On Islamophobic individuals.

LOL You Islamophobes are so PC I have to include the entire passage or you get angry Actually such sentiments are very Western. The whole "man as breadwinner" and "wife as housemaker" culture is the equivalent to the sentiments described in the line you quote.

It was once. Your constitution, for example, states the rights of man - they didnt extent to women, unfortunately. They didnt even extent to slaves. Mexico outlawed slavery before the US you know.

Of course, I totally agree. But this is done through rational debate and discussion, not force, of course.

If you lived in the same country around seventy years ago, you would not agree. In this way, the idea children must obey their parents is something I would dispute in various ways. But in regards to women and men, the sentiment you express is correct, and there is no reason why it should persist neither in or outside Islam. This is why laws in Turkey and Indonesia do not discriminate in this way. Furthermore, there is no reason the Islamic world as a whole cannot drop such old values just like Christians and Jews have done over time.

 

Why do you people keep asking for evidence I have already linked? See link [5]. Here is where someone has done the work for me. Better yet, Spencer replied in an attempt to defend himself. He was responded to and failed to give another rebuttal in the face of total defeat:
http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/20...hadwatch-becomes-desperate-against-loonwatch/
[5] = http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/th...erpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/

That much bs? Yes I've read two and parts of others. I own one of them. For statements see above. For Geert Wilders, I guess a good place would be his ardent defence of Israel as "completely morally upright".

LOL Sure mate you keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep.

Yes there is - an irrational fear of Islam.

HAHA Yes everything is a conspiracy isnt it?

 

1. You can try to impose false ideas upon PF readers but when you say things that are outright stupid like this > "Actually such sentiments are very Western.", you do nothing but make an idiot out of yourself. "Actually", dear boy, such sentiments are totally NOT western one iota. I don't know about Australia, but in America, Canada, and Europe, it is rare to find a couple in which the wife is expected to "obey" her husband. You're doing a terrific job if invalidating yourself as someone to be taken seriously around here.

2. "It was once" ? Well, LOL, first off, I 've never heard of the US Constitution (except for voting) excluding women. As for "once", this is not a "Once upon a time" fairy tale. It is real current day life. That;s what Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders are talking about, which you appear to know nothing about, since, as I recall, you flunked my Islamization Quiz didn't you - with a ZERO.

3. I don't know about Australia, but in the USA, the enforcement of a ban on Koran 4:34 (beating women) most certainly IS done by force. In every state of the US, it is a battery, punishable by jail time. In most states, it is a misdemeanor punishable by one year in a county jail. If the beaten woman is over 65 (in Florida et al), the sentence is more severe - a felony, with 5 years in a state prison. Done by force.

4. What you say here > "there is no reason the Islamic world as a whole cannot drop such old values..." agrees with Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders. That's exactly what they say. So why the bad rap on them ?

 

1. I didn't ask you for a link to looney loonwatch which is nothing but a long list of OTHER PEOPLE'S word's in Spencer's blog column. You don't get off that easy. No, you need to state right here, now, what you find to be improper reported by Robert Spencer in his books. Robert Spencer is primarily a reporter. His books are reports of of actual, real events of Islamization (AKA Stealth Jihad). And most of his critics, like you, have never read his books, which you go around attacking him for.
Your second link is weak. It refers to an alleged statement ("The idea that Jews fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false") which doesn't pertain to present day life, and frankly most people wouldn't care what he said about Jews and Muslims a very long time ago. The primary, and really only, thrust of Robert Spencer And Geert Wilders, is what is happening now in North America and Europe.

 

Like?

Not really, its rather obvious to anyone who went through high school grade history lessons.

Yeah see matey, you need to do more than jsut deny it - give some evidence. Are you saiyng, for example, that women could vote at the same time as men? Are you saying the 'man as breadwinner wife as homemaker' are not western?

Sure, of course, that is irrelevant to the point made above though.

Not at all. You should restate your question, Historically, as I have shown such inequality has been widely endorsed. Its only recently there has been a quick move to equality and even know it isn't over.

But you have and you just mentioned it - voting.

Well specify which you are talking about. Now or past. I didnt just say "one upon a time" I made specific reference to a time frames.

what are they talking about?

You quiz is a joke mate. Good for a laugh, not much else.

Looks like my point just flew right over your head. Typical

Where do they say that? Incidentally, do you agree with them?

 

2. You've read 2 books of Robert Spencer ? Yeah ? Which 2 books were those ?

3. An irrational fear of Islam. Well, fear of Islam is NOT irrational, and if you had read Robert Spencer's books or any of these books, you would surely know that. Like most Islamapologists, you haven't taken the time or trouble to read/research Stealth Jihad, and that's why you don't know what there is to fear. Do you know who Lina Morales is ? Major Stephen Coughlin ? Or how about 50 or so items included in the Quiz ? which came right out of 3 of Robert Spencer's books, which you showed no knowledge of. And you still show no knowledge of them.
So far, your response to my challenge to you to produce evidence that Robert Spencer (or any other protectionist) has uttered one single sentence that could be classified as "irrational" or "Islamaphobic", has been about the same as your response to the Islamization Quiz. A complete ZERO.

 

1. Like the false idea that Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer are irrational.

2. History ? LOL. Aren't you getting a few things mixed up now. Although Robert Spencer talks about history (and very accurately unlike some of your Islamist high school classes - see http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ools-textbooks-major-players.html#post4750691 What ? You never heard of Gilbert Sewall and the American Textbook Council or Islam and the Textbooks, or Peter DiGangi, or the Algonquin Nation Secretariat in Quebec, or the Arab World History Notebook, or the Middle East Policy Council, or the Council on Islamic Education, or Houghton Mifflin, or Across the Centuries, or Susan Douglas, or Shabbir Mansuri, or Paul Sperry, or William Benetta, or The Textbook Letter, or Prentice Hall's World Cultures: A Global Mosaic, or History Alive! The Medieval World & Beyond, or Prentice Hall's Connections to Today, or their Medeival and Early Modern Times.
So which one of these Islam indoctrination manuals were you programmed by ?

Once again see > http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ools-textbooks-major-players.html#post4750691

And no matey, it is YOU who needs to supply the evidence. YOU are the one who are making the charges here. it is YOUR OP that charges some people as being irrational and making false/improper statements. YOU provide aome evidence to back up your contentions. So far, you've failed miseraby to do that, trying to fake your way through it.

 

1. Like the false idea that Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer are irrational.

2. History ? LOL. Aren't you getting a few things mixed up now. Although Robert Spencer talks about history (and very accurately unlike some of your Islamist high school classes - see http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ools-textbooks-major-players.html#post4750691 What ? You never heard of Gilbert Sewall and the American Textbook Council or Islam and the Textbooks, or Peter DiGangi, or the Algonquin Nation Secretariat in Quebec, or the Arab World History Notebook, or the Middle East Policy Council, or the Council on Islamic Education, or Houghton Mifflin, or Across the Centuries, or Susan Douglas, or Shabbir Mansuri, or Paul Sperry, or William Benetta, or The Textbook Letter, or Prentice Hall's World Cultures: A Global Mosaic, or History Alive! The Medieval World & Beyond, or Prentice Hall's Connections to Today, or their Medeival and Early Modern Times.
So which one of these Islam indoctrination manuals were you programmed by ?

Once again see > http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ools-textbooks-major-players.html#post4750691

And no matey, it is YOU who needs to supply the evidence. YOU are the one who are making the charges here. it is YOUR OP that charges some people as being irrational and making false/improper statements. YOU provide aome evidence to back up your contentions. So far, you've failed miseraby to do that, trying to fake your way through it.

Not irrelevant at all, and I'm beginning to wonder why I'm even bothering to talk to such a green, inexperienced, foolish big mouth like you. Oh, and now voting is it ? For your edification women in the US, got the right to vote about 100 years ago.
The men you are criticizing are talking about Islamization today, not 100 years ago, get it ?

What do you mean "what are they talking about" ? I just told you > "It is real current day life". So why do you ask me what I just told you ? You think by being a smart ass, you can run me off of this thread. No boy, I'm going to kick your ass even harder in here now because of that.

Oh and now my Quiz is a joke huh ? HA HA HA. This is too funny. The Quiz is proper names of people and things, including many organization all deeply involved with Islamization. Anyone looking at it can see that even if they didn't know much of the content. And so you think you can hide from the fact that you are an Islamization KNOW-NOTHING, as proven by your illustrious ZERO on that Quiz ? HA HA HA. Well sorry to disappoint you lazy bones (when you do some reading, I'll take that name away), but you can't hide. The Quiz is not a joke one bit. It is real people and real things, all a part of Islamization, but there is one joke in all of this all right > YOU, MR QUIZ ZERO. HA HA HA.

As for "your point", you don't have one.

For all the readers, Sorry to have to have posted the some of the same stuff twice, but it's caused by this annoying pop-up that keeps appearing about the administrator and some kind of time limit, and it's a PAIN IN THE ASS.

 

HA HA HA. Where do they say that ? Oh but we were supposed to believe that you were a big authority on Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders, right ? And you don't know about them saying that ""there is no reason the Islamic world as a whole cannot drop such old values..." ? HA HA HA. You've got to be kidding. They say it absolutely every time they appear somewhere for a speech or an interview. They constantly say that Muslims should reform Islam and denounce the bad parts of the Koran. I don't think I've ever heard them speak when they didn't say that.

Dude, you're about as much an authority on Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders as a first grader is on nuclear physics. Pheeeeeeew !! (high-pitched whistle).

 

Premise: Men are stronger than women and provide for them.
Therefore: Women should be obedient, and guard stuff in their Husband's absence.

The thing about guarding in the husband's absence is not the only thing in the conclusions, in fact it is only one of the things in the conclusion. So yes, women being obedient is part of the conclusion. And the conclusion follows much better from the premise if the conclusion includes women being obedient to men.

They of course should also be obedient to Allah, but that is not what the premise is arguing for.

The verse is not saying that men own women, only that women are obedient to men. There may be exceptions to that rule of obedience, but that is not addressed by the verse.

Islam has some regulations on wife beating, I understand. However this is how I see it: Wife beating is disgusting in all situations.

The first sentence states that men are the providers because they are stronger. The second sentence then says that because the first sentence is true, women are obedient and take care of stuff in the husband's absence.

That is a very reasonable interpretation of the verse, and I actually believe it to be the most likely interpretation of the verse. Allah should have clarified better.

I don't think that it is surprising that the Koran is sexism given the age it was written in. In fact I would surprised if it were not sexist.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blw-ZaY_V70"]Christian Mob Surrounds Muslim Man Outside the White House - YouTube[/ame]

God bless the man in there praying for all their families to be blessed as these people try and treat him like garbage. And God bless the woman who stands up for him too.

People like this make me so proud to be a Muslim. Both the man praying, the woman standing up for him, and the people insulting him.

How could a proud man or woman associate themselves with these kind of people? Look at the difference here. The radical Christians and Zionists taunt him as he prays, and the Muslim man prays for their families while they taunt him.

I recommend watching the whole thing. Shows just how low Islamophobes can get.

الله اكبر

سلام

 

Surah 4:34

Men are genetically stronger than women, especially in that time. So, even like today, it is a mans job to protect his wife/daighter/girlfriend/sister/mother/grandmother/woman. Also, and it has always been this way, it is mainly the mans responsibility to provide for his family, including his wife.

The Quran doesn't say obey your husband and to beat our wives if they don't obey us. It says "So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence of what Allah would have them gaurd." Allah. Not their husbands.

Arrogance is things like causing trouble, sinning, etc and we are hitting them is a last resort. Ad the following verse says to divorce if there is problems.

Surah 4:35

The verse after this says to treat those around you kindly. In Islam, a woman can divorce her abusive husband quite easily, so allowing men to beat their wives or disobeying them while also allowing the women to easily divorce these men seems like a waste of time.

Surah 4:36

Also notice how it says don't associate anything with الله? Why wouldn't that include husbands?

You need to read the Quran in more than just one verse to understand the Quran. You cannot properly understand it through trying to interpret single verses or parts of verses. Just doesn't work like that. It'd also help to read the Quran in Arabic, as that is the original text. But I understand you probably don't know Arabic or want to learn it, so English will have to do.

Despite what Protectionist says, like all books, context is very important when trying to understand what you read in books.

الله اكبر

سلام

 

Fanatical, virgin hating, Islamists are the biggest threat to our Western civilised way of life, by a country mile.

Anyone who declares otherwise must be living in some far away land, otherwise known as Cuckoo Land, or has their own hidden 'terrorist' agenda

 

I agree, that man in that video for example, clearly lower in the evolutionary ladder than the rest of those civilized human beings...

"Virgin hating" must be the most bizarre claim I've read about Islam lol...

الله اكبر

سلام

 

Here's a better one. Islamic fanatics herded together with Catholic priests. If they could only just get close together and procreate, I wonder what weird monster would emerge.

 

I do not agree with stereotyping every person in a group even if the group statistically tends to have some flaws. I do not believe in hatred or harassing individuals. I believe however, that people are morally ok to think that Islam has a negative effect on society if a reasonable analysis of the evidence warrants it. Violence and harassment on the other hand is not right.

 

What's it like over there in Cuckoo Land, and what is your latest plan? A nuclear attack on Mecca, I suppose, if you can get the rockets up your nose?

 

That is generally how it is, although women pitch in to make the man's life happier, and take care around the house and with the kids, and even sometimes work in the fields.

However, today things are changing. With fewer children per women, public education, and physically easy jobs, women are becoming money earners too.

The verse only mentions Allah when it talks about what Allah wants women to guard. obviously everything in this verse follows from Allah's will.

The question is, does the verse say that women should be obedient to Allah or obedient to their husbands. Obviously they should be obedient to Allah, but that may not be the topic of this verse specifically. So lets look at the verse.

A: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth.

B: So righteous women are devoutly obedient [To who?], guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard.

Notice the 'so' at the beginning of B. In other interpretations it is a 'therefore.' This indicates that B is the conclusion and A is the premise. So the ideas in B follow from the ideas in A.

So the question is, does the idea that (1) women should obey Allah follow from A, or does the idea that (2) women should obey their husbands follow from A. The obvious conclusion is that (2) follows from A because A says that Men are in charge of women, provide for women, and are in charge of them. Now women should also obey Allah, but the purpose of A is not to prove that.

I believe I have made this argument before. You could be right, however my interpretation seems more likely, so it should not be surprising that many Muslims interpret the verse my way. If I am wrong, the Koran should have done a better job of clarifying.

Physical abuse is wrong in every situation in every time.

In the case of divorce, how are the property and children divided? Does it ensure the woman will be taken care of, that she can have her kids, that she will have some of the property resulting from the marriage?

You have shown that Islam only supports a limited application of physical abuse and wife beating however these things are still wrong.

I am sure the Koran tells the man to be humble and to love his wife, and to use his authority only for good, and to only beat in the last case. However sexism and wife beating are still wrong in every situation.

I understand that I can be wrong about this since I am new to Islam so feel free to point out my errors. To be fair the bible contains sexism, and also contains rape, genocide, infanticide, slavery, and religious intolerance. And since Christians ignore these parts of the bible, they are just fine. Maybe Muslims can ignore parts of the Koran or interpret offending verses in weird ways, or interpret them metaphorically.

 

If Muslims want to get even a modicum of respect from non-Muslims everywhere, they must obliterate the sura 4:34 from the Koran giving Muslim men the right to beat their wives. The non-Muslim world simply will not tolerate wife beating, no matter how often or how cleverly Muslims try to sugar-coat it and pretend that it is OK, or even doesn't exist. In connection with that, they need to stop insulting our intelligence.

 

He does a much better Jon explaining the verse than I
could: http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/beating.htm

سلام

 

Please, the Muslim guy is an activist on the exact same level as those who "surround" him. In fact, I could imagine that he was there first (I don't think it's usual to do your salah in front of the White House if not to make a statement), which makes him THE activist and the others responders.

Anyhow, if you feel proud of him, as you say you do, then you should have no problem with understanding how others may feel proud about the other activists.


It's a good clip, by the way. A good mannered depiction of what individual freedoms are about.

 

Actually, he prays there frequently. There are many videos of him praying there.

But interesting how you don't condemn and actually try to justify what those people did while he was praying...

سلام

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTWpRJYMRMc"]The most interesting Islam convertig video ! - YouTube[/ame]

Another example of what Islam truly teaches. Inspirational story.

الله اكبر

سلام

 

Nice read, thanks. I'm always looking for some good fiction to read.