War2.ru Slogan
News: Watch live streams at War2TV and replays of past streams at War2TV Reruns!


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the forums! We're glad to have you here! :) You can register your account here, then feel free to introduce yourself in the Server.War2.ru board & let us know who you are on the server.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM 330  36

Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2017, 12:22:06 PM »
The women who share their stories, you call biased. In what way are they biased? Did you even listen to them? Do you think they are lying? What evidence do you have to support that? Why are there so many vast numbers of people who tell very similar stories? I am completely convinced that these women are telling the truth. If you want to convince people otherwise, you will need evidence that they are lying or confused or I don't even know what you would say about these women. Why do you think they are telling a story if the story they are telling is anything other than the truth? What would motivate someone to say their religion is bad and oppressive if in fact their experience was wonderful? What would motivate a teenager to run away from home if her family was so loving and not trying to kill her for converting to Christianity, as in the case of Rifqa Bary (the first video)? I know that I never tried to run away from my loving parents or accuse them of abusing me...because they were loving parents and did not abuse me or try to kill me.

Why Rifqa Bary Fled Islam to Follow Jesus - YouTube





Afghan women share stories of surviving abuse - YouTube

Afghan child bride tortured for six months - YouTube

There are so, so, so many stories and documentaries and testimonies of abuse of women within Islam that is allowed and sanctioned by Islam.

How can you say there is no evidence? How can you say believing these women's stories is "absurd"?

Did you even watch them or listen to these women? If not, how can you assume they are biased? If yes, tell me any reason why you would think it is not sensible to believe these women?

It isn't only women who report these issues. President of Ex-Muslims of America Muhammad Syed also reports the same things, including that Islamic Scriptures teach that the primary denizens of hell are women, that women have half the intellect and half the religiosity of men, that they don't have equal rights in inheriting property, that the Quran teaches that husbands are allowed to beat their wives.

Examining Honor Culture and Violence in Islam (AHA Conference 2016) - YouTube

Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2017, 12:35:33 PM »
Ever since you started those threads about Islam and Christianity, you have made a conscious effort in cherry picking the YouTube videos that talk against Islam, which first of all are just a minority's opinion and secondly, are by no means a representative sample of the whole muslim community.  As I said before, I am living in the UAE and I'm sure there are many non-muslims who have also been to UAE either as expatriates or as visitors.  They will be able to testify on the following (given that you probably think my opinion is biased):

"basic human rights that women are deprived of in Islamic nations."

Right to medical care - nonsense... it is the Law in UAE that everyone, irrespective of gender, has to be provided with medical insurance
Right to drive a car - please check the statistics of women drivers in the UAE before making such a claim
Right to choose who to marry - if any guardian prevents a woman under his care to marry someone righteous, this is totally against the teachings of the Islam.  You cannot single out a few cases and believe this is the common practice
Right to show your face in public without being killed - absurd... again, another baseless claim coming from a Christian who has probably never been to the Middle East.  I welcome you to come see for yourself.
Right to talk to male people - seriously??? this is becoming ridiculous now... and I'll stop commenting from this point onwards
Right to leave your home by yourself - refer to my last comment above
Right to not be raped - refer to my last comment above
Right to not be stoned for adultery after being raped - refer to my last comment above
Right to education - refer to my last comment above
Right to not be mutilated and have sexual pleasure organ removed - refer to my last comment above


Your claims are so absurd that it borders comical.


I do not know how things are in UAE, but there are Islamic nations where women ARE deprived of these basic rights:

Right to drive (it was recently announced that Saudi Arabia plans to allow women the legal right to drive starting next summer - it is great wherever progress is being made)

http://time.com/4962707/saudi-arabia-women-driving-license/

Right to marry, open bank account, get a fair trial, travel, dress how they want (ie. be uncovered), interact with men, seek medical treatment, have custody of children

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-womens-rights-driving-ban-lifted-marriage-custody-bank-accounts-travel-medical-a7969551.html

Out of time for now

EDIT**Added later:

As I said before, it's time for you to come out of your cocoon and see the world for yourself.  Don't just watch biased YouTube videos and form a judgment thereon.  And again, quote me Qur'anic teachings in context showing the Islam oppresses women and treat women worse than dirt.  I can in fact tell you that the Bible degrades women.  Here are some biblical verses to prove my point:

Women must learn in silence and submission. [1 TIMOTHY 2:11]
Women must veil themselves or shave their heads. [1 CORINTHIANS 11:6]
Women must be subordinate. [1 CORINTHIANS 14:34]
Women were created for men but men were not created for women. [1 CORINTHIANS 11:6]
Women may not teach or have authority over men. [1 TIMOTHY 2:12]
The head of woman is man. [1 CORINTHIANS 11:3]
Women must be silent. [1 TIMOTHY 2:12]
The husband will rule over the wife. [GENESIS 3:16]
It is shameful for a woman to talk in church. [1 CORINTHIANS 14:35]

I reckon you accept the Bible in its entirety to be the word of God, so you, as a Christian should abide by these verses.  If you don't cover your head, you should have your head shaved!  Why don't you follow the teachings in your own Bible?  Double standards?


I do not have any issue with male authority and leadership. I can barely think of anything more admirable and beautiful than a loving male leader, whether it is a king or a president or a leader of an organization or a teacher or a coach or a husband and father leading his family. Yes, God gives the authority to males, and I have no issue with this at all.

God instructs husbands to love their wives and wives to submit to and respect their husbands.

Ephesians 5:22-33

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.



Christian women are not oppressed. They are protected and loved. Her husband is accountable to God for how he treats and loves her, so his authority comes from love and his decisions are what is best for his family including his wife. I have complete freedom. I can go out, wherever I want, whenever I want, I can take the children places, I can buy groceries, I can travel to America to visit my family, I can meet people, I can go to tennis lessons. I have never in my life been beaten or threatened with beating or physical punishment that damaged or harmed me, ever. I do not have to live in fear. I have freedom and peace. I work to do my best to make a nice home for my family, cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, organizing, teaching, reading, planning, shopping, going on trips because I love my family and want to give them good things. I don't do anything out of fear or force. It is when my husband and I have a difference of opinion that his will wins if I'm unable to persuade him, because in order for any group to function properly, there has to be an ultimate authority so function can continue when there isn't agreement on some issue, so that the family is protected from break-up.

The verses about women learning in silence and submission are in the context of the church. Only men are called to be pastors. Women in the ministry is outside of God's will, as the pastor has authority and God has given that authority within the church to men, not women.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.


1 Corinthians 14:34-45

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.


This does not speak about women's inferiority or lesser importance, but about different roles for men and women. God made women the ones who can bear life and give birth and milk. If men are whining about how this is so unfair and unequal and they want to do that job, or if women are whining that they want to be pastors and leaders of families, they are just failing to accept the different roles God gave us. God made men and women different. The differences are beautiful. A man's strength, courage, critical reasoning, desire to protect and provide is a perfect match for a woman's desire to nurture and comfort and serve. Women who are raising children and serving their families are the happiest women I know. They have incredible joy in marriage and children and serving. Women who have rejected family and marriage and have instead pursued casual sex with multiple partners for a long time until their attractiveness wanes and they become lonelier and less and less desirable to men tend to be unhappy and bitter, as are men who end up lonely after a series of sex partners in the absence of love, commitment, and family.

I have no issue with male authority, or with God-given gender roles, or even with women choosing to wear or not wear a headcovering for religious purposes.

My issues are with abusive male authority that beats or otherwise harms the woman he was designed to love and protect, for instance, if she chooses to not wear a headcovering. I have an issues with women being required to share their husbands. Yes this happened in the Bible's recorded history, and yes, I believe it was wrong for them, and no, nowhere in the Bible does God endorse or approve polygamous marriage. Many places are simply history being recorded, such as Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel, plus also sleeping with their maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah. There was animosity and jealousy between the women. There is no example in the entire Bible of polygamous marriage being a happy situation.

I have issues with women being seen as merely property, with their own feelings, desires, freedom, happiness made to be of no importance. Basic human rights and freedoms should be for all people, such as education, travel, medical care, and dressing oneself.

Headcoverings and Christianity

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.


A few points about headcoverings.

1. It's for when a woman is praying or prophesying, not just anytime she goes out or 24/7.
2. Your assumption that I don't wear a headcovering to church is not based on your asking me. You assumed. In this case, you are correct that I don't currently wear a covering to church. I did start wearing a headcovering to church until I discussed it with my pastor, who said it is not necessary, but I am welcome to wear one if I desire. The same thing happened at our former church in another city. I started covering my head in church, and asked the pastor about it, and was told I do not need to do this. I am perfectly willing to wear a headcovering and have no issues with women choosing to wear headcoverings for their religion IF they themselves desire to wear one. I accept the meaning and significance of the headcovering in Christianity, that a woman has the authority of her husband over her, and the authority of God over her, both of whom love her self-sacrificially.
3. There is no coercion or threat of death if a headcovering is not worn, as there is in Islam.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/muhammad-parvez-killer-daughter-hijab-clash-1.4002891

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2312363/woman-in-saudi-arabia-faces-calls-for-her-execution-after-being-pictured-without-a-hijab/

http://shoebat.com/2014/03/10/muslims-murder-women-wearing-hijab-2/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4025250/Woman-received-death-threats-vowing-without-hijab-Saudi-Arabia-ARRESTED-morality-police-faces-LASHED.html

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/woman-who-refused-to-wear-a-hijab-after-her-marriage-allegedly-threatened-by-husband/news-story/9a39fa2abec82cad933cb48cf57c3af0

muslim girl Aqsa Parvez killed for not wearing hijab - YouTube

Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2017, 11:36:46 PM »
Slightly different topic related to WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND FEMINISM in USA.

Falsely accusing a man of rape or other sexual misconduct can ruin his reputation and his life.

If a woman accuses a man falsely, her punishment should be the same as his punishment would have been had he been guilty.

There is currently little or no penalty or punishment for women who intentionally and maliciously lie against innocent men.

That is not right.

In addition to ruining the reputation and life of innocent men, false accusers are also taking credibility away from true victims of rape.

The punishment for falsely accusing a man of rape or sexual misconduct should be the same as the punishment for the man would have been had he been guilty.

Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Grunt Posts: 53 Karma: +4/-0 ***

Ze_sAiNt

  • Grunt
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2017, 08:31:42 AM »
The women who share their stories, you call biased. In what way are they biased? Did you even listen to them? Do you think they are lying? What evidence do you have to support that? Why are there so many vast numbers of people who tell very similar stories? I am completely convinced that these women are telling the truth. If you want to convince people otherwise, you will need evidence that they are lying or confused or I don't even know what you would say about these women. Why do you think they are telling a story if the story they are telling is anything other than the truth? What would motivate someone to say their religion is bad and oppressive if in fact their experience was wonderful? What would motivate a teenager to run away from home if her family was so loving and not trying to kill her for converting to Christianity, as in the case of Rifqa Bary (the first video)? I know that I never tried to run away from my loving parents or accuse them of abusing me...because they were loving parents and did not abuse me or try to kill me.

Yes, I did watch the short videos but not the longer ones (you cannot reasonably expect me to watch a 1 or 2-hour video!) and as much as I do feel sorry for any woman who has been tortured by her parents or by whoever else, or who has been beaten for not wearing the hijab, or who has been a victim of 'honor killing', these practices are completely against the teachings of Islam.  Whosoever claims to be a muslim and abuses women, whether physically or otherwise, is not a muslim.

A muslim by definition is someone who submits his will to the will of God.  And what is God's will?  What does God want from us?  Let's see what the Qur'an says:

"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another (not that you may despise one another). Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." [Qur'an 49:13].

"I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me." [Qur'an 51:56]

God tells Moses in the Qur'an:

"Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance." [Qur'an 20:14]


So we understand clearly from these verses that Allah has created man in order to establish prayer for His remembrance, for man to know one another and not to despise one another.  So what about killing others?  Is that what Islam teaches?  Let's look at this further in the Qur'an where the story of Abel and Caen is being related to teach us a lesson about what is right and what is wrong (I am quoting the context so you may better understand):

"But recite unto them with truth the tale of the two sons of Adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill thee. (The other) answered: Allah accepteth only from those who ward off (evil).

"Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

"Lo! I would rather thou shouldst bear the punishment of the sin against me and thine own sin and become one of the owners of the fire. That is the reward of evil-doers.

"But (the other's) mind imposed on him the killing of his brother, so he slew him and became one of the losers.

"Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became repentant.

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth."
[Qur'an 5:26-32]

In simple words, whosoever kills anybody else deliberately, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind.

So my Q to you is: why would you then chose to quote verses of the Qur'an out of context to prove an ideology that has been fed to you through the media, social network or otherwise?  I bet you have never read the Qur'an from cover to cover or not even a few pages at a stretch, yet you have the audacity of making comments like "these are the teachings of Islam" and "the Qur'an teaches this and that"...

With regard to enforcing Islam upon others, this is what the Qur'an says:

"There is no compulsion in religion. Certainly, right has become clearly distinct from wrong. Whoever rejects the devil and believes in God has firmly taken hold of a strong handle that never breaks. God is All-hearing and knowing." [Qur'an 2:256]

People are free to believe what they want and are free to practice any religion they want.  However, the truth is clearly distinct from wrong - so people can clearly see what is right and what is wrong and are free to choose their own path.

The most absurd claim against Islam is that it was spread by the sword (i.e forced upon people).  To that, let's see what some famous Christian historians have to say:

De Lacy O’Leary In “Islam At The Crossroads’’ London, 1923

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."


Thomas Carlyle In Heroes and Hero-Worship

"The sword; the sword indeed, but where will you get your sword! every new opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone, there it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it; there is one man against all men. That he take a sword, and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must first get your sword! on the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can. We do not find, of the Christian religion either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had got one. Charlemagne’s conversion of the saxons was not by preaching."

The biggest living proof that Islam did not spread by the sword is that today, you can boast that there are more than 15 million Christians living in Egypt, an Islamic nation.  If there was compulsion of any kind, there would not have been a single Christian left.

The Muslims ruled Spain for 736 years.  However, after eight centuries in Spain, the Muslims were totally eliminated from that country so that not even one man was left to give the Azan (the Muslim call to prayer). If the Muslims had used force, military or economic, there would not have been any Christian left in Spain to have kicked the Muslims out.


Time is against me.  I can't seem to catch up with all your posts.  I will post the rest of my comments later.
Grunt Posts: 53 Karma: +4/-0 ***

Ze_sAiNt

  • Grunt
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2017, 09:47:55 AM »
There are so, so, so many stories and documentaries and testimonies of abuse of women within Islam that is allowed and sanctioned by Islam.

I've been asking for proof from the Qur'an that Islam condones the abuse of women but it seems like my requests have been falling on deaf ears.  Point out to any Qur'anic verse that preaches the abuse of women to prove your claim.

How can you say believing these women's stories is "absurd"?

Do not misquote me.  I never said these women's stories are absurd.  I said YOUR claims about "basic human rights that women are deprived of in Islamic nations" are absurd.  I made a general comment about you watching biased YouTube videos and forming a judgment thereupon.  There are hundreds of videos where non-muslims have testified about finding peace when they converted to Islam - why don't you post those?  That's because you have a preconceived notion that Islam is religion of oppression.

That's why I avoid posting videos from YouTube.  I would rather quote facts, for example, in another post where David Wood was attempting to depict Muhammad as a dictator and an oppressor, I responded by quoting verifiable historical information that was published by famous historians, most of which happen to be Christians.  If you choose to ignore these and prefer to watch selective videos from YouTube, I can only conclude that you are only acting out of prejudice.


I am again running out of time.  More on that afterwards...
Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2017, 10:14:28 AM »
The Cain and Abel story (which is another version of the story from the Bible in Genesis, again showing that the author was copying other sources but putting his own spin on them) is about MEN. This story has absolutely nothing to do with women, whom the Quran calls spiritually and mentally deficient, and who are allowed to be beaten/scourged by husbands, and with whom Islam's hellfires are predominantly filled.

I'm listening to and considering your views that "real" Islam is peaceful and women are not treated like dirt by "real" Muslims.

If your version of reality is true, why are you not actively calling out other Muslims who do abuse women and who do believe in and promote the killing of Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims?

(Like the many religious leaders in this video?)

Muslim Bloopers-Telling what they really believe- Must see - YouTube

"Brothers, be prepared to fight, be prepared to die, be prepared to kill. It's a part of the faith and this ain't your brother just saying this. This is history, this is Koran, nobody can deny it."

"The Islamic government spread by force. The expansion of the Islamic empire was done by force. There's no question about that."

2:06 "Every Muslim believes in Jihad. Jihad is part of Islam just like Salat (praying/worship) is part of Islam. Today, the Kafir (infidels) want us to delete this aspect of our Din (religion). You can understand why, just in the simple fact of what is the definition of Jihad. You don't do Jihad against Muslims. Jihad is against the infidels. So does it come as any surprise why they don't want Muslims to believe in Jihad? Because they don't want us to do Jihad against them."

3:17 At 3:17 you can see a woman being beaten by a man with an object in broad daylight in public, and no one thinks this is unusual. There is absolutely no reaction from anyone.

Do you fight against the violent Muslims who do oppress women? Are you willing to publicly renounce them and their actions, including promoting the legal prosecution and deportation of criminals?

If you believe that what they are doing is wrong, then prove it. Join those who stand for freedom of speech and human rights for both men and women in denouncing violence against women and innocent civilians wherever it may be found, no matter who is doing it.

Post educational videos publicly showing the two streams of Muslims, and that you and people like you do not believe in or support the actions of the violent ones. Call them out and call them to peaceful conduct and fair and kind treatment of women and girls.

I can guarantee you what would happen if anyone from your community were to find out. The Muslim community would target and ostracize you, possibly threaten your life or your family's life. You would be labelled kafir, infidel, hypocrite, apostate, racist, Islamophobe. The guy in the above video at 2:06 calls you Kafir and also a target of Jihad if you do not believe in Jihad.

I absolutely believe there are people who call themselves Muslims who are peaceful people. But the devout Muslims who follow the Quran and Muhammad call you infidels and are out to kill you as well, since in their eyes you are hypocrites.

This has been the experience of people like Sarah Haider and Muhammad Syed who are founder and president of the organization Ex-Muslims of North America.

There is sharp disagreement and incongruency between the stories of these and other ex-Muslims and your version of reality. Looking at all the evidence I've seen, between video footage and tesimonies and news reports and talking to people who came from Parkistan and Turkey, the evidence I've been presented weighs heavily, heavily in favor of being convinced by the ex-Muslims, who have absolutely nothing to gain by lying against their past religion and putting their own lives at risk. It does not make any sense that they would risk their lives to promote lies.

That's irrational.

Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2017, 12:34:59 PM »
I've been asking for proof from the Qur'an that Islam condones the abuse of women but it seems like my requests have been falling on deaf ears.  Point out to any Qur'anic verse that preaches the abuse of women to prove your claim.


Qur'an 4:34 (Pickthall)—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

The woman doesn't even have to do anything to earn the beating. He only has to "fear" rebellion, and he can send her to her own bed and scourge her.











The following quotes are taken from http://survincity.com/2012/12/in-islamic-countries-there-was-a-book-on-how-to/

Thus, the author of the book "Women in Islam" Mohamed Kamal Mustafa believes that a woman is beaten with a switch (not too thick), as the strikes have to bring it in the first place, "not physical, but spiritual suffering." The author recommends that men "to strike the sensitive parts of the body: face, chest, abdomen, head, and so on."

Finally, the author of the book "On the subordination of women in Islam" Hassan Asha articulates the cases in which a man is to dismiss his hands. Such a method of influence on his wife say if she refuses to smarten up before meeting her husband, does not want to satisfy his sexual needs, neglects her religious duties without permission leaves the house.



Above image taken from https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/wife-beating.aspx

The above site also includes the quote listed above that allows men to beat/scourge wives from the Quran, plus quotes from other Islamic texts (Hadith and Sira):

Sahih Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged him to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

Sahih Bukhari (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'" Muhammad's own wife complained Muslim women were abused worse than other women.

Sahih Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."

Sahih Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's fathers-in-law (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.

Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them." (This is graded sahih - authentic) At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives.  As the hadith indicates, he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings in a Muslim marriage were deemed necessary at times to keep the woman in her place.

Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."  The authenticity of this chain of narration is characterized as daif (weak), however, a similar verse from Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:1986 is said to be hasan (sufficient).

Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'" A Muslim man thinks he is getting a virgin for a wife, then finds out that she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she delivers the child.  (Despite multiple chains of narration, this hadith is graded as daif).

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 - Requires that a married woman be "put in a separate room and beaten lightly" if she "act in a sexual manner toward others." According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.

Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525) - [Muhammad said] "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it"

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_401_450/is_beating_the_woman_in_the_shar.htm

I'm certainly not suggesting that all Muslims beat their wives or that all Muslims that do beat their wives beat them or mutilate them as severely. But it is fact that it is common practice and it is commonly done and the men do not face punishment for these things, as the women are seen as his property do with with as he wishes.

I do call out people who call themselves Muslims for NOT calling out other Muslims who DO engage in barbaric, violent, cruel practices against women and girls. If you call yourself a Muslim and do NOT believe that women should be treated in these ways, you should be at the forefront of the voices calling for an end to the violence. The reality is that "Muslims" who want to be peaceful and not live in the manners prescribed by Islam are NOT considered true Muslims by devout Muslims, and will be risking their own lives to speak up. There is a lot of fear about being honest and exposing things that are going on where they are in fact happening.

Surely some countries are more "strict" in their practice than others, as are certain individuals within any given community. There are different brands of Islam and I certainly do not believe that everyone who calls or considers themselves Muslim approves of treating women this way. But those that do speak out and question Islam are branded Kafir and in Muslim majority countries are either ostracized or killed. In America, murder is less common and they are often just hated and villified and threatened, since USA still offers protection to its inhabitants and those who commit murders are normally going to be prosecuted.

But these "honor" killings and abuses do happen and there are real problems that need to be addressed and examined and talked about openly between all the people who do care about the way people are treated, whether they identify as Muslim or atheist or Christian or Jew or whatever else, anyone who cares about human rights and the treatment of abused women WHEREVER it happens BY WHOMEVER it is done and want to put a stop to it should be talking to each other and uniting against the violence.

The labels "Islamophobe" and "racist" are applied equally to Muslims and Arabs who question Islamic beliefs and practices. This is clearly, plainly completely an issue of beliefs and practices and nothing at all to do with race.

Female genital mutilation is also common in Islamic countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country

Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Type 1 is "partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce". Type Ia (circumcision)[39] involves removal of the clitoral hood only. This is rarely performed alone.[d] The more common procedure is Type Ib (clitoridectomy), the complete or partial removal of the clitoral glans (the visible tip of the clitoris) and clitoral hood.[1][41] The circumciser pulls the clitoral glans with her thumb and index finger and cuts it off.[e]

Type II (excision) is the complete or partial removal of the inner labia, with or without removal of the clitoral glans and outer labia. Type IIa is removal of the inner labia; Type IIb, removal of the clitoral glans and inner labia; and Type IIc, removal of the clitoral glans, inner and outer labia. Excision in French can refer to any form of FGM.[1]
Type III

Type III (infibulation or pharaonic circumcision), the "sewn closed" category, involves the removal of the external genitalia and fusion of the wound. The inner and/or outer labia are cut away, with or without removal of the clitoral glans.[f] Type III is found largely in northeast Africa, particularly Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan (although not in South Sudan). According to one 2008 estimate, over eight million women in Africa are living with Type III FGM.[g] According to UNFPA in 2010, 20 percent of women with FGM have been infibulated.[44] In Somalia:

    The child is made to squat on a stool or mat facing the circumciser at a height that offers her a good view of the parts to be handled. ...[A]dult helpers grab and pull apart the legs of the girl. ... If available, this is the stage at which a local anaesthetic would be used.

    The element of speed and surprise is vital and the circumciser immediately grabs the clitoris by pinching it between her nails aiming to amputate it with a slash. The organ is then shown to the senior female relatives of the child who will decide whether the amount that has been removed is satisfactory or whether more is to be cut off.
    External images

        Type III
        IIIb (virgin)
        IIIb (sexually active)

    — RAINBO,[45] Swiss Medical Weekly[6]

    After the clitoris has been satisfactorily amputated ... the circumciser can proceed with the total removal of the labia minora and the paring of the inner walls of the labia majora. Since the entire skin on the inner walls of the labia majora has to be removed all the way down to the perineum, this becomes a messy business. By now, the child is screaming, struggling, and bleeding profusely, which makes it difficult for the circumciser to hold with bare fingers and nails the slippery skin and parts that are to be cut or sutured together. ...
    Having ensured that sufficient tissue has been removed to allow the desired fusion of the skin, the circumciser pulls together the opposite sides of the labia majora, ensuring that the raw edges where the skin has been removed are well approximated. The wound is now ready to be stitched or for thorns to be applied. If a needle and thread are being used, close tight sutures will be placed to ensure that a flap of skin covers the vulva and extends from the mons veneris to the perineum, and which, after the wound heals, will form a bridge of scar tissue that will totally occlude the vaginal introitus.[46]

The amputated parts might be placed in a pouch for the girl to wear.[47] A single hole of 2–3 mm is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid.[h] The vulva is closed with surgical thread, or agave or acacia thorns, and might be covered with a poultice of raw egg, herbs and sugar. To help the tissue bond, the girl's legs are tied together, often from hip to ankle; the bindings are usually loosened after a week and removed after two to six weeks.[48][28]:491 If the remaining hole is too large in the view of the girl's family, the procedure is repeated.[49]

The vagina is opened for sexual intercourse, for the first time either by a midwife with a knife or by the woman's husband with his penis.[49] In some areas, including Somaliland, female relatives of the bride and groom might watch the opening of the vagina to check that the girl is a virgin.[50] Psychologist Hanny Lightfoot-Klein interviewed hundreds of women and men in Sudan in the 1980s about sexual intercourse with Type III:

    The penetration of the bride's infibulation takes anywhere from 3 or 4 days to several months. Some men are unable to penetrate their wives at all (in my study over 15%), and the task is often accomplished by a midwife under conditions of great secrecy, since this reflects negatively on the man's potency. Some who are unable to penetrate their wives manage to get them pregnant in spite of the infibulation, and the woman's vaginal passage is then cut open to allow birth to take place. ... Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife". This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis.[51]

The woman is opened further for childbirth (defibulation or deinfibulation), and closed again afterwards (reinfibulation). Reinfibulation can involve cutting the vagina again to restore the pinhole size of the first infibulation. This might be performed before marriage, and after childbirth, divorce and widowhood.[52]
Type IV

Type IV is "[a]ll other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes", including pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.[1] It includes nicking of the clitoris (symbolic circumcision), burning or scarring the genitals, and introducing substances into the vagina to tighten it.[53][54] Labia stretching is also categorized as Type IV.[55] Common in southern and eastern Africa, the practice is supposed to enhance sexual pleasure for the man and add to the sense of a woman as a closed space. From the age of eight, girls are encouraged to stretch their inner labia using sticks and massage. Girls in Uganda are told they may have difficulty giving birth without stretched labia.[j][57]

A definition of FGM from the WHO in 1995 included gishiri cutting and angurya cutting, found in Nigeria and Niger. These were removed from the WHO's 2008 definition because of insufficient information about prevalence and consequences.[58] Angurya cutting is excision of the hymen, usually performed seven days after birth. Gishiri cutting involves cutting the vagina's front or back wall with a blade or penknife, performed in response to infertility, obstructed labour and other conditions. In a study by Nigerian physician Mairo Usman Mandara, over 30 percent of women with gishiri cuts were found to have vesicovaginal fistulae (holes that allow urine to seep into the vagina).[59]
Complications
Short-term and late
External image
Keloidal scar tissue
 — RAINBO, 1999[45]:97

FGM harms women's physical and emotional health throughout their lives.[60][61]:49 It has no known health benefits.[8] The short-term and late complications depend on the type of FGM, whether the practitioner has had medical training, and whether they used antibiotics and sterilized or single-use surgical instruments. In the case of Type III, other factors include how small a hole was left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, whether surgical thread was used instead of agave or acacia thorns, and whether the procedure was performed more than once (for example, to close an opening regarded as too wide or re-open one too small).[6]

Common short-term complications include swelling, excessive bleeding, pain, urine retention, and healing problems/wound infection. A 2015 systematic review of 56 studies that recorded immediate complications suggested that each of these occurred in more than one in ten girls and women undergoing any form of FGM, including symbolic nicking of the clitoris (Type IV), although the risks increased with Type III. The review also suggested that there was under-reporting.[62] Other short-term complications include fatal bleeding, anaemia, urinary infection, septicaemia, tetanus, gangrene, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and endometritis.[61]:49[63][6] It is not known how many girls and women die as a result of the practice, because complications may not be recognized or reported. The practitioners' use of shared instruments is thought to aid the transmission of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV, although no epidemiological studies have shown this.[61]:50

All You Need To Know About FGM | End FGM - YouTube

Female Genital Mutilation Rises In UK | FGM "Parties" | No Prosecutions - YouTube

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-female-genital-mutilation-fgm/4-fgm-canada



Death Knight Posts: 2817 Karma: +110/-12 *********

CumSavorer4385

  • Death Knight
  • *********
  • *
  • Posts: 2817
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2017, 07:27:35 PM »
Slightly different topic related to WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND FEMINISM in USA.

Falsely accusing a man of rape or other sexual misconduct can ruin his reputation and his life.

If a woman accuses a man falsely, her punishment should be the same as his punishment would have been had he been guilty.

There is currently little or no penalty or punishment for women who intentionally and maliciously lie against innocent men.

That is not right.


http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/filing-a-false-police-report.html
Death Knight Posts: 2689 Karma: +53/-14 *********

marx was right

  • Death Knight
  • *********
  • *
  • Posts: 2689
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2017, 09:26:25 PM »
"There is currently little or no penalty or punishment for women who intentionally and maliciously lie against innocent men."

lol. just a blatant lie.
Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2017, 01:49:51 AM »
There are very different scenarios that can all be categorized as the same thing.

A strange man breaks into a woman's home, attacks her and rapes her.

A young man and woman get tipsy, start making out, end up going all the way, the woman later claims she was under the influence and couldn't properly consent and therefore she was raped.

A woman changes her mind during or after sex that she agreed to and can claim she was raped.

The experience doesn't live up to her expectations and is perhaps uncomfortable, even painful.

Every fake or false or frivolous rape allegation is actually helping real rape charges not be taken as seriously. Of course, men can avoid most of the frivolous and ludicrous fake charges by not having sex with strangers who may expect a relationship and become bitter and angry when the man is not interested and want revenge. Then his DNA won't be found inside her body as evidence.

If the physical evidence is there, it is extremely difficult to prove, in the absence of video or voice recording, what was or was not said prior to any given encounter.

Here is an "I was raped and no one cares" claim where a girl didn't have the most blissful experience in the sack, and therefore decided she was raped since she "kind of" didn't want him to finish up when he was very close to orgasm:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/135171-i-didnt-say-no-but-it-was-still-rape?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=sexrelationshipsbustle

This is a reason among the many already listed as reasons not to have casual sex.

You need to be able to trust that the person is not going to try to send you to prison if they either don't like the experience or want more of a relationship than you do.

Here is a story about 17 year Jay Cheshire from UK who was falsely accused and was so distraught that he killed himself, and then his mother was so distraught that she killed herself:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11912748/Guilty-until-proven-innocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1529606/family-of-tragic-mum-and-son-demand-face-to-face-showdown-with-woman-who-filed-false-rape-claim-which-triggered-suicides/

The girl who made the false accusation caused the deaths of two innocent people and walked away scot-free and anonymous to media.

False rape accusations are as bad as the crime of rape itself. It ruins lives, both of the falsely accused, and of honest women who are raped and want to press charges. It makes real victims of the vile crime of rape be eyed with suspicion.

If a female makes an accusation, often a man is considered guilty before he is even given a trial or before any evidence has been examined. In America, people are supposedly "innocent until proven guilty", but it doesn't always play out that way. The media trumpet the story and reputations are smeared before a trial has been conducted or before any actual evidence is examined. People should be more careful to look into facts before shouting labels about people.

Both men and women deserve protection from the law, from false accusations and from vile physical crimes, and the penalty for false rape accusations needs to be a lot tougher than it currently is. And those would of course need to go through a proper trial, overturning every shred of evidence like anything else.

Elizabeth Coast lied about being raped and a man was sentenced to prison for 7 years, but after serving 4, she apparently felt guilty and admitted she had lied. She served 2 months in jail.

4 years for the innocent. 2 months for the guilty. NOT QUITE JUSTICE if you ask me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/elizabeth-coast-rape-lie_n_3784718

Linsey Attridge chose strangers from facebook to accuse of rape. She even punched herself to make her story more credible. The randomly chosen strangers were arrested and their lives turned upside down with tests and interrogations. Their reputations were smeared. They were harassed by the community since people become justifiably upset when girls are hurt. When it came out that it was a lie to gain attention and sympathy from her boyfriend, all she got was 200 measly hours of community service.

Her acting was terrific, according to the article:

Throughout this process, Linsey sobbed, shook with fright and even made herself sick to hoodwink the female friend supporting her through her ‘ordeal’.

Her victims' lives were seriously damaged:

"Out in the real world, Philip’s ordeal was much worse: ‘He got harassed in the street; even in the school grounds parents were looking him up and down,’ remembers Kelly. ‘It was just horrible. I’m sure people were looking at me thinking “What is she still doing with him?” ’

The whispering at the gates of their daughter’s school became so unbearable that they withdrew her, moving her to another school where the pupils and parents knew nothing of Philip’s arrest.

‘We could tell what people were thinking by the way they were looking at us,’ says Kelly.

‘That’s why we ended up putting her in another school. That was hard.’"

‘Why would you do something like that? How many lives has she ruined? I wonder if she realises that it was a little girl’s life she ruined, too?’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348532/The-woman-accused-stranger-Facebook-rape--ruined-victims-life.html#ixzz50YQLh4Tl

Cori Lynn Osiecki falsely accused her ex-boyfriend after he broke up with her. She later admitted to lying. I found no record of her receiving any kind of punishment.

I think if the punishment for false charges was more significant than a little community service or a measly 2 months in jail, people might think twice before going out to destroy the lives of innocent people including their target(s) and all the women and girls who are true victims of horrible crimes.







Grunt Posts: 53 Karma: +4/-0 ***

Ze_sAiNt

  • Grunt
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2017, 05:07:24 AM »
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.”

The above verse includes me, because I am "waging war" against Allah and Muhammad

This is yet another example of someone ignorant singling out one verse from the Qur'an and quoting it out of its historical context and spreading misinformation and misguiding innocent people .  Here is the context that you failed to mention:

In order to understand this particular verse (Q 5:33), we have to go back to Prophet Muhammad’s life-time, with the historical sources available to us, and find out how it was interpreted by the Muslims then.

This verse was revealed in connection with a group of people who came to Madinah, they ate, rested and later in the day robbed and butchered an innocent shepherd to pieces. These criminals decapitated the shepherd(s), gouged their eyes out. After they fled, they also went on to rape women.

We have to keep in mind that the punishments was only carried out on these criminals as a result of the seriousness of what they did to innocent people. Such crimes committed even today would guarantee a criminal person(s) would be given the death penalty in a Democratic country like America, or life imprisonment without parole. As mentioned previously, the punishment meted out was in retaliation for their acts. The Prophet Muhammad punished them the same way they killed the shepherd.

As shown, making ‘mischief’ in the land, refers to robbery, murder and rape.  So, how does that verse include you in any way?  Unless, you attest to having done all those things...

But now I ask you:  how would you treat someone who would (hypothetically) rob, murder, and torture your own brother, by shoving spikes in his eye, slicing him in pieces and poking his eyes out, they also goes on to rape your sister???  Believe me, cutting off his hands and feet from opposite sides would be the most lenient of punishments you would want to inflict!


since my belief is that Muhammad was a man, a regular, sinful man

Once again, another false claim about Muhammad that can be historically verified.  What despises me the most about you is that you don't even bother reading or understanding the Islamic history or the Qur'an in its context and come up with your own conclusion.

Muhammad was known as a truthful and trustworthy person long before Islam.  He was known throughout Makkah as “Al-Sadiq Al-Amin“: the Truthful, Trustworthy one, a title he retained even by those who disbelieved in him after he declared his prophethood.  The Makkans agreed unanimously that Prophet Muhammad was a truthful person. Once before his conversion, a man called Yasir asked his son Ammar where he was going. Ammar replied that he was going to Muhammad. Being fully satisfied of his son’s safety while with Muhammad, he replied: “Muhammad is a trustworthy person. The Makkans recognize him so. If he claims prophethood, he must be telling the truth, for no one has ever heard him tell a lie.

Even Muhammad’s enemies did not accuse him of lying after he proclaimed his prophethood. After the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, in the year 6 after the Hijrah, Prophet Muhammad sent letters to the rulers of neighboring countries. The Emperor of Byzantium received his letter in Syria at a time when a Makkan trade caravan was in the area of Damascus. This caravan was headed by Abu Sufyan, one of the leading enemies of Islam and Prophet Muhammad.

The Emperor summoned him to inquire about Prophet Muhammad, and the following conversation took place:

“What is the status of his family among you?”

“He belongs to a good (noble) family amongst us”

“Has anybody else amongst you ever claimed the same (that is, to be a prophet) before him?”

“No”

“Was anybody amongst his ancestors a king?”

“No”

“Do the nobles or the poor follow him?”

“It is the poor who follow him.”

“Are his followers increasing or decreasing (day by day)?”

“They are increasing”

“Does anybody amongst those who embrace his religion become displeased and renounce the religion afterwards?”

“No.”

“Have you ever accused him of telling lies before his claim (to be a prophet)?”

“No”


“Does he break his promises?”

“No. We have a truce with him but we do not know what he will do”

“Have you ever had a war with him?”

“Yes”

“What were the outcomes of these battles?”

“Sometimes he was victorious, and sometimes we were”

“What does he order you to do?”

“He tells us to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship anything along with Him, and to renounce all that our ancestors had said. He orders us to pray, to be chaste, and to keep good relations with our kith and kin.”


Struck by Abu Sufyan’s answers, at that time the bitterest enemy of Islam, the Emperor acknowledged Muhammad’s position and said:

If what you have said is true, he will very soon occupy this place underneath my feet, and I knew it (from the scriptures) that he was going to appear but I did not know that he would be from you, and if I could reach him definitely, I would go immediately to meet him and if I were with him, I would certainly wash his feet. (Al-Bukhari)


These are all historically verifiable evidence which you intentionally or ignorantly choose to discard.  If anyone had to choose between your judgment and verifiable facts, I wonder which one they will choose...


who invented Allah, and that Allah was ultimately Muhammad's sock puppet to make the people around him do what he wanted

That's the first time in my life that I've heard something so ridiculous.  You have now reached a new low in your accusations of Muhammad, so much so that you even claim Muhammad to have "invented" Allah.


Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.”

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”  Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.  From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah”


This is not the first time you are quoting verses from the Qur'an out of context.  You apply the 'cut and choose' approach with regards to specific verses so that it suits you. You have failed again and again and again to show that you know the context of the verses you are quoting.  Your knowledge of Islamic history is very very poor, to say the least.  I will explain the context of one of the verses you quoted as an example so people can see how you are trying to deceive them:

Quran 2:190 – 195

2:190 Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors.
2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.
2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear God and know that God is with those who fear Him.
2:195 And spend in the way of God and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, God loves the doers of good.


Now, read it in its context. You only quoted the part which suited you, and you purposely isolated previous verses and the ones after. When the passage is examined in context, it is clear that nowhere does it sanction the killing of innocent people. From verse 2:190 to 2:195, when read in context, Allah makes it evident to fight only those who fight them, fighting in self-defence.

Gibbon, the master historian says in his  book "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire":

"In the state of nature, every one has a right to defend his person and possessions, and extend his hostilities to a reasonable amount of satisfaction and retaliation"

Since you are time and again quoting Qur'anic verses out of context even though I urged you not to do so, it can mean only 2 things:

1) You are intentionally trying to deceive people, which is devilish; or
2) You do not understand the word 'context', which means that your understanding of the English language as a native speaker is extremely poor.

I believe everyone will conclude it's the former.


Your verse from Jesus was actually taken completely out of context, and He was certainly not instructing His followers to kill anyone, and you do not see Christians going around en masse killing people in the name of Jesus. For someone who was criticizing taking things out of context, it's surprising that you went ahead and did just that so soon after.

Here is the framework of the verse you quoted from Luke 19. Jesus was telling a PARABLE.

Aha.  So you DO understand the word 'context' after all when it suits you.  I guess my earlier conclusion was correct.

But let's look at the verse in question as well as the context.  Jesus is telling his disciples of a parable as you rightly emphasized on with CAPS.  So what is a parable?  A parable is defined as "a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.".  So what is the lesson we learn from these verses preceding Luke 19:27 and the ones that follow it?  We learn that Jesus speaks of a King whose subjects hated him and didn't want him to be their King.  The whole passage of the Parable of the Ten Minas culminates in Jesus saying "...those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.."  And what does the Bible tell us about Jesus in the passage that immediately follows the Parable of the Ten Minas?  The title of that passage is summarized as "Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King". 

What 'religious principle' or 'moral lesson' are we to learn from this?  The lesson is that it is the prerogative of anyone who claims to be a king to slaughter anyone who refuses to accept him as the king.
Grunt Posts: 53 Karma: +4/-0 ***

Ze_sAiNt

  • Grunt
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2017, 06:41:21 AM »
The Cain and Abel story (which is another version of the story from the Bible in Genesis, again showing that the author was copying other sources but putting his own spin on them) is about MEN.

You are now claiming that Muhammad copied passages from the Bible and rehashed them to make them appear as if they were of divine origin.  So, before you start making allegations against the authorship and authenticity of the Qur'an, it would be wise for you to have a look at what your own Christian scholars have to say about your Bible:

J. B. Phillips (an English Bible scholar and an Anglican clergyman in the Church of England in 1930) - in his book "The Gospels in Modern English 1952"

J. B. Phillips writes in the preface to the Gospel of Matthew:

"Early traditions ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew (i.e this is what people say); but scholars nowadays, almost all reject this view" - (Who?  Muslim scholars? Hindu scholars? Jewish scholars?  No - Christian scholars all reject the view that Matthew wrote Matthew) (parenthesis mine)

"The author whom we can conveniently call Matthew has plainly drawn on the mysterious 'Q' which may have been a collection of oral traditions. He has used Marks Gospel freely..."

The author whom we can conveniently call Matthew? Why conveniently? Because otherwise we'll have to say, "The first book of the New Testament, verse so and so." Now instead, we can say MATTHEW 5:5 or MATTHEW 7:27 and so on, instead of wasting your time and my time.

And what about this mysterious 'Q' he mentioned? 'Q' is the first initial of the German word 'Quella', which means 'sources' or 'copying from the outside', i.e, these are not 'inspired words'.

J. B. Phillips further comments, "He has used Marks Gospel freely..." From an academic point of view, "Matthew" is guilty of plagiarism. He was copying wholesale from Mark. If you don't believe the words of a qualified Christian scholar of the Bible, all you need do is simply read a few verses to understand, for example:

"And as Jesus passed forth thence, he (Jesus) saw a man called Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom; and he (Jesus) said unto him (Matthew), follow me, and he (Matthew) arose and followed him (Jesus)." (parenthesis mine) [Matthew 9:9]

The 'he's' and 'him's' in the above verse clearly show that neither Jesus nor Matthew were the author of this narration. This verse is written in the third person. Nobody knows who wrote the book; certainly though, not Matthew.


Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's assume hypothetically that Muhammad copied these verses from the Bible.  It is clear that you are missing the point, that the Qur'an (in as much as those verses I quoted explain) teaches that whosoever kills anybody else deliberately, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind.  So what do you disagree to here?

Do you fight against the violent Muslims who do oppress women? Are you willing to publicly renounce them and their actions, including promoting the legal prosecution and deportation of criminals?

If you believe that what they are doing is wrong, then prove it. Join those who stand for freedom of speech and human rights for both men and women in denouncing violence against women and innocent civilians wherever it may be found, no matter who is doing it.

Post educational videos publicly showing the two streams of Muslims, and that you and people like you do not believe in or support the actions of the violent ones. Call them out and call them to peaceful conduct and fair and kind treatment of women and girls.


First of all, my purpose in posting response to your threads has been to rectify the misconceptions about Islam that you are spreading and to show you that before you start pointing fingers at muslim and finding faults with the Qur'an, you should start reading and understanding your own Bible and see how you being led by the nose to believe that Jesus died for your sins when Jesus preached otherwise - at least, this was how the discussion started.  If you want to be a human rights activist and go on a quest to change the world for the better, be my guest.  Don't expect everyone to follow suit.  My objective is not to change people's perception on a large scale - there are other scholars and activists already doing that.  But you seem to be doing a pretty good job at defaming Islam and it doesn't look like you are about to stop until the whole world has seen "the real face of Islam", despite me refuting your allegations all along.

Secondly, you are trying to depict a picture of anti-feminism in Islam by posting pictures of women who have been beaten and disfigured "by muslims" "in Islamic nations" and claim this comes from the teachings of Mohammad.  My response to you is to account for the following despite all your claims:

- Why is Islam still the fastest growing religion in the world today?
- Why are there more women entering Islam than there are leaving Islam?
- Who is forcing women in America (especially after 9/11) to accept Islam?  (According to a 2010 study by the Association of Religion Data Archives, the number of Muslims in America increased by 67 percent in the decade following the Sept. 11 attacks, most of whom being women)
- Why do so many non-muslim historians and scholars speak so highly of Muhammad? Of course, you very conveniently chose to disregard those unbiased writings of 16 non-muslims about Muhammad which I quoted in your other thread.


How about you start reflecting on this?
Moderator Axe Thrower Posts: 361 Karma: +37/-2 *****

BabyShark

  • Moderator
  • Axe Thrower
  • *****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2017, 07:45:09 AM »
I want you to recognize, @Ze_sAiNt, that my purpose is not to "make people look bad", but to help people. I actually have developed a lot more compassion for Muslim people by learning more about the religion and culture. I care about the people, including you.

I readily admit that my hope is that people who are persuaded by the teachings of Muhammad will recognize that there are problems in his teachings and life, including that he married and had sex with a child. Children should not be having sex and young girls' bodies can be seriously traumatized and damaged by forcible penetration by an adult. I would like truth and goodness to be prioritized over believing everything this man wrote or making his not very admirable life to be the "perfect example". I know that when you have been taught the same thing from childhood, it's really hard to think everything you learned is wrong. But it is my belief that it is a religion that is not based on truth and the values and teachings promoted are not good. I think children deserve to be loved and protected. I think women deserve to be loved and protected. I think boys and men deserve to be loved and protected.

I would like to see men and women to genuinely love and care for and value each other. I would like to see children loved. Even if you and I don't see things the same way, I want you to know I'm praying for you, as well as for Tora and Lightbringer, that you would come to know the love of Jesus personally. So many Muslims have been saved and come to know truth and love and freedom from an oppressive system of rules and laws that does not guarantee salvation for anyone, especially not for Muslim women, with whom Islam's hellfires are crowded.

I would ultimately like all men to come to a knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ, and His love and forgiveness for all people. Jesus loves Muslims and His blood won forgiveness for every single one of them too, not only for me. We all have done wrong against God's holy laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264729/Child-bride-13-dies-internal-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

Muhammad's sex life according to Islamic writings:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/muhammads-sex-life.aspx

I already admitted that I knew quite little about Islam outside of the public perception and just minimal surface stuff that I'd learned up til that point in my life, when Tora brought it up on these forums. His bringing it up led me to go more and more into it.

There really are horrific abuses going on within Islam, and I think the abuses go further than what the Quran specifies (ie. disfiguring faces with acid and cutting off noses are more advanced than beating with a scourge) and there are horrific abuses going on outside of Islam. Certainly abuse is not limited to Islam. But when women are religiously and culturally categorized as less than men and as men's property, it paves the way for mistreatment of all kinds. Who is going to stand up for another man's property if he chooses to damage it? And yes, as the Bible is an accurate historical book, we see oppression of women in history in other cultures and peoples besides Islam as well.

I say it should be stopped wherever it's found by whomever it's done.

If I'm taking the verses of the Quran out of context, then so are the majority of Muslims who do act on them and act in violence against non-Muslims and women.

From my reading of it, it reads as though violence is to be used until there is no worship of anyone besides Allah and no resistance to subjugation. It is certainly forced on everyone. Even the Muslim men in the video say the same.

Even though Muslim men are committing abuses against Muslim women, I do also see Muslim men as victims of an oppressive religion and oppressive system.

I think men naturally want to be loved.

I do not think a woman is capable of loving a man who beats her and treats her terribly, like a thing, and I think he does these things because that's what he is raised to believe is appropriate behavior and pleasing to Allah.

I even wonder how Muslim men are able to enjoy sex with a woman or girl who is unable to feel pleasure because she has had her clitoris cut out. I don't know what joy or pleasure there is in having sex with someone who is forced to have sex with you whether she likes it or not and can't enjoy it anyways. I know that for most North .American men, the woman's desire and pleasure is enormously important and a source of his own pleasure.

I feel compassion for Muslim men who are deprived of love and who have to live with their own violent acts against the women they are designed to love and protect. It must be a horrible feeling deep inside.

It's a bad system. Cutting off a woman's genitals is completely barbaric and disgusting. I feel so much compassion for the girls and women who have this done to them, and have to live the rest of their life amputated from a big and pretty important part of being a human, their sexuality and experiencing sexual pleasure, all because men want to make sure they don't run off with some guy or have sex with anyone they shouldn't, but most of all because Allah (ie. Muhammad) prescribes it.

Female genital mutilation is a prescribed practice in Islam, and these traditions and practices follow Muslims wherever they go. So FGM, even though illegal in "Western" countries like USA and UK, is practiced there in Muslim communities. Many girls were flown out to have their genitals cut off, and then flown back in, but when authorities started clamping down on the borders and having girls removed from the UK, Musims started flying practitioners in to do multiple girls at once, in secret.

Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed. Not a single Muslim scholar – as far as we know – has said that circumcision is not prescribed.

Their evidence is to be found in the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which prove that it is prescribed, for example:

1-

    The hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (5889) and Muslim (257) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the moustache."

    This hadeeth includes circumcision of both males and females.

2-

    Muslim (349) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory.”

    The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) mentioned the two circumcised parts, i.e., the circumcised part of the husband and the circumcised part of the wife, which indicates that a woman may be circumcised just like a man.

3-

    Abu Dawood (5271) narrated from Umm ‘Atiyyah al-Ansaariyyah that a woman used to do circumcisions in Madeenah and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.” But the scholars differed concerning this hadeeth. Some of them classed it as da’eef (weak) and others classed it as saheeh. It was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. The fact that circumcision for women is prescribed in Islam is confirmed by the ahaadeeth quoted above, not by this disputed hadeeth. But the scholars differed concerning the ruling, and there are three opinions:

1 –

    That it is obligatory for both males and females. This is the view of the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and is the view favoured by al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi among the Maalikis (may Allaah have mercy on them all).

    Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’ (1/367): "Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women in our view. This is the view of many of the salaf, as was narrated by al-Khattaabi. Among those who regarded it as obligatory is Ahmad… it is the correct view that is well known and was stated by al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him), and the majority stated definitively that it is obligatory for both men and women."

    See Fath al-Baari, 10/340; Kishshaaf al-Qinaa’, 1/80

2 –

    That circumcision is Sunnah for both males and females. This is the view of the Hanafis and Maalikis, and was narrated in one report from Ahmad. Ibn ‘Aabideen al-Hanafi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Haashiyah (6/751): "In Kitaab al-Tahaarah of al-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj it says: Know that circumcision is Sunnah in our view – i.e., according to the Hanafis – for men and for women."

    See: Mawaahib al-Jaleel, 3/259

3 –

    That circumcision is obligatory for men and is good and mustahabb for women. This is the third view of Imam Ahmad, and it is the view of some Maalikis such as Sahnoon. This view was also favoured by al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni.

    See: al-Tamheed, 21/60; al-Mughni, 1/63

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (5/223):

    "Circumcision is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah, and it is for both males and females, except that is it obligatory for males and Sunnah and good in the case of women."

Thus it is clear that the fuqaha’ of Islam are agreed that circumcision is prescribed for both males and females, and in fact the majority of them are of the view that it is obligatory for both. No one said that it is not prescribed or that it is makrooh or haraam.


(Taken from https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation)

Grunt Posts: 53 Karma: +4/-0 ***

Ze_sAiNt

  • Grunt
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: WOMEN'S RIGHTS and FEMINISM
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2017, 10:29:24 AM »
I want you to recognize, @Ze_sAiNt, that my purpose is not to "make people look bad", but to help people. I actually have developed a lot more compassion for Muslim people by learning more about the religion and culture. I care about the people, including you.

I readily admit that my hope is that people who are persuaded by the teachings of Muhammad will recognize that there are problems in his teachings and life, including that he married and had sex with a child. Children should not be having sex and young girls' bodies can be seriously traumatized and damaged by forcible penetration by an adult. I would like truth and goodness to be prioritized over believing everything this man wrote or making his not very admirable life to be the "perfect example". I know that when you have been taught the same thing from childhood, it's really hard to think everything you learned is wrong. But it is my belief that it is a religion that is not based on truth and the values and teachings promoted are not good. I think children deserve to be loved and protected. I think women deserve to be loved and protected. I think boys and men deserve to be loved and protected.

I would like to see men and women to genuinely love and care for and value each other. I would like to see children loved. Even if you and I don't see things the same way, I want you to know I'm praying for you, as well as for Tora and Lightbringer, that you would come to know the love of Jesus personally. So many Muslims have been saved and come to know truth and love and freedom from an oppressive system of rules and laws that does not guarantee salvation for anyone, especially not for Muslim women, with whom Islam's hellfires are crowded.

I would ultimately like all men to come to a knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ, and His love and forgiveness for all people. Jesus loves Muslims and His blood won forgiveness for every single one of them too, not only for me. We all have done wrong against God's holy laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264729/Child-bride-13-dies-internal-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

Muhammad's sex life according to Islamic writings:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/muhammads-sex-life.aspx

I already admitted that I knew quite little about Islam outside of the public perception and just minimal surface stuff that I'd learned up til that point in my life, when Tora brought it up on these forums. His bringing it up led me to go more and more into it.

There really are horrific abuses going on within Islam, and I think the abuses go further than what the Quran specifies (ie. disfiguring faces with acid and cutting off noses are more advanced than beating with a scourge) and there are horrific abuses going on outside of Islam. Certainly abuse is not limited to Islam. But when women are religiously and culturally categorized as less than men and as men's property, it paves the way for mistreatment of all kinds. Who is going to stand up for another man's property if he chooses to damage it? And yes, as the Bible is an accurate historical book, we see oppression of women in history in other cultures and peoples besides Islam as well.

I say it should be stopped wherever it's found by whomever it's done.

If I'm taking the verses of the Quran out of context, then so are the majority of Muslims who do act on them and act in violence against non-Muslims and women.

From my reading of it, it reads as though violence is to be used until there is no worship of anyone besides Allah and no resistance to subjugation. It is certainly forced on everyone. Even the Muslim men in the video say the same.

Even though Muslim men are committing abuses against Muslim women, I do also see Muslim men as victims of an oppressive religion and oppressive system.

I think men naturally want to be loved.

I do not think a woman is capable of loving a man who beats her and treats her terribly, like a thing, and I think he does these things because that's what he is raised to believe is appropriate behavior and pleasing to Allah.

I even wonder how Muslim men are able to enjoy sex with a woman or girl who is unable to feel pleasure because she has had her clitoris cut out. I don't know what joy or pleasure there is in having sex with someone who is forced to have sex with you whether she likes it or not and can't enjoy it anyways. I know that for most North .American men, the woman's desire and pleasure is enormously important and a source of his own pleasure.

I feel compassion for Muslim men who are deprived of love and who have to live with their own violent acts against the women they are designed to love and protect. It must be a horrible feeling deep inside.

It's a bad system. Cutting off a woman's genitals is completely barbaric and disgusting. I feel so much compassion for the girls and women who have this done to them, and have to live the rest of their life amputated from a big and pretty important part of being a human, their sexuality and experiencing sexual pleasure, all because men want to make sure they don't run off with some guy or have sex with anyone they shouldn't, but most of all because Allah (ie. Muhammad) prescribes it.

Female genital mutilation is a prescribed practice in Islam, and these traditions and practices follow Muslims wherever they go. So FGM, even though illegal in "Western" countries like USA and UK, is practiced there in Muslim communities. Many girls were flown out to have their genitals cut off, and then flown back in, but when authorities started clamping down on the borders and having girls removed from the UK, Musims started flying practitioners in to do multiple girls at once, in secret.

Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed. Not a single Muslim scholar – as far as we know – has said that circumcision is not prescribed.

Their evidence is to be found in the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which prove that it is prescribed, for example:

1-

    The hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (5889) and Muslim (257) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the moustache."

    This hadeeth includes circumcision of both males and females.

2-

    Muslim (349) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory.”

    The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) mentioned the two circumcised parts, i.e., the circumcised part of the husband and the circumcised part of the wife, which indicates that a woman may be circumcised just like a man.

3-

    Abu Dawood (5271) narrated from Umm ‘Atiyyah al-Ansaariyyah that a woman used to do circumcisions in Madeenah and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.” But the scholars differed concerning this hadeeth. Some of them classed it as da’eef (weak) and others classed it as saheeh. It was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. The fact that circumcision for women is prescribed in Islam is confirmed by the ahaadeeth quoted above, not by this disputed hadeeth. But the scholars differed concerning the ruling, and there are three opinions:

1 –

    That it is obligatory for both males and females. This is the view of the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and is the view favoured by al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi among the Maalikis (may Allaah have mercy on them all).

    Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’ (1/367): "Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women in our view. This is the view of many of the salaf, as was narrated by al-Khattaabi. Among those who regarded it as obligatory is Ahmad… it is the correct view that is well known and was stated by al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him), and the majority stated definitively that it is obligatory for both men and women."

    See Fath al-Baari, 10/340; Kishshaaf al-Qinaa’, 1/80

2 –

    That circumcision is Sunnah for both males and females. This is the view of the Hanafis and Maalikis, and was narrated in one report from Ahmad. Ibn ‘Aabideen al-Hanafi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Haashiyah (6/751): "In Kitaab al-Tahaarah of al-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj it says: Know that circumcision is Sunnah in our view – i.e., according to the Hanafis – for men and for women."

    See: Mawaahib al-Jaleel, 3/259

3 –

    That circumcision is obligatory for men and is good and mustahabb for women. This is the third view of Imam Ahmad, and it is the view of some Maalikis such as Sahnoon. This view was also favoured by al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni.

    See: al-Tamheed, 21/60; al-Mughni, 1/63

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (5/223):

    "Circumcision is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah, and it is for both males and females, except that is it obligatory for males and Sunnah and good in the case of women."

Thus it is clear that the fuqaha’ of Islam are agreed that circumcision is prescribed for both males and females, and in fact the majority of them are of the view that it is obligatory for both. No one said that it is not prescribed or that it is makrooh or haraam.


(Taken from https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation)





And yet, despite all this, more and more Americans are entering the fold of Islam, most of whom are women according to your statistics...

Don’t you care to find out why these American women are being ‘coerced’ into accepting Islam in such a free and Democratic nation as yours?  I’m sure you have a rational explanation for that too... why don’t you indulge us?