersonate Judaism in order to politically 'cash in' on very real suffering of the Jews specifically during the Second World War. Whenever someone criticise Zionist atrocities they are branded as 'anti-Semites' or if they are Jewish, they are accused of 'self-hating'. In this way, the Zionists hope to discourage criticism by scaring anyone who speaks out against the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians with the disgrace of religious bigotry and racism. But the argument persists; why are Palestinians - even their children, having to pay for Nazi atrocities?

Just look at the difference of who introduced these concepts; Moses (peace and blessings be upon him) was one of the most awesome prophets of all time; he was the only human prophet who ever spoke directly to God - what an honour! We Muslims also revere him greatly and he is mentioned 36 times in the Holy Quran.

On the other hand, the creator of zionism was in fact Albert Pike, who was a self confessed worshiper of Lucifer. He claimed he had an amulet in which he could communicate directly with Lucifer; I know that will sound crazy to many but he believed it. Theodor Herzl was only the presenter of Zionism some 24 years after it was first mentioned by Albert Pike in his published letter to Mazzini. One thing upon which we all agree is that Zionism was certainly not from any prophet of God.

These videos are typical of feelings of religious Jews towards Zionism;

The Anti-zionist Jews of Jerusalem 1/5

Rabbi Weiss Rips the Ideology of Zionism

Jews Against Zionism

Orthodox Jews protest against Zionism

Zionist Thugs Beating Up Jewish Rabbis (WARNING; this is very upsetting)
Read the description for the background

The most harmful place for Jews is in Israel

'Judaism Yes, Zionism No': Ultra-Orthodox Jews march against Israel

To Those Who Think All Jews are Pro-Israel & Zionists By Israel Shamir

Further reading

Taking the point you mentioned about the 'Sock Puppets', your comment makes it seem like you misunderstood their goal; the idea of the software is to fraudulently pretend to be supporters of Zionism and to malign Islam. But I believe you understood me and are actually playing games for the sake of confusing the readers.

You accused me of being off topic but actually I was bang on topic. I may not be singing the same mantra as you guys but this thread seems to be a deliberate attempt to malign Islam under the guise of protecting Muslim women. But what many of the comments here might achieve is quite the opposite because by fomenting hatred of Islam with the lies here, Muslim women are even more likely to be attacked by the sort of Neanderthals that align themselves with extreme racist and bigoted ideologies. And the guise of the anti-Islamic rhetoric today is Zionism.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 12:29 pm
Dear Marie, please don't misquote me; I did not insult our country; I was clearly ashamed of the English Defence League (EDL) and I very much hope that no one ever gets the impression that they represent the vast majority of kindly people of the UK. Our government is also very concerned about the EDL and so are the police in charge of monitoring them.

There were massive protests against the Iraq war here and I am very proud of that; sadly our government went ahead with it in spite of enormous protest from just about everyone. I am also ashamed that our politicians lied to us about WMD's and so any other important matters but this is because I love this land; not because I dislike it.

It is patriotic to abhor the lies of our leaders. I love most of the people of the UK but power corrupts and we must hold the corrupted ones accountable to preserve our country. Listen to the speech that Kennedy made before you think it is patriotic to agree with everything your government does;

John F. Kennedy Speech

We must not stifle dissent or hide mistakes. We must encourage whistleblowers and expose dirty secrets if we want freedom and justice for all.

By enjoying the freedom of speech in the UK, I am also glorifying this country regarding that particular liberty. It is true that in some countries this luxury is not afforded and it has nothing to do with whether that country is Muslim or not. Is China a Muslim country? China has some of the toughest censorship laws. Much of the world is controlled by puppets of globalist 'banksters'. The monarchy of Bahrain is murdering anyone who speaks out for freedom or Islamic governance but although the population is largely Muslim, their leaders are not adhering to Islam; it is a monarchy for starters and this is not the way of Islam. The same is true of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; again not an Islamic system. They are a tyrannical monarchy that quite literally holding hands and kissing with the ex-president Bush. The Saudi financial system is entirely forbidden in Islam and so are their many unjust laws. Do not confuse the beautiful system of governance which God prescribed in Islam with the western puppet tyrannies that can be seen on every continent.

A strict Muslim theocracy would encourage lively debate and protect freedom provided that they were not treasonous or illegal according to jurisprudence which is set in stone and not subject to the whims and desires of corrupt men. Sadly there are very few true theocracies in the history of the world. If Muslim countries were not ruled by tyrannical puppets of international banksters, they would not allow usury (charging interest) for a start. Those in the Middle East who didn't want usury and haram fiat currency (forbidden in Islam) are pressured or invaded and their leaders murdered if they do not comply.

No genuine Muslim would ever condemn Shariah. It means 'The path to the watering hole' and it is the path that every Muslim must adhere to in order to find God. What are your sources for what you believe is Shariah? What exactly do you mean by 'shariah law'? Shariah is about enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil. It is the practical application of Islam.

The principles of right and wrong do not change with the passing of centuries. Islam is as relevant today as it was when it was completed and I accept every word of the Holy Quran as the verbatim word of God. If you dislike something from the Quran try reading a few verses before and after it and read the purports of scholars so that you understand the context and to whom it is referring. If you still do not like something about it then contact a scholar or visit your local mosque to discuss it. It is the deliberate misquoting of tiny snippets of the Quran and an ocean of lies such as those we can see here on this thread that leads to this irrational hatred; not the truth about it.

If you became educated about Islam you would see your dislike is irrational. Islam is the natural conclusion of all my scholarly studies; the Noble Quran is a towering giant compared with anything that I read prior to it and yet the words used to describe Islam are not complex. This is but one of many miracles of the Noble Quran.

As a Christian, I expect you believe that the Jews unfortunately didn't recognise our Mighty Messenger Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). Sadly, you have fallen to the same error and not recognised the subsequent prophet even though your holy book predicts his coming as well. The Holy Prophet Jesus (alayhi salaam) features five times more often than the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) in our Noble Quran and there is a whole chapter on the Blessed and Chaste Mary (peace be upon her). You would do well to read it one day; it is the completion of religious teaching and it encourages us to embrace all of the previous prophets (peace be upon them all).


Robert S (111)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 12:38 pm
Carola, You just gave the link which points back the page on which we are now writing. Not to CNN. Are YOU paying attention my Dimwit friend?

"Of course there are educated, modern Muslims who ignore all the hate and violence."
Glad to see one among you admit it. I would add, that they do not just ignore it, but speak out against it. And I would add that the number of Muslims who do this are many. I am not an apologist for Islam. I simply acknowledge that many Muslims DO NOTHING for which they should apologize, despite Religious doctrines teachings....just as is the case with many Christians and Jews..

"Who said there weren't? "

Though I think Religion itself something the world would be better off without, people have the right to believe whatever crap they want.

If you are the TeaParty, I don't condemn you, but I am against you. If you are Evangelical...fine. If you are invested in imposing your beliefs on my country, I both condemn that goal and am against you. If you are Republican....good luck, because the first two mentioned, now run your party. The TeaParty is just the CRight, still duped, but now funded by the Super Rich who see how easy it is to use simpleton zealots against their own country. While Corporate rule has taken over this country, your worried about Sharia, while wanting your very own version of it. Christian Theocracy. Sad.


Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 1:08 pm
Hi Robert :)

Here is a far more general distinction between the Christian Right and many Islamic supremacists: While both groups often wish to have their ethics written into law, the Christian Right generally does not apply extrajudicial means by which to enforce its desires. It works strictly within the system, not trying to force its codes of behaviour upon non-Christians, nor even upon other Christians, except where deemed appropriate by formal legal authorities.

The troubling fact is that nearly every political faction wants to impose some codes of ethics upon the entire society, whether those codes revolve around the environment, relations between ethnic groups, taxation, or whatever. This is borne of two sources: First, people accept given codes of ethics because they deem those codes to lead to more virtuous behaviour than any alternative of which they are aware. Second, they want to make the world a better place, and one of the most effective ways to do that is to regulate society to have its members behave in a more virtuous manner (for whatever definitions of "virtue" and "better"). There are exceptions, factions so skeptical even of their own judgment that they do not trust their judgment of what is right to the point where they would try to force it upon others. (I normally favour those ones, considering them superior even if they refuse to claim it themselves.) However, this desire alone, to write one's ethics into law, is common enough that we could compare Islamic supremacists to environmentalists, or progressives in general, on those grounds as easily as to Christian supremacists.

It is definitely true that the Christian Right, a long time ago, was just as bad as Islamic Supremacists are now, and that the modern faction, being its descendant, bears some similarities. However, there are major differences due to a key historical difference, one which I have posted elsewhere on Care2 (and which I developed originally while discussing matters in another forum, one I call the "anti-Care2") a few times: I could give you a link for a fuller discussion, but the short version is that the Western tradition of conquest includes allowing the conquered people to maintain their culture while taking them on as full subjects while the Caliphate's tradition prevented conquered peoples from claiming full status without identifying with the conquering culture. As a result of this and the fact that back then Islam was relatively enlightened, parts of the Caliphate, and even post-Caliphate regions, became far more culturally monolithic and, without the variety of ideas and voices in social discourse for which cultural diversity is needed, their social development stalled many centuries ago. They would absolutely freak out if told this, but groups like al Qaeda really are modern-day Crusaders.

The difference between the two groups is really "only" about 600-1000 years of social development. Yes, the Christian Right generally pushes backwards, theoretically in the direction of the 11th-15th century where Islamic supremacists are culturally. However, Western Religious Right groups are of the modern era. What makes these groups look so much like Islamic supremacists is the fact that when we look at a group of which we are not a part, we tend to concentrate on the differences, not the similarities so, even sometimes with close examination, we exaggerate those differences. The direction in which Christian and Islamic supremacists try to push things is similar so while the scale is very, very different, after the exaggeration this may be difficult to see. I won't presume to know your thoughts so I won't say that this very common cognitive issue is why you see the groups similarly, but it is something worth checking at least for your own benefit.

Another quick detail: Fascism does not include any mystical belief, nor even technically any belief of one's group's superiority to others. It is simply the consensus that it is better for the group to function as a unit than as a collection of individuals and structures. This leads to an opposition to the infighting which necessarily arises from democracy and with that, an abandonment of democracy. With decisions necessarily made by some decision-maker, it becomes a dictatorship legitimized by consent of the ruled. Functional cases of fascism include functional (and generally happier) households where children consent to having the household ruled by the parents. They include military forces where subordinates agree to follow their leaders and work together even at the cost of a better plan (and this was the origin of the symbol of Fasces, from which Fascism got its name). A third, very ironic, case is that of a functional electoral system where, at least for the purposes of an ongoing election, nobody questions the system itself even if they believe it will create an authority which goes against their own personal positions, with the fascism going so far as to have political factions simply accept defeat if it dictates that they should do so. (I believe that democracy fails to take hold so often after pro-democracy reforms or revolutions because people try to copy its structures, but reject fascism to the point where they cannot make democracy work.)

Alexa R (319)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 1:31 pm
Abu S: "Dear Alexander, you have every right to claim that you are a religious Torah Jewess and a Zionist, just as a meat-eater has every right to claim they are vegetarian. But equally, anyone who is well informed will know that these concepts are diametrically opposed."

Ha, ha .. rather funny .. maybe the Alexander you are talking about is, but I (Alexandra) am certainly no 'meateater' .. and so who said or decided that your claim about what I am or what Alexander is, is superior to what I and many others like me know about myself and ourselves (or knows about Alexander -- is he a zionist too? a meateating zionist or a vegetarian one and is he a Torah Jew too)? There is certainly no conflict between zionism and Judaism, both has at its core that life is to be treasured. Whoever told you about zionism and/or Judaism had told you lies.

I will ask you only once more, Abu, please try to stay on the topic of this thread or else find another more appropriate thread for your zionist/Israel bashing.

Any further zionist/israel bashing on this thread will simply be reported as off-topic by me; as there are plenty of care2 threads where I debate these openly. If you cannot respect thread boundaries or commenters, then I hope you're not expecting respect in return.

Robert S (111)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 3:15 pm
Alexandra...You make much of a misspelling. Is this because Abu has otherwise been on target? It is a fact that many Jews see Zionism and the homeland as against Judaism. He gives examples, and it is not the first I've heard or seen of this declension in the ranks as per Zionism. You counter with opinion, simply stating he lies with no substantive rebuttal. Of course you may pull the "topic" card, yet you did respond, and that response I must say, in the name of fairness...was a bit feeble.

When I say "on target" I do not mean to say that Abu's slanderous Zion/Satan statements are anything but the slander they are intended to be. The "who" that "invented" Zionism seems trivial/sensational and is useful only as a tool to bash a people who want a homeland. At this point I think they should have it, though I am horrified by the apparent greed involved in "settlements" out waying efforts at peace. The "ownership" of property caused even devout Jews who were before against the homeland reconsider.... This fact, raised my eyebrows, and is noted.

I know, I know...Topic. But I have said all I need say on the subject. The rights of woman come first, before dogma written by man, whoever he claims as deity. I am man and I say no to it. Not on my watch. Equality for ALL. If this infringes your your Religion. So be it. For the Muslims I know. Its not an issue.

marie C (163)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 4:11 pm
Dear Abu the EDL and BNP are strong in London and even stronger in the North East of England where as you know the first mosque was built.
As far as I know there main concern is the Muslims who have many children and have no intention of ever working and claim everything they can possibly get their hands on
I am sure you are an honest person who works and does not depend on the British tax payer to provide for you and your family.
As far as I know EDL and BNP accept Muslims who are British get honest jobs and respect our values
obviously there are some crazies as there are in the people who believe in Islam and other religions also in the many organizations currently working in UK .Sorry to say but your comments appear closed to anything except Islam


Robert S (111)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 4:43 pm
Stephen, :?)

"The Christian right seeks to impose its will on Sectarian law, and therefor all people living in this country. One could argue that they wish to follow the Islamic model while at the same time denouncing Islam."

By "its will" in the case of the "Christian Right" or fundamentalists/extremists, we see a desire and will, to impose an exact reading of the bible word for word on all people, step by step, and forever claiming persecution because they are held at bay from converting us all against our will. It is a stretch to compare the desire for clean water and regulation toward that end, as having any resemblance to this, but as to extra Judicial means. The murder of Doctors who do abortions must have slipped your mind.

Fascism does not include any mystical belief, nor even technically any belief of one's group's superiority to others.

"Fascism, Fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme"

Oliver H. Woshinsky. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2008.Pp. 156.

As Jesse Owens and many others proved, this idea of superiority must have been it certainly was not factual.

My seem to have a certain affection/reverence for Fascism. Say it ain't so!


Alexa R (319)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 11:30 pm
Robert S: "You don't deny it .. “

Robert S: “Your denial is noted. I did not ask for it, but simply noted its absence. "

Robert S: "You counter with opinion, simply stating he lies with no substantive rebuttal. "

You cannot have it both ways Robert! First you rebuke me for ignoring off-topic issues without a clear denial in so many words, and now you rebuke me when I do give a clear denial in so many words ..

Also, have you missed what I so clearly said, Robert?

Alexandra R. (276) Sunday August 26, 2012, 1:31 pm: "as there are plenty of care2 threads where I debate these openly"

If you're interested in my fully substantiated rebuttals Robert on the issues surrounding a large numbers of Jews who are Zionists and why and a large number of Jews who are anti-zionists and why, there are many threads where I debate this topic in-depth.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday August 27, 2012, 7:18 am
Hi Robert,

Oliver H. Woshinsky aparently had his own definition of fascism which differed from the meaning of the old Roman standard of Fasces and the philosophies of every fascist group ever, aside from the Nazis. What he described was actually another part of Nazi doctrine, separate from fascism.

It ain't so. :) I don't have a reverence for fascism. It, like democracy, has its place. It is good and beneficial in its place, and astoundingly horrible if applied elsewhere. Self-identifying modern fascists are those who tried applying its philosophy to legitimize governments, perhaps the most frightening application possible. The exceptional threat of fascism is that its underlying philosophy leaves its adherents likely to claim power in realms where it can be extremely dangerous.

The murder of doctors did actually slip my mind. Thanks for the reminder. :) Still, these ones are not representative of the Christian Right and, often, not even of it. the trouble is that, contrary to the narrative often supported in the media, members of the "right to life" crowd are often not religiously motivated. They simply see the fetus as a person, so they see abortion as murder, outside of cases where the mother acts in self-defence. One does not need to be religious to oppose murder. On top of that, the original "religious" argument against abortion, even when the mother is threatened, is that the destruction of a fetus amounts to the death of a person and some line of logic claiming that when the consequences are undesirable either way, acts of omission are morally preferable to acts of commission. This philosophy ingrained even in modern secular culture. (If you murder someone then you are guilty of murder, but if you fail to save someone from an accident then you are usually deemed innocent.) Even those who are religiously motivated do not really represent the Christian Right as most of the Christian Right condemns such acts and would try to stop the murder of a doctor if given a chance to do so.

It's not really that much of a stretch to go from the Christian Right to environmentalists. There are those who demand that people limit themselves to one child per couple, to reduce the human population. There are those who insist that we must abandon the electric grid and go back to pre-industrial technology. The trouble is often not their support of their objectives, but their demands regarding specific means by which to achieve them. The same is actually true of the Christian Right. Both groups will often lose the forest for the trees if you ask them, saying they want wind-power rather than saying they want environmental stability, for example. However, both of their sets of objectives are good, whether they be environmental stability, beauty, and good health, or charitable, productive communities with high respect for law and social order. The danger is almost always in the side-effects brought on by the methods of achieving those goals upon which they insist.

Robert S (111)
Monday August 27, 2012, 2:20 pm
"The political ideology of fascism can be briefly described as a right-wing dictatorship. However, when spelled as "Fascism" with a capital F, it refers to the specific regime in 20th century Italy under Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Nazism, which was the predominant ideology in Germany from the 1930's to the 1940's, can be viewed as a more specific type of fascism (with a lower-case f). Not all fascists are Nazi's, but it would be all but required to support fascist ideology in order to be a true Nazi. Fascists are not necessarily racist, which is contrary to the anti-Semitic doctrines which are at the core of Nazi ideology.

The central theme of Fascism is the state. The state is supreme and everything revolves around the state. The central theme of Nazism is the race. The race is the "master race" and all other races must either serve the "master race" as slaves or must be eliminated from existence. The state under Nazism serves the sole purpose of the advancement of the "master race." Nationalism is one aspect of Fascism. However, nationalism is often used to stress the superiority of the national culture as opposed to other minority cultures. Fascism accepts other groups, provided that the minority groups reject their culture, language, and religion for the superior nationalism. For example, the fascist Christian Socialists advocate the conversion of Jews to Christianity, not the extermination of the Jewish race, as the Nazi German Nationalists would have it. Fascism wants to exterminate the culture, not the people."

Well said I think.

I literally have no more time for this. I know its off topic but I must get ready to go to Alaska. Leaving in a few days. Lots to do. I enjoyed some of the minds here. See Ya.


Abu Sajjad (6)
Monday August 27, 2012, 3:27 pm
Dear Alexandra, my apologies for spelling your name incorrectly, I hope you can forgive me as it was entirely unintentional. If you change your mind and would like to engage me on the irreconcilable differences I mentioned between Judaism and Zionism rather than threaten to censor me, I would be delighted to oblige.

May I respectfully suggest that admitting to everyone that you will not tolerate free speech on an American based internet community is not going to win votes for you or Zionism. What is the harm even if I was a little off topic according to you? Are we not permitted to discuss issues which arise from our discussions? Who makes that rule? It doesn't seem to be one of the many terms and conditions of Care2.

In any case; 'flag as inappropriate' is for advertising spam or rude or abusive posts; not for opinions that differ from your own or seem to you to be off topic. What about our 'inalienable' right, even to be a fool? I have made every attempt to be polite and talk about the issues as I see them. It is regrettable that you don't see this hence my appealing to your compassion and fairness to allow those whom you think are astray to also have their say.

Perhaps censorship is normal inside your country but thankfully we might as well be in Kansas now dear Toto; the policy is still free speech even if you have found a way to censor those you do not wish to hear. If I was 'using up' valuable room on the website I could understand but it seems to be large enough for both of us. Perhaps you could just skip my posts and not read them if you don't wish to be taken 'off topic' as you see it. You never know, some people may like to hear my opinion or may wish to debate with a Muslim. Perhaps there are some three letter organisations who are keen to hear what I have to say and will squirrel my posts away in their huge computer :p (Christians may be interested to know that they call this computer 'The Beast')

It is odd that bashing Islam on subjects unrelated to feminism with fabrications, misquoted verses and lies counts as 'on topic' yet when I discuss what I personally believe is the whole point and reason and origin of the original post and for some of the comments, I am threatened with censorship.

Is it that only 'anti-Islamic' free speech is allowed in your opinion? And why am I not permitted to answer questions directly posed to me and rebuttals to my posts, even when they belong to you? Must we all sing the same mantra? Are you not ashamed of your Orwellian idea? I'm grateful to God that you cannot censor my thoughts although I am sure your masters are working on that too :p

Incidentally, how many fake identities would it take to 'flag to death' a post or news item? If we all went down your road, Care2 would be virtually empty of comment; it is rare that everyone agrees. Mature individuals cope well with differences and wise people even celebrate the fact that God made us all so unique. But tyrants and their collaborators like to silence dissent and force integration rather than respecting every religion. Did you not hear the Kennedy speech I posted earlier? It's really wonderful - give it a go; remember - America is the Zionist's best buddy :)

If "life has to be treasured" really is a Zionist concept, how does this sit with the apartheid laws of the Zionist entity concerning occupied Palestine? This is very interesting; either we believe your words about Zionism or we believe the actions of the Zionist entity. Perhaps you would say this cruel entity persecuting Palestinians does not represent Zionism? Or does it? If you are brave enough and not ashamed then please enlighten us. If not then carry out your threat and have me silenced; it will not be the first time this has happened to me on Care2. Thankfully, the others who track this story will still be able to view my posts from their inbox and in the past, they have even copied and re-pasted them up on the thread again after they are censored with their own rather strong feelings about free speech added to my original post.

Anyway, having replied to you once again, I will continue my 'on topic' comments; that is, if you and the other multiple personas allow me to :p

If we look at the worst abusers within any religion or secular ideology, such as those alleged in this particular 'National Secular Society' article, we will find the same ugly human flaws as we see in the worst of every community. And all this will tell us is that 'man is err'. If we want to examine the truth about a particular religion or Ideology then we must go to their source; to their scripture or manifesto.

I am more than willing to join in with you all, in condemning every abuse of women. I am 100% behind protecting women because then you protect their children, and if you succeed, society will blossom and its adults will be more kindly and balanced. The abuse of women spells disaster for any society - women are absolutely the cornerstone of every great nation. But I just thought the comment here was a little one-eyed and needed some balance and perhaps a wider perception might add something to the debate.

The point I have laboured but been unsuccessful to convey to many here is, for example; that it is useless to judge Americans harshly or to slander the lovely American Constitution even if they do have a generally high murder rate there. It is not the fault of the secular or cannon laws of the majority faith (Christianity). There are all manner of factors; far too many to decide that any one issue is to blame; it is futile to even attempt to pin blame on anyone except the individual murderers themselves. To understand an evil man, you would probably have to go all the way back to their childhood and view everything that happened to them. You cannot select something like hair colour, skin colour, political leaning or religion and blame that and then tar the whole group with the same brush. But this is exactly what I see here; Islam is again getting unjustly bashed in this way. So I wondered why and I presented my opinion - how is that off topic? After that, I have only responded to the comments; in fact, it was your comment dear Alexandra that I was responding to when you accused me of being off topic! Life is so unfair! :*(

I shouldn't really have to remind people that generalising, racism and bigotry is wrong - this is preschool wisdom! Yet it is here on this very thread.

There are some details by another dear soul who I won't name because no matter how much I would like to be gentle, it is impossible to address playground insults such as "moon god" without causing a little embarrassment to that person. But really, my dear sister in humanity, as much as I have love for everyone, your comments are not even worth the time to read. How do you expect a Muslim to respond to accusations of moon worship? As it happens, our calendar is based on the path of the moon but does this mean that all Christians and Jews worship a sun god? Their calendar is based on our movement relative to the sun is it not? Although worshiping Babylonian polytheist satanic sun gods (Horus/Helios) is surprisingly popular among world leaders, banksters and famous TV and pop idols, one cannot assume it is the same for every westerner for the reasons I have stated. This is too remedial to even bother explaining any further - we don't worship the moon ok. I am just sad that a few lost souls will never enjoy the security of God-Contact though embracing Islam because of silliness like this. I lament for their poorly hearts.

In response to the same dear soul; 'Allah' literally means 'The God' as in 'The [One] God' (may He be glorified and exalted). Islam was sent, among other things, to affirm that 'there is no god except God' and that Allah (Azza wa Jall) is One without any partners whatsoever - no three in one god or one in three god like some polytheists sects of Christianity. This is called 'Tawheed' in Arabic and it basically means 'monotheism'. It is a far cry from paganism and polytheism. The reason I rarely read any further when I see comments like yours is because it is only venting irrational hatred rather than inviting informed discussion. I don't know why you seem so angry, I have my theories but please dear sister, for the sake of your blood pressure if nothing else, try and cure yourself with genuine knowledge from source. Mr Spencer (famous Islamophobe) doesn't care about your poor heart but I do. I would love to see your anger soothed away and I believe that the truth about Islam could be a cure for you on every level insha'Allah (God willing).

Again in response to my dear but angry sister (if you don't censor me Alexandra, maybe I can help this nice lady to save on medical bills), we don't worship idols. The Kaaba was originally built by the prophet Abraham (alayhi salaam); Abraham is remembered in all Great Faiths for being the destroyer of idolatry - if you want to blame Islam for the Kaaba then you have to first blame Judaism and then Christianity. Praying to God in the direction (Qibla) of the Kaaba is now prescribed by God thus it cannot be Idolatry. Idolatry began to grow again and but our Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi salaam) destroyed the idols that had been placed inside the Kaaba and it is Allah (Azza wa Jall) who crushes idolatry in the hearts of all those who had the wisdom to fully embrace Islam.

I already mentioned above that 'The Reliance of the Traveller' does not represent Islam - it contradicts the Holy Quran and was only written to malign us. Anything which contradicts the Quran is not Islam; this is a view taken by every Muslim. It is the benchmark for our scholars to assess hadith.

As I said previously, there is nothing Islamic about tyrannical monarchies such as Saudi Arabia. It is possibly the worst example of a 'Muslim' state and if it were not for the cruelty inflicted upon dissenters within its own people, or if the people decided to gain some courage and provided an alternative, I am sure there would be a major change for the better. Islam predicts that Mecca and Medina (in Saudi Arabia) will be the first to be freed after the reappearance of our Imam Mahdi (Ajjal Allahu Farajah) - so it's small wonder that the Saudi government are busy trying to corrupt public opinion and rewriting Islamic hadith without any mention of this.

There are enemies of Islam in high places in Saudi. They granted permission and built a masonic monstrosity which towers over the Kabaa and the Masjid al-Haram against the wishes of the Muslim Ummah. It has always been forbidden for any building to be more conspicuous yet they have gone insane and built the largest hotel in the world with the largest clock in the world right next to the beautifully simple and modest Kaaba. And then they wrote "There is no God" (astaghfirullah) on the face of the clock in Arabic just to proclaim and boast their apostasy in an attempt to rub our noses in it. But they will be the losers; this is God's promise.

Saudi is still the only country in the entire world where women are not allowed to drive and may God reward and protect our sisters for protesting this injustice and many others, ameen. Perhaps it will be the women once again, who will initiate the spark which will bring down these dictators just as Lady Zaynab (alayhas salaam) brought the tyrannical rule of Yazid to an end by exposing his horrific injustices. Many of the courageous Islamic heroes and role models are in fact women. They often became a powerful media as witnesses and bold public speakers who dared to reveal injustices throughout history.

You only have to watch Iranian films to see how heroic and powerfully the women are portrayed; check out the Mukhtar Narrative or especially the Guardianship of Love - the delightfully stubborn and deadly Tahereh is certainly a not a wife for the weak or feint-hearted! One can only dream of finding such an excellent wife in the west, even in modern times; yet the histories of Iran and Islam are liberally enriched by such incredibly courageous, spirited and capable women. Iranian women are even today, still carrying their reputation for being as awesome as they are beautiful (and if there are any reading this I am yet to be married ;p). There are some true masterpieces of film here; some huge budget productions which are historically and religiously accurate on the most part - they are perfect to introduce the beauty of Islam and also highly entertaining (and free!). You don't have to be religious to love them; and just because they are true stories doesn't mean they are any less amazing than the Tolkien fantasies but they are without the 'cheesiness' and immaturity of Hollywood and also without the evil agenda to sap our morality and turn us into narcissists. This is why they don't drain one's energies like ordinary TV.

Incidentally (but still on topic), you non-Muslims are wrong about us - you say that Muslim men are terrorists and Muslim women are oppressed but if you people had ever been in a Muslim household or done your investigations properly, you would quickly figure out that you have it exactly backwards - Muslim Women are terrorists and Muslim men are oppressed! (Credit is to God through Azhar Usman of 'Allah Made Me Funny'; it was hilarious the way he told it anyway. Check him out on YouTube, even if you hate us you will be amused, the Q&A session after his set is also worth watching).

Don't you ever wonder why Saudi was not invaded? It is for sure an oppressive regime and the vast majority of the alleged 'terrorists' of the World Trade Center attacks were supposedly Saudis. So how come Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Palestine and Pakistan are all invaded/occupied by foreign militaries yet Saudi is untouched? It looks like Syria, Lebanon and Iran are also in serious danger of a NATO invasion and occupation. One has to wonder why a general would want to leak this and why he is not in Guantanamo now. This is about empire building and world government but I am very suspicious of the real motives behind this 'leak';

Wesley Clark ( US 4 Star General ) US will attack 7 countries in 5 years

Because this kingdom of Saud is ruled by puppets who do as they are told by the globalist oligarchy, they are immune to criticism for as long as its suits the elite banksters. It may be that it serves a purpose to have a cruel 'pseudo-Islamic' kingdom so that they can attempt to malign Islam by citing them as an example of Islam. But you will find nothing in the Holy Quran that could justify their oppressive laws.

In fact, the religion of Saudi kings and the most prominent 'religious leaders' (I use the term loosely) is hardly recognisable as Islam; I recently watched their 'Grand Mufti' saying that our beloved Imam Hussain (alayhi salaam), the grandson of the Holy prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) and the God-ordained and infallible Amir-ul-Momineen (Commander of the Faithful) was 'wrong' (astaghfirullah) to oppose Yazid and should have paid him allegiance (astaghfirullah). The cursed Yazid was the worst tyrant since Pharaoh and perhaps the worst sinner on earth; he invaded Muslim cities and his troops and their leaders raped and pillaged, he caused the setting fire and near destruction the Holy Kaaba (had it not been saved by a sudden downpour, subhanallah) and he brutally martyred almost the entire progeny of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessing be upon them) along with around seventy loyal companions and disrespected them further by tearing them to pieces after their deaths. To top it all he murdered, abused and took prisoner the wives and children of these companions. The youngest martyr was just a few months old; shot deliberately by an arrow to silence his thirsty crying to prevent sympathy in the enemy soldiers ranks - Search 'Karbala Massacre' for further details. This man, who calls himself mufti, is so far removed from the religion of Islam that it would not be wrong to question him if he prefers to serve Satan or God. It seems to me that agents within this monarchy are deliberately trying to cause havoc in the world for political agendas. There is simply no logical explanation other than this to explain his views.

So please do not assume that Saudi kingdom represents Muslims nauz Billah (God forbid). Both Sunni and Shia share my views on this exactly and this relatively new oppositional school of thought is mostly confined to Saudi. They call themselves Salafis but others irreverently refer to them as Wahabis, after their founder, ibn Abd-al-Wahhab who died in 1792. Individual Salafis are known to cause mischief such as paying $1500 a week to anyone who will execute twelve random people as plot to destabilise Iraq. The court case admission of one such character is on YouTube; I will find it if anyone doubts. All Muslims agree that Imam Hussain (alayhi salaam) is worthy of reverence - including Salafis but they believe that we shouldn't oppose tyranny and have some other very peculiar ideas such as total predestination; that way their leaders can oppress and tyrannise with impunity and blame 'fate' or 'God' for their evil behaviour. Evil people like this do not reflect upon the pristine religion of Islam. Christianity is not immune to this kind of tampering either; look at all these different versions of Roans 13 in the Holy Bible - who is in charge according to a few of these translations, God and His powers or the government? I count six votes for the government here! What about Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, etc and the government that tried to crucify the prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

Monarchy is forbidden in Islam. So is fiat currency and usury. These facts alone prove that there are no true Islamic governments in the world at the moment. A true Islamic government would be separate from the World Reserve Currency (the dollar) and the western banking system of usury (charging interest). Iran is the closest thing we have to an Islamic government but because the west considers it a political enemy because of its failed coup which began in 1953 and ended in 1979, you will find a great deal of propaganda about Iran. The USA is still nursing its hurt pride when it was rejected for trying to bully and financially rape the people of Iran. They refused to be ruled by Washington and didn't accept the nasty, greedy western puppet shah (Amrica hich ghalati nemitavand konad!) :p

Although I enjoy discussing religion and geopolitics, it is tiresome and not at all a productive use of my time to answer infantile insults. I say the same to all of the haters here (assuming it is more than one agent with numerous personas!); read the Holy Quran from start to finish plus the purports - Islam cannot be described in one single verse - it is not a religion of quotes (or misquotes!). Then, if there is still something which still seems unacceptable, make sure you fully understand it by approaching an expert authority who loves Islam and question him politely but don't be afraid to grill them. I know you will not cause offence or anger if you are genuinely interested and have a sensible argument.

If Islam is not for you then why complain about the freedom of others to embrace it? Why not live and let live? There is certainly no compulsion in genuine Islamic Teachings. Your country's laws can only be changed with a lengthy process with agreement of the lawmakers of the land. How can a Muslim install Shariah into a secular land? Our experts in Islamic Jurisprudence have no power whatsoever unless the individual Muslims choose to agree to their decision. The Shariah fear hype is really very obvious propaganda. The EDL say we are taking over the UK even though the Muslim population is 0.8% of the total. Many Muslims are very career obsessed and goal orientated and I very much doubt they represent a large part of the unemployed. If it is true then that is something we can work on with kindness and wisdom. Perhaps we need to stop with the propaganda and try to understand Muslims a little better; that way, more employers will be prepared to employ us. Hating on us is not going to help. And if it is immigration that has put a bee in your bonnet, you only have your politicians to blame for inviting them. Why wouldn't Arabs like to live here? You have bombed their cities; the main reason I don't want to live in Iraq is the depleted uranium dust and the risk of getting killed by flying metal. Martial law has never been just or fair. Perhaps we need to leave these people alone in their own lands and not mess with their economies and let them govern themselves. We could even offer to help them get back on their feet if we were not broke because of the global banking scam of debt-slavery, control of issuance, usury and the trillions of dollars we spend on bombs and soldiers used to kill innocent Muslims.

Tragically, women everywhere on every continent and within every culture may experience oppression. It is up to us all to be on the lookout for the signs of it. We must talk to your neighbours and check they are ok. If you hear a big row next door be aware that a woman may need help; the police may even need to be called. It must be handled delicately and men must be even more careful about intruding personally.

If it is you that is being oppressed, God forbid, then you absolutely must get help and support. There are organisations that offer free advice and practical help in many countries. Even if you have no friends or family you must get help. See your doctor if you don't know where else to go. You must also protect your children in order to prevent this illness from spreading to the next generation; it is highly contagious. There is never any excuse for domestic violence. It is plain wrong and the victim should not be ashamed. People do care but if they don't know you need help then they might not offer it.

There is no excuse for any oppression. Islam says 'oppression is worse than slaughter' (Al Baqarah 191) and in Al-Baqarah 231 we are instructed even in divorce that we must not harm our wives; how then can it be ok to beat a wife that we intend to keep?

There is an occasion that permission may be given to cause harm to a human and that is when an aggressing army will not listen to reason and as defensive strategy only, combative males who are not elderly and not in prayer at the time may be battled against but even then we are forbidden to transgress limits and no non-combatants must ever be harmed. And if the enemy surrenders, we must cease all harm to them and let them go. If there are war criminals or tyrants or other crimes which require punishment under the law then they must be tried for their crimes and the punishment carried out in accordance with Islam by those who have been authorised to do so. Simply being a member of an opposing army is completely forgiven, even if in that role you have killed, provided you surrendered before the battle was over. One cannot be fairer than that; even the UN Charter, International Law and Geneva Convention are not as merciful. How then can the Quran possibly condone harm to our own wives? We are not permitted to beat prisoners of war yet some claim that wives are fair game? We cannot even harm a fruit tree in wartime on a battlefield.

Many English translations are indeed mistaken on this verse 4:34 but anyone with a reasonable or rational mind can see it would be entirely out of character with the rest of the Quran if beating were ever permissible, especially to a female and even more especially to one who is dear to you. Fortunately we have reams of evidence to back up the claims of Grand Marjaas like Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani who is among the most famous and authoritative Marjaas in the Islamic world today. So far I have not heard anyone challenge his view of 4:34.

I am sorry for my course analogy of my feelings about the translations which say it is ok to beat after all else has failed - they mistakenly say it is ok; 'as a last resort' and 'very lightly' and 'so there is no visible harm'. There was even one hadeeth which said we should use a miswak toothbrush (a short and fragile twig used to brush teeth which is as lightweight as balsa wood only much softer). All these qualifications seem ridiculous; the whole idea of beating a wife is preposterous and entirely un-Islamic. I cannot think of a better analogy for the mistranslation of this one word in this one verse in an otherwise immaculate Teaching than a pile of poo on the otherwise pristine and gleaming white marble floor of the greatest mosque in the world. I am sorry for conjuring this image in your minds but there is no better way to describe how it feels to me and many other students, scholars and Marjaas of Islam.

This anomaly is mainly found in English translations of this verse. Even with a basic understanding of Islam I cannot see how anyone could imagine that it was ok to take it upon their shoulders to beat their wives when they see fit; it is obviously open to abuse. Everything in Islam is explained in enormous depth; if it was ok to beat then we would also have the situation perfectly described as to when we could beat (under what circumstances), what to use, how many strikes per 'crime' and how hard we should hit and exactly what type of mark we should leave and how long it should take to dissipate. We would have instructions on what to do if she promises to mend her ways at some point during her ordeal; this is the nature of Islam in every part of life; no matter how mundane it is. Even washing for hygiene as well as ritual purification is described to the letter in enormous meticulous depth; I m quite sure it would seem like OCD to a non-Muslim! Forgive me for mentioning the toilet again but even that has considerable and lengthy recommendations and every eventuality is covered! Yet the only mention of beating occurs only once, only in some translations and against all that is Islam. And the details one would obviously need to know if one was going to consider beating are conspicuously absent. The Quran doesn't even say whether we should use a feather or a baseball bat; clearly this mistranslation 'to beat' is insane.

But if we look at this verse and use the perfectly reasonable other meaning of the Arabic; 'to go away' then that requires no further qualification and it fits perfectly as the next stage in the escalating situation of marital challenges. Clearly when all else fails we give our spouses some space and that is so obvious I am sure we all knew that already. Can you imagine the disaster that would ensue if I was to say at the end of a difficult and tense difference of opinion with a wife "sorry but now I have to beat you with my tooth-cleaning twig because you have been naughty!" - I am quite sure that would be the last time I ever saw her! I may even have to have my tooth cleaning stick surgically removed from a tender place and quite frankly it would have been well deserved. It is outrageous to even consider such humiliation and cruelty and I would never allow it in my presence and nor would any self-respecting woman alive. How do these English translators think it is going to facilitate good relations?! Surely if it reached a stage where a beating was considered it is better that the couple part; at least for a while and perhaps for good if beating is 'on the table' as an American president would say.

But this verse, according to some who seem incapable or reason, doesn't suggest parting company for a while at all at any stage. This is an obvious and conspicuous omission. Everyone knows it is a wise thing to consider when under extreme tensions with all close relationships. This is a blatantly obvious and reasonable idea to facilitate a successful resolution and since God (Azza wa Jall) is incapable of errors or omissions, the error is definitely that of the translators.

Here is the translation of 4:34 as it should be;

Men are supporters of wives because God has given some of them an advantage over others and because they spend of their wealth. So the ones who are in accord with morality are the ones who are morally obligated, the ones who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those whose resistance you fear, then admonish them and abandon them in their sleeping place, then go away from them; and if they obey you, surely look not for any way against them; truly God is Lofty, Great.

This translation is in harmony with the rest of the Quran and the Sunnah;
The Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) specifically said "Do not beat the female servants of Allah." (Abu Dawud).
(Men are also servants; it is the meaning of the word Muslim – "one who submits [to God]"

"Among the Muslims, the most perfect as regards his faith is the one whose character is most excellent, and the best among you are those who treat their wives well." (At-Tirmidhi)

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness,....And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good." (An-Nisaa 4:19)

"A believer must not hate a believing woman; if he dislikes one of her characteristics he will be pleased with another." (Sahih Muslim)

Below is a perfect lecture to affirm that my own concept of Islam is actually the mainstream orthodox version of Islam in most schools of thought, contrary to one comment which said there is a difference between western Islam and the Islam from the Arab lands. There are different schools of thought among Muslims but we all have the same Quran (in Arabic they are all identical), same Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) and the same Five Pillars of Islam. The differences between Sunni and Shia are minimal. Salafis are another story entirely.

Brother Hassanain Rajabali is a North African born Muslim (I believe), a fluent speaker of Arabic and a famous public speaker in the Islamic world. This lecture below is predominantly about hijab (modesty) but early on in the lecture, it also touches upon genderism and the abuse of women. Brother Hassanain beautifully presents the proof that Islam destroys any idea that one gender is any better or superior to the other and settles the issue perfectly that there is no superiority in male, female, nations or tribes except that the best of us is the most God-Conscious. Then at 11:40 minutes into the lecture, he states categorically that women must never be beaten and that An-Nisaa verse 34 does not mention beating as some English translators have misunderstood.

Observing Modesty - A Men's and Women's Hijab | Hassanain Rajabali

marie C (163)
Monday August 27, 2012, 3:49 pm
Only empty words dear Abu twisting and turning over every point.
I think you would make an incredible politician I mean that in the nicest possible way. I am not offending.
You are a true expert putting Islam forward and are wasted here on C2.
You believe your own words wholeheartedly you have been indoctrinated to such a degree there is no questioning left in your heart or head. That truly is the sign of a great politician.
I wish you well and hope Islam never lets you down

monica r (41)
Monday August 27, 2012, 5:44 pm
Robert S.

"One more thing. I can only surmise by your statements, that you do not hold "Christians" responsible for the body count of Muslim civilians in the "war on terror". Pray tell, why is it, you hold Muslims as a whole responsible for extremist acts of some who are Muslim...."

Exactly what do Christians have to do with the "war on terror"? That is a US govt thing. Last I checked, there was separation of church and state, and tea party protestations aside, Christianity is not the official religion of the USA. Christians have not instituted the "war on terror".

Apples and oranges. You compare a secular political initiative with jihad which is a religious initiative with political outcomes.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday August 27, 2012, 6:53 pm
Hi Robert,

Have a fun trip! I've certainly enjoyed our chat too.

I'd just like to add to your comment about definition of fascism that the same philosophy can be, and was originally, applied outside of politics. In any group where the threat of tyranny is mitigated (by filial love between members of the group) or where external threats massively outweigh internal ones (like in a military unit), the philosophy behind fascism is likely to arise and serve well. In those cases, fascism will revolve around the group, analogous to the country in political fascism, as a unit, functioning under some accepted authority, analogous to the state in political fascism. The main reason I brought up the definition of fascism was for a fun conversation, but I also raised it because I don't believe that we should demonize even that.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Tuesday August 28, 2012, 6:28 am
Thank you for your praise dear Marie (I think?!) - it may just be the nicest thing anyone said to me here :) but it is not any qualities of mine that are impressive. All good qualities belong solely to God (may he be glorified and exalted) and I own nothing except my flaws. If any good seems to have appeared from my court then it is only by the grace and blessings of God and I am a grateful slave. Vanity is a most seductive dangerous enemy; I prefer criticism to praise (maybe that's why I like Care2). And the truth shines brightest in any free discussion.

Alexa R (319)
Tuesday August 28, 2012, 11:19 am
Abu S: "And the truth shines brightest in any free discussion."

Thank you for clarifying what you consider "free discussion" Abu: whenever reading an article that speaks of muslim crimes(in this case crimes committed by muslims towards women and their subsequent fears) you, Abu wants to feel free bashing zionists/israelis.

Please forgive me for being 100% unwilling to join your "free discussion" that is focused on bashing zionists/israelis on a thread about the plight and fears of muslim women due to atrocities committed by muslims.

Out of respect for these muslim women and what they've been through, i will NEVER be a willing participant in zionist/israeli bashing in "free discussion" with you or anyone else when these muslim women's plight finally gets a bit of media attention like on this thread.


Abu Sajjad (6)
Tuesday August 28, 2012, 5:18 pm
It is bizarre that you are very specific about labelling the crimes of individuals who may have claimed to be Muslims as "Muslim Crimes". This sounds nice a neat and believable at first but it is wholly unacceptable and I will once again and for the last time, explain why inshallah.

The mistake you are clearly making is that you blame an entire innocent group of people for the crimes of a relatively small number of individuals. I have explained this in depth to the extent I have had complaints for labouring the point but you don't seem to be able to grasp it and instead you repeat your mistake. I am sure you are quite clever; this is why I have to look at alternative reasons for your persistence in generalising. Why are you so desperate to malign Islam? Perhaps there is some other reason for your refusal to accept generalising is a flawed ideology.

The crimes listed in your article were not committed by 'Muslims' collectively - I had no part in them personally - they were committed by criminals or more specifically, by abusers of women. It is very wrong to refer to them in your loaded way as Muslims even if they happened to make that claim about a part of their lives. Do you blame the OJ Simpson murder and similar murders by people who happened to be black on 'blacks' generally? Because this is absolutely the same; better in fact, because it is debatable whether the criminals in your article were Muslims; only God decides whether they are Muslims or not and Islam categorically forbids harm to women and all innocents. But OJ was most certainly black - no doubt about it. And black people have been known to commit murders. But God forbid if anyone gives us a list of crimes of people who happened to be black and tried to draw some conclusion from it with weak conjecture.

Murder, rape and domestic abuse are more often than not involving people who know each other. These crimes are not specific to a certain subgroup of people; they appear on every continent - so why are they "Muslim crimes" in your book? Often domestic abuse is related to alcohol consumption. I read this while researching for another thread; it was astonishing high in fact. Muslims are completely forbidden to drink any alcohol whatsoever so surely we are less likely to hurt our women than non-Muslims. We also want to please God and submit to him. We humble ourselves before Him five times a day. Some men think they are the masters - Muslim men are naturally inclined to humility or they would not have picked a faith that is about submission. It would be interesting to see some true statistics only because if what I suspect is true, you would see that Muslims are the least likely people to hurt women and the most likely is the faithless heathen alcoholic who thinks he is the master of his world; I know of two such people in my street who are very cruel to their wives.

As it happens, 95% of domestic abuse is carried out by men; this is an overwhelming statistic! Why don't you just blame all men of all faiths, skin colours and shoe sizes? Because truly men are the most likely to be abusers and rapists; I accept this. But personally, I have never intentionally harmed even a gnat - so perhaps that generalisation was not quite correct. So perhaps it would not be fair to blame all men or to call domestic abuse a 'male crime'; what do you think? If all men are not to blame then why not blame all men with black hair? If these men had black hair then that might prove something don't you think? But wait, I have very dark hair too. So ok let's try blaming their religion; but wait again; I am a Muslim inshallah and yet I only ever was kind to women; this is what my religion tells me as well. Please tell me you understand where I am going with this!

Blaming two billion Muslims for the crimes of a tiny minority is foolishness beyond belief. Even if 95% of domestic abusers were Muslims, it would still be asinine to blame them all because 5% of two billion is one hundred million innocent people I just made a libellous statement about (oops); that is about the entire populations of the UK and Spain combined.

There is only one single group of people you can blame for abusers of women and that is... 'abusers of women'. If you need a shorter term then call them 'abusers' - we will know to whom you are referring. But please don't broadcast your idea that you can tar us all with the same brush like this because there are some who are less gifted with reasoning power, who might follow your lead, God forbid. Next thing you know, there will be burning crosses and people in pointy hats will be a'havin' themselves a hangin'.

Hopefully we are now all clear about the futility of trying to generalise. Perhaps it is human nature to want to have neat tidy boxes for things; white = good, American = good, Muslim = bad, Arab = bad. I am sure there are those among us who really love this depth of Weltanschauung* but unfortunately for them, the world sure is a confusing place.
*A comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday August 28, 2012, 6:08 pm
Hi Abu Saijad,

The vast majority of Muslims are, individually, not morally responsible for the crimes of a few. However, as communities, many are responsible for sustaining a culture due to which those crimes are committed with very disproportionately high frequency despite immersion in other cultures without the problematic elements (or with them, but to a much lesser degree). Now, the minority is small, but troublemakers often have a very disproportionate impact. Here is an example I have used many times on Care2: In a four-year college of 40,000 students, if 99.99% were not shooters, that would mean one school-shooting per year. Even if each shooting "only" killed about 20 people, leaving each student with a 99.8% chance of not being killed, Westerners would not consider that a safe school. Being more realistic, imagine if that peaceful figure were only about 99.5%: The problem would be 50 times worse.

Domestic abuse, like you said, is very disproportionately linked to alcohol consumption ... within a given culture. There is another correlation to consider, however. Different cultures hold different standards for the treatment of women and children within a household. Certainly many Islamic communities maintain standards above those required by law in Western countries, but there are also those which live in Western countries and maintain a culture from some region of origin which does not. This can easily lead to even more disproportionate abuse than one would find in a comparison between heavy drinkers of alcohol and the rest of society.

Regarding your comment about whether Western society blames men, as a community, for the domestic abuse of a minority, yes, it does, and it takes relevant action. There are women's shelters available in every major city (and often in minor population-centers), but men's shelters are extremely rare (in countries where they even exist). Courts tend to demand a much lower standard of evidence to convict for male domestic abuse than for female. Even outside of officialdom, male complaints of abuse are generally ignored by Western society if not mocked. While I don't think that the degree of difference in this case is justifiable, there is a sound principle upon which the difference of treatment is based, that of the application of statistics for the sake of practicality of enforcement.

Regarding who gets to decide who is, or is not, a Muslim, there is also an issue here: Have you heard of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Essentially, Muslims cannot be guilty of any crimes if you define Muslims not to include anyone who has committed one, regardless of culture and religious practices. The trouble is that this definition is absolutely useless in any practical sense. A Muslim, for practical purposes, is a person who self-identifies as Islamic and appears, to outsiders, to fit within the Islamic community. Perhaps religiously, within Islam's internal rules, a criminal would not be considered a "true Muslim", but that doesn't matter as far as external treatment of Muslims and Islamic communities goes because it is not practical to try to distinguish in this way..

Alexa R (319)
Tuesday August 28, 2012, 11:54 pm
Abu, whatever have you the idea that i implicate ALL muslims? I thought i made it abundantly clear that i don't.

Just because i don't blame ALL muslims, does not mean i MUST therefore be blind to the crimes in these particular cases committed in the name of Islam and Sharia.

Similarly, just because crimes against women are also committed by atheist alcoholics, hopefully does not mean i now MUST ignore the abuse of women in the name of Islam and Sharia.

If a group of women, like these come together to discuss their particular victimhood that follows a very distinct sharia law pattern, quite different to the alcoholic pattern of abuse, or any other pattern of domestic violence, then surely only a fool would ignore what seems to be the core motivation of their abusers.

In order to address alcoholic abuse of women, would you not agree that a key factor would be addressing alcoholism?

Would you not agree that ignoring alcoholism would be ignoring the slight of these women at the receiving end of domestic abuse?

Like Stephen said so eloquently it does not matter if the abuser is a real alcoholic or just claims to be one, if the abuser blames his alcoholism for the abuse then that is what we need to work with in order to reduce domestic violence.

Abu, have you any suggestions how society can help the abusers of these pakistani muslim women to not commit domestic violence in the name of islam and sharia?

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday August 29, 2012, 1:23 am
Oops, I used predictive text on my mobile with my previous post as it's a lot faster when typing long responses: "have" in the first line should be "gave"; and "slight" in the 3rd last paragraph should read "plight" .. my apologies.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Wednesday August 29, 2012, 9:32 am
Thank you dear Alexandra for clearly identifying your cataclysmic error - you say that men abuse women "in the name of Islam and Shariah". Can you not see how outrageous a statement this is? Do criminals steal and vandalise in the name of the law of their land? Or are they actually hoping to gain some dollars illegally or just venting mindless frustrations? I have explained above that Islam forbids any violence against any innocent part and women are never to be harmed; even if they are part of the enemy in a time of war.

I can promise you that no emotionally deficient violent bully is thinking about Islam while he beats up a woman. This is a totally insane notion. They might be obsessed with selfish anger or emotional hurt outrage because of their weak mental condition and insecurity. Spouses sometimes try to control one another's lives in order to safeguard their emotional fragility; if this control fails to work, frustration and even violence may be a result. Whatever drives a man to strike a woman, I can assure you it is not the wish to follow any religion that is on their minds at the time.

You must try to differentiate between the perfect Islamic Teachings and the flawed human nature which all fallible people exhibit at times; people are rarely perfect examples of their faith unless one studies the prophets and Masumeen (peace be upon them) as one's example. I accept that not all Muslims are perfect representatives of their religion; now can we stop blaming Islam for crimes it categorically prohibits?

Thank you for testifying that not all Muslims are accused of being abusers of women. This is a good start but I will not be satisfied until we nullify all conjecture which links Islam to the abuse of women in any way, shape or form. The two are entirely unrelated except that Islamic principles improve the decency of any individual or society that embraces them.

It is true that we must not ignore anyone who abuses women but the point is that we must not blame it on atheism or even alcoholism or we are missing the real reasons - the numerous root causes which in some individual abusers are unique only to them. If we all embraced Islam and followed Shariah to the letter, many sparks and catalysts to abuse would be gone; adultery and flirting would be gone; we would all dress modestly and lower our gaze towards the opposite gender and avoid unnecessary mixing and temptations and stress of it; thus we could all enjoy more security in our marriages. Money stresses would be eradicated because of fair economic systems which are not fraudulently stealing from us all. Alcohol and gambling would be gone altogether*. People would be protected by their prayers and they would learn humility by prostrating to God. We would all fast regularly and learn more about patience and remember the poor with our softened hearts. I could go on but basically, we would all do more to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil and that would reduce so many of the multitudinous reasons for domestic abuse. Hard hearts are softened by practicing Islam; for evidence of this please watch the entire series of lectures by Khalil Jaffer below;

Lec 1 Freeing the Butterfly Within Introduction I Br. Khalil Jaffer I Muharram 1433

*Yes Alexandra - we must address alcoholism because it is actually a statistically proven factor (collected by the Home Office) regarding the number of cases of domestic abuse where alcohol played a significant role. It is also supported by science, logic and reason; alcohol obviously affects one's ability to function and in some drinkers, there is no doubt that it substantially increases their risk of violent behaviour. But it is still only a catalyst and not the main reason - otherwise, every person who got drunk would always beat their wives or every case would involve alcohol - and this is a very important point; there are far too many factors to nail domestic violence to just one or two or even ten factors; It is more likely that there are hundreds or thousands and more. These factors start right from when they were babies - if a baby is left to cry and not comforted, fed or changed, that baby may begin to develop some anti-social behaviour traits; they may have grown up without love and even been abused themselves; this is also a very strong possible factor but not everyone who was abused turns out to be an abuser - so again we fail to nail exactly what causes the abuser to abuse. Also, not every facet is a factor; hair colour and shoe size are not related for example even if they might seem to be common to more than one abuser. Similarly, religion is not a factor either; unless you can prove that The Holy Quran teaches that we must abuse women as part of our religious practice, Islam is not a factor that increases likelihood of abuse. If you read my previous posts you can see clear proof of the opposite - Islam clearly teaches we must never hurt women and that the most perfect in faith are those who treat their wives well. I also cited many other undeniable examples even from the Holy Quran near the end of my post just above (Monday August 27, 2012, 3:27 pm).

If there were any reliable statistics to quantify exactly how many men abuse women it might be interesting to see how many abusers are drunkards, atheists, football hooligans, extreme right wing, or less academically qualified etc but as I have explained 'ad nauseam' already, this doesn't help us at all to predict, prevent, cure or blame. The only group you can blame is the group of men who abuse women and no other group because the blend of near infinite reasons for their violence is unique to the individual. If we had these statistics and they proved that Muslim men were the kindest to their wives, all it would achieve is to make you guys look rather silly. Although this may be a lofty goal, I don't think it is a progressive use of anyone's time.

Only infantile logic says that these Muslim men abused women therefore Islam is to blame but you may as well say this murderer was black therefore black skin pigment is to blame. In the latter example I gave, no one would be in any doubt of what this conjecture is called - it is well known to be racism and we all know it is a truly ugly character flaw.

The crazy thing as well is that you have no statistics to back up your statements that Muslim men are statistically high risk of abusing women. It would take me seconds to find you evidence of hundreds of English abuse cases but thanks to God, I am a little more objective about it and I can reason that not all Englishmen are like that and that there might not be something particular to England that causes a relatively large amount of Englishmen to hurt women.

For example, (and try not to get hysterical and start hating on English people), take a look at the Women's aid website, a British charity dedicated to the important work of helping abused women in the UK;§ionTitle=Statistics

"1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions."

"One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute."

"On average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner."

"Statistics like the above are regularly quoted – but where do they come from? And how accurate are they? Available statistics on domestic violence are likely to understate the extent of abuse – but some sources are more reliable than others."

The more I read about English men the more I am beginning to hate them all!! I may even have to go and severely punish myself for simply being born here. I apologise for my flippancy in this most serious problem we have in our country but I am a little perplexed by the conjecture I see on this thread because this is the level of it.

Why anyone would even wish to study whether beaters of women are mostly atheists or which particular religions they claimed to belong to is beyond me but if someone did, it is logical that religious people would feature less because on top of their natural knowledge of what is right and wrong, they also have a divine decree affirming this, a huge incentive to please God (happiness, love, Heaven/Paradise) and a huge deterrent of the promise of eternal hellfire for all that are violent towards innocents and women.

But since no such study exists, (because it would be worthless except for fleeting interest and trying to foment hatred of certain groups with baseless conjecture), one wonders why you have assumed that Muslim men are more likely to beat their wives - did you hear it on Fox News perhaps? Or read it from a National Front leaflet? I saw such a leaflet from the NF and it was saying that black people were inferior because they have less 'brain space' owing to the shape of their heads. This vile hatred makes me feel nauseas. Dear Stephen claims that Muslims hurt their wives with a "very disproportionately high frequency" but he actually pulled this statement out of his hat or from a source with similar intentions to the NF nonsense above. He then confused me with something about school shooting which only proves that a little amount of extreme murderous rampage leaves a big impression although I fail to see the connection.

He did mention 'culture' as a factor but what has this to do with Islam? Islam is a world religion and is practiced from the humid Amazon to the frozen arctic and every type of culture between. If we want to talk about cultural trends and domestic violence then I suggest another thread because that is a topic I want nothing to do with. That would certainly become a racist hate-fest with mass generalisations and insults and nationalism. It is clearly very similar to what we are seeing here but to coin a phrase, 'I have no horse in that particular race'. I loathe seeing racism but the vast majority of people are no longer racist; thank God racism is rapidly dying a death, good riddance. Sadly, Islam is the new 'black' and religious bigotry is the new 'racism'.

Then he tries to lead us into believing that Muslims in the west are worse than those in their own cultures and even worse than the alcohol drinkers. It seems a strange thing to want to say but again no evidence to support his conjecture so I won't look into it further.

He then says that all men are indeed blamed but I have never been blamed - have you? I think the reason for this incorrect statement is because if we have blamed all men in general, he can justify blaming Muslims in general. And his 'evidence' as proof of this is that "women's shelters" exist. I am all for taking action to protect abused women but I fail to see how that blames innocent men;

It is one thing to accept that 'most abusers are male' but entirely another to say that 'most men are abusers'- please think carefully about the crucial difference here - the first statement is true but the second is absolutely false. This is the nature of propaganda; the same words when messed with can have a totally different meaning and this is how they play with our minds using conjecture and word-play.

Stephen then implies that courts are biased against men who are abused by women but I thought justice was blind; I am sure that no judge would admit to his claims about them being biased. In any case, no evidence yet again.

Finally regarding Stephen's last paragraph, whether someone truly is a Muslim by definition or whether their own claim is sufficient is not central to this issue. Even if we accept everyone who claims they are Muslim as a true Muslim for argument's sake, it changes nothing - OJ is still definitely black (see my previous post) but that still doesn't mean his skin colour was a factor which led him to commit murder. But insistence that we include Muslims who break God's commandments is proof of his desire to paint the religion in a bad light even when that 'Muslim' acts in direct opposition to Islamic principles. This is no different from blaming the original lawmakers of a country for the present actions of criminals.

One can invent any conjecture they like and try to pass it off to suit their need to engage in bigotry and to foment hatred against a whole group or to suit their political agendas. Any worldly ambitions can be motivation for fomenting lies and propaganda and this is exactly what we are seeing here. Inane conjecture and totally unreasonable and unsubstantiated statements are proof of such foul play. I have already touched upon the reasons for this but I should go into more depth soon inshallah.

As for my suggestions to prevent abuse and all manner of sins, miseries and injustices, it is obvious what I will say; embrace Islam or if you are already Muslim, make more effort to become a better Muslim.

As for the transgressors, one would have to approach a scholar of jurisprudence to review the punishments prescribed for domestic violence. I am not an expert in Jurisprudence; I know just about enough to keep myself on the Straight Path inshallah. I would imagine that punishments prescribed by Islam for abusing women are severe; far more severe than in western law where rapists can actually blackmail their victims into dropping the charges of rape in exchange for the rapist giving up his parental rights to the child that is born of rape. One such case is on the news at the moment. Rapists can actually apply for full custody of the woman's child in the USA. This is what happens when man creates his own laws. I prefer God's laws.

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday August 29, 2012, 10:22 am
Unfortunately Abu, they DO claim their acts of domestic violence in the name of Islam and Sharia. There is many a judge that has to listen to the following (though this particular case is that of a shoe bomber) - btw, no rapist does so out of urges, but cold, calculated desire for control whether the rapist be muslim, british, or whatever else.

I quote: "Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to

Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,' defiantly stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.'

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. ..."

This is what these Pakistani muslim women share and what many judges hear, how the defendants stubbornly show no remorse and claim honour for their crimes in the name of Islam/sharia with shouts of "Allahu Akbar".

Another recent UK case: “Miss Smith said: 'The prosecution say that what this girl was describing was the group activity of a number of adult men, who had spotted the opportunity to sexually exploit children who were vulnerable to that sort of exploitation and were taking it.'

The court heard that it was 'common knowledge' among the defendants (Kabeer Hassan, 24, Abdul Aziz, 41, Abdul Rauf, 43, Mohammed Sajid, 35, Adil Khan, 42, Abdul Qayyum, 43, Mohammed Amin, 44, Qamar Shahzad, 29, Liaquat Shah, 41, and Hamid Safi, 22, along with the 59-year-old man) that the girls were underage and that one defendant, Abdul Aziz, would give one 15-year-old lifts to school while another, Abdul Rauf, asked one girl if she knew anyone younger.

The court heard that on one occasion a 59-year-old man, who cannot be named, met two girls at a takeaway where they were given food and vodka.

He demanded sex from one 15-year-old, saying: 'It's part of the deal because I bought you vodka, you have to give me something.

Miss Smith said the girl refused and he raped her.”

Strong link with alcoholism, though I do not blame these young girls' alcoholism for their rape .. I cannot imagine even an alcoholic girl asks to be raped.


marie C (163)
Wednesday August 29, 2012, 10:57 am
Abu I do not think you understand Alexandra has spent much time in Muslim countries with Muslim women so you are getting a lot of her comments first hand this is not a handful of anti Islamites This is a highly intelligent woman who genuinely cares about all badly treated women especially Muslims

Abu Sajjad (6)
Wednesday August 29, 2012, 5:09 pm
The shoe bomber was one the most bungled false flag events in the history of false flag events. This poor degenerate was manipulated by enemies of Islam and it seems obvious that he had serious mental health issues. He should have been helped by the mental health system but that would not have been useful propaganda had he been considered unfit to be a proper bogyman. The entire war on terror is a lie inasmuch as it is nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with empire building and global tyranny. The plutocracy are the terrorists and most of our our governments are complicit.

The poor fool was trying to light a match to set of the bomb but his sweaty feet prevented it apparently; it doesn't sound like an highly organised Islamic conspiracy from an underground James Bond style bunker of Osama the super-villain; it sounds like a smaller and less professional version of the type of bomb inspector Clouseau might have to deal with. I don't see how this tragically inept man can represent Islam and Muslims in all seriousness.

And anyway his idol, Osama bin Laden is really Tim Osman, a known CIA asset. All Muslims know this in the west and so do most English people; the proof that he was a CIA asset was broadcast in a primetime BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares" (available on YouTube). Those in the east never even heard of him until he was blamed for the NY attacks (without any evidence) and Benazir Bhutto casually announced his death during the famous David Frost interview just before she was shot dead. Osama's faked death according to US and UK propaganda was a blatantly obvious lie and nearly everyone knows it. Still no pictures and still no film released of the alleged assault and where are those members of Seal Team 6 now? All dead - killed in a bizarre helicopter crash in a helicopter that was not even theirs - no loose ends or whistleblowers.

If pathetic and disturbed creatures like the shoe and underwear bombers genuinely commit crimes in the name of Islam then perhaps someone could show me where it tells us to harm innocent civilians or non-combatants in the Noble Quran. Even if there was a legitimate defensive war we are not permitted to harm women. However, I can show you several verses where it specifically forbids such crimes.

There are around two billion Muslims; this is a phenomenal number of people, so it is very likely that not all of us will be perfectly behaved all the time. If you have a criticism of the Holy Quran then ask a scholar if they would shed some light on it for you but don't try to malign our faith by citing human flaws as proof of anything other than some humans have flaws.

The rest of your post about some vodka drinking rapists has nothing to do with Islam and neither does it even come close to proving your wild claim that domestic violence is carried out "in the name of Islam".

I have never even heard a fake Muslim blaming Islam for beating up a woman and even if you could find such an anomaly, you still haven’t proven that Islam allows any beating of any innocents but I have shown you several verses (above) which teach us to be kind and never to mistreat women.

Dear Marie, I don't see what difference it makes whether I understand if Alexandra has visited Muslim countries or not. I have not seen a single excuse for blaming Islam for domestic violence. I have already said that humans on every continent have abused women; of this there is no doubt. I have also agreed that it is appalling behaviour but it is wrong to blame a religion, a race, a particular shoe size or any other unrelated circumstantial factor. The only ones who are blameworthy are those who abuse. The reasons they abuse are numerous and specific to the individual. There are genuine and statistically proven catalysts such as alcohol but even alcoholics do not always harm women so it is unfair to malign alcoholics as likely abusers of women; so it is certainly not correct to relate Islam to abuse.

And as I first said, if we truly care about women we would not foment hatred of Muslims with Islamophobic lies. Random acts of violence especially against our sisters are increasing along with the increase in Islamophobic rhetoric. Plenty of that here.

Rather than caring "especially" for Muslims it seems many of you here want to make a big deal that these abused women were abused by men who happened to be Muslims in this case and are using this unrelated factor to attempt to damn us collectively and our Holy Teachings. By using these women as a political football you only abuse them again; it detracts from their plight and belittles their suffering. It doesn't appear to me like those here who used this thread to attack Islam, genuinely care about the sisters who got abused. And it hinders us from finding real solutions to reducing the abuse of women if we are blaming not just entirely the wrong factor, but the very thing that is the best preventative to this awful problem of abuse and many more human flaws; the beautiful religion of Islam.

There is no need for me to attempt to claim all Muslims are flawless in order to defend Islam; the Teaching can still be perfect even if the students still have flaws; I know that Muslim communities are not entirely free of the sins that are found in every culture, secular ideology and religion but please stop blaming religion, race or nationality for the flaws of individuals. The factors are numerous but do not include any of those just mentioned.

My guess is that the root causes of many emotionally motivated crimes (anger, frustration, insecurity etc) stems from the lack of a secure and loving environment during childhood. Anger management is about helping the client to realise that other people don't actually think badly of them; it is a largely a self-esteem problem - insecurity.

A child with a devoted mother and father who receives abundant love and praise, experiences harmony and religious principles in those around them throughout their upbringing, is protected from worldly corruptions as much as is practical and receives a firm foundation in Islamic Teachings, is likely to grow up as a well adjusted adult who would never even dream of abusing anyone. This is the way to prevent abuse of women but we must first purify ourselves so we can raise our children in this ideal way. Islam is perfect guidance for all those who are God-aware and I am so grateful to benefit from its matchless blessings. I would not wish to raise children without its guiding light.

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday August 29, 2012, 10:37 pm
Hi Abu Saijad,

First, no, I said nothing about Western Muslims being bad in any way. I said that Western Muslims cannot be considered to be of quite the same culture as others.

By your definition, culture, a major determining factor in many aspects of domestic life, may have little to do with Islam, but they have a lot to do with Muslims. While Muslims of different regions do have cultural differences, those of post-Caliphate societies have more in common with each other, especially in the relevant aspects here, than with any Western cultures. However, the fact is that, by any remotely useful definition, religion has always formed a cornerstone of culture since religion began. The culture of many Muslims may not be Islam as you define it, but it is based upon common interpretations of Islamic morals so, yes, Islam has a lot to do with the abuse, even if the abuse is not a matter of abiding by Islam as you, or God, would interpret its texts.

It was not the presence of women's shelters, but the imbalance between resources allocated for shelters for the two genders which I used as evidence. As for evidence regarding court-systems, while justice is theoretically supposed to be blind, look at the cases, and look at studies regarding reporting-rates.
The study's finding of abuse-rates by gender of victim are page 27, and the reported rates by assailant are on Page 43:
Now read the text on Page 43 about the rates of cross-gender assaults. Male victims severely under-report crimes to the British Crime Survey, apparently not recognizing assaults on them as criminal. This is a cultural issue. Now consider a the reaction of the justice system, staffed by people of that culture, to any reports.

Your comment that "insistence that we include Muslims who break God's commandments is proof of his desire to paint the religion in a bad light" is just nonsense. I include Christians who break their religious commandments as Christians and non-patriotic citizens of Greece as Greeks. I am trying to paint Muslims as human. Let me know if that is a problem for you. Your comment about blaming the original lawmakers of a country guilty of current criminals' behaviour is also completely off: I don't blame Mohammad or other original Muslims for modern crimes. I blame those who committed them for those crimes, and I blame communities for maintaining cultures which lead to those crimes being committed disproportionately often.

I see that you prefer "God's law": Of course, there is no such thing. To turn narratives into implementable law requires human interpretation. What you prefer is your interpretation, which may or may not have anything to do with any deity, over the considered laws of those democratically given authority to make them. I am particularly disturbed by your inclusion of "But those whose resistance you fear, then admonish them and abandon them in their sleeping place, then go away from them; and if they obey you, surely look not for any way against them; truly God is Lofty, Great. " So, do you consider a wife's disobedience to a husband sufficient reason for him to abandon her? Is marriage conditional upon the wife's slavery? This does appear to be the logical conclusion from text you quoted. Of course you also say a man should find no fault in an Islamic women, but you also defined Muslims to include only those who meet some ideal ... which apparently includes this obedience so that means nothing in this regard.

marie C (163)
Thursday August 30, 2012, 11:30 am
Very few English people know of Tim Osman more and more nonsense all speculation

marie C (163)
Thursday August 30, 2012, 11:40 am
Abu I think you will find that in this day and age no other nationality or religious order has a higher record woman abuse than Muslims Sadly the women have little rights and are often too scared to tell on an abuser or even speak out to family or friends Dear Abu I believe you are suffering from something called religious mania as even when things are 100% proven you blank your mind and find every which way excuses and poor old God gets the blame I noticed you have not been on the Saudi thread as I feel you really could not handle so much proof

Abu Sajjad (6)
Friday August 31, 2012, 3:48 pm
Dear Stephen, you are still trying to pass general blame Islam for the abuse by specific individuals; this in itself is proof of your mischief. There is just no way - not with any amount of false conjecture, that you can blame a Holy Scripture for crimes which it specifically forbids. And if you do not blame the Holy Scripture then you have to admit that just as the size 10 feet bear no relation to the abuse, neither does the fact that an abuser might claim Islam as their religion.

We can discuss the effects of ancient culture upon humans and we can find evidence of corruption present in the moral behaviour of humans but this is not of any use to you in maligning the Holy Teachings of Islam. Our prophets (peace be upon them all) were infallible and were not subject to errors. They were masters of their egos and worldly desires; they had a higher taste. This means that negative parts of popular culture never adversely affected their principles or Teachings.

If in fact you were only saying that "Western Muslims cannot be considered to be of quite the same culture as others", if this was true then what was your point? It is the same as saying 'different cultures are different'.

Islam is the completion of God's religion. This final revelation came to the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) through the Angel Gabriel (peace be upon him) and was recorded perfectly both in spoken and written form within his lifetime. It was then perfectly sealed and preserved by his Holy Progeny (alayhimus salaam) who were also Masumeen (Infallible - they never sinned or acted in a less than ideal manner). This is why "the faithless have despaired"; because Islam was sealed and protected against all tampering and corruption by the announcement below and the Infallible Imamate that occurred just prior to verse three of Al-Maida being revealed earlier on that same day (the Event of Ghadir Khumm);

"Today the faithless have despaired of your religion. So do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and I have completed My blessing upon you, and I have approved Islam as your religion." (Al-Maida: 3)

No one could add or take anything away from the Perfect Quran once this verse was revealed. And now Islam is so widely established, they never will; this is God's promise. There is only one Quran in Arabic; it is the same throughout the world and in every culture. It is clearly from God; the Generous Quran is a manifest miracle that we all can access and it is as it was when it was revealed.

Those who have not embraced Islam or even sincerely tried to understand it might not yet realise that the Holy Quran is a Divine Revelation. The Quran was never subject to worldly corruption. Even without embracing it as your religion, which for the individual is the greatest method of proving its divinity beyond all doubt, if you had examined it from source scientifically, you would have known that it is no ordinary book; that it could not have originated from man. The Glorious Quran reveals scientific knowledge that they had no technology to see 1400 years ago or even 40 years ago; for example, there are perfectly accurate descriptions of all the stages of embryonic growth in the correct order of their manifestation. Science recently confirmed that the Quran was perfectly correct even though science had previously hypothesised incorrectly about this order of growth. The recent advent of tiny microscope cameras which can see inside the womb and capture images of embryos, have been able to confirm the superior wisdom of Quran. This is one of a great many similar marvels but that is for another topic.

Adopting Islamic principles will enhance any individual or culture but no amount of sins can corrupt Islam. Islam teaches a whole lot about kindness and spiritual qualities and forbids harm to ourselves and others; it improves all those who sincerely embrace it. You cannot escape the fact that Islam promotes the enjoining of what is good and forbidding of what is evil; it is there in black and white. It speaks of the matchless rewards for those who do good and the dreadful fate of those who lie, foment hatred and commit other sins.

If you wish to debate the Holy Quran then we are talking about Islam but if you wish to debate culture and human flaws we are not. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't make any difference what the evil tyrants in Saudi get up to; it does not change a thing about Islam. In the case of Saudi, we can immediately see that Islam cannot be represented by a Monarchy because Islam forbids this system of governance. Culture and religion are not directly proportional to each other inasmuch as; no matter how depraved a group of humans become, the Immaculate Quran remains the same. No one would attempt to change a single ayat of Quran. God has assured us that this will not happen.

I have never disputed the fact that the vast majority of abusers are men; I even introduced a statistic of 95% of those who abuse are men. But even though this statistic is very high, we must not blame all men; even if it was 99%. You said that all men do get blamed and cited 'women's shelters' as your evidence. This is indeed evidence of the acceptance that abusers are expected to be mostly males but it was not evidence that men in general deserve blame or stigmatising because of the crimes of a small majority of them.

This is an important point because even though some abusers are Muslims, we mustn't stigmatise Muslims because it is an unrelated issue. Islam is not a catalyst in increasing abuse; any sane individual would reason that the heart-softening submission to God, God's laws of kindness and pleasing others and wanting for others what we would want for ourselves and over six thousand verses of enjoining good and forbidding evil plus the numerous warnings of the awful conditions in the hellfire for those who transgress, might well increase our good behaviour. Even if you will not accept this logically sound assumption, it would be ludicrous to assume they fomented diabolical behaviour. And no one has any evidence to support that such a trend even exists in men claiming to be Muslim.

Even if you did manage to find a genuine study of the incidences of abuse cases among believers and atheists, how can we be sure that it is not affected by cultural phenomena, increased financial stresses, the effects of pollution, vaccines (mercury is known to destroy brain cells), fluoride in water and toothpaste (known to affect behaviour), diet (doctors know dietary deficiencies can cause depression), ULF and ELF radiation (known to increase anxiety and create headaches) and there are countless more that we know have an effect upon behaviour and perhaps many more that we don’t know about. Can you not see how impossible it would be to isolate and blame one of these effects? We don't even know why the bee population is suddenly crashing.

Even if you did somehow manage to defy all reason and common sense and prove that a beautifully perfect religion which promotes good is actually to blame for bad behaviour, what then is achieved by this? Should you make it illegal? Should Islam come with a government health warning such as that 'For reasons unknown, this religion which commands us to treat others with the purest kindness, might have the opposite effect and cause men to hurt women'? Come on! What is the real motivation behind the anti-Islamic rhetoric here? It is obvious to any logical mind that some of you guys are up to no good.

I looked at the very basic studies you linked but there was nothing there that changes anything in my posts. I have never been collectively scorned as an abuser just because I am a man, even though most abusers are men and this is as it should be. It is important to remember that only a small minority of men are abusers and thank God I am not one of them. As I remember it, what we were discussing is whether it is right to generalise or not. Since generalising in this particular case and many others has been used as false conjecture in order to foment religiously bigoted or racist hatred, it is important to be extremely careful to avoid blaming anyone except those who are guilty. Even if you proved that men have been generalised about, two wrongs do not make it right; we should still never stigmatise groups of people based on individual flaws - even if it is happening elsewhere.

I already accepted that Muslims can have flaws; what I reject is conjecture which imagines that if 'x' amount of Muslims abuse women, therefore 'abuse must be a Muslim Crime'. This goes back to the oversimplified Neanderthal mentality that 'white American Christian' = 'good guy' and 'Arab Muslim' = 'bad guy'. Life is not so black and white and all of these dangerous ideologies which raise the status of one group over another are disastrous for peace and harmony. The Nazi entity is a horrifying example of what happens when prejudices like these gain popularity; whether persecution is aimed at the followers of Judaism or Islam, it is still religious bigotry and prejudice. The Generous Quran protects us from this flawed thinking with these beautiful ayahs from Surah Al-Hujurat, 11-13;

Bismil lah hir Rahman nir Rahim (In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Merciful)

"O you who have faith! Let not any people ridicule another people: it may be that they are better than they are; nor let women [ridicule] women: it may be that they are better than they are. And do not defame one another, nor insult one another by [calling] nicknames. How evil are profane names subsequent to faith! And whoever is not penitent —such are the wrongdoers."

"O you who have faith! Avoid much suspicion. Indeed some suspicions are sins. And do not spy on or backbite one another. Will any of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it. And be wary of Allah; indeed Allah is all-clement, all-merciful."

"O mankind! Indeed We created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes that you may identify yourselves with one another. Indeed the noblest* of you in the sight of Allah is the most Godwary among you. Indeed Allah is all-knowing, all-aware."
* or most honoured

Plus there is the beautiful advice from our beloved Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih), which reiterates this, revealed on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage in the midst of the Tashriq days;

"O people, be aware: your God is One. No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, and no non-Arab any superiority over an Arab, and no white one has any superiority over a black one, and no black one any superiority over a white one, except on the basis of taqwa (piety). The most honourable among you in the sight, of Allah is he who is the most pious and righteous of you. Say if I have conveyed the Message to you?" And the great congregation of the people responded, saying: Yes, you have, O Messenger of Allah." Thereupon the Holy Prophet said: "Then let the one who is present convey it to those who are absent," (Baihaqi)

I would love to go on but I would end up posting the entire Glorious Quran; I just absolutely adore Islam; nothing on earth has ever captivated me like this. There is nothing so perfect in our whole world as the Holy Quran, especially in its original Arabic language.

Blaming "communities for maintaining cultures" which lead to abuse is your obvious mistake dear Stephen; this is generalising. It gains nothing unless you wish to foment hatred against innocent people and I am struggling to think of other reasons for your rhetoric. Even if I was the only innocent man in the UK, it is not right to say that 'the English are criminals'. You are still implying that there is a higher incidence of abuse in Muslim communities but you have shown nothing to support this and I am beginning to think this notion is pure propaganda. Do I really have to prove how horrible are prejudices including nationalism, racism, genderism and bigotry?

In Islam, we describe 'prejudice' and 'favouritism' together in one Arabic term called 'Asabiyyah'. Asabiyyah is a mortal sin; it is enough to reserve a place in hell on its own. The Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) narrates;

"Whosoever possesses in his heart 'asabiyyah (prejudice in any of its forms such as tribalism, racism, nationalism) even to the extent of a mustard seed, God will raise him on the Day of Resurrection with the (pagan) Bedouins of the Jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic era)."
Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Intisharat `Ilmiyyah Islamiyyah, Tehran), vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi), p. 419.

The Bedouin culture used to be fundamentally based on tribalistic loyalty before the completion of Islam and it was an ideal example and well known for being this way. The Bedouins have now mostly embraced Islam alhamdulillah and are no longer worthy of this criticism, just as this hadith makes clear itself.

If a tiny black mustard seed of asabiyyah is allowed to germinate in our hearts, instead of our exorcising it immediately with love and sane reasoning, it soon grows into a polycephalous monster (with many heads). Asabiyyah in one's heart does not delay in inviting its evil abettors; it leads it's victims to commit several moral vices such as backbiting and slandering, and heinous crimes such as fomenting hatred with propaganda, oppression, murder, massacres and genocide. This is something we must help each other to 'nip in the bud' before something dreadful happens.

The Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) said: "One who calls towards 'asabiyyah is not from us, one who fights for 'asabiyyah is not from us and the one who dies on 'asabiyyah is not from us." [Mizan al Hikmah, hadith # 13035]

It is reported that when Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) was asked: "O Prophet of God! What is 'asabiyyah ?", He replied: "That you support your nation (or tribe) in oppression." [Abu Dawood, Sunan, hadith # 5119]

Imam Ali bin al-Husayn (alayhi salaam) was asked about asabiyyah. He replied:
"'Asabiyyah that makes a person sinful is that he takes the worst actions of his nation (or tribe) to be better than the best actions of his opponent tribe. It is not 'asabiyyah to love one's nation. However, if one helps his nation in committing oppression then it is 'asabiyyah." [Al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, vol. 2, bab al ‘asabiyyah, p. 308, hadith # 7]

I hope all the guilty can all repent of this all too common crime which takes so many souls to misery and eventually hellfire when it is permitted to continue. Repent dear brother and sisters and beg forgiveness; and God is the Most Merciful and Compassionate.

You say there is no such thing as God's law (astaghfirullah). Ignorance of a thing is not necessarily proof enough that it doesn't exist. God's laws are everywhere, acting upon you and everything constantly; it is just that you personally do not recognise them. Human perception does not affect God's laws in the slightest; a person who doesn't believe in gravity will not simply float away, neither will a person who doesn't believe in old age or death, not get old and die.

No one can deny the laws of physics and nature. Why are they not God's laws? Do you understand them in their entirety, can you explain their origins? Or are you just a tiny creature in a Universe so vast we don't even know if it has limits, let alone what they may be and what's beyond them. We have far more in common with the tiny ant than we do with our Creator. One cannot even be sure who one's own mother is; we have to accept the word of others. We do not know what happens before or after our deaths, let alone at the beginning and end of this material universe. Arrogance is an imperforate blindfold. Some of may think that they are self-sufficient and a few even think they themselves are gods but it doesn't change the fact that we fragile creatures, with all the needs of a babe-in-arms, entirely reliant upon God for everything and in no position to be hubristic. If only we could approach God in submission and with humility, we will be blessed with clearer vision and so much more besides insha'Allah. From the Quran;

"Woe to me, for neglecting what Allah was due and for being one of the scoffers!" or lest they should say: "If only Allah had guided me, I would have been more heedful," or lest he should say, when he sees the punishment: "If only I could have another chance so that I could be a good-doer!" "No, the fact is that My Signs came to you, but you denied them and were arrogant and were one of the unbelievers." On the Day of Resurrection you will see those who lied about Allah with their faces blackened. Do not the arrogant have a dwelling place in Hell? (Surat az-Zumar, 54-60)

Humans base the vast majority of their laws on divine revelations and the vast majority of humans believe in God's laws; so what makes you so confident when you deny rather categorically? Do you have some proof that we are not aware of that you would like to share? Or is this also out of that hat of yours?

I am not sure why you are 'disturbed' that Islam advises a man to give his wife some space if they are having marital problems. The word 'abandon' is not used in the context you imply; "... and abandon them in their sleeping place.." is in fact to cease physical affection with them or not to sleep in the same bed with them, when that serious action becomes appropriate. I would hope that the couple would miss each other's warmth and vow to make more effort to solve their differences. If they cannot, Islam has decreed that divorce is legitimate as a final last resort. This tragedy 'shakes the throne of God' but in some cases this is the lesser of evils which can result if differences escalate further and are inconsolable. I don't see why anyone would be against this. Most people do this anyway. Islam has a wonderfully detailed system to deal with marital challeneges and this is why the vast majority of Muslim marriages work and perhaps why westerners who have no such systems in place have the opposite statistics with failed marriages being the majority.

If we are now discussing whether 'devotional loving service' is 'slavery' and if the concept of marriage is a good idea, then I am sure we will get told off by dear Alexandra (and rightly so this time) for going off topic. Islam tells us that men and women have marital obligations to each other. They have freely agreed to take an oath of mutual loving service, cooperation and loyalty (among other beautiful promises). For it to work there has to be give and take from both spouses. Their duties are equal in importance but not identical because of biological (taxonomical) and psychological reasons. Islam says we are all equal but we cannot deny the obvious differences between genders. One can still be an Islamic feminist - in fact, all true Muslims should demand women's rights; they are there in writing in Islam. Our beloved Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa alih) was the first 'women's rights activist' in history that I know of. But no one can reasonably claim that men should take turns to bear children and breastfeed them; we have to admit that we do have differences, strengths and weakness. A sensible ideology uses these harmoniously and to their best effect.

I am so proud to be a 'slave' of God! The word 'slave' has some well-earned negative associations but technically it is more accurate than being a 'servant' of God since I am not doing it for payment - I am bonded to God, I belong to God and I love God and even if the worldly payment is poor, I will not feel forsaken provided I am still at least this much in love. And this has put to the test. Successful marriages have some similarities; the husband will want to serve his wife with love and provide for her, not as a business arrangement with a balance sheet of how much love equals how much service or 'who owes who what'; spouses that love each other want to please each other out of love; they are not so interested in the payment as much as they simply love to love and please each other. 'Disobedience' and 'slavery' as you mentioned are such malevolent words when used in this context; I am sad for you that your vision has become so cynical and dark.

I am not sure where you got the wrong impression that "a man should find no fault in an Islamic women". I am not sure if you meant singular or plural but it changes nothing; we are encouraged to forgive the minor flaws in others and focus on their qualities and the benefits of being challenged at times, particularly in relations with our wives.

I did not specifically define what a Muslims is yet, fortunately this has been done for us already; a Muslim is literally 'One who submits [to God]'. You are correct inasmuch as a part of this submission is indeed obedience to the commandments of Islam. It might help you to understand that Islam accepts that humans are subject to flaws and many of the commandments may even have been designed to help protect us from our weaknesses. For example; banning alcohol and gambling means that we don't have to rely on our imperfect logic on that decision; we are told no alcohol at all - we don't need self control to know when to stop drinking or gambling; this is a Mercy of Islam upon us. In some instances, our inner voice will tell us to do something sinful for fleeting pleasure or worldly gain but thanks to the Mercy of God, we can embrace Islam and have that as the stronger voice of God to drown out the 'mischief-maker within'.

The Noble Quran says;

"Certainly We have created man and We know to what his soul tempts him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein." (Qaf: 16)

"The Prophet has a greater right (or a greater authority) over the faithful than they have over their own selves, ..." (Al-Ahzab: 6)

In contrast, the first and only commandment of the Satanic 'bible' is "Do as thou wilt"; follow your heart, your whims, desires, lusts and perversions all the way along a path of dissatisfaction and abject misery until you reach The Lake of Fire. It is amazing how many 'ordinary' people also have enjoined this as 'the whole of their law'. Most 'pop music' both old and new, has this as their mantra; this is a trick to drag you to Hell. 'My Way' may just be the most satanic song of all time! I prefer to do it 'God's way'; this is what Jesus (peace be upon him) said in Luke 22:42; "... not my will, but thine, be done"

So God is absolutely worth listening to and obeying. He knows us better than we know ourselves. If we follow our on whims we will be the losers. God knows best and His guidance will keep us safe and lead us to everlasting joy and ever-new bliss. We all know where worldly pleasures lead; into the gutter mostly. Look at the rich and famous - they clearly have a high incidence of alcohol and drug problems and breakdowns. How many 'pop idols' commit suicide? Surely if materialism was 'where it's at', these guys would all be perfectly happy.

Obedience is not a dirty word when it is obeying God; my definition of 'sins' would be 'thoughts, words and deeds that distance us from God'. This distance is the source of all misery and suffering. Closeness to God is the only safety, security and shelter. If this is 'religious mania' as Marie has diagnosed, then I love it and I'll have some more please! I am not sure what you think you have proven (certainly nothing much on this thread) or what you think I am blanking; I thought I had patiently addressed everything that was aimed at me and that you even praised me for it (still not entirely sure about that :p).

You have no need to show me that Saudi is flawed - I have spoken out already about injustices there and I agree it does have some dreadfully tyrannical policies that are far worse than the majority of Muslim lands including Libya and Syria and I pray that one day, the people of Saudi will establish the freedom and justice of Islamic Governance there.

I am not interested in defending or attacking Saudi. I oppose all tyranny with my heart and soul in whichever disguise it is using but I don't have the time to become drawn into every topic. My ego is a quiet gentle little fellow and he is not excited by your inveigling to join you again already on another thread. My faith in Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is not in any danger and neither is my devotion or certainty in God's Final Revelation; Islam. But The End of Days may well be upon us sooner than we think; no one knows the day except Allah (Azza wa Jall) and I must not under any circumstances, neglect my relationship with God. Even though I have enjoyed our discussions and I have to admit I am a little perplexed as to why you guys do what you do, I am not going to make a habit of it. My soul happens to be very important to me and I will do as God wills inshallah in these final moments. This is for you guys, from the Quran;

Warn mankind of the Day when the punishment will reach them. Those who did wrong will say: "Our Lord, reprieve us for a short time. We will respond to Your call and follow the Messengers." [But it will be said] "But did you not swear to Me before that you would never meet your downfall, even though you inhabited the houses of those who had wronged themselves, and it was made clear to you how We had dealt with them, and We gave you many examples?" (Surah Ibrahim, 44-45)

On the Day, the sky is like molten brass and the mountains like tufts of colored wool. No good friend will ask about his friend, even though they can see each other. An evildoer will wish that he could ransom himself from the punishment of that Day by means of his sons, his wife, his brother, or his family who sheltered him or everyone else on Earth, if that only meant that he could save himself. (Surat al-Ma'arij, 8-14)

On the day they see it, every nursing woman will be oblivious of the baby at her breast, and every pregnant woman will abort the contents of her womb... (Surat al-Hajj, 2)

And [when] the True Promise is very close, the eyes of those who did not believe will be transfixed: "Alas for us! We were unmindful of this! No, rather we were definitely wrongdoers." (Surat al-Anbiya', 97)

I know from my own experience that living a pure life and keeping all God's commandments, doing our best to be excessively kind, trying to emulate how our perfect role models displayed all the wonderful principles of Islam is such a delightful and blissful path. Pollyanna was really not so far from the mark in many ways and I welcome it if I am accused of possessing any her attitude. The enjoining of Shariah; the 'Siratal Mustaqeem' (Straight Path) is the love-filled journey to Paradise and it brings with it abundant tranquillity and contentment even while struggling in this world, Subhanallah.

marie C (163)
Friday August 31, 2012, 3:55 pm
Really would not like to go to that paradise isn't that where all the suicide bombers go Think of all those virgins Are their male virgins there also for the women

Abu Sajjad (6)
Saturday September 1, 2012, 12:15 pm
Your last comment puzzles me dear Marie. Surely a Christian should want to invite people to their faith with kindness and love. Our shared [Christian and Muslim] prophets (peace be upon them) were respectful of the beliefs of others; they would never have insulted them with lewdnesses or insinuated bawdy vulgarities.

I hope those who may be considering investigating the Holy Teachings of Jesus (alayhi salaam) will not think that your comment is typical of the members of your religion; in my experience, they are beautiful souls whose faith and compassion is a joy to behold. As a Muslim, I have been welcomed and treated with respect and warmth by my Christian brothers and sisters.

Perhaps you regret your comment already and have repented. I certainly forgive you for it and will say no more. Seeking God's forgiveness is something you will have to work out with Him. However, I will just briefly address the propaganda myths you mentioned;

The attraction of Paradise is because it is close to God (Azza wa Jall) and His purest devotees. We all wish to be with our beloved, whatever that may be. For a religious soul, their Beloved is God. Heaven/Paradise is clearly not a place for indulging in carnality. It is far beyond the reach of Satan and his materialistically flesh-bound collaborators.

There is absolutely nothing about any number of 'virgins' in the Holy Quran. It does say that the beings in Paradise, the 'houri' (no mention of specific gender), are pure, like pearls, modest, chaste, beautiful and splendid inasmuch as the English words can be translated. Basically they are what we might describe as 'angelic' but there is a difference between them and the angels. Your term 'virgin' is inappropriate since it is only relating to a physical biological state, rather than their lofty and pure God-Consciousness. To apply base materialistic concepts to something unimaginably immaculate is such a shame and a disservice.

As for your other irreverent dig at Islam relating to the mythology of the 'War on Terror", I think the vast majority of people now know all too well that the horrific 'false flag' events have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. If there are still some fluoride-drooling Fox News fanatics out there who have not yet seen through this flimsy deception, then perhaps they could show me where in the Holy Quran it says it's 'ok' to massacre innocent men, women and children. Because I know at least a dozen verses off the top of my head from the Holy Quran that strictly and specifically forbid harming innocents and being unjust. It would be a pleasure to list some of them for you. There is absolutely no way that the Noble Quran allows terrorism; in fat it categorically forbids it many times.

Even if we accept that every single farcical false flag terror event was carried out by devils claiming to be Muslims, Islamic terrorism still only amounts to 6% of terrorist attacks in America and its territories between 1980 and 2005. If two billion Muslims thought they were religiously obliged to hurt non-Muslims don't you think this would be higher? There are even more Jewish attacks (7%) than Muslim attacks according to the FBI. I stole this from a previous post;

CNN recently published an article entitled;

"Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group"

According to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; "the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated."

Terrorist attacks in America and its territories 1980-2005, According to the FBI;

42% Latino
24% Extreme left wing
16% others
7% Jewish extremists
6% Islamic Extremists
5% Communists

Do we live in fear of radicalised Latinos?

The raw data from the FBI;

Why is there such a disparity of news coverage? Is it possible that the CFR could be using is enormous influence on the news corporations which all are their members? All 18 of the largest media corporations are members of the CFR.

Whether Islam is the biggest threat to peace or whether Islam is our salvation and our only hope of peace, we all owe it to ourselves to investigate the Holy Quran. Get yourself a copy and read it; it will not take you long. And God (Azza wa Jall) will guide whomever He pleases.

Alexa R (319)
Saturday September 1, 2012, 1:33 pm
Abu S: "your comment already and have repented. I certainly forgive you for it and will say no more."

Abu, I fail to see why Marie TC needs your forgiveness for her question on a topic you raised in one of your posts; that of Islamic Paradise. Her question about the chances/hopes of a female in islamic paradise has EVERY thing to do with this thread, as this thread IS about Feminism.

I would suggest to you, that if you cannot handle or answer Marie TC's question on a female's chances in islamic paradise, if your islamic religious posts are not up for questions or discussion, then refrain from posting several purely islamic religious posts on this thread. As you risk us thinking that you intend to brainwash us with this one-sided flow of words from you to us on islamic religion.

Alexa R (319)
Saturday September 1, 2012, 1:47 pm
Abu S: "The raw data from the FBI; "

Data from 7 years ago! A LOT has changed in the last 7 years!!

For an up-to-date and global terrorist database:

The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) is an open-source database including information on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2010 (with additional annual updates planned for the future). Unlike many other event databases, the GTD includes systematic data on domestic as well as transnational and international terrorist incidents that have occurred during this time period and now includes more than 98,000 cases. For each GTD incident, information is available on the date and location of the incident, the weapons used and nature of the target, the number of casualties, and--when identifiable--the group or individual responsible.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) makes the GTD available via this online interface in an effort to increase understanding of terrorist violence so that it can be more readily studied and defeated.
Characteristics of the GTD

Contains information on over 98,000 terrorist attacks
Currently the most comprehensive unclassified data base on terrorist events in the world
Includes information on more than 43,000 bombings, 14,000 assassinations, and 4,700 kidnappings since 1970
Includes information on at least 45 variables for each case, with more recent incidents including information on more than 120 variables
Supervised by an advisory panel of 12 terrorism research experts
Over 3,500,000 news articles and 25,000 news sources were reviewed to collect incident data from 1998 to 2010 alone

Government representatives and interested researchers may request versions of the data directly through the GTD Contact Form.

marie C (163)
Saturday September 1, 2012, 5:21 pm
Abu "though protests too much"

Your protest are not showing Islam up in a very good light as why pages and pages It makes me and I am sure many others feel very dubious about your beliefs as why does it need so much explanation I think you are hiding shame
I really do not need your forgiveness my God hopefully will forgive you for trying to hide the suffering that women go through with Sharia law and the shameful men who follow it
Also pray tonight for the victims of 7/7 who I have watched in the Para Olympics and they have made my heart bleed at times I could not even watch some of them through my tears We were told by the commentators each badly damaged person who was a victim of 7/7 Maybe my God will not forgive the perpetrators of these attacks I hope he doesn't.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:49 pm
Dear Alexandra, please excuse me if I still believe in politeness and respect. I try to forgive those who do not afford me this decency. It is all part of being a Muslim. Even you must see that Marie's comment was solely meant as an insult to me and Muslims in general; her aim was clearly to mock by repeating the propaganda clichés (terrorists and 72 virgins). Up until that point I thought it was an interesting discussion; but the next level down from her grandiloquent calibre of rebuttal is 'yes but you smell'! I hope to quite before things deteriorate to that extent. I thought it was charitable of me to even take her remark seriously enough and offer a little evidence to set the record straight.

To say she was making an enquiry (polite or otherwise) as to the situation of Muslim women in Paradise is typical of the twisted logic you employ. But I am not sure how this promotes your agendas. Perhaps I am missing the point and instead it is supposed to wear me out in the hope that I won't enjoy my time here and I will leave Care2 and cease exposing your games.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:50 pm
It seems that neither of you two ladies understood why I would forgive smutty and libellous comments about the Muslims; forgiveness is a vital part of being a follower of any Great Faith; if Alexandra, you were really a religious Jewess you would understand how important 'human to human' forgiveness is to Jews. I advise that you look into it because it is a central and beautiful part of the Jewish faith;

"It is forbidden to be obdurate and not allow yourself to be appeased. On the contrary, one should be easily pacified and find it difficult to become angry. When asked by an offender for forgiveness, one should forgive with a sincere mind and a willing spirit. . . forgiveness is natural to the seed of Israel." (Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 2:10)

In Judaism, one must go to those he has harmed in order to be entitled to forgiveness; a person cannot obtain forgiveness from God for wrongs the person has done to other people. I recommend having a look at 'The Tefila Zaka meditation, which is recited by Jews just before Yom Kippur.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:51 pm
You don't seem to be too happy that I have helped to diversify this thread with a different view to yours regarding Islam and the Muslim Ummah. Isn't variety the 'spice of life'? I was under the impression all sincere opinions were welcome on Care2; it would be dreary if we were all the same.

I wished to provide an alternative to view to some of the generalising, prejudice and bigotry in order to prevent more religious and racist hate-crimes attacks on my sisters and brothers in faith and bring people closer to wisdom; to God (Mighty and Majestic). I am not impressed by insincere cry crocodile tears for the sisters while fomenting hatred and encouraging more hate-crimes against them.

I replied to some of those who wished to engage me on what I said. My original post may have been sufficient but I didn't want to be rude and ignore people when they are addressing me directly. If I had said anything untrue, I am sure you would have challenged me on it.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:52 pm
I apologise if my posts were too long for you; as you can see I have now shortened them :p But there is a lot to learn in this world if one has the inclination. Not all knowledge can be gleaned from pop-culture where wisdom has been subverted into short quotes and jingoistic sound-bites. Perhaps others might take something from my posts even if you cannot.

As for the accusation of brainwashing, everything we see and hear might affect us in a small way. Education is all good when it is the truth. I have aimed to promote mutual love and respect here because I saw the opposite in many posts. It is increasingly clear that you prefer generalising and hatred and aim to stigmatise Muslims for flaws which are human in nature - for crimes which every group of humans has to deal with, regardless of their faith or ethnicity.

Your monologue of general Islamic stigmatising was interrupted with some truth about prejudice and so you accuse me of being "one-sided"; are you for real?

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:54 pm
The statistics I provided regarding terrorism were perfectly targeted at the ideal time period 1980 to 2005 because this was the time of the original high profile false flag frame-ups and accompanying media demonization which aimed to foment the original hatred of the Muslims in Americans and Europeans for political motives. This is when the propaganda and anti-Islam sentiment began flowing in earnest (conveniently when McCarthyism ended) and is therefore perfect for exposing the evil plots of the oligarchy and the complicity of their media which is little but propaganda, moral degradation or distraction. To see exactly when, and why, changes happened at their conception can explain a great deal.

Not only does my post show perfectly that media reporting and most likely the world view of its gullible audience was vastly out of touch with the reality, it is also from the FBI which everyone has heard of. I have never heard of your GTD and seeing as though it gathers information from the mainstream media, which obviously cannot be trusted to tell us the truth, I am also not going to blindly trust this data too especially since it is an unknown organisation.

Your statistics do not mention anything about the claimed motives behind the attacks, and since every terrorist attack I have researched has been a poorly executed and obvious false flag event, I would have to take each case on its own and investigate it from independent sources before drawing any conclusions.

How can we know whether it is yet another plot to unjustly demonise Muslims? I have already exposed the cooperate media and you guys for doing exactly this; clearly there is propaganda from the largest corporations to small online news communities and it is full of subtle trickery to attempt to alter the way we see things. Even the corporate media is publishing stories that the corporate media is unjustly Islamophobic.

In any case, your new information, even if it was perfect, does not change anything about my historical data, which was highly damning at the time and it always will continue to be no less damning. It proved the point perfectly; Islam is the new media bogyman myth because of a despicable political plot.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:56 pm
Islam can be hated by evil people and still also be the verbatim word of God (Azza wa Jall). It is logical and highly likely that the perfect religion of God, sent to free us from tyranny and evil, would also be hated by tyrants, oppressors and evildoers.

One doesn't have to go far to see how the west oppresses and tyrannises, economically (eg. designer clothing sweatshops in Indonesia, 40,000 of our worlds children dying daily of poverty) and militarily (endless western invasions and coups and western bases all over the world).

There is no doubt that devils hate it when they are denied the opportunity to rape a country of its resources and inflict usury (interest) and debt slavery on a nation. This is why they hate the Islamic Republic of Iran and Venezuela; because the people there are courageous and will not accept tyranny.

If you watch the John Pilger documentary ' The War On Democracy (2007), you will see a list of 50 countries (since 1948) that the CIA have initiated some form of empire-building conflict through false flag events and state run coups; it would not surprise me if all major terrorism (not including tree-hugging activism, having more than seven days food or selling raw milk) without exception were caused by the very same global cabal who wish to have totalitarian world government with every country submitting to their will and becoming slaves to the banksters and their culture transformed into carbon copies of their hedonism whether the people like it or not. The US has over 1000 military bases in over 130 countries already and this is increasing all the time. Can you imagine the good these resources could be doing? Yet there is little mention of this in the mainstream media; they are too busy trying to prevent Muslim women from 'over-dressing' and preventing Muslims from having their own marriage guidance mediators.

The War On Democracy (2007) by John Pilger

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:58 pm
Dear Marie, not every truth can be put into a nutshell for you. Some require a little more explaining and a little more study. If this is a problem for you then don't read my posts; no need for you to complain. The New Testament alone has twenty-seven books within it and is larger than the Holy Quran. Does this also make you "dubious" that Jesus (peace be upon him) needed "so much explanation"? Do you also think that the Holy Bible is "hiding shame" on account of its length?

Seriously, if this is the sort of conjecture we are now stooping to in order to try to malign what I have said; 'it's too long, therefore it's dubious', then I can see that we have completed our discussion and there is no more to be gained in this discourse with you. I am flattered that this is the best you could find to criticise me with; I must be learning to avoid your tricks.

I am not hiding the suffering of women at all; I have proven beyond doubt that Islam is in no way responsible for the suffering of our dear sisters because it forbids abuse and enjoins kindness in all of its Teaching relating to this subject. I have proven that individual human flaws are responsible for criminal behaviour and that generalising is a heinous error.

Yet you continue to blame Shariah for suffering of abused women but you fail to name a single ayat in the Holy Quran which would cause suffering to women if it was adhered to. Why would you blame Shariah if you have no idea what it even is? Surely you are repeating a lie or fabricating a lie. I would be very careful before condemning something before I even know what it is.

You have been attempting to foment hatred against Muslim men and women on Care2 for almost four years now yet you still cannot find a genuine example of something about the Noble Quran worth hating. Does it not bother you that you are trying to malign something so pure and beautiful that can help so many people? What happened to make you so forlorn and lacking in hope? Believe me I would love to help all the shills here to find love again if it was God's will. But the more you hate the greater you distance yourselves from love. But if you repent, God is Forgiving, and Merciful.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 4:59 pm
I try to follow Shariah to the letter as every Muslim and decent human being would. It is a perfect way to live. I am extremely grateful that even though I was born in the UK to atheist parents, I was still shown the truth and beauty of Islam in spite of lies and weak conjecture like yours. Thinking for oneself and investigating from the source is the way to avoid being suckered in by even the most ambitious deceptions.

The London bombings were indeed horrific and evil but it was certainly not carried out by the four Muslims they blamed; there is no evidence at all that they were responsible and a ton of evidence to the contrary, implicating some famous people, agencies and huge companies.

In less than ninety seconds I can prove that this abhorrent act was definitely yet another false flag event with some very high powered corruption or perhaps even government complicity;

Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal

If you cannot see how entirely impossible this 'coincidence' could be; the same day, same three stations, and a road vehicle in the same square (a statistician estimated the probability of this to be similar to the number of grains of sand on Earth), then take more time and watch this short series. If you think that two planes, atomising three buildings in New York and cars even half a mile away was 'suspicious', just wait until you get a load of this charade (please watch all six parts);

7/7 Ripple Effect Part 1 of 6 (High Quality)

My heart goes out to all the victims, scapegoats and their families. But my tears do not blind my ability to see when the media are trying to hoodwink me. But be careful what you pray for Marie; if all the devils who were responsible for this atrocity are held accountable, the sock puppets here will have to find another career.

God will do as He pleases with those who are responsible and those who are complicit in misleading us as to who was to blame. One thing is absolutely for sure, this was nothing to do with the four public-spirited Muslims (it was a police liaison community volunteer and his friends) whose only error was naively agreeing to participate in the 'training exercise' which was made real by parties yet unknown for sure. I have a good idea where to start an investigation though.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 5:04 pm

If I have failed to show Islam in a perfect light in my posts then I humbly seek God's forgiveness and that of my Muslim brother and sisters. I cannot ever express my love and gratitude of Islam enough, so it is not through lack of will if I have done a disservice to this matchless religion. Any flaws in my posts are mine alone and do not belong to Islam.

Up until now I have answered all of the accusations and allegations but it's time for me to move on from this thread. I cannot waste anymore time here. I may have one more post which I started about shills and sock puppets but I am done with answering ridiculous arguments like 'my posts are too large therefore I must be guilty of something' or 'I didn't answer a question that Alexandra imagined so I should refrain from posting anything'. My apologies but I will not be drawn into peculiar paltriness. I have already exposed a sufficient quantity of your games for sincere readers to see what you are up to and I have had enough of those who prefer division, bigotry, generalising and hatred. Instead I wish to spend more time with God (may He be Glorified and Exalted) and his sincere devotees.

Abu Sajjad (6)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 7:13 pm
The attacks upon Islam that you can see here is not about concern for women - hate crimes against religious women are increasing because of rhetoric just like the story this thread is based on and some of the comments here. The ringleaders want to force Muslim women to undress against their will! I have it in their own writing that they wish to take away their choice to veil and force them to be glared at by any man who wishes to give them dirty looks - by law! What happens if they do not wish to comply? There is the threat of arrest/fine/imprisonment and the loss of their children's company - how is that 'Women's Liberation'?

For those women and young girls who are used to their niqab (a religious veil), this is like a non-Muslim being force to expose her chest - only worse because this is their religion to cover so they are also going against God's laws in favour of the laws of men - and that is idolatry. How can this oppression be from a feminist?

Who is more of a feminist - a woman who doesn't allow any man to ogle her as he pleases or one who dresses in a way that caters to a man's lusts? The term 'eye candy' is so degrading to women yet these so called 'feminists' want all women, including those who are unwilling, to expose themselves to all and sundry. I am sure that male chauvinists would love laws which force women to undress.

So if they are not interested in the rights and freedoms of women, what could their baseless apparent hatred of Muslims be about? It may sound strange for now, but once you look at my evidence, I think you will agree that this is in fact about enslavement. Please bear with me;

Slavery is now illegal and we will not stand for it so the ultra-rich elite slave-masters have found another way of chaining us. They have used a sophisticated mind-control device which actually vibrates at exactly the same frequency as our mind and can project images and sounds consciously and subliminally so deep into our psyche that we think their opinions are our own; it is called television and it is poisoning and enslaving us and making us miserable and powerless like junkies.

This phenomenal documentary called 'The Arrivals' shows us beautifully how and why they do it and it reveals our invisible cage so that we may choose to step out of it into the Real World. For the sake of our freedom you must watch this. Seeing the cage is just stage one;

WARNING; this presentation will change your life forever and there is no going back;

"The aim of the series is to expose the Matrix* that has been systematically engineered by the World elites."

This website has all the episodes of the first series currently but might not have for long;

This is the main site but movies have been temporarily offline for the last few days. There are other very important documentaries here also;

Here is a YouTube link with the first 17 parts in one go. Be quick because this is now blocked in 200 countries. Check in the description of this video for other suggestions and let me know if you have difficulties finding any episodes if you would like help.

*For those who are not aware what this Matrix is yet, it is difficult to describe it in a few words. Freeing oneself from the Matrix is a greater challenge still. Those who are still stuck within it will have no idea they are even trapped in a mental prison until they see their cage. Seeing one's cage is not freedom but it is the first stage in waking up. This series is the best way to understand what has happened to us and why. Watch it - do not skip past this thinking it is no big deal; it is. If you don't know why I am asking you to watch it, you are still enslaved.

It is not an exaggeration now to say there are two types of people in the world now; those that have seen this documentary and those that have not. Please spread the word before it is banned altogether.

Waking up is exhilarating; if you ever get bored or depressed it is because you are in a hypnotic trance; this real-life extraordinary tale surpasses any Tolkien fantasy - truth is much stranger than fiction and our adventure is interactive. So I dare you to watch this attentively. Although this series only mentions religion as a sideline, when you are aware of the Matrix, you will perhaps why embracing a monotheistic religion is so important. Then you may see just how deep the rabbit hole goes, God willing.

There is no product to sell or particular group to join; only freedom to be had; for free of course!

Alexa R (319)
Sunday September 2, 2012, 11:38 pm
Abu S: "Slavery is now illegal and we will not stand for it so the ultra-rich elite slave-masters have found another way of chaining us. They have used a sophisticated mind-control device which actually vibrates at exactly the same frequency as our mind and can project images and sounds consciously and subliminally so deep into our psyche that we think their opinions are our own; it is called television and it is poisoning and enslaving us and making us miserable and powerless like junkies.

This phenomenal documentary called 'The Arrivals' shows us beautifully how and why they do it and it reveals our invisible cage so that we may choose to step out of it into the Real World. For the sake of our freedom you must watch this. Seeing the cage is just stage one; "

First you tell us that "television" enslaves us and then you tell us the exact place to go, to get enslaved?

I forgive you as a Jewess in accordance with Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 2:10, Abu for still flooding us with one-sided purely religious posts with only one or two talking about the topic of this thread. BTW "Selicha – Forgiveness

In Judaism, if a person makes a poor choice or causes harm, but then sincerely and honestly apologizes to the wronged individual and tries to rectify the wrong, the wronged individual is religiously required to grant forgiveness (Hebrew סליחה, literally "forgive")"

Marie TC has neither made a poor choice nor caused you any harm Abu - she simply asked you a question on a topic you raised, thus she does not need your forgiveness.

As regards Feminism and modesty, though not a feminist myself and being someone who dresses modestly myself, I VERY much doubt that Feminists would force any person to wear anything. The only places where I've been forced to wear a headscarf had been in islamic countries, as I CERTAINLY did not wish to be the target for rape there (a sharia law punishment for those who are not covered from head to toe is rape - these were sharia law countries - and I'm a law-abiding type of person, even if the law forces me to wear what I don't wish to wear).

Loŕraine Butcher (92)
Monday September 3, 2012, 10:29 am
This thread is titled Sharia Law and Middle Class Feminism – and so I would like to add a few thoughts regarding women and the attempt to legitimize sharia in western civilizations as opposed to the current attempt being made by some to obfuscate this important issue.

I have zero personal ambiguity in stating that Islam is in no way, shape or form compatible with western civilization, morality or laws. This is not so called “islamophobia on my part – it is not prejudiced to state what is real and factual. Pay attention people and understand that Islam permits devout Muslims to lie, cheat, and deliberately bluff non-muslims to protect or promote the religion of Islam, anytime, anywhere - this tactic is known as “Islamic Taqiyya” and was originally used by the Prophet of Islam to fool, and later subjugate and destroy enemies of Islam. (

Sharia is in general heavily misogynistic and anti-minority. The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women… (Q 4.34). In addition to absolute obedience, a woman should revere her husband because Islam teaches that, “If a woman knew the right of a husband, she would not sit at his lunch and supper time until he finishes.” One time, a woman came to the prophet of Islam to ask about her obligations to her husband. He said, “If he had pus from his hair part to his foot [from head to toe] and you licked him, you would not have shown him enough gratitude.”

Obedience and reverence towards her husband are two of the wife’s duties. These duties form an element of worship for her. As the prophet of Islam once said, “If a woman prays her five prayers, fasts the month of fasting, keeps her chastity, and obeys her husband, she will enter the paradise of her Lord.” In addition, Allah will not accept the prayer of a woman if her husband is angry with her.

The Quran gives the husband the right to punish his wife if she goes outside the parameters that he draws for her. It provides men with instructions: “But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them...” (Q 4.34).

In fact, in reading the verse above one will notice that these instructions were given to the husband concerning a wife whom he ONLY fears disloyalty, not a wife that actually committed a disloyal act. These instructions include the following step-by-step process:

The Quranic principle of a man’s right to a woman’s body is not open for discussion. Regardless of her psychological or physical state, she has to obey the man’s command to lie in bed and have sexual relations with him. After all, the prophet of Islam repeatedly made statements advocating this view:
“If a man calls his woman to his bed, and she does not come, and then he goes to bed angry at her, the angels will curse her until the morning.”

“Ironically, Islamic literature claims that Islam as a religion has improved the position of women and is the only religious doctrine that honors women. History shows that Islam did accomplish some limited advancement in the position of women during the seventh century in certain aspects such as, limiting the number of wives to four in comparison to the practices during that era in the Arabian Peninsula.

Conversely, many of the changes implemented by Islam were not positive. The Quran permits men to beat their wives, making domestic abuse a divinely permissible act rather than just an individual behavior.
It is worthy to note that in various ancient societies and throughout human history, women have lived under the oppression of social injustice. However, our dilemma, when it comes to the position of women in Islam, stems from the fact that Islam is seen as the final religion and source of law by its followers. Hence, the position of women is fixed, and rulings, such as the beating of a wife, must remain in place as specified by the Quran. Though in modern society a woman may work and share in the financial burdens of life, she will still be deprived of equality because the Quran commands it so. Overall, the Quranic rules regarding the treatment of women can still be used today as tools of oppression in the hand of the Muslim man. Any effort she exerts other than that is of no value.” (

Rape cases are almost impossible to prove in the court of Islamic nations. It is beyond ridiculous to consider that any rapist will do the crime in front of 4 males so that they can later give testimony in the court - therefore, it is impossible to prove rape case in a sharia court and rape victims in Islamic nations end up being charged with Zena (physical relations outside marriage) and punished (floggings or stoning death). Does anybody remember Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow? a gang raped a 13 years old girl who was then stoned to death on the orders of a Sharia court in the "Sharia Compliant" country named Somalia. This is sharia – what some misguided politically correct apologists wish to see brought into western nations.

Here are a few more of the highlights of sharia as applies to women:

There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

There is no common property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

A woman inherits half what a man inherits. Sister gets half of what brother gets.

A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and wife has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and also with women captured in battle (concubines), and if the

The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man; that is, two women equal to one man.

A woman loses custody if she remarries.

A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses. Women’s testimony is not accepted - Pakistan’s Hudood ordnance 7 of 1979 amended by 8B of 1980. Thousands of raped women and girls in many countries have been charged with Zena (physical relations outside marriage) and punished by Sharia courts for want of witnesses

The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life and this is what we are supposed to accept? I don’t think so, Quiddity - is an evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections . Bravo Abu Sajjad, your posts have been masterpieces of equivocation as regards the rights of women under sharia.

marie C (163)
Monday September 3, 2012, 4:51 pm
For me Sharia law is evil
How many pages will you have to write Abu to explain Dare to kill stills comment
I am very sorry to say once again yours pages and pages of twisted explanations do more harm than good to Sharia. Sincere readers surely can see right through all the excuses.
I think you feel no one is taking you seriously and no Muslim brothers are giving you any support probably because they can see the error of your ways

Mary P (157)
Monday September 3, 2012, 9:25 pm
You waste your precious time on these 'fools', as the best way to deal with 'fools' is to ignore them! They know not what they say. I am sure you and the people of the world have realized by now that these 'fools'
are like a broken record; they keep coming back with the same questions and false information (from hate sites) no matter how many times a muslim spends his valuable time to explain these 'fools' own sic and distorted version and intentional mis -interpretations to suit their own evil agendas. Majority of muslims from the world and care2 members simply ignore these 'fools' as their 'INTENTIONAL' Ignorance Precedes them!!!

Alexa R (319)
Monday September 3, 2012, 10:28 pm
The ways of sharia law are clearly illustrated in this recent case:

A Pakistani imam has been remanded in custody, accused of planting pages of the Koran among burnt pages in the bag of a Christian girl held for blasphemy.

The girl was detained two weeks ago near the capital Islamabad after an angry mob demanded she be punished.

Prosecutors say Imam Khalid Chishti will himself face charges of blasphemy.

The girl, named as Rimsha, is said to be about 14 and to have learning difficulties.

Imam Khalid Chishti allegedly told a witness, after tampering with the girl's bag, that this was a "way of getting rid of Christians", a prosecutor said.

The case has sparked international condemnation.

The delegitimising of the local cleric is a very positive step, because it has turned the charge of blasphemy on its head. When no-one is sure whether it is the accused or the accuser who is guilty of blasphemy, it's easier to avoid a mob situation.

I would like to see the law abolished, but I know I am getting ahead of myself here. We are far from it as long as people in Pakistan believe that it is not the law that's at fault, but the people who abuse it.
~Sundas Hoorain, law student, Lahore, currently in the UK

Mary P, all that comes to a C2NN thread of mine brings me pleasure, some when they comment and contribute and others when they leave: toodle-loo, adios, bye bye, وداعا .. Mary P.

Mary P (157)
Monday September 3, 2012, 10:52 pm
Btw care2 network is now a site wherein hatred and lies are spread and the Target at the moment is Islam and Muslims! Very soon ONLY haters will remain enjoying and encouraging demonisation of all others who are different to them in any form!

Alexa R (319)
Monday September 3, 2012, 11:10 pm
Mary P: "Very soon ONLY haters will remain"

Hate/Lies NEVER has victory over LOVE/TRUTH .. LOVE/TRUTH is ALWAYS victorious .. Sudas Hoorain has the right idea!

marie C (163)
Tuesday September 4, 2012, 5:10 am
'Very soon only haters will remain enjoying and encouraging demonisation of all others who are different to them in any form'
Stop playing with words Mary sadly Abu tried and ended up tying himself and Islam in knots
The haters are haters against cruelty abuse rape and murder against innocent uneducated women. Sharia Law
Read the thread

Loŕraine Butcher (92)
Tuesday September 4, 2012, 7:49 am
Mary P - Lively discussion and even bitter argument do NOT add up to hatred. Care2 is a message board which facilitates the exchange of ideas by people from a broad spectrum of different societies. It can be both interesting and enlightening to read. On this particular thread I have enjoyed learning about many facets of Islam which I did not know before - this does not mean that I still do not have my own fact based opinions and the desire and freedom to express them.

Do not dare label those of us whose ideologies and morals do not match your own as haters and “islamophobes” just because we have and express our own beliefs.

Name calling seems to be the last resort of those who cannot offer anything by way of critical thinking and honest speech and it is both disingenuous and beyond tiresome for those of us who can. If you cannot, or will not offer anything better in defence of your own position – then at least be smart enough to be silent.

I do not think that I hate anybody actually - however I will state (again) unequivocally to having a total antipathy for ANY religion/way of life which maintains the position that women are lesser somehow than men. Period. There is nothing anybody can say which will change my mind about that.

Also please understand that like most people (!), I do not need another religion - I have my own (or not).

I certainly do NOT wish to be confronted with the misogynistic evidence of someone else’s "faith" by having to see people stumbling around dressed in black bags in my country -.the people of my nation have welcomed the best of others culture and diversity, and we are the richer for it- there is no political will or desire of the people to permit the abomination called sharia to exist or supersede our own laws.

I think some people need to remember that when they come to another country, they are obligated to live under the laws and statutes of said country. There are those who seem to think that they are above such - with their importation of "honor killings" and genital mutilation - to them I say - welcome to our prison system - I hope you have a nice long stay until we deport your sorry butt back to where ever you came from~

Alexa R (319)
Tuesday September 4, 2012, 9:34 am
Thanks for your comment DareToCare. You've eloquently expressed my sentiments in each of the points you raised! And your points would probably resonate with a lot of others on this thread too.

Once again thank you for your contribution and thanks to all commenters who contributed.

It has certainly been a positive learning experience having had such diverse contributions made, mostly made without resorting to name-calling/insults, even if lively.

Mary P (157)
Tuesday September 4, 2012, 9:57 pm
You bunch are not just fools and haters, but liars, fabricators of untruth, sock puppets, spreaders of false information (hate sites) and hypocrites! Read each others posts to find proof of every accusation I make at you! You lot are sic and make me want to puke!

Abu, I congratulate you for your perserverance and patience with this particular group of pretenders, who
Pretend to care for the plight of muslim women yet are eager for imposing their own bans (veils) and
punishment of jail sentences for even those muslim women(born in the western countries) who wish to don the face veils!!
Such Blatant Hypocrites!!!

Mary P (157)
Tuesday September 4, 2012, 10:22 pm
Please note I did not come to this thread to debate anything but to tell you 'haters' that you are not what you pretend to be and to make an attempt to unblind yourselves to your own reality!

Alexa R (319)
Tuesday September 4, 2012, 10:42 pm
I see you simply could not stay away from our good company on this thread, Mary P ..

Mary P: “punishment of jail sentences for even those muslim women(born in the western countries) who wish to don the face veils!!”

What an imagination you have! Are you going to substantiate your wild accusations? Or is the 'best' we are going to get out of you on this thread just you sharing your wild imaginations and demonisations regards western countries?

Alexa R (319)
Tuesday September 4, 2012, 11:11 pm
Mary P: "to unblind yourselves to your own reality!"

In my own personal experience, Mary P, wild and imaginative accusations do not have the power to "unblind" someone of their own reality, but well reasoned arguments substatiated with facts and witness accounts DO have what it takes, the power to "unblind".

"yea, I'm not trying to be cool
Or tellin' you what you should do
You gotta find out just for yourself
I only know what's right for me
The promises I want to keep
But every day it's something else"

~ song by Jordan Pruitt

marie C (163)
Wednesday September 5, 2012, 4:20 am
Alexandra thank you again for such an interesting thread.
We can only hope and pray that so much will change for these frightened indoctrinated people .

Loŕraine Butcher (92)
Wednesday September 5, 2012, 11:09 am
Mary P – Do you actually have anything to add to this discussion? Do you even understand the concept of a discussion? Everyone has the right to be stupid, but you are clearly abusing the privilege.

One more time for those with little to no actual reading comprehension: Muslim women who live in or come to democratic countries are entitled to exactly the same rights and privileges as any other citizen – all laws applying indiscriminately to all men AND women. One of the main tenents of a democracy is a citizen’s ability to address grievances either through courts, elections or lobbying, thus in our secular society there is no room for the misogynistic anachronism which goes by the name of Sharia law which favors men to the detriment of women.

It is difficult (if not impossible) to envisage the compatibility of alternative legal systems with the law in democratic societies, particularly with an Islamic legal system that calls for the death penalty for apostasy, sexual "crimes" of women including adultery, and homosexuality. Women are handicapped on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. A Muslim man is permitted to have four wives and can divorce one of them with ease, but women must follow a difficult path to obtain a divorce. At the worst, women can be stoned to death for sex outside marriage. Judgment in criminal cases can be harsh; thieves may be punished by amputation. It is not a manifestation of xenophobia or prejudice to hold the belief that Muslim Sharia law is antithetical to democratic values and will NOT be tolerated in modern societies. No doubt there are some myths and social stereotypes that have been articulated in the West, and may not be accurate representations about behavior and relationships in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the starting point of objective analysis is that sharia law is not compatible with democratic law.

Our tolerance and acceptance of other faiths and cultures does not lend itself to permitting the wholesale discrimination against anybody because of their sex. I’m not sure I can state that any more simply. Sharia law is incompatible with this system because of its implicit belief in the superiority and entitlement of men. Don’t like it? Then leave and go back to a country where such values are endemic.

Sock Puppets? Are you kidding? Are you five years old or something? How dare you come here, trying to subvert a serious discussion with your foolish name calling and blatant attempts to derail meaningful dialogue between adults. Grow up little girl – the world is full of educated people who while willing to tolerate (and even embrace) the concepts of certain religions will never tolerate the blatant discrimination which sharia law would bring to our citizenry. Exactly what makes you think your version of “reality” is any more valid than anyone else’s I wonder?

A few home truths for you – in my “reality” women and men are equal before both the law and God. Your beliefs are just that – yours. I do not dispute your right to believe whatever you want, however your right to do so ends when it interferes with my right to the same. The American philosopher John Rawls proposed a "comprehensive doctrine" by which reasonable people accept the existence of different beliefs about life and law, and do not impose their own doctrine on others who are equally willing to abide by this principle. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have seen no evidence of this being true of the Islam faith.

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday September 5, 2012, 12:03 pm

Send a Green Star to DareToCare Still
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to DareToCare because you have done so within the last week.


marie C (163)
Wednesday September 5, 2012, 4:14 pm
You can not currently send a green star to Dare to Care or Alexandra because you have done so within th last week

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday September 6, 2012, 1:02 pm
Hi Abu Saijad,

I do not blame the sacred texts of Islam themselves. I do, however, place some blame upon communities which maintain a detrimental set of cultures which emerged by interpretation of them and which identify themselves by the content of those texts. My point about Western Muslims being of a different culture is that the communities which I blame do not include all Islamic communities, and that adherence to Islam does not necessarily lead to blame for crimes permitted or encouraged by specific communities.

About the "scientific proof" of the Quran, I have seen much of this before. A lot of religions' sacred texts got stuff right. Chapter 1 of Genesis gets the order of creation of the universe, Earth, and life correct. I understand there is an Eastern religion whose text describes cosmic expansion better than do many modern popular science-books. (It uses the analogy of the universe growing from a seed like a plant rather than an expanding balloon.) So much is described in these books that, statistically, some will be correct. Also,I would not underestimate human knowledge of macro-biology even two thousand years ago. European medieval texts may have been wrong, but I suspect much of that had to do with rejection of pre-Christian science and the loss of the library of Alexandria.

Once again, the trouble with separating discussion of Islam from discussion of Islam as practiced is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. For an extreme example, imagine if we didn't know that all seals eat fish and created a definition of seals that include "does not eat fish". Then upon discovering a seal eating fish, rather than change the definition, we could just declare "That's not really a seal", and do that every time we see it. If you want to define followers of Islam as only those who live perfectly and without ordinary human flaws, then I guess real Muslims can't be responsible for any crimes at all ... because there would be no such thing as a "real Muslim". Now, Islam as practised by others may not exactly correspond to Islam as you interpret it.

Regarding whether men get blamed for the acts of male abusers, do you know what blame really is? It's not a matter of people standing around and pointing fingers. It's about reaction to blameworthy acts and methods of attempting to prevent them. For example, I am not an abuser, but the location of a women's shelter would not be released to me because I am a man. That alone would not mean much, but the asymmetry between male and female shelters and the asymmetry in treatment by courts and other authorities does imply that society has acted upon its blame of men for abuse whether or not that blame is publicly declared.

About whether "heart-softening" teachings can be responsible for diabolical atrocity, I have seen it happen far too often to dismiss the possibility. Here is an example: There is a poster on Care2 who claims to oppose all violence on moral grounds and makes moral arguments against it. There is no softer position I can imagine. Here is the problem: Law-enforcement is necessary to oppose criminal violence and is itself built upon justifiable violence and the credible threat of its use. Therefore opposition to all violence is actually a self-contradictory. Even worse, because she makes it on moral grounds, she can only even hope to persuade people who already maintain a moral code which discourages violence from using it, and those people are the ones more likely to be using it justifiably rather than criminally. You see the problem in that case, where a "soft" position amounts only to opposition to law-enforcement and justifiable violence, and this comes through in all discussions with her where such matters arise: Softness and goodwill alone do not suffice. Proper interpretation, to achieve the desired goals, demands wisdom that many people may well not possess. If you want, I can give you other, far more common and dangerous, examples. I could even draw a line from some of the most apparently beautiful (at first glance) aspects of pre-Islamic Arabic culture which certainly made it into many Islamic cultures and horrors like the murder of children.

If nearly every person in England were criminals then, while it would certainly not be right to say that all English people are criminals, there would still be some very, very convincing evidence that something is very wrong in English culture. In that case, while again not every Englishman would be individually responsible, Englishmen, acting as a community, would be. The same is true in these Islamic communities.

I understand that Mohammed's original intent was to overcome tribalism of its members, but it has not completely succeeded. That tribalism remains in Islamic communities to this day and appears to have influenced some of the early interpretations the texts which appear to have survived. Thus while it is not of the original intent and theoretically not supposed to be a part of Islamic ideals, it remains a part of Islam as practised. The same goes for some other problems, and they even appear in some of the quotes you gave. At the same time, some of the most ardent opponents of nationalism have erred in their initiatives so horribly that what they end up promoting, in practical terms, in many ways worse than war or any tyranny the world has ever seen.

Regarding"God's law". As far as the laws of nature go, I guess those could really be called "God's law". However, as far as laws written in books of law to be actively enforced by humans go, and as far as codes of ethics by which humans may seek to live go, none of them are "God's law". Humans may have traditionally based their laws upon what they believed to be God's will, but not on any laws handed down to them by God. For a command to constitute a law, it must be practical to achieve, be explained in practical terms, and include a full enforcement-mechanism with a well-defined practical judicial process. No sacred texts of any religion include a full description of how to set up a justice-system in any manner which is now commonly considered likely to achieve the goals set out in the ideals of the religion in question. I had previously assumed that you were aware of that proof.

I am glad that in your interpretation, "abandon" does not mean what I had understood from the quote you gave. I had understood it to mean "abandon", as the term is commonly used in English, with connotations of permanence, where it would effectively mean "unilaterally divorce", or worse, "unilaterally divorce without release from obligations of marriage". I am, however, still disturbed by how easy it would be for a man who wants to leave his wife to interpret it as I did and follow its dictates according to that interpretation.

If the "obedience" in your quote refers to a symmetric obligation of loving service, then where is the symmetric phrase for men to be obedient to their wives? Again, I am glad that you interpret it as you do, but others could very, very easily interpret it otherwise. The obligations are, as you say asymmetric, and the terms of asymmetry differ from one interpretation to another. With a different interpretation, and one which is all too common, they can easily turn into something like slavery or something equivalent to the feudal contract. ("Husband will protect wife from harm from external sources if she serves him effectively as a slave.")

I got the "find no fault" part from "A believer must not hate a believing woman". The singular/plural problem was an editing-error. Sorry about that.

A quick detail of "Do as you will": To understand a statement, consider the context. "My Way" refers to someone who did as he saw fit rather than follow the dictates given to him by human society. If he chose to submit to what he saw as God's will, then that too would mean doing things "My Way". There is another relevant issue: Diversity in ideas and practices is a necessary component in social progress, and individuality promotes that so it is highly valued in societies that seek to develop.

Tommy S (11)
Friday September 7, 2012, 12:52 am
@ Mary P
quote...Please note I did not come to this thread to debate anything but to tell you 'haters' that you are not what you pretend to be and to make an attempt to unblind yourselves to your own reality! ...Unquote

May the God of Love reach out to you in your darkness


Imran A. (10)
Friday September 7, 2012, 10:47 pm
@DareToCareStill - awesome posts! Keep posting the truth to expose Islam.

Nancy C (806)
Sunday September 9, 2012, 10:26 am
Thanx Alexandria. Interesting thread with minimal squabbling and more debate.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Society & Culture

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.