# Reading > Religious Texts >  Sex and the Koran

## atiguhya padma

I've been reading Tariq Ali's book The Clash of Fundamentalisms, and in it he claims that the Islamic heaven is a place where infinite orgasms occur. He then suggests that the minimum duration of a heavenly orgasm is twenty-four years!! Now, of course, anyone who knows anything about Tariq Ali will realise he considers this to be a whole load of nonsense (and anyone with a sense of humour will see the ridiculous and funny side of this silly assertion regarding heavenly orgasms - the missus and I laughed so much when we read it, we ended up in stitches). 

But what Tariq doesn't say - at least not in the body of his text - where this assertion comes from. Does anyone know if this is Koranic?

----------


## Sitaram

The 24 year duration is only upon the condition that one is not wearing a prophylactic.

Seriously folks.... speaking extemporaneously from my aging and failing memory, having read the "MEANING" of the Glorious Qu'ran by Pickthall from cover to cover (notice that only the original Arabic qualifies as the true Qu'ran, and any translation is refered to as 'THE MEANING",... 

There is no mention of orgasm. There one or more passages which mention that a male in paradise shall receive 72 or so Houris, known (in the carnal sense), by neither humans nor Jinn spirits. There is also some mention of young boys, but nothing specific. 

You know, since you bring up this topic: a few years ago, I had a conversation with a Muslim about such things. His argument to me was "Well, in heaven/paradise of course we shall have a need for food and drink and sex." He seemed to feel that this conclusion was quite natural. He was angered because I had been pointing out that the Qu'ran's rivers of honey and milk and wine sounded to me like rather messey feeding-trough images (we shall refrain from mentioning any farm animal by name.)

Jesus put the Pharisees and Saducees in their play by saying that, in heaven, people shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be like the angels, the bodiless noetic ones.

I just did a google.com search on "heavenly [email protected]" (change the @ to an "o") and came up with over 100 hits. One of those pages listed the following verses from the Qu'ran:

Koran 78:31 As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high- bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup. 

Koran 37:40-48 ...They will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches. 

Koran 44:51-55 ...Yes and We shall wed them to dark-eyed houris. (beautiful virgins) 

Koran 52:17-20 ...They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris (virgins) we shall wed them... 

Koran 55:56-57 In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before.Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?" 

Koran 55:57-58 Virgins as fair as corals and rubies. Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny ?" 

Koran 56:7-40 ...We created the houris (the beautiful women) and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand.. " 

Koran 55:70-77 "In each there shall be virgins chaste and fair... Dark eyed virgins sheltered in their tents whom neither man nor Jin will have touched before.. In the Hadiths, Mohammed goes one step further and expands the promise of virgins to include a free sex market where there is no limit of the number of sexual partners. Women and young boys are on display as if in a fruit market where you can choose the desired ripeness. 

Quote from Hadiths (the oral tradition considered second to the Qu'ran)

Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34 Ali reported that the Apostle of Allah said, "There is in Paradise a market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of men and women. When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them." 



Koran 52:24 Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well- guarded. 

Koran 56:17 Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness. 

Koran 76:19 And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Thanks for that Sitaram.

I have a feeling that Tariq Ali may have been referring to the hadith. Still, wherever it is written, it is extremely silly. Imagine being interrupted after 23.5 yrs!! You've got to start all over again! How could anyone consider this to be a heavenly blessing??

AP

----------


## Scheherazade

Talking of Heaven, has anyone noticed that the description of Heaven is always satisfying to those it has been sent to? Like in Qoran, the promise of cool, green gardens and vineyards with rivers running through them... This description might bring joy to those in the Arabic Peninsula, especially 1500 years ago -doubt they had enough water, nevermind cool enough- but I grew up in a small town known for its vineyards and promise of an afterlife in vineyards brings out a mild, involuntary 'blah'... Or thinking of folks living in the UK... I am sure they have had enough of green gardens or water with constant rain and would find a warm, sunny Heaven a better incentive.

----------


## Sitaram

I realize this present little post of mine is quite frivilous, and somewhat off top, but I stand in need of comic relief.

There is some television series (which I have never seen) called "Sex and the Single Girl." The title of this thread suddenly made me think of "Sex and the Single Prophet."

Of course, I can easily make my post a more serious and on topic by stating the historical fact that there was a time in Muhammed's life when he was single. Most of us are single at the moment of birth, and marry at some future point in our lives, though I suppose in history there may have been some individual who was born married (by means of some arranged marriage no doubt.)

Muhammed was working for Kadijah, a propsperous business women, when she, recognizing his honesty and other fine qualities, suggested that they marry. Kadijah is reckoned as the very first believer to follow Muhammed and submit to Islam. I do not believe that Muhammed took upon himself the burden of additional wives until after Kadijah passed away, but I might well be mistaken in this.

If one is truly curious about the role of sex in the Qu'ran, then one must discuss the life of the Prophet in order to gain some insight.

----------


## papayahed

But these virgins will only be virgins for so long, then what are new virgins delivered on a daily basis?

----------


## Scheherazade

ROTFL!  :Biggrin: 
Maybe they will be subjected to a 'self-virgining' process on daily basis. Otherwise, what would they do with all those 'expired' virgins???

----------


## Sitaram

Scher-- I realize there is more than a little humor in all this. But you do raise a very serious and profound question. I used to know the Surah and verse number by heart. I think it is in the the fourth or fifth Surah. Wait, let me google.

"Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise." [an-Nisa 4:56] 

(Hooray, I remembered correctly, Surah 4)

This business about "fresh skins" in the eternal torment of hell, implies that there is LIFE. I realize this is a subtle difficult point, but such eternal suffering implies continual new life, birth.... correspondingly,... the continual pleasure of paradise must implie some manner of death... (only the prerequiste of death in paradise is much harder to see, whereas the prerequesite of birth in torment, because of the fresh skins, is intuitively obvious.) 

There is an obvious similarity between receiving a fresh skin, and receiving perpetually renewed virginity (a hymen).

----------


## subterranean

Say Sitaram, how bout the promise of pleasure of sex in heaven for women according to Quran..? Seems so far the male species got alot of privilleges..

----------


## papayahed

Sounds like the muslim idea of heaven is a giant orgy, which seems strange (and sorry for my ignorance on this matter) since isn't there strict dress codes for muslim women?

----------


## Sitaram

yes,... but the paradise only mentions the pleasures of males..... no "beefcake boys" for the ladies,... sorry.... best bring a book along to read (I would suggest "To Kill a Mockingbird")

The ladies get to read "chick lit" ( you know, finding "mr. right" but no steamy bedroom scenes)

----------


## papayahed

> yes,... but the paradise only mentions the pleasures of males..... no "beefcake boys" for the ladies,... sorry.... best bring a book along to read (I would suggest "To Kill a Mockingbird")
> 
> The ladies get to read "chick lit" ( you know, finding "mr. right" but no steamy bedroom scenes)


Well that stinks. I guess I can't put in a request for my virgins to look like this than, can I?:



There hopefully this picture will work.

----------


## subterranean

Yes exactly. I know about this matter already since I spent sometime studying Qoran when I was still little. I used to play in Mosque also when I was a kid.

Was just being ironic with my previous post  :Wink: 




> yes,... but the paradise only mentions the pleasures of males..... no "beefcake boys" for the ladies,... sorry.... best bring a book along to read (I would suggest "To Kill a Mockingbird")
> 
> The ladies get to read "chick lit" ( you know, finding "mr. right" but no steamy bedroom scenes)

----------


## Amra

The verses in the Qur'an that speak of afterlife are not to be taken literary. Allah s.v.t says that heaven is not like anything a human mind can conceive. That is why when one reads the verses in the Qur'an about the heaven, it describes it in the way a human mind could understand. Therefore, there are references to those things we can identify with, the things we desire and cannot have, etc. It is just meant to show that no desire will be unfulfilled, nor will people suffer or feel pain. The only thing that we can be sure of is that Allah s.v.t will be just and will reward the believers in ways one cannot imagine. Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) said about heaven: 
"What no eye has ever seen and no ear has never heard and no human heart has ever perceived." (Narrated in the book of compiled hadiths by Imam Muslim.) In regards to sexual intercourse, it is believed that woman and man will be living in some form of a marriage just like in this life. The woman who is rewarded with heaven will be on a higher level than any "heavenly virgin" (or huria), and Allah s.v.t will grant her anything she desires. If a woman and a man who were married in this life wish to continue their marriage in after life, they will be able to do that. The human being will also be without any limitations as to his characteristics in this life such as jealousies, envy, hatred, unhappieness, sorrow etc. In the end, we really cannot know how the life in heaven will be, nor can we even try to comprehend, but surly it is the ultimate goal and wish of every muslim to achieve God's satisfaction and live in His presence and Mercy.

----------


## Sitaram

> "What no eye has ever seen and no ear has never heard and no human heart has ever perceived." (Narrated in the book of compiled hadiths by Imam Muslim.)



Perhaps St. Paul was an inspiration for Hadith:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love him.


I wonder if, in Paradise, Allah shall grant anyone freedom from the thrall of boundless desire for pleasure and self-gratification. I wonder if anyone shall ask for such a boon. I wonder if anyone shall ask that all those suffering in the torment of hell be admitted into Paradise. And, if someone DID ask Allah, would their petition be granted? And if it would not be granted, then one cannot say that Allah would grant them anything they request.

----------


## subterranean

All holy scriptures IMO should not be taken literary. The interesting part is Quran gives a very clear description about the promise of sexual pleasure in the after life as a form of reward to the good men. Yet from all those descriptions hardly we can find explaination about the same reward given to the female species.




> The verses in the Qur'an that speak of afterlife are not to be taken literary. Allah s.v.t says that heaven is not like anything a human mind can conceive. That is why when one reads the verses in the Qur'an about the heaven, it describes it in the way a human mind could understand. Therefore, there are references to those things we can identify with, the things we desire and cannot have, etc. It is just meant to show that no desire will be unfulfilled, nor will people suffer or feel pain. The only thing that we can be sure of is that Allah s.v.t will be just and will reward the believers in ways one cannot imagine. Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) said about heaven: 
> "What no eye has ever seen and no ear has never heard and no human heart has ever perceived." (Narrated in the book of compiled hadiths by Imam Muslim.) In regards to sexual intercourse, it is believed that woman and man will be living in some form of a marriage just like in this life. The woman who is rewarded with heaven will be on a higher level than any "heavenly virgin" (or huria), and Allah s.v.t will grant her anything she desires. If a woman and a man who were married in this life wish to continue their marriage in after life, they will be able to do that. The human being will also be without any limitations as to his characteristics in this life such as jealousies, envy, hatred, unhappieness, sorrow etc. In the end, we really cannot know how the life in heaven will be, nor can we even try to comprehend, but surly it is the ultimate goal and wish of every muslim to achieve God's satisfaction and live in His presence and Mercy.

----------


## baddad

Plentiful virgins of both sexes......nothing but the finest wines.........high bosums.......gratuitus sex whenever desired.......temperate climate...........extremely painful and infinite punishment for those that disagree with 'our' message.......24 hour orgasms..........

And this is some type of spiritual heaven?? 
.............It sounds more like a holiday in some equatorial Club Med run by the cocaine cartels.............

........Sounds like anyone can start their own religion......write down absolutely anything one fancies as long as they can convince others to believe, wait a thousand years, or two thousand, and then the new generations raised on the old myths, legends, parables, and virgin miracles, will do the job of convincing others, by force if they must, that 'THEIR' version of religion is the absolute truth. 

...But I think all my virgins, in my new religion's heaven, will be 5' 2' tall....just to be different...

----------


## subterranean

> ...But I think all my virgins, in my new religion's heaven, will be 5' 2' tall....just to be different...




 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## atiguhya padma

Hey Baddad, its 24 YEAR orgasms - and that's a minimum duration!

AP

----------


## Sitaram

So, I wonder, if they have motels in paradise, then what time is check-out; 10:00am or Noon?

----------


## subterranean

Ok Folks, I think 'tis enough. We wouldn't wanna offend some people would we  :Wink: ..?

----------


## Sitaram

Sometimes, "Paradise" is a place where everyone has forgotten the wisdom of:

"Nothing overmuch (in excess)" - Socrates

and

"Too much of a good thing is no good." - my Mommy
(she used to say that about Easter candy)

----------


## baddad

> Hey Baddad, its 24 YEAR orgasms - and that's a minimum duration!
> 
> AP



Yeah thanks AP, But I guess either a 24 YEAR or hour orgasm wouldn't really mean much in heaven, afterall, time would not exist in a paradise............

And I agree with Sub........enough said..........'my bad' for dragging it this far..... *bows low*

----------


## Logos

Yes, please remember we don't want to offend anyone nor get into inappropriate discussion for this all-ages website  :Wink:

----------


## papayahed

Yes, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.

----------


## Sitaram

Papayahed is the moral ballast of this forum.

----------


## subterranean

Hey, if you look a bit way up, I was the one who encourage people to stop mocking  :Biggrin:

----------


## Scheherazade

*pats Sub on the back and gives her shiny sticker*

----------


## Sitaram

And Subterranean is the moral ballast of Papayahed

----------


## papayahed

> Hey, if you look a bit way up, I was the one who encourage people to stop mocking


Sub can be the moral ballast, it seems like a tough gig. I would much rather be the "after-the-fact-finger-pointer"

----------


## papayahed

Besides which, I'm wondering how long the naps are?

----------


## Sitaram

Wow, I just realized a real theological problem in all this! There are intimatations in Hadith that there is a Kaaba in Heaven and that the angels are constantly encircling it. Well, what happens to prayer 5 times per day during this 24 year thing. Seriously! Where is there mention of prayer or worship in Islamic Paradise? Surely this is a key issue! I must take another look at the Qu'ran.

----------


## Amra

*Moses said unto them: Woe unto you! Invent not a lie against Allah, lest He extirpate you by some punishment. He who lieth faileth miserably. (Surah Ta-ha, verse 61)*

There is no mention of 24 year orgasm or sex in the Qur'an nor the hadith, and those who claim such things, need to bring proof, otherwise, their claims can be dismissed as lies.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Well, firstly, your quote is laughable if it is meant to deter people from asking such questions: we live in an age of scientific enquiry not superstitious nonsense (although I do sometimes wonder!).

Secondly, it was Tariq Ali who made such a claim. Tariq comes from Lahore, and is an extremely well-educated political commentator who knows a great deal about Islam. So, whilst it may well be that the 24-yr orgasm nonsense is un-Koranic, according to Tariq Ali it is something that many Muslims believe. 

If you had read my post with any degree of attention, you would have noticed that it was an enquiry into the origin of Tariq's claim. So your quote is rather confused and misdirected, I mean did you have it in mind for me, for Tariq Ali or for soemone else altogether?

----------


## Amra

There are two accepted sources of Islam, the holy Qur'an, and the hadith. Tariq ali is not a source of Islam, and if he claims something, and cannot provide proof from those two sources, than he is not credible and whatever he may say is simply his own opinion; nothing more, nothing less. Same thing with those who cite alleged Tariq Ali's comments; if they cannot bring proof from the Qur'an and the hadith, then their claims have no weight in a real theological discussion, but serve as a way to degrade and ridicule others and their beliefs. Of course, some people are content with that kind of "discussion" and believe it to be enough to form their opinions, but I am sure most of us expect more than "he said, she said", statements before accepting something as a true or false claim.

Also, the claim that you made, (although you have no proof of that, and I can claim the opposite just as well, with more credibility), that many muslims believe that statment of the 24 year long orgasm, is not a way to prove that something is truly God's word or not. If billions of people believed that some verse is in the Qur'an, and it is not there, would they be right or wrong? The rule of majority does not apply where we have facts to refute their opinion; and it certainly is not enough in the situations where we have God's word against theirs.

"If you had read my post with any degree of attention, you would have noticed that it was an enquiry into the origin of Tariq's claim. So your quote is rather confused and misdirected, I mean did you have it in mind for me, for Tariq Ali or for soemone else altogether?"

Well, I am rather confused about your angry comment from before. If you were looking for the truth in the Tariq Ali's comment, why did it offend you when I cited the Qur'anic verse? The verse said that people shouldn't lie about Allah's s.v.t word. That was my opinion about his comment and a way to tell you that his comments are not true. I cannot bring more proof than that, but I have elaborated my opinion further in this post. However, if someone claims that something is true or that something exists, the burden of proof is on him. I cannot prove that something doesn't exist, nor that something is not written in the Qur'an, unless you want me to copy paste the whole Qur'an here, so that we can look for what is not there?  :Wink:

----------


## baddad

Very nice Amra. Welcome to the sight. There is always room for intelligent input...

But even if someone pasted parts of religious texts here, there would still be suspicion as to whether the accuracy required was present in any post.
Interesting point about the availability of the Qur'an. Is it available in it's entirety on this sight? Are there any religious texts available on this sight? It would make for accurate discussion if it were so......

----------


## Amra

Thanks baddad... :Smile: 
Here is a link to the translation of the Qur'an, if you would like to look up some things. There is also an index so that it is easy to search for topics of interest rather than read it all...although I do recommend reading all of it.  :Wink:  

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

And here is the link to the site of the interpretation of the holy Qur'an, by one of the most respected scholars. So, if any of the verses are unclear, this is the place to refer to...  :Wink: 

http://www.tafsir.com/Default.asp

----------


## atiguhya padma

Amra,

You have an intriguing use of the word proof. Tell me, how do you prove that a text is the word of Allah? Do you have some special formula, or some kind of scientific experimental method or something?

----------


## atiguhya padma

Amra,

The verse you quote I would find offensive no matter who you applied it to. Quite honestly, only a fool would believe: <Invent not a lie against Allah, lest He extirpate you by some punishment.> Let me assure you that this sort of thing just doesn't happen. Furthermore, if Allah doesn't extirpate me by the end of the week say, I guess that will confirm that I have not invented a lie against Allah. I'll let you know how I get on. Tell you what, I'll give you a daily update on my health on this thread if you like!

----------


## Sitaram

A psychiatrist one said to a guru: "Religion is merely repressed sexuality."

The guru retorted: "Sexuality is merely repressed religion."

----------


## Scheherazade

> The verse you quote I would find offensive no matter who you applied it to.


There is no need to shoot the messenger!  :Wink:

----------


## atiguhya padma

No you are obviously right. Unless the messenger concurs with the message that is! :Smile:

----------


## Amra

atiguhya padma, There is no need to change the subject now. The point was that someone claimed a verse or the idea of 24 year orgasm was in the Qur'an, and I answered that the claim is not correct, and that there is no mention of that in the holy Qur'an. Period. 

"Amra,

You have an intriguing use of the word proof. Tell me, how do you prove that a text is the word of Allah? Do you have some special formula, or some kind of scientific experimental method or something"

Lol. You are missing the point. It is very easy to prove if something is IN the Qur'an or not. It's not abstract science, but merely a matter of reading.  :Wink:  If it is in the Qur'an, then Tariq ali said the truth, if it is not, he lied. It is beside the point whether he or anyone believes the Qur'an to be the word of Allah s.v.t. However, if TAriq Ali says that muslims believe something, then the only way he could have assumed that is if he read such a thing in the Qur'an or the hadith; otherwise he lied. I doubt it that he read a novel from Danielle Steel about the 24 year orgasm and based on that came to the conclusion that muslims believe such things.

----------


## Amra

"Let me assure you that this sort of thing just doesn't happen. Furthermore, if Allah doesn't extirpate me by the end of the week say, I guess that will confirm that I have not invented a lie against Allah. I'll let you know how I get on. Tell you what, I'll give you a daily update on my health on this thread if you like!"

I quoted the verse as the answer to your inquiry. You wanted to know if there was a basis of such claim in the Qur'an, I answered there is not. If Tariq Ali consideres himself a muslim, he will most certainly be watchful of claiming wrong things about Allah s.v.t's Book, and my statement was a reminder to him or any muslim, of the danger of doing such things. No muslim will think it offensive if you remind him to beware of committing sins or claiming something that is not in the Qur'an and ascribing it to Allah s.v.t. Also, it is rather childish to set ultimatums to Allah s.v.t and base your belief or non-belief  :Smile:  on whether or not a certain thing comes true within a week. If you feel the need to ridicule certain things, than there is nothing that can stop you from doing that, but I strongly believe in everything that is in the Qur'an, and feel it is unnecessary from your side to degrade someone else's belief just because you cannot accept it as the truth. It is a matter of respect toward other human beings more than anything else, that calls for certain etiquette when talking to others without ridiculing them or their ideas. I am not trying to impose any of my beliefs on you or anyone else, but if you ask a question about a religion and persumably want it answered, then there is no need to get offended if someone answers you from the source of what that religion is based on. By the way, if the scientists don't provide the proof of the specie we supposedly evolved from within a week, I will abandon my belief in evolution altogether.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Sitaram

Various major religions have one or more verses in their scriptures which hint that the gods of other religions are actually devils or demons disguised as God. It is difficult for anyone to disprove an assertion that the god which they worship is actually a demon.

St. Paul, in his epistles, actually has a verse or two to suggest that satan, as an angel of light, will assume the appearance of Christ for those "false" misguided sectarian Christians.

For example:

II Corinthians 11:13-15 says,

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness . . .

And in the Qur'an we read:

"And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when they are alone with their Shayâtin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites, etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking." Al-Baqarah 2:14


And in the Old Testament of the Jews, we find:

http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/Victor.html

The following is based on a translation of
"For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens". Psalm 96:5

The word translated as idols may also be translated as demons/devils.

(example of an interpretation of Psalm 96:5)

Then the emperor Maximianus was filled with anger and ordered that clubs be brought, and that Victor be stretched out in his sight and beaten. He commanded that the torturers should go beyond the third mark of the rack, and should shout at him, "Sacrifice to the Gods whom the emperor and everyone wor- ship." When Victor had been beaten the emperor ordered that he be set up straight, and said to him, "Victor, hear my advice, yield to and serve those gods: because no-one can better serve them than you, especially since you are distinguished by your grey hairs". Saint Victor replied, "Blessed David, king and prophet, teaches, "All the gods of the nations are demons, but our God made the heavens: if, therefore, they are called demons from the start, how will I worship them ?" Then the emperor Maximianus said to him, "Behold I give to you the rank of magister militum, much gold and silver, retinues and property, only sacrifice to the gods whom we worship". Victor replied, "I have already said, and will say it again: I will not sacrifice to the demons but I offer myself as a sacrifice of praise to God: because it is written "everyone who sacrifices to demons and not to God will be destroyed."


One may even find this notion in the Hindu Gita, but with an unusual twist:

God in the form of Krishna says, essentially, that all worship everywhere, comes to him, even though the worshippers be ignorant of His identity. Elsewhere, Krishna says that those who worship demons go to the demons, those who worship ancestors go to the ancestors, those who worship the demi-gods go to the demigods (i.e. everyone finds what they seek).


Apparently, Pres. Bush was asked publically if he thought that all worship the same God. Everyone held their breath, hoping that the answer would be a politically correct "yes" (which indeed it was.) But this is ignoring one of the final Surahs of the Qur'an, "The Surah to the Kafir (Unbeliever)": Say therefore to the unbelievers, "The god which you worship is NOT the God which we worship; and the God which we worship is NOT the god which you worship. So therefore, unto you your god and unto us our God."


Huston Smith, professor of comparative religion from M.I.T., cites Surah 5, verse 48 as one of the seemingly most ecumenical/interfaith verses: (paraphrasing from memory) "For my own purposes I have created you as different religions, so if you must compete with one another, compete in doing good works, and when you return to Me, I shall explain to you the reasons for the religious differences." But the next verse says "Therefore, do not be friends with Christians and Jews. They have each other to be friends with. He who is friends with them is one of them, and Allah does not help evil doers."

----------


## subterranean

> Posted by * AP* : You have an intriguing use of the word proof. Tell me, how do you prove that a text is the word of Allah? Do you have some special formula, or some kind of scientific experimental method or something?


Exactly AP. But I think this a matter of what someone prefers to believe. I can choose to believe in Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Koran, or even Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books as the holy book which come from a superior being. 

Amra, though you said that there's no such thing as 24 years orgasm in Koran, can you please explain then about the angels which would be come the so called rightheous men's wifes when they got to heaven? Cause I was sure that I heard that verse being read from the Koran. FYI, I live precisely infront of a mosque. Are there any husbands available for ladies?

----------


## baddad

...just want to reiterate........nice to see intelligent rational posts on the site......

Nice to have you aboard Amra. by the looks of it, its gonna be fun!

And Sub......I can't decide if your latest avatar is Alexander Pope.....or Bob Dylan.....hehe...

----------


## subterranean

Baddad...he's the great Jimmy Page  :Nod: ..I saw The Song Remains the Same Dvd last nite...and I fall in love with this man  :Blush:

----------


## Amra

"But this is ignoring one of the final Surahs of the Qur'an, "The Surah to the Kafir (Unbeliever)": Say therefore to the unbelievers, "The god which you worship is NOT the God which we worship; and the God which we worship is NOT the god which you worship. So therefore, unto you your god and unto us our God.""

When interpreting the Qur'an, one must be familiar with many aspects of the revelation. For example, the process of revelation lasted 23 years, and the verses came to Prophet Mohammed a.s as instructions, reprimands, or guidance, depending on the obstacles he faced during the prophethood. So, when one quotes from the Qur'an, one must know what the cause of the particular reveled verse was, if it is to be applied only to that particular time, to certain group of people, or if it is universal. The scholars that interpret the Qur'an spend a great deal of reserach on the life of Prophet Mohammed a.s, comparing various hadith, and verses in the Qur'an, creating the context within wich a verse is to be understood and interpreted. The surah "Al-Kaafiroon" was revealed in Mecca, during the time when Prophet Mohammed a.s faced great challanges from the tribe Quraaysh. They opposed his teachings and when seeing that he was gaining influence among people, tried to pursuade him to stop, in every possible way. So, one time they offered him a deal, a kind of a treaty, saying that if he agreed to worship their gods for one period of time, they would in turn worship Allah s.v.t for a period of time, and so there would be mutual understanding and peace between them. In answer to that, Allah s.v.t revealed this verse, telling Mohammed a.s to tell them :"Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship Nor will ye worship that which I worship.Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. "(Surah Al-Kafiroon, Verse 1-6) Therefore, this particular verse is to be applied to idolators. Furthermore, when we talk about worship, most of the time, we assume it to be applied to a deity. But, one can worship other things beside a God, because worship simply means to express admiration, respect, love and devotion in a certain way to a certain object. So, we find that people worship many things, whether they are aware of that or not. If someone lets money rule his life, and become the driving force of one's own being, then that person is worshiping money. The same way, if we are madly in love with another person, and start ascribing godly characteristics to that person, we are in a way worshiping that human being. So, when Allah s.v.t says that we should not worship the way the non believers worship, it encompasses all those different, indirect ways people allow their lust, desires and temptations to overcome their reason and let other things become the object of worship other than the One who is only deserving of that. 
As for whether or not we all worship one God, I am going to say yes. We all worship the Creator, the most Merciful, the Eternal, the Just, the Powerful, The Loving, the Forgiving, the Giving, the All Knowing deity that God s.v.t is. The difference is whether or not we are really worshipping HIM, or think that we are doing so, and whether or not we are worshipping HIm in the way He wants us to, or we only think so. That is the part where faith comes into play, and where all of us make our own decisions.

----------


## Amra

"Amra, though you said that there's no such thing as 24 years orgasm in Koran, can you please explain then about the angels which would be come the so called rightheous men's wifes when they got to heaven? Cause I was sure that I heard that verse being read from the Koran. FYI, I live precisely infront of a mosque. Are there any husbands available for ladies?"

Having righteous wives and a 24 year orgasm is not one and the same.  :Wink:  Allah s.v.t mentions many things that people will have in heaven and says that He will reward all of us in the way we deserve it, regardless of whether or not a person is a male or female. One of His attributes is that He is most just, and we believe that the absolute justice is with Him. Whether or not the descriptions of heaven are to be taken literary or not is not sure, but it is said that heaven is nothing like a human being can imagine or perceive in any way. So, all the descritions we find of it are merely to be understood as God's way of showing us in the limited way we can perceive it, that heaven is the place where all wishes and desires will come true, where there is no sorrow or pain, but some sort of ultimate bliss and eternal happieness in the presence of God. The Qur'an mentions that human beings will not have feelings of jealousy, envy, hate or pain in heaven, so one has to imagine that the life as we know it will not exist. The nature of a woman is different than that of the man, and a woman desires different things than a man does. Allah s.v.t knows this best, so He will reward each one of us with the things that we will be satisfied with. The biggest reward will be, as is mentioned in the Qur'an, the feeling that Allah s.v.t is satisfied and the opportunity to look at Him.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Amra,

you say:

<unnecessary from your side to degrade someone else's belief just because you cannot accept it as the truth.>

What do you mean 'unneccessary'? What would you know of my necessities? There are plenty of reasons why I don't accept any scripture as truth. A whole list of them that would take far too long to discuss here.

<The point was that someone claimed a verse or the idea of 24 year orgasm was in the Qur'an,>

Who claimed that? If you want to go around preaching to people about what they should say or think, making claims of truth and proof, you should at least get your facts right. 

For your information, Tariq Ali is too sensible to be a Muslim. Again, had you read my original post you would have seen this.

<Also, it is rather childish to set ultimatums to Allah s.v.t and base your belief or non-belief> 

I agree. I was trying to respond in an appropriate way to this rather childish quote you made:

<Moses said unto them: Woe unto you! Invent not a lie against Allah, lest He extirpate you by some punishment. He who lieth faileth miserably. (Surah Ta-ha, verse 61)>

Because you do not seem to read my posts with much regard to precision, let me spell it out in a way that you hopefully won't fail to understand: if you suggest that somebody may be 'extirpated' by God/Allah/Krishna/any other s.v.t (all the same to me), for telling a little fib, then I suggest you need to look outside on the real world and observe with some precision how justice (or lack of it) seems to be handed out to the world. As an attempt to illustrate this, I thought I would paint a picture on the same kind of intellectual level that your quote works on.

<It is a matter of respect toward other human beings more than anything else, that calls for certain etiquette when talking to others without ridiculing them or their ideas.>

I hadn't noticed you observing this point too well. Quoting some claptrap about my (or Tariq's) possible forthcoming demise due to telling lies (gosh what a terrible crime! - absolutely shocking!), sounds very much like you are insulting my intelligence. It, quite frankly, sounds very childish.

----------


## Amra

Ok. No point going into circles. Thanks for the discussion.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Well, Amra, thanks at least for suggesting that the 24 year orgasm is not in the Koran, which was the question at the heart of this thread originally (although I would have to read the whole of the Koran before your suggestion could be seen as nothing more than <he said, she said> kind of argument, and unfortunately I don't have that kind of time to spare - especially when there are so many great books on my bookshelf)

AP

----------


## Logos

Please stop burying personal comments in posts regarding someone else's reading comprehension or posting style, they are considered _ad hominem_. 

For example, there are many here who don't use english as their first language, or maybe have issues with dyslexia, etc. that effect their writing. They still have a right to post their thoughts freely without the above type of comments ensuing. 

If I see any more in this, as usual, emotional discussion, I will have to close this topic. 





> Main Entry: ad ho·mi·nem
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
> Date: 1598
> 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
> 2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

----------


## atiguhya padma

Logos,

I presume your post refers to me. If I have in any way offended anyone with dyslexia, or any other language problem, then, of course, I wholeheartedly apologise. If you are suggesting that I have no right to comment on somebody making a false claim against me, with regard to what is or is not in the Koran; and what I have or have not said in a post, then I cannot offer apologies on such a matter.

----------


## subterranean

> The nature of a woman is different than that of the man, and a woman desires different things than a man does. Allah s.v.t knows this best, so He will reward each one of us with the things that we will be satisfied with. The biggest reward will be, as is mentioned in the Qur'an, the feeling that Allah s.v.t is satisfied and the opportunity to look at Him.



So you're saying that in heaven there still exist such thing as the difference of nature/desire of man and woman?

And I think you contradic your self here: 



> Posted by *Amra*: Allah s.v.t mentions many things that people will have in heaven and says that He will reward all of us in the way we deserve it, regardless of whether or not a person is a male or female


And more, you said, *"He will reward each one of us with the things that we will be satisfied with"*. Is this mean that each people would get different prize in heaven then?

And by the way you haven't answer my questions, and please, answer them directly with Yes or No (explanation added after that is ok):
1. Was I mis-heard about the verse in Koran which stated that there are angels provided as wifes to men in heaven? From your explanation, you implicitly answered that there is a verse which stated such thing. DO correct me if I'm wrong.
2. Then next Q, is there any similiar "benefit" for women? Meaning, are there He-angels available as husbands for women?

----------


## subterranean

Oh Logos, you're such a party ruiner  :Wink: ..Please don't close this thread.




> If I see any more in this, as usual, emotional discussion, I will have to close this topic.

----------


## papayahed

> Prophet Mohammed a.s 
> Allah s.v.t



What do the letters after each of these names stand for?

----------


## Amra

"So you're saying that in heaven there still exist such thing as the difference of nature/desire of man and woman?"

Yes, there will be differences between men and women. We will not be sexless angels in heaven, but will be humans, although as I mentioned, some human characteristics will not be present. 

"And more, you said, "He will reward each one of us with the things that we will be satisfied with". Is this mean that each people would get different prize in heaven then?

Yes, people will be rewarded differently, based on their deeds in this life. There are differenet levels of heaven, and numerous hadiths hint on the fact that people will be ascending to the higher levels, based on their deeds. For example, one hadith talks about the importance of learning the Qur'an, and it says that when a person comes into heaven, Allah s.v.t will tell him to recite the Qur'an and climb the stairs of heaven, and that he should stop there where he finishes reciting the last letter of the Qur'an. So, that shows that there will be differences in the heaven. 

"1. Was I mis-heard about the verse in Koran which stated that there are angels provided as wifes to men in heaven? From your explanation, you implicitly answered that there is a verse which stated such thing. DO correct me if I'm wrong."

There is a verse that says there will be virgins and righteous women provided for men. Men and women can choose to live together as they did in this life, or a men can have more than one wife. 

"2. Then next Q, is there any similiar "benefit" for women? Meaning, are there He-angels available as husbands for women?"

There is no mention of "he-angels" for women in the Qur'an. The woman is not allowed to have more than one husband in this life, and persumably will not have more than one husband in the after life. 

"What do the letters after each of these names stand for?"

a.s is the abbreviation for alleihi salam... meaning peace be upon him, and is said after one mentions a name of any prophet out of respect for them.

s.v.t is the abbreviation for subhanahu we teaAllah... and means "all praise be to Him".

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> The 24 year duration is only upon the condition that one is not wearing a prophylactic.
> 
> Seriously folks.... speaking extemporaneously from my aging and failing memory, having read the "MEANING" of the Glorious Qu'ran by Pickthall from cover to cover (notice that only the original Arabic qualifies as the true Qu'ran, and any translation is refered to as 'THE MEANING",... 
> 
> There is no mention of orgasm. There one or more passages which mention that a male in paradise shall receive 72 or so Houris, known (in the carnal sense), by neither humans nor Jinn spirits. There is also some mention of young boys, but nothing specific. 
> 
> You know, since you bring up this topic: a few years ago, I had a conversation with a Muslim about such things. His argument to me was "Well, in heaven/paradise of course we shall have a need for food and drink and sex." He seemed to feel that this conclusion was quite natural. He was angered because I had been pointing out that the Qu'ran's rivers of honey and milk and wine sounded to me like rather messey feeding-trough images (we shall refrain from mentioning any farm animal by name.)
> 
> Jesus put the Pharisees and Saducees in their play by saying that, in heaven, people shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be like the angels, the bodiless noetic ones.
> ...


Since some muslims claim that polygamy is only to care for widows in distress in this imperfect world, why take even one more wife in a place where no woman is poor and in need of financial sheltering? Was the earthly wife a piece of used garbage after using her here, so that a new virgin is preferable? And they are to have virgins who are not virgins themselves?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> The verses in the Qur'an that speak of afterlife are not to be taken literary. Allah s.v.t says that heaven is not like anything a human mind can conceive.


Then why appeal to the basest lusts? I doubt the quran says that the sensual acts desribed are incomprehensible. Maybe the quality of skin is unexpected, and the colors, and the look of the place, but other things are pretty obvious details.

----------


## Amra

> Since some muslims claim that polygamy is only to care for widows in distress in this imperfect world, why take even one more wife in a place where no woman is poor and in need of financial sheltering?


It is not true that a man may only take another wife for those reasons. He can have more than one wife simply by wanting to have her. That is a reason enough, and God gave him that choice. However, God also gave woman the choice to decide whether or not they want to live in those marriages or not. No one can force a woman to marry, and therefore, no one can force her to live in a polygamous marriages. As we have stated before, the Bible gives numerous examples of polygamous marriages, and does not condemn them in any way. The Prophet Abraham a.s had two wives, and it was perfectly fine. Another thing, polygamous marriages are rarely practiced in muslim countries today, and I don't really see a reason to even discuss them so exhaustively. In most countries today, there are proportionally more women than men, and in time, the ratio will only increase. What does Christianity have to offer as a solution to this problem? What will a woman do who cannot find a marriage partner because there is a shortage :Smile:  of men? Islam gave this solution; it may not appeal to you, it may not be something that you would practice, and you have the right to do so, but it is something. Prophet Mohammed a.s married many women who were widows, and who needed protection, but also married women for pleasure. Both reasons are perfectly fine, because we are human beings, and God does not expect us to be holy, nor to supress our human desires. He only wants us to stay within His limits. 




> Was the earthly wife a piece of used garbage after using her here, so that a new virgin is preferable? And they are to have virgins who are not virgins themselves?


I don't know what this is supposed to mean? In heaven, husband and wife will be reunited, and will live in eternal bliss together. God is just, and those who earn paradise will enjoy God's mercy forever. I don't think that paradise will be place for a disgruntled jealous wife.  :Biggrin:  




> Then why appeal to the basest lusts? I doubt the quran says that the sensual acts desribed are incomprehensible. Maybe the quality of skin is unexpected, and the colors, and the look of the place, but other things are pretty obvious details.


The greatest reward in paradise will be the opportunity to look at Allah's s.v.t face. There will be no pain, or suffering, and people will live in eternal bliss enjoying God's mercy. That is what the Qur'an teaches us. Other rewards that are promised are incomprehensible to us, as God Himself said that paradise is nothing a human has ever seen, or could possibly imagine. If a man will have virgins to enjoy, than that is God's decision, and I am perfectly fine with that. Who am I to doubt God's wisdom? Why would I care what anyone does if I have the opportunity to be in paradise in God's closeness? How earthly are your thoughts?  :Confused:

----------


## Amra

Some hadiths regarding the treatment of women:

The Prophet (pbuh) said: "The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best in manner and kindest to his wife."


The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: "The best thing in this world is a virtuous woman (wife)." - Riyadh us-Salaheen, 1:280

The man asked] "Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man said. "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man further said, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man asked for the fourth time, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your father."

----------


## Amra

Parts of Prophet Mohammed's last sermon shortly after he died... This summerizes his teachings, and what kind of a man he was..


O People
Lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefor listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People
Just as you regard this month, this day, this city as sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. Allah has forbidden you to take usury (interest); therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity.

Allah has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all interest due to Abbas Ibn Abd al Muttalib (the Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived.

Beware of Satan for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

*O People
It is true that you have certain rights in regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives, only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat you women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers.*  


O People
Listen to me in earnest, worship Allah, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat.

Perform Hajj if you can afford to.

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white- except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim, which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefor, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember one day you will appear before Allah and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone. People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well therefore, O people, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and the Sunnah (Hadith), and if you follow these you will never go astray. All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listened to me directly. Be my witness, O Allah, that I have conveyed your message to your people."

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

I had written:



> Since some muslims claim that polygamy is only to care for widows in distress in this imperfect world, why take even one more wife in a place where no woman is poor and in need of financial sheltering?





> It is not true that a man may only take another wife for those reasons. He can have more than one wife simply by wanting to have her. That is a reason enough, and God gave him that choice.


No HE did not. Any man that is married and is on the lookout for another wife is a bad husband - I mean, no husband at all. As I mentioned to you before, I have never looked to get anything back from any woman I have helped - a contemptable thing to condition help of widows on. But you make it sound even worse.




> As we have stated before, the Bible gives numerous examples of polygamous marriages, and does not condemn them in any way. The Prophet Abraham a.s had two wives, and it was perfectly fine.


Actually, I already demonstrated from the only Writings the Arabs first knew of Abraham from - the Bible - that he erred in the whole Hagar fiasco in a state of despair in old age, and that GOD waited to fulfill Promises to him, withholding them until a time of Penance after having nothing further to do with Hagar. She had no problem bearing a child at once, and Abraham - who had long been trying to have a child - did not practice birth control - so Hagar having no further child is a good indication of all that I already adequately stated before (but your ideology won't admit of a Biblical hatred of polygamy). 
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=15942&page=1





> Another thing, polygamous marriages are rarely practiced in muslim countries today, and I don't really see a reason to even discuss them so exhaustively.


For political reasons, I cannot here address that. But I can say this: that the hope of "Paradisial polygamy" is a present problem of the heart that affects marriages.




> In most countries today, there are proportionally more women than men, and in time, the ratio will only increase. What does Christianity have to offer as a solution to this problem? What will a woman do who cannot find a marriage partner because there is a shortage of men? Islam gave this solution; it may not appeal to you, it may not be something that you would practice, and you have the right to do so, but it is something.


There are a lot of women (and little girls) that are concubines against their wills - and some of them don't wish to be sexually entwined with anyone. Nuns were stolen by muslims of the Ottoman empire - one mothered a sultan. Not all are called to Marriage. Don't presume all women want a man - a woman doesn't exist just to let a man have a role filled generically in his life. Lust is not a need. The only worthwhile use for sex is as a part of absolute Unity of Pure Love between two that are inseparable on a personal level.




> Prophet Mohammed a.s married many women who were widows, and who needed protection, but also married women for pleasure. Both reasons are perfectly fine, because we are human beings, and God does not expect us to be holy, nor to supress our human desires. He only wants us to stay within His limits.


Do you want me to praise someone for this?
GOD doesn't want us to be holy? Is this your excuse for the man that you - not I - just named in the same train of thought? I thought you earlier told me that all Prophets are holy, that Muhammad is a prophet, and that he was holy. 

We, being created in GOD's Image, ought to have self control. GOD has the ability to destroy infinite creations over and over, but HE doesn't do it just because HE can. We, too, ought to reflect such divine reserve, rather than acting on selfish impulse. Will you try to find fault even with this?

I had written:



> Was the earthly wife a piece of used garbage after using her here, so that a new virgin is preferable? And they are to have virgins who are not virgins themselves?






> I don't know what this is supposed to mean? In heaven, husband and wife will be reunited, and will live in eternal bliss together. God is just, and those who earn paradise will enjoy God's mercy forever. I don't think that paradise will be place for a disgruntled jealous wife.


Either you truly do not understand the clear statement I made, or I do not understand your sense of justice. You answer my heartfelt contention against such disregard for an earthly wife, in favor of further "maids of paradise", as though the earthly wife ought to go to hell rather than paradise if she feels jealous. No woman ought to feel jealous of a man like that. No woman ought to accept being used as a tempoaray shell like that. 

In true Love, jealousy, like pain in the body where injury has occurred, is a healthy indicator that something is not well. If one is not jealous when betrayed by a beloved, she isn't truly bound to that man by Love. 





> The greatest reward in paradise will be the opportunity to look at Allah's s.v.t face. There will be no pain, or suffering, and people will live in eternal bliss enjoying God's mercy. That is what the Qur'an teaches us. Other rewards that are promised are incomprehensible to us, as God Himself said that paradise is nothing a human has ever seen, or could possibly imagine. If a man will have virgins to enjoy, than that is God's decision, and I am perfectly fine with that. Who am I to doubt God's wisdom? Why would I care what anyone does if I have the opportunity to be in paradise in God's closeness? How earthly are your thoughts?


I already have seen what my eye did not see before, and have heard what I previously never had heard, and understand spiritual things that my soul could not concieve of until it gained a Living Spirit. And whose thoughts are earthly? The man who has no sexual self control, or the one that sees an ideal for all men to lay hold of, that reflects GOD? Such an awkward accusation.

When the Apostle Peter calls the woman the "weaker sex", he refers to her vulnerability to male harshness and force, and any one that, from the male position of strength, gives less than he takes, is nothing like GOD.

----------


## Nightshade

hello- welll goodness me what a thread  :Smile:  ok I have a few points first off who was this tariq guy? 
Anyway that bit about pure( virgin wives) As far as I KNow that snt what the ayyah says it says
(wa lakum feeha *Azwajin* mutahirat )
And in it you will havve pure spouses.
And On a grammaticall point if the ayah had said Zowjat (this is the feminie plural) and this is the masculine plural for many husbands. Actually my sister says (and shes our gramitcal genius) the word actually means couple or pair or marrige.
So the ayah is actually pormising pure marriages in heaven.
Of course the arbic languge (and grammer  :Sick:  ) being what it is most everything in The koran appears to be addressing men because that plural can be unisexual but the feminine plural refers exclusivly to females.

next pont polyigamy. Personally I have no objection to it.
I dont think d mind if my husband decided to marry again in fact I may well support him.
However Ive never been in ove or married or anything so my opinion mya change with time. I know that nowadays smost people really really object to it muslims included, I know most opf the women in my family would ber tempted to kill their husbands if they remarried I think some of the masle realtives would have objections too. 

AS for heaven Ive never trully understood the idea but as I understand it ( :Brow:  ) Im not meant too (what no eye saw and all that). I rember when I was 8 asking if theyd go to heaven_ forever_ would they end up getting bored? Apparantly not.Maybe we wont be able to feel bordom then. What I belive is you will have everything you want before you even knew you wanted it. and maybe evryone's heaven will be different.
 :Biggrin:

----------


## Amra

> No HE did not. Any man that is married and is on the lookout for another wife is a bad husband - I mean, no husband at all. As I mentioned to you before, I have never looked to get anything back from any woman I have helped - a contemptable thing to condition help of widows on. But you make it sound even worse.


That is your opinion, but we are not talking about opinions here. I am giving you the Islam perspective on this issue, you may accept it or not, but your opinion about a bad husand is irrelevant. Prophet Mohammed a.s was the best person ever to live, and was an amazing husband to his wives. We have many hadiths that come from Aisha r.a, and all we here are great praises about him. Men could be good or bad husbands depending on whether or not they fear God, not by how many wives they have. Also, why do you think that it is only your right to decide if you should marry or not? Don't you think that women derive pleasure from marriage as well? Don't you think that women have the right to live in a marriage, and enjoy its benefits, whatever they may be? As human beings, we have an inclination to live in a family, and everyone has a right to that. Prophet Mohammed a.s strongly discouraged living a single life, and encouraged marriages as soon as all necessary conditions were fulfilled. As I stated, some women do not mind living in a polygamous marriages, and God gave them the right to do so. Reasons may vary as to why someone decides to do that, but why do you mind something that both parties have free choices to? I know a person (not personally, but he is a prominent figure in my country) who is a very vell educated scholar, and who recently married another wife. My country is a secular contry, where polygamous marriages are almost unheard of. Who do you think forced that woman to enter a marriage like that? No one. She chose it, and he had a right to it, and so far no one has heard any problems about it. Again, as I stated, polygamy is blown way out of proportions because many men do not want to marry more than one wife, nor do many women want to live in polygamous marriages. Those who don't mind that have the choice to exercise it as well, and why should you prohibit them from doing so? 





> Actually, I already demonstrated from the only Writings the Arabs first knew of Abraham from - the Bible - that he erred in the whole Hagar fiasco in a state of despair in old age, and that GOD waited to fulfill Promises to him, withholding them until a time of Penance after having nothing further to do with Hagar. She had no problem bearing a child at once, and Abraham - who had long been trying to have a child - did not practice birth control - so Hagar having no further child is a good indication of all that I already adequately stated before (but your ideology won't admit of a Biblical hatred of polygamy).


This is your free interpretation of what happened, but there is nothing in the Bible hinting on any of this. He was married to two women, and God NEVER condemned any of this in the whole Bible story. Why are you condemning something that God didn't condemn? Where in the Bible does God say that Abraham erred because of having two wives? Where does God say that it is fobidden to have more than one wife? Where is the Bible's hatred of polygamous marriages apparent? Can you cite verses that would support this idea of yours? There are verses that talk about polygamous marriages, and give instructions on how to treat the children of "the hated" wife, and the "loved" wife.  :Wink:  NOt one mention on the hatred of the polygamous marriage itself.




> For political reasons, I cannot here address that. But I can say this: that the hope of "Paradisial polygamy" is a present problem of the heart that affects marriages


This is an opinion based on nothing, so I'll just ignore it. 




> There are a lot of women (and little girls) that are concubines against their wills - and some of them don't wish to be sexually entwined with anyone.


Can you give any kind of references to what you are claiming? Where are the concubines? What about those women who don't want to be sexually entwined? I don't know of any muslim woman who prefers to stay unmarried? Why should she? But, even if there are women like that, how does that relate to our topic? If the woman doesnt' want to marry, than she simply doesn't marry. Period. 




> Nuns were stolen by muslims of the Ottoman empire - one mothered a sultan.


Any references? What does this have to do with our topic? Where does Islam call for stealing nuns? If the Ottoman empire did things that are not in agreement with Islam, I will be the first to condemn it. Just like you claim that the crusaders were not TRUE Christians, I can claim that not all of the Ottoman Empire was ruled by TRUE muslims, especially not towards the end of it. However, most historians will agree that countries that were ruled by Islam had a much higher tolerance towards other religions than those that were conquered by Christians. REad more about Sallahudeen Ayubi.

----------


## Amra

> Don't presume all women want a man - a woman doesn't exist just to let a man have a role filled generically in his life. Lust is not a need. The only worthwhile use for sex is as a part of absolute Unity of Pure Love between two that are inseparable on a personal level.


First of all, marriage is essential part of human life. There are few people in the world today, no matter from what background and culture they come frome, who choose to not be in a marriage at some point in their life. Human beings have desires and temptations, and marriage fullfills many of those desires, both emotional and physical. Islam is a religion aligned with human nautre in the way that it doesn't expect us to abandon our nature and become something else to be considered believers. We are not angels, because only angels do not sin, and we are not sheytans (followers of Satan/Iblis) so that we may not feel repentantce when we do sin. We are human beings, who have the free will to decide how they want to live, and those who claim to be believers will follow God's way; that means they will still sin, no matter how hard they try not to, but they will also repent every time they do so. It also doesn't mean that our desires will go away, but only that we will excercise self-control when it comes to not crossing God's limits when fulfilling them. Physical pleasure is part of human nature, and God does not expect us to abandon that or feel bad about it, but simply to exercise it within the limits of a marriage. It is said that a intimate relationship between a husband and wife is a good deed, for which God will reward people. 




> Do you want me to praise someone for this?


Only if you really have the urge to do so.  :Smile: 




> GOD doesn't want us to be holy? Is this your excuse for the man that you - not I - just named in the same train of thought? I thought you earlier told me that all Prophets are holy, that Muhammad is a prophet, and that he was holy.


All Prophets are sinless. This means that they do not commit sin towards God. However, they do make mistakes in the sense that they are not perfect. For example, there is a whole surah in the holy Qur'an that refers to one incident in which a blind man came to Prophet Mohammed a.s and asked him something while the Prophet was speaking, and the Prophet frowned on him. In the surah Allah t. reprimands him for doing that. This shows his human nature. Human beings are not sinless, and can NEVER be. We can NEVER be holy, no matter how much we tried. God says in one ayat that if human beings didn't sin, He would create other creatures who would. When we sin and repent, we are expressing our constant need for God and His mercy. However, we struggle each day to sin less, and to follow God's way, and it is a struggle that will not stop until we die.




> We, being created in GOD's Image, ought to have self control. GOD has the ability to destroy infinite creations over and over, but HE doesn't do it just because HE can. We, too, ought to reflect such divine reserve, rather than acting on selfish impulse. Will you try to find fault even with this?


We don't believe that we were created in God's image. This is an absurd idea. Creator and creation can NEVER be the same. Self control is excercised within the limits that God imposed on us, and I never said that we shouldn't possess it. Human beings do not have a divine impulse, and I am not really sure what you mean with that. WE should always try to be better, and to become closer to God, to feel sorry for our sins, but to become divine or holy would go against our very nature. 




> Either you truly do not understand the clear statement I made, or I do not understand your sense of justice. You answer my heartfelt contention against such disregard for an earthly wife, in favor of further "maids of paradise", as though the earthly wife ought to go to hell rather than paradise if she feels jealous. No woman ought to feel jealous of a man like that. No woman ought to accept being used as a tempoaray shell like that.


Paradise is God's reward to those human beings who follow His way. In paradise, people will not feel any suffering, nor will there be any injustice done to anyone. How then do you suppose to have a jealous wife in paradise?  :Smile:  Paradise is eternal bliss in God's presence, and I just can't figure out how you can seriously talk to me about human feelings such as jealousy in paradise? Do you think someone who lives in the presence of God Almighty, and has everything that he/she ever wished for and more will find reason to not be happy?  :Confused:  God promises us eternal happieness and justice in paradise, and we believe that this is true. In one hadith it is said that women who enter paradise will be made more beautiful than any huriye (virgin). What does this really mean? What is God telling us here? We don't know. All descriptions of paradise are very metaphorical, and we simply cannot imagine how life there will be. But, it would be ludicrous to think that the Creator of everything would create His paradise in such a way that there will be masses of disgruntled wives wandering around.  :Biggrin:  




> In true Love, jealousy, like pain in the body where injury has occurred, is a healthy indicator that something is not well. If one is not jealous when betrayed by a beloved, she isn't truly bound to that man by Love.


Do you think there will be jealousy in paradise? If you think that, then you think also that there will be suffering, and hence injustice. In Islam, God promised us that none of these will be present, and we believe in His promise. You can't compare human feelings on Earth to something in paradise. Is our human nature going to be the same in paradise as it is on Earth? 




> I already have seen what my eye did not see before, and have heard what I previously never had heard, and understand spiritual things that my soul could not concieve of until it gained a Living Spirit.


Lol. When God says that paradise will be something like we have never heard or seen, then it is undestood that these things were not seen or heard or imagined BEFORE we enter paradise. It doesn't mean before you became a beliver.  :Wink:  You have experienced NEW things, that doesn't mean you have experienced paradise. Unless the Bible teaches that you can become holy, divine, and enter paradise on EArth?




> And whose thoughts are earthly?


Yes. What else could they be? You are a human being, and you live on Earth. You cannot escape that nature, nor the limitations of the Earth as long as you are on it.




> The man who has no sexual self control, or the one that sees an ideal for all men to lay hold of, that reflects GOD? Such an awkward accusation.


Human beings cannot reflect God. Who said that a man doesn't have self control? What does this mean anyways? YOu may define self control one way, and I may define it differently. HOwever, claiming that someone doesn't have self control simply because he did something outside of your definition is ludicruous. God has defined what self control is, and I agree that those who transgress those limits are sinning, and need to repent. HOwever, a man having two wives has not transgressed God's limits, therefore he cannot be thought of as not possessing self-control. You may say that from your perspective, but in Islam, his self-control is just fine. 




> When the Apostle Peter calls the woman the "weaker sex", he refers to her vulnerability to male harshness and force, and any one that, from the male position of strength, gives less than he takes, is nothing like GOD.


No one is like God.


I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept the fact that women in Islam are not treated unjustly, nor are they forced to live in marriages they do not want to. I have told you myself that I do not condemnt polygamy when it is exercised within God's limits, and another member above my post :Smile: , a muslim woman herself, has claimed the same. Why then do you continue to speak FOR us, and imagine that we are treated unjustly, and that polygamy is somehow imposed upon us? Do you think that women are not intelligent enough to think for themselves, so that you need to save them, or you simply cannot accept the fact that we are perfectly fine with the role God gave us, and do not think of ourselves as being opressed in any way? An interesting fact that you may want to research is that most converts in Islam are women, who have all the freedom in the world (as you would claim), but choose to live a dignified life of a muslim woman. Why do you think that is so?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

In order to treat of the matter of women today would be to open a political thunderstorm. It's as if you have never heard of all sorts of countries and there attrocious problems. Your worldview is unrealistic, and I am appalled.

----------


## Logos

Please keep personal comments out of this topic.

----------


## Amra

> It's as if you have never heard of all sorts of countries and there attrocious problems. Your worldview is unrealistic, and I am appalled.


We are not discussing the treatment of women today in various countries, but the treatment of women in Islam. The treatment of women in all countries is pretty bad, not just muslim countries, but christian countries, and others. This has nothing to do with Islam, and I will be the first to condemn any attrocious :Smile:  problems that these women are facing. However, this has nothing to do with Islam, as Islam does not promote this kind of behavior. Did you know that 1 out of 3 women in the USA will be abused during their lifetime, usually by their husbands, boyfriends, or family members. Did you know that there are female genital mutilations in some muslim countries? Did you know that some women in India are burned alive after their husbands die? Did you know that there are more females being raped today than ever before? Did you know that on average a female makes about 0.20 cents less than a man, for every dollar they make, doing the same job? Did you know that there was never a female president in the USA? Did you know that women in SAudi Arabia are not allowed to drive by themselves? I could go on and on... Do you want to discuss these things? If you do, open a topic, and I will be the first to agree with you. HOwever, we are discussing Islam, and Islam does NOT promote any of these things, and anyone who does them needs to be punished and reprimanded.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Amra,

Is there a Muslim country that treats women with as much or more respect, in legal terms, as most Western non-Muslim countries? It seems to me that most Muslim countries I have read about have a far worse record towards women than the West. And that poses the question as to why this should be so. Of course, the answer may have more to do with the nature of society and politics than gender. It is of course possible for a society to have greater sexual equality and still treat women with less respect than the average Western nation.

----------


## Amra

> Is there a Muslim country that treats women with as much or more respect, in legal terms, as most Western non-Muslim countries? It seems to me that most Muslim countries I have read about have a far worse record towards women than the West. And that poses the question as to why this should be so. Of course, the answer may have more to do with the nature of society and politics than gender. It is of course possible for a society to have greater sexual equality and still treat women with less respect than the average Western nation.


The question is really hard to answer, because there are so many factors influencing it that require an indepth analysis. Many muslim countries today are ruled by dictators who do not care about their people's well being. Also, the shariah law is not implemented in any of them. For a woman to enjoy all that Islam gave her, the shariah law had to be implemented completely. For the last couple of centuries (500 to be exact), the West has mingled into the affairs of the islamic world in various ways. Some are promoting secularism, others anything but Islam, and then we have many muslim countries who are torn between these things. They are neither democratic, nor islamic. Many muslim countries were ruled by communism that forbade any religious practice in the public. Because of that, muslim women could not go to school, as their headscarf was foribidden in public institutions. This happened to my country in 1970's, and many women were hit hard with this. They were left with no option to gain an education, work, and were looked at as secondary class citizens. The same phenomena is happening to Turkey right now. It is a country with 99% muslims, but they forbid women to wear the scarf to school, or work covered up in any public places. The reason they are doing it is because they want to get into the EU, who dictates to them how they need to treat women so that they comply with the international law whatever that means. Now you have 40 million women who either have to take off their headscarf, or be left uneducated, and without a way to gain an income. If the EU promotes freedom of religion, how can it then forbid these things in a country that they supposedly want to become MORE democratic? These are the reasons many women are left uneducated, and then of course her prospects of having an influence in the society she lives greatly decreases, making her a second class citizen dependant on men. The West simply doesn't realize the problems they are creating by wanting to force various social norms and cultures onto societies that have not lived under them for centuries, nor aspired to live under them. Further, it is hard to define what it means to treat women badly. Is it good that women in the west are "free" to take off their clothes, and that men use them as sexual objects to promote whatever there is to promote? Or, is it worse that women wear headscarves in muslim countries? It is hard to draw the line, but I would agree with you that muslim countries have a very unfortunate record when it comes to treatment of women, and the main reason for that would actually be the distancing from Islam they have experienced, lack of educations, and primitive cultural and traditional value that they adhere by. Muslims have many problems that they need to address, but the West needs to let them deal with those problems by themselves.

----------


## Nightshade

Technically Islamic law treats women better if anything. in real life the answer as I have seen is on the most part they are not really worse ( of cousrse ther are always the obvious exseptions) but opn the most part they are equally as bad as each other just in differeant ways. 
As for head scarves and such I wear one. I would be extremly annoyed if someone tried to take it off me ( although I do not consder it a nessty to a practising muslim woman and may choose not to wear it a t a future date), it is my disciton and the law any law should not interfere with the expression of religioon unlesss it is being expressed in an obcviously illegal/ anti socval manner like oh i dont know human sacrifices) as long as I hurt no one by my practises why should I be forced to conform?
If anything I think that the whole lets put are selves on show idealism is worse. but Ive wondered off topic somehow.
I think much of the problems are perception its people looking in and not really understanding what they see or only seeing the obvious and mising all the little things.
Did you know that the jewish women wore scarves it was a symble of status and wealth ( or was that the christians Im always getting this muddled) anywway the christians also wore it as a simple of modisty ( again could be vise versa) but in the arab world, or at least in the arb world that _ I_  saw and lived in ( notice I am addmitting that I cant generalise as there are many layers to any culture and one nebver sees more than a few) wearing a scarf was hummm protection? It mena You were treated with courtisy and poltness and you--I was less annoyed by unwanted attention and comments than if I hadnt worn it. 
atiguhya padma I dont want to cause a fight or anything but 


> It is of course possible for a society to have greater sexual equality and still treat women with less respect than the average Western nation.


I think personally the west Is great on equality but respect isnt there? or do I mean the oppoisite? NO imean That . Thee is sexual equality sure we have women as political leaders and in high powerd jobs and everythng.
But respect no, not really IM not saying there is no respect of women Im just saying Western socity doesnt really -despite the whole equality fuss- expect more of women that to want to catch a man. And to look pretty for them and well ahhh I cant explain it. Its a feeling I am much more comfortable walking in the streets in a muslim country (even at 7 in the morning when a blood splatered man in butchers boots asks me directions to the mental hospital (All true)) than I was today just going to the cornor shop n broad daylight in the western world.


 :Biggrin:  
If any of that is sensible Ill eat my hat :Rolleyes:   :FRlol:

----------


## rachel

you made perfect sense little Night. It is good to see you and your words are always fair and kind. kisses

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

I think I know what aspect of Western culture you are troubled by, Nightshade, - and it troubles me too. But the other sorts of trouble for women in other parts of the world are harder to tackle, due to a strong handed male presence in the legal and political sphere. What many do by force without repercussions cannot be accomplished in the west, except sparcely - and all depending on clever hiding of it all.

Where the western problem has occurred in the workplace, I have stood against the majority, tried to dissuade females from caring to cater to them, and have actually walked from one city to another after a hard day's work to avoid riding with a married guy that flirted with a young co-worker. Just today, a woman from the local news paper that had said an offensive remark to me heard from one of my bosses that I was not the sort of person to make a carnal joke to, and she apologized for it. Here I can impact others freely - but what can an African or more easterly father or brother do whose child is abducted and made a sex-slave, and then cannot convince the police in his country to even bother with his desparate case?

----------


## Nightshade

Ok I have no intention of being rude or offensive but, havent you ever heard of white slavery? I forget the exsact statistics but they are much higher in the west than nearly anywhere else. or raher the west is the market where the slaves are bought to.
Can I ask if you only knowthis stuff from western sources? Becasue it doesnt quite work like that. If anything in the arb world tehey have to hide it more becasue alot of what your talking about would lead to capital punishment however you are. If you donty get caught by the law the masses woukld end up revolting and you lose your head or worse youd be caught alive. 
That kind of abuse of women is takn very very seriously. I mean Rape is a capital punshment and in there your morelikly to gt convited than the west were its so much harder to do.
Anyway I hope that didnt come across a srude. :Biggrin:

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

Most such activity by western whites occur far from their homeland, in places far from the west, where the men of that land provide girls to them. These westerners would lose much of their hold on female victims if they did not find environments that facilitated their crimes.

It has nothing to do with ethnicity, but rather with cultural and geographical strongholds. I hope that clarifies my statement, without tripping up my post with spills of politics. In trying to go back over a previous statement, I am also trying to avoid widening the margin of political content. It seems this last exchange was general enough (I hope).

----------


## Amra

> but what can an African or more easterly father or brother do whose child is abducted and made a sex-slave, and then cannot convince the police in his country to even bother with his desparate case?


What does this have to do with Islam? Does the Qur'an say that ANY woman should be made a sex-slave? Trafficking mostly happens in poor countries where families are so desperate that they resort to these things. One of the countries where it happens the most is Ukraine, where majority of people living are Christians. If it happens in muslim countries, then I have not heard of it, because it would go against EVERYTHING Islam stands for. Every time we have a discussion you simply bring on million of different unfounded accusations, that you never support with any kind of references, and when you see that you made a mistake, then you simply move on to the next, even more ludicrous accusation.  :Confused:  
What if I would say that since some Christian countries are working towards legalizing prostitution (Australia for example), that means that Bible promotes prostitution and forces these women to sell their bodies. You see how absurd your way of discussing things is? You continue to mix what people in some countries (that may or may not have a distinctive muslim population) do with what the religion itself stands for. Every third American woman is abused by a men, does that mean that the Bible promotes this kind of behavior? Then there is child abuse by priests!!!!? Does that mean the Bible promotes this behavior? After all, they are the saints you pray to, and ask for forgiveness,and supposedely they are holy? The USA has the highest divorce rate of any other industrial nation. I must conclude, based on these observations, that Christianity promotes child abuse, prostitution, and divorce. There we go.  :Biggrin:

----------


## The Unnamable

> What if I would say that since some Christian countries are working towards legalizing prostitution (Australia for example), that means that Bible promotes prostitution and forces these women to sell their bodies.


If you _were_ to say that, you would be guilty of putting forward a flawed argument. Is legalising prostitution is the same as *forcing* women to sell their bodies? By the way, how many western democracies consider women sufficiently different from their male masters to justify denying them the right to drive? 




> You see how absurd your way of discussing things is? You continue to mix what people in some countries (that may or may not have a distinctive muslim population) do with what the religion itself stands for.


Isnt what people do in some countries a good way of understanding what the religion stands for? It might not give us the letter of the law so to speak but it gives a good idea of how that law translates into the behaviour of the man and woman on the street, especially in countries where the political system is not entirely independent of those countries religions. 

Would you say that there is absolutely no correlation between the tenets of a particular religion and the attitude towards women characteristic of those who practise that religion? Having lived in and visited a number of different countries for over twenty years, I would say it does. This does not mean that I believe any particular religious text is responsible for promoting certain behaviour towards women but that certain attitudes are embedded within those texts; or rather that certain generated meanings become foregrounded and others (if they exist at all) are marginalized.

I find the situation here in Thailand very interesting. The majority of Thais consider themselves to be Buddhist. Despite the perception of many people in the West, the majority of Thai prostitution caters for Thai men. So-called sex tourists are simply far more visible in the western press so the uninformed assume that the whole country is filled with women exploited by western males. Interestingly, western males arent the only males who make use of the services of Thai women. There are particular areas that cater for particular nationalities or cultures. As a farang (what the Thais call foreigners), I am used to waking around the bar girls areas of Bangkok and being told repeatedly, you handsome man. However, when I stray into an area where most of the restaurants and bars display Japanese characters in their name signs, I am completely ignored. These areas are strictly for very rich Japanese men and the girls are, by western standards, more attractive and usually in their late teens and early twenties.

The Soi 3 area of Sukhumvit caters for Muslim males. The prostitutes there are generally very different from those in other areas. They tend to be older, more weathered and usually darker skinned (the Thais seem to revere fair skin). 

When I get the chance, I try talking to the prostitutes in whichever area they work. I have been told on a number of occasions that the Soi 3 area women are older and more weathered because only the more desperate will cater for Muslim men. They say that these men treat them appallingly and anyone who can make a living from being desired by western men will do so and avoid commerce with those who treat them like pigs. Those who are not considered attractive to western eyes have to endure being treated like animals. Should I assume that these mens values are in no way the product of a certain attitudes enshrined in their beliefs? Is it surprising that women are treated as objects by supposed proponents of a faith that affords them few freedoms? 

Perhaps people should ask themselves one simple question  As a woman, would I prefer to live in a country promoting western values or one promoting Islamic ones? I dont think it should take them too long to reach a decision.

----------


## Amra

Unnamable, 

As I stated, it is ludicrous to take couple of men who may be muslims just because they were born into the religion without practicing any part of it, and say that they represent Islam in any way. Then, I would say that prostitution, divorce, child abuse, violence, adultery, killing, raping, drugs, and promiscuity are all values that Christianity is promoting as they happen in Christian countries, committed by Christians (I say here that they are Christians because you call those men, who commit adultery and are involved in trafficing, Muslims), on a regular basis.

----------


## Amra

> Isnt what people do in some countries a good way of understanding what the religion stands for? It might not give us the letter of the law so to speak but it gives a good idea of how that law translates into the behaviour of the man and woman on the street, especially in countries where the political system is not entirely independent of those countries religions.


Not at all. In all of those countries reilgion is NOT implemented as the law of the country, but it is completely a private issue. You could just as well call them atheist countries, because, firstly their law is based on secular ideas, and secondly, there are just as many atheists living in those contries as there are people practicing the religion. We can then blame atheism for all they do just as well. If the country was based on Islamic law, than you would have reason to say that the behavior of the people shows the values of that ruling force, which in that case would be the shariah law.

----------


## Amra

> As a woman, would I prefer to live in a country promoting western values or one promoting Islamic ones? I dont think it should take them too long to reach a decision.


I don't think so either.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> Unnamable, 
> 
> As I stated, it is ludicrous to take couple of men who may be muslims just because they were born into the religion without practicing any part of it, and say that they represent Islam in any way. Then, I would say that prostitution, divorce, child abuse, violence, adultery, killing, raping, drugs, and promiscuity are all values that Christianity is promoting as they happen in Christian countries, committed by Christians (I say here that they are Christians because you call those men, who commit adultery and are involved in trafficing, Muslims), on a regular basis.


A couple men?
The ones being called muslims call themselves muslims. The communist leaders of Ukraine you referred to earlier are atheists by profession (even if they secretly want to be Christian). The Russian revolution that placed the communists in power brutalized Christians, and many Ukrainian girls prostitute themselves but do not like to think about Religion at all at this time in their lives. You have literally equated westerners who do not like Christianity at all with Christians, just to render tit for tat with anyone who accepts a man's self description as a muslim.

----------


## Amra

> The communist leaders of Ukraine you referred to earlier are atheists by profession (even if they secretly want to be Christian).


Insider information?

 :Biggrin:  




> The Russian revolution that placed the communists in power brutalized Christians, and many Ukrainian girls prostitute themselves but do not like to think about Religion at all at this time in their lives.


What is this supposed to mean? They don't like to think about Religion? So?




> You have literally equated westerners who do not like Christianity at all with Christians, just to render tit for tat with anyone who accepts a man's self description as a muslim.


LOL. This is so funny. Every Christian who commits a sin is either secretly a commi, someone who doesn't think about Religion all the time :Smile: , or actually doesn't like Christianity, but those who come from muslim countries and commit a crime are Muslims for sure and there is no doubt about that.  :Banana:  What hyporcrisy. Well, maybe in Christianity you don't have defined ways of knowing who a Christian is and who is not, but in Islam we have that very well defined. Someone can call himself a Superman, that doesn't mean he can fly.  :Biggrin:  Anyways, unless you have some kind of an argument stating that the holy Qur'an or Prophet MOhammed a.s promoted any of these things, I really have nothing to say.

----------


## Amra

> The ones being called muslims call themselves muslims


Andrea (don't know her last name, but you will know her as the woman who drowned all 5 of her children) called herself a Christian and said God told her to do this. Is she a Christian or a commi pretending to be a Christian?

Millions of people in USA calling themselves Christians and at the same time going out clubbing, sleeping around, and committing adultery, are they Christians or commis?  :FRlol:

----------


## Amra

> The communist leaders of Ukraine you referred to earlier are atheists by profession (even if they secretly want to be Christian


Then it is the atheists how promote trafficking.  :FRlol:  I wish for an atheist to tell me what they think of this. This is getting funnier and funnier.

----------


## miss tenderness

who is this Tariq Ali???I've never heard of him !!!!is he qualified to speak about the Quran??

I 've always admired Amra's directness in her answersgo on Amra dude.

----------


## The Unnamable

> As I stated, it is ludicrous to take couple of men who may be muslims just because they were born into the religion without practicing any part of it, and say that they represent Islam in any way. Then, I would say that prostitution, divorce, child abuse, violence, adultery, killing, raping, drugs, and promiscuity are all values that Christianity is promoting as they happen in Christian countries, committed by Christians, on a regular basis.


Although it might make it easier for you if it were, this is not what I was arguing. My point isnt that the behaviour of single individuals is an indication of the true nature of their religion but that the nature of that religion influences the behaviour of individuals. Im not interested in whether or not an individual Christian commits rape. I am, however, interested in whether or not a religious ideology makes rape more or less likely because of its deeply embedded assumptions about women. About that, I think we can all draw our own conclusions. 




> Not at all. In all of those countries reilgion is NOT implemented as the law of the country, but it is completely a private issue. You could just as well call them atheist countries, because, firstly their law is based on secular ideas, and secondly, there are just as many atheists living in those contries as there are people practicing the religion. We can then blame atheism for all they do just as well. If the country was based on Islamic law, than you would have reason to say that the behavior of the people shows the values of that ruling force, which in that case would be the shariah law.


I think you misunderstood my point here. The U.K. is a broadly Christian country. If you want to see what this means at the level of daily life as it is lived there, then it would be a good idea to live there oneself and interact with as many of the people and as much of the culture as possible. From that experience, you should get an awareness of what that culture is like and of how women are viewed. This is partly how I have reached my own conclusions - by travelling in certain countries with a western girlfriend and having to see her groped and leered at by those who assume all western women are whores. Why do they think that? Why is it that when I see the religious representatives of these countries, I rarely see women in positions of authority?




> I don't think so either.


I didnt think you would  I note your location as the United States so I guess you have made your own decision. And of course we all know that women all over the world are desperate to flee their appalling oppression by the child-abusing, drunken, lascivious, misogynistic West by emigrating to Muslim countries.

----------


## Amra

> am, however, interested in whether or not a religious ideology makes rape more or less likely because of its deeply embedded assumptions about women. About that, I think we can all draw our own conclusions.


Sure we can discuss that, but then you would need to bring some kind of proof from the religious sources showing that Islam indeed promotes ideas about women that would lead to them becoming victims of rape.

----------


## Amra

> And of course we all know that women all over the world are desperate to flee their appalling oppression by the child-abusing, drunken, lascivious, misogynistic West by emigrating to Muslim countries.


Not necessarily, but they are finding what West took from them by converting to Islam at an increasing rate.

----------


## Nightshade

Enough! My goodness cant we ever have an nice intelligent discusion about religon with out mud sliging.
No where and no religon is perfectpeople should choses there own judgment. I will admit that the West as far as I can see is much easier place on a woman alone. I will also admit that I personally know of cases where so called muslim men have this thing about abusing women. 
But I will not say that they are muslim there is an ayah that says
And I havent figured out how to use online quarnic searches even though I know exactly where it is so bare with me . Parphrased it says : And would you follow part of the Book and disrgiard another at whim, have you no brains.? 
ok it doesnt put it quite like that its in surat 2. 
so my point is if you dont choose to follow everything including respecting women, refusing slavery and prostityuion than can you truly be called a muslim? or in fact a follower of any religon that states has these things.

As for the Muslim countries you can live there your entire life and never come in contact with this side of life like anywhgere else there are good people and bad and the bad are just more obvious, I think personally its a case of hanged for sheep as well as lamb.

Bu maybe its not a case of religon at all or even a case of culture. maybe ts a human thing as a whole I mean looking at it historically the abuse of women seems to be a constant and unwavering theme everywhere always. from way back when they got dragged about by their hair. ( i relise this is probably somthing invented by the media but still) 
Thats about it  :Biggrin:  Also personally I think we covered this topic basically the answer was no, there is no referance to a 24 year orgasm in the Koran.

----------


## The Unnamable

*Nightshade*,
The only way we will have an intelligent discussion is if we are allowed to scrutinise what is said. Just a few posts into this thread someone asked a perfectly legitimate, if perhaps only half serious, question about what women can expect in Paradise. You yourself posted long comments about the issue of the treatment of women under Islam. I am all in favour of allowing people to make their own judgments but in order for any of us to make informed judgments we need to be aware of the issue  and not just in some abstract sense, according to a text considered sacrosanct, but in the sense of how that text translates into daily life. I posted what my experiences have been and I do think there is an extremely important issue to be discussed here. The idea of heavenly paradise is expressed very much with the assumption that the audience is male. I would be happy to deconstruct any religious text and demonstrate how it positions gender identities. This is a Literature Forum and I think religious texts should be subjected to the same scrutiny as literary ones. People have no difficulty in looking at a text by Hemingway and revealing what is seen as racist assumptions so why should we not look at a holy text and carry out exactly the same sort of analysis? Then we might be treating the text as Literature. If Elizabethan attitudes to women and ideas about the construction of gender can be explored by studying Shakespeares texts, then why not from studying holy texts? All ideologies should be scrutinised and to me, Islam is an ideology the same as any other. Or perhaps its not like that many others  I cant think of many that promote this view of males at the beginning of the twenty first century:

He can have more than one wife simply by wanting to have her. That is a reason enough, and God gave him that choice.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Not necessarily, but they are finding what West took from them by converting to Islam at an increasing rate.


Of course they are.  :FRlol:   :Biggrin:   :FRlol:

----------


## Nightshade

* Unnamble* that wasnt what I was objecting too Im all for that kind of discussions its the heated attitudes every one takes where they personalse everything that is said.
Also Arguing east Vs west has really little to do with the subject matter. Countries and religons are not the same. neither are culture and religons.
If we are looking at religon as a * text* then why cant we all be objective an just forget your personal opions as to the behaviour ofpeople apparntly following the religon and look at the text it self?

Thats all I meant
 :Biggrin:

----------


## falling*moon

Strange topic,... 

can you tell us about the writer ?? 

his background at least ??

----------


## falling*moon

~~~"
if he claims something, and cannot provide proof from those two sources, than he is not credible and whatever he may say is simply his own opinion; nothing more, nothing less. Same thing with those who cite alleged Tariq Ali's comments; if they cannot bring proof from the Qur'an and the hadith, then their claims have no weight in a real theological discussion, but serve as a way to degrade and ridicule others and their beliefs. Of course, some people are content with that kind of "discussion" and believe it to be enough to form their opinions, but I am sure most of us expect more than "he said, she said", statements before accepting something as a true or false claim."
~~~~
i gree with that...

if anyone tells me anything i will simply look for a proof..

wasn't that the core of the scientific method ?  :Biggrin:  



FM

----------


## The Unnamable

> Sure we can discuss that, but then you would need to bring some kind of proof from the religious sources showing that Islam indeed promotes ideas about women that would lead to them becoming victims of rape.


I am an Atheist. My God cannot be understood by human beings; it is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. It cannot be reduced to things like proof, which only makes sense in human terms. Its a fact, thats all. Some can see it and some cant. Please respect my faith.

----------


## Amra

> My God cannot be understood by human beings; it is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. It cannot be reduced to things like proof, which only makes sense in human terms. Its a fact, thats all. Some can see it and some cant. Please respect my faith.


That's perfectly fine for your god, but we are not discussing him.  :Biggrin:  We are discussing Islam, and the holy Qur'an, and hadith, and all of those are available to your disposal, so if you say that Islam promotes something, you can bring proof of that from the Qur'an by simply looking it up here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ .  :Nod:

----------


## The Unnamable

> That's perfectly fine for your god, but we are not discussing *him*.  We are discussing Islam, and the holy Qur'an, and hadith, and all of those are available to your disposal, so if you say that Islam promotes something, you can bring proof of that from the Qur'an by simply looking it up here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ .


My point about the way power structures are embedded within language is made perfectly here. While I was careful _not_ to ascribe any gender to my God, you refer to it as him. You could argue that language is an insufficient tool with which to discuss such things (although I dont see the same problem bothering you when you attempt to explain Islam to others) and that him is just a form of shorthand that avoids having to go into the non-gender explanation each time. But this time you were referring to _my_ God, which I clearly referred to in a non gender specific way. I think that the ideological apparatuses of state, religion, society and culture provide a better explanation for why you make the assumption that my God must be male.

Your use of him demonstrates your naturalised and internalised assumption that any god must be male. From where do such assumptions come and why is it that females accept authority figures as being male even while this helps confine their own roles? I believe its because our very identity is constructed out of the ideological positions available to us through language.

You believe such ideas as are found in the Qur'an are objective reality; I believe they are a construct of language and no more representative of truth than the text on a tin of beans. If I try to argue rationally and treat a holy text as a literary text, you will sooner or later point out that your holy text has a quality no other text can claim  it is truth; it has an objective and universal validity that transcends any attempts to treat it as a text like any other. Thats quite a privilege.

The point of my above post was that there is little point in analysing texts with someone who insists that particular texts cannot be treated as mere texts. Why shouldnt the Quran be deconstructed on a Literature Forum? That would be treating it as Literature or is discussion of it limited to using it to proselytise?

----------


## Amra

That there are gender biases in every society is a fact of life, but they are prevelant in atheist societies just as well as any other. The root of this problem can be found in many areas, and if you want to discuss those, than I guess you could open up a topic, and we can see why women have been treated differently throught the history, and how that has led to gender differences in every society. My point is only that when you discuss something, you have to bring some kind of support for your argument, and in this case the support has to come from the source itself, because that is what we are discussing. If you speak of any literary book, you will have to support your arguments referring back to the work itself. Is your interpretation going to be the same as from someone else? Probably not. But, if you a a literary critic who by profession has been trained for such undertakings, wouldn't your observations be considered of greater accuracy than that of a 17year old highschool student? I would hope so. It is the same with the holy Qur'an. We have the literary meaning of things, that many abuse by not understanding the whole concept, and than we have scholars who try to derive the meaning of everything by studying it within the concept, comparing to other sources, studying the history in which the revelation happened, the time, people, and the reasons for each surah. Because of that, their analysis will always be of greater validity, and will be something we refer to. That is why many non-muslims, whose intentions are to fault Islam, bring forth accusations that cannot be supported with anything, simply because they have heard or read one ayat, and thinking that that is enough to prove their point, they took it without ever knowing what it actually means. This kind of discussion would not be accepted in any literary circle, let alone undertaking such a challenge as to understand God's word. 
When it comes to assigning gender to God, we can see how the practice differs from the source. Allah in itself does not have a gender, nor can it be pluralized, but people have assigned it the male gender for some reason. Why is that? It surely cannot be something embedded in the religion, since as I said there is nothing to hint that Allah is male, nor that He is anyhing like we have ever seen or known, so a human nature is out of the question. Gender assignment can be blamed on limitations of language, or simply the perception that since males are the leaders of the community/family/society, it naturally follows that God's gender should be closer to them. WE have to understand that Islam came in a time when pagans ruled in that region, and women were treated in the most inhumane ways. Female children were burried alive because they were considered a burden for the family, and shameful to the men. Gender differences have been present in the world from the beginning on, and are still there, in a lesser form. WE don't even have to look back 100, or 200 years ago in the western culture, to see that women were treated as second class citizens, and that they were not given most of the rights the men possessed. It is something every society has struggled with, and it is very unfortunate, but if you say that Islam promotes gender biases, and your argument is that it is embedded in the religion because we, falsly, refer to Allah as a male, does your argument go so far as to include all other religions in this, since Christianity does the same (their God was in person a white male, so it is a racist religion as well?), Judisam is the same, Budhisam also, and others?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> The communist leaders of Ukraine you referred to earlier are atheists by profession (even if they secretly want to be Christian).





> Insider information?


It is no secret that Bibles had to be smuggled in at risk of death under the U.S.S.R. Some old Christians throughout that communist realm treasured a single portion of a page of the Bible! Rasputin was called a Klast, and helped infiltrate society so as to destroy the Christian fabric of it. Those that carried out the Russian revolution - this affected Ukraine too - treated those they gave government positions to as needing to be in psyche wards if they expressed belief in Christianity or GOD period. This form of communism was very atheistic to the extreme.




> The Russian revolution that placed the communists in power brutalized Christians, and many Ukrainian girls prostitute themselves but do not like to think about Religion at all at this time in their lives.





> What is this supposed to mean? They don't like to think about Religion? So?


I just gave the true reason for something occurring where Christianity once was common. Anti-christian communism, not Christianity, had a recent long run over all Soviet countries of the now defuct U.S.S.R. Those prostituting themselves are not claiming to be involved in Christianity - contrary to what you tried to say, tit for tat, against the fact of how women have been treated by others elsewhere.

Certain European countries once Catholic, became protestant, then loosened their system of moral accountability, then ultimately became atheistic in general. These include Sweden and Holland, which are the bigger homes to European indecency. This was not mere agnosticism, but people forsaking beliefs to avoid moral accountability. I am not pointing at decent hearted agnostics who do not stand ready to accept what they are unsure of the validity of. Those that avoid Religion to excuse their immorality are a different matter - and these I distinguish from agnostics, as those that choose to push GOD aside, whether HE be real or not to them. With agnosticism, there is no set of principles, due to no set teaching. The only thing that fits agnostics into a single classification is uncertainty, not morals. Some, like Unnamable, have morals consonant with CHRIST's, but are still undecided as to the facts about GOD personally. Atheistic governments, though, in my use of the term, are focused on a society that is united in rejecting GOD. Even the U.S. has this contending with Christian absolutism, as well as with pseudo-christian ideas that also claim to be absolutely correct. 

The prostitution of Holland, etc., belongs to the same train of thought that tries to cast doubt on Christianity, to end its Witness to praiseworthy standards. The lack of Faith in prostitutes is very relevant, in that it shows the result of broken-heartedness in young girls, in that women submit, in brokenness, to things they would not if they were psychologically healthy. A woman that doesn't feel whole or know her worth will agree to treatment of women and children that all the rest of the world calls "abuse". Where Christians are numerous but without political influence, the irreligion cannot be identified as specifically a Christian problem, thus your counterargument was not parallel to the original one that sparked your response that there is major prostitution in a "Christian nation" (Ukraine). Are you a Christian because you are in the U.S.? Does a Christian presence there make the nation Christian? What's the difference in the case of Ukraine? What aggitated you was mention of muslims mistreating women. The references made by a number of posters were to countries where islam holds a real political grip, and is not under a different system's government.




> You have literally equated westerners who do not like Christianity at all with Christians, just to render tit for tat with anyone who accepts a man's self description as a muslim.





> LOL. This is so funny. Every Christian who commits a sin is either secretly a commi, someone who doesn't think about Religion all the time, or actually doesn't like Christianity, but those who come from muslim countries and commit a crime are Muslims for sure and there is no doubt about that. What hyporcrisy. Well, maybe in Christianity you don't have defined ways of knowing who a Christian is and who is not, but in Islam we have that very well defined. Someone can call himself a Superman, that doesn't mean he can fly. Anyways, unless you have some kind of an argument stating that the holy Qur'an or Prophet MOhammed a.s promoted any of these things, I really have nothing to say.


There is nothing to laugh out loud about here. You have taken words I used and cut and pasted them to other of my statements. No Christian secretly wants to be a commi, nor did I ever say anything remotely close. I gave some communists the benefit of the doubt that they might not have anti-Christian sentiments concealed in their hearts. But, in the U.S.S.R., the reason one would have to keep the desire to be Christian secret, is because it could have proved dangerous to him to even be suspected of thinking like that. Some communists gave up the allowances of the government for them to live in peace, and threw off their communistic offices in accepting CHRIST. But the communistic movement was deadset against this.

The girls being misused in Ukraine might come from lines once steeped in Christianity, but they are broken individuals where Christianity has suffered generations of abuse, who don't know what they believe, and make no bones about it. I know a lot of Ukrainians, and have been investigating the matter for years. This means that these girls are not Christian - not even if they occasionally find strength in their broken hearts to consider painful religious questions.

Those I said do not like Christianity are all those you wrongly presume to be Christian because of race, location, or simply their not being muslims or Jews.

Christians are not hypocrites for having a set Teaching that can never agree with Muhammad or the quran, nor are those that say they are Christian but act as hypocrites really Christian, secretly or otherwise. Christianity cannot agree with Muhammad's view of women and children and gentlemen.

----------


## Amra

Mililalil ,

Everything you said in your post can be applied to Islam as well, and that was my main point. In order to be considered a muslim, a person has to practice the religion in his or her life. No one is a believer by default, just because he or she was born into the religion. That was my point. If you say someone who commits adultery, or engages in trafficking of women, is not a true Christian, than that person cannot be a true Muslim either. You could only make these claims if the religion, or ideology itself promotes these things, and those who practice them do so BECAUSE they follow that particular religion. You cannot attribute a teaching to a particular religion because of actions of those WHO DO NOT practice it.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> Those that avoid Religion to excuse their immorality are a different matter


As are those that embrace religion to excuse their acts of violence or oppression (no current politics, let's take the Spanish Inquisition as a choice example). 

There are hypocrites to be found in all camps my friend. I have no qualms with those that quietly practice their faiths without interfering with my right not to; I would expect nothing less from them.

I suppose that what I'm saying is that morality is not the sole preserve of the religious, nor immorality, that of the non-believer. I hope that we can all agree on that at least. Although such a consensus might be too much of a culture shock for those steeped in the more fiery and confrontational aspects of this particular sub-forum.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> Mililalil ,
> 
> Everything you said in your post can be applied to Islam as well, and that was my main point. In order to be considered a muslim, a person has to practice the religion in his or her life. No one is a believer by default, just because he or she was born into the religion. That was my point. If you say someone who commits adultery, or engages in trafficking of women, is not a true Christian, than that person cannot be a true Muslim either. You could only make these claims if the religion, or ideology itself promotes these things, and those who practice them do so BECAUSE they follow that particular religion. You cannot attribute a teaching to a particular religion because of actions of those WHO DO NOT practice it.


My point was that you were pointing at non-Christians - often people completely outside of the Church sphere.

----------


## Amra

And my point was that you were doing the same by pointing to what non-Muslims do, claiming that they somehow represent the religion.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> As are those that embrace religion to excuse their acts of violence or oppression (no current politics, let's take the Spanish Inquisition as a choice example). 
> 
> There are hypocrites to be found in all camps my friend. I have no qualms with those that quietly practice their faiths without interfering with my right not to; I would expect nothing less from them.
> 
> I suppose that what I'm saying is that morality is not the sole preserve of the religious, nor immorality, that of the non-believer. I hope that we can all agree on that at least. Although such a consensus might be too much of a culture shock for those steeped in the more fiery and confrontational aspects of this particular sub-forum.


I am sorry that you missed my point. I literally said that I was distinguishing between mere agnostics (who, despite not believing in GOD may be some very fine specimens of morality) and those who push for a removal even of their own convictions, to practice their immorality in a vacuum, which I call atheism, not for lack of belief in GOD, but because the word literally means "being without GOD". In the case of the latter term, I set it apart from "agnosticism", to allow for a different meaning. If one is agnostic, he isn't trying to be without GOD, but can either do what he believes is most decent, or not do that. By "atheism", I assigned a different term to give a name to an intended movement that wishes to remain apart from GOD - thus, according to this definition, an atheistic government (such as was the case with the former U.S.S.R.) pushes to alienate the country away from GOD. A truly agnostic country would allow religious differences, but would leave Church and state separate institutions. 

I am grieved to think you misunderstood what I meant.

Most of your response reiterated what I actually said altogether in posts above. Agnosticism is not a religion, but a valley of decision and a mystery to be investigated. Atheism is a substitute for religion, and the opposite. It could stem from hurt feelings, the idea that religion is false, or from pure hatred of GOD. An atheist as an individual may, like an agnostic, differ in character. He may subconsciously be an agnostic though. But if he wishes to deny others freedom to think, and will not give a thought to anything himself, he is merely anit-religious.

There are many hypocrites calling themselves "Christian", but even many of these, like many atheists, do not do certain things islamic literature records Muhammad to have done. The Church thinks that a hypocrite in the Church is the worst kind. The Scripture say not to judge unbelievers for their unbelief )Paul himself wrote that).

The thing that brought up what I said was Amra and Nightshade denying something we cannot really enter in upon, as these are current politics. But one cannot argue against what is historically undeniable about the roots of Christianity and of islam. Peter spoke of the necessity for a man to consider the weaker/more vulnerable sex, with a warning against all who are insensitive to the hearts of women, that they will not be heard in turn by GOD. The Church began as Martyrs. No one can change Christianity at this late date. Either you ptactice it or you do not.

islam involves loyalty to a man and his book, and to others that hold this loyalty. The earliest islamic sources show a man that personally decreed that all under a muslim man's right hand could be slept with (this included female slaves with no say otherwise). Thus, what calls itself islam often is islam, from a historical point of view.

----------


## Amra

Mililalil,

Please make yourself more credible by bringing some kind of references for your ludicrous statements. Otherwise, it is just painful to watch your ignorance.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

You have a strange, alarming and erroneous view of atheism Mil. 

Atheism literally means 'ungodly' (from the Greek: a- negative prefix = un- : theos = god : -ismos adjectival suffix = -ly) and is a blanket term for any that believe there is no god or gods guiding our fate. There are as many types of atheism as there are atheists. We are not all alike and are certinly not all trying to establish an 'anti-christian' atheistic state. Forcing people into any viewpoint, even one that I consider true, is anathema to me; arguing my case is a different matter. 

I resent _any_ imputation that I am less moral than anyone else because of my religious beliefs, which are incidently that:

The good I do is to my credit,
The evil to my shame,
No praise is due to god above
Nor lucifer to blame.

I do not need to justify my actions in terms of any man-made religion; my own conscience is my only judge but it keeps me in check quite well, thanking you all the same! I neither need nor desire either Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, nor any other holyman, shaman, demigod or deity to absolve me of any sins I have commited; they are mine. I live with them.

When I die, I will be gone. That is it. In this world I try my best to enjoy myself while doing others as little harm as possible, in the hope that they will do likewise. Apart from that, what I eat or drink, what I wear, what I do on Sunday, what I say and what I read, and who I choose to **** is my business and no-one elses.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

As I said, even if you consider yourself an "atheist", I was using it and "agnostic" in contrast to one another, to speak of those that are simply not religious for lack of conviction that they ought to be from those that are anti-GOD. In the case of the communist goverment formed by the Russian revolutionaries, there was a political entity I reserved the one word for - what else could I call it to bring out the non-religious nature of its forceful regime? I see still what you are getting at, and I still insist that I announced the manner in which I would distinguish the use of one word from another for a complex comparison of differences among unbelievers. 

No avtual unity exists between people for merely not believing something. Christianity holds certain beliefs, and what contradicts it is considered heretical or alien. Two that hold the same belief may not bear the same heart. Some have blasphemed CHRIST's NAME not by what they said was true with words, but by committing attrocities while presuming to bear the name belonging in Truth only to true Disciples of JESUS. No two atheists necessarily hold the same beliefs. Starting from this place of mutual dissimilarity, they do not hold in common a standard of any sort. Part and parcel with a religious leader is his teaching. Thus, there have been certain atheistic groups that have conducted antichristian campaigns that atheists outside of their group have nothing whatsoever to do with. Communism has no bearing on you - because you are not a communist. Does this clear up my statements at all?

I only brought up atheists to stress that they too are present in places Amra presumes to call Christian, just to counterbalance claims about muslims.

If you still do not see what I have said, I'll try again to clarify. It was only to tie a loose end - a peripheral matter - that I brought up agnostics, whom I defined as not being what they are as serving an anti-GOD aggenda (while there are actual governments that consider unbelief in GOD alone defensible, and treat it as an ideal - though some of those that predated their atheistic phase were libertines letting go of Christian thinking from their society). Not all unbelievers have a cause for unbelief, but neither are all neutral either. Even in some so-called "Christian" nations, the government has a harsh view of the culture of the people.

The one who does not believe, but is in earnest, might be a man who hates the idea of child brides, breaking the hearts of women, slandering neighbors, etc., and GOD will bless him for his best attempts at conscientiousness. But an unbeliever of another sort also exists, bearing the character of too many men at large. The first kind of unbeliever has a hard time finding a basis for challenging the ways of the other kind. In Christianity, if a man has a perverse heart, I do not hesitate to expose it and show him how he shames the name of a "Christian". I know some agnostics who appreciate my attempt at imitation of CHRIST, and see it as at least evidence that HE was a good man. If HE be no more than a good man, they reason, HE still deserves their applause for tirelessly being good-hearted. 

But I see men in general as being all too selfish to avoid mistreating women. Where a believer is concerned, he is convicted by the standard his heart falls short of, and has somewhat of a motivation to either bury his sentiments under a disguise, change, or outright apostasize. His failure cannot diminish the standard fallen short of, and that standard ever remains the lowest common denominator between earnest believers.

You shouldn't feel singled out by my mentioning a sea of various kinds of characters, all unrelated to one another, except if they hold something more than unbelief in common. Is an atheist the crowning epithet for what you are? I don't think so.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

I am an atheist, not an agnostic. I _believe_ (on the basis of available evidence) that there is NO god. Agnostics are ditherers without the courage of their convictions. They hedge their bets, sit on the fence and refuse to decide. Not me, my friend. Atheist. The only word that fits.

AND I will not deny that Stalin was also an atheist. But as I pointed out, it is a broad definition. Would you claim that differing christian denominations from your own (I'm afraid I have no idea what that is) are not christians (actually, you very well might, that would be running to type among a lot of the religious types I have met!) Are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Amish, 7th-day Adventists, Methodists, Mormons and Coptics not all christians? They all share a belief in Jesus as an incarnation of god. Similarly, I share a belief in the non-existence of any god with all other atheists, Stalin and Hitler included, you don't need a different name for me in order to distinguish me from 'the bad ones'. I don't need to call you another name to seperate you from the crimes of the Sanish inquisition or the crusaders (although there is a word that is tempting  :Wink: ). Atheism is a broad church. just don't tar all of us with the same brush - pigeon-holing is counterproductive and prejudicial.

Love, empathy and compassion are human traits, not solely religious ones. I have no desire to be, nor claim to be, anything more or less than human, with all of the flaws and all of the virtues that that entails.

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

Amra, are you familiar with Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab? She was shown no humane understanding for her heart's deepest needs. 

She was a Jewish seventeen year old, whose father, brother, and husband Muhammad had just killed. He liked her shell, so he had her as his sex-thing at once. Where does one begin commenting on the injustice of this treatment? 

Muhammad created his own situation for "having to go to war", made up decrees for jihad, and for taking those he defeated into captivity, and for subjecting the women captured to himself and to his soldiers sexually. This is ancient history which I am not going to brush aside. Any discussion of islamic literature has to allow for perusing the literature itself, and this is what it states.

see this islamic site's article:
http://www.muslimunited.org/topics/prophet/wives.html
While it admits certain things, it leaves much out, giving a false impression about what the first islamic traditions reveal of Muhammad.

Here below are things from islamic sources to fill in the picture a little:

Ishaq:510 "When the Apostle looked down on Khaybar he told his Companions, O Allah, Lord of the heavens and what they overshadow, and Lord of the Devils and what into error they throw, and Lord of the winds and what they winnow, we ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. We take refuge in Thee from its evil and the evil of its people. Forward in the name of Allah.' He used to say this of every town he raided."

Bukhari:V5B59N510"Allah's Apostle reached Khaybar at night. It was his habit that, whenever he reached an enemy at night, he would not attack them till it was morning. When morning came, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets. When they saw the Prophet, they said, Muhammad! O dear God! It's Muhammad and his army!' The Prophet shouted, Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a nation, evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.'"

Bukhari:V5B59N512"The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer [the Prayer of Fear] near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, Allahu-Akbar!' [Allah is Greatest] Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a hostile nation to fight, then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.' Then the inhabitants of Khaybar came out running on their roads. The Prophet had their men killed; their children and woman were taken as captives."

Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 "Abi Huqayq [Safiyah's father] held the treasure of the Nadir [the second Jewish tribe Muhammad exiled from Yathrib]. He was brought to Allah's Messenger, and he questioned him. But Huqayq denied knowing where it was. So the Prophet questioned other Jews. One said, I have seen Kinanah [Safiyah's husband] walk around a ruin.' Muhammad had Kinanah brought to him and said, Do you know that if we find it, I shall kill you.' Yes,' Kinanah answered."

Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 "The Prophet commanded that the ruin should be dug up. Some treasure was extracted from it. Then Muhammad asked Kinanah for the rest. He refused to surrender it; so Allah's Messenger gave orders concerning him to Zubayr, saying, Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him."

Tabari VIII:121/Ishaq:515 "Ali struck the Jew with a swift blow that split his helmet, neck protector, and head, landing in his rear teeth. And the Muslims entered the city. Muhammad conquered Qamus, the [Jewish] neighborhood of Abi Huqayq. Safiyah bt. Huyayy was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal led them past some of the Jews we had slain including the woman's dead husband. When she saw them, the woman with Safiyah cried out, slapped her face, and poured dust on her head. When Allah's Prophet saw her, he said, Take this she-devil away from me!'"

Tabari VIII:116/Ishaq:511 "So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered Khaybar home by home. The first stronghold defeated was Naim. Next was Qamus, the community of Abi Huqayq. The Messenger took some of its people captive, including Safiyah bt. Huyayy, the wife of Kinanah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself."

Bukhari:V5B59N524 "The Muslims said among themselves, Will Safiyah be one of the Prophet's wives or just a lady captive and one of his possessions?'"

Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515
"Muhammad commanded that Safiyah should be kept behind him and he threw his cloak over her. Thus the Muslims knew that he had chosen her for himself."

Ishaq:517 "When the Apostle married Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people."

Bukhari:V5B59N551 - "When Khaybar was conquered, a sheep containing poison, was given as a present to Allah's Apostle" 

Tabari VIII:123/Ishaq:516"When the Messenger rested from his labor, Zaynab, the wife of Sallam, served him a roast sheep. She had asked what part Muhammad liked best and was told that it was the shoulder and foreleg. So she loaded it with poison, also poisoning the rest. Then she placed it before him. He took the foreleg and chewed it, but he did not swallow. With him was Bishr, who, like the Prophet, took some, but he swallowed it. The Prophet spat out the lamb saying, This bone informs me that it has been poisoned.'"

Tabari VIII:124/Ishaq:516"The Messenger, during the illness from which he died, said to Bishr s mother, Umm, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar.'"

From Ibn Sa'd page 249: 
The apostle of Allah and his companions ate from it. It (goat) said: "I am poisoned." He [Muhammad] said to his Companions, "Hold you hands! because it has informed me that it is poisoned!" They withdrew their hands, but Bishr Ibn al-Bara expired. The apostle of Allah sent for her (Jewess) and asked her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "I wanted to know if you are a prophet, in that case it will not harm you and if you are a king, I shall relieve the people of you. He gave orders and she was put to death.

Might be a clue that a wife or more conspired for revenge.

The quran itself has this so say:

4:24 *And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.* It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. 

Here we are told that if a woman is taken as a captive, even if already married, she can be used sexually by the one in whose right hand she was unfortunate enough to wind up. And the battle on Khaybar was not necessary, but was one of Muhammad's many created occasions for taking captive women from out of the lives they were rightfully living. Some say he had to deal with treachery of a few men that had tried to kill him with a falling rock. So all this area had to be ruined?! He had come into place after place brandishing demands without any prior basis, and some felt he was a dangerous man to let go about in that manner. He prevoked their attempt on his life, then punished all their people. He took a desolate woman, placed her under his right hand, then got right down to consumating a new relationship with this child. (Some people wait for such a young person to reach her twenties before being anything more than a friend and brother to her - which we see no attempt at). I thought women were people - is there no a person to befriend before anything further?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236: 
Narrated Hisham's father: 

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298: 
Narrated 'Aisha: 

[Read if you can find it - I didn't want to post such a lewd thing as this tradition.]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231: 
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar: 

I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. " 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137: 
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: 

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." 
[The rapes were allowed, but scholars debate over whether he meant that birth control was allowed or not.]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 135: 
Narrated Jabir: 

We used to practice coitus interrupt us during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 136: 
Narrated Jabir: 

We used to practice coitus interruptus while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interrupt us during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle while the Quran was being Revealed.

Malik's Muwatta Book 29, Number 29.32.96: 

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Amir ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas from his father that he used to practise coitus interruptus.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2166: 
Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: 

A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the phallus (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.
[Here we see the Jews are put down for disdaining birth control.]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17: 
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: 

When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?"[...] 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 38, Number 504: 
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: 

I was accompanying the Prophet on a journey and was riding a slow camel that was lagging behind the others. [...] When we approached Medina, I started going (towards my house). The Prophet said, "Where are you going?" I said, "I have married a widow." He said, "Why have you not married a virgin to fondle with each other?"[...] 

"All the commentaries agree that verse 57 of Sura 4 (on-Nesa) was sent down after the Jews criticized Mohammad's appetite for women, alleging that he had nothing to do except to take wives" (Ali Dashti, 23 Years, pp. 120-138). 

I once had no view of Muahammad at all, so I tried to discover whatever good in him I could, and was very disappointed about the character such an influential man was proved again and again to have - not by Christian writings, but by early islamic tradition. The myriads of agreeing statements outside of islam only compounded this fact. I didn't make these sources up. Either they are true, the product of faithful eyewitness history, or the same liars suspected where the hadiths are concerned are not above suspicion where the quran is concerned as well. What fault can you find with these inescapable discoveries that forced one inevitable conclusion on me while I was as of yet without an opinion?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

Surah 66:1 - Prophet, why do you prohibit that which God has made lawful to you, in seeking to please your wives? 

The background on this verse says: "Muhammad was caught (probably having intercourse) by one of his wives named Hafsah with a Coptic slave (her name was Mariyah). Muhammad was supposed to be spending the day with another one of his wives named Aisha. It was Aisha's turn to "be" with Muhammad. Muhammad asked Hafsah not to tell Aisha and he promised not to have sex with Mariyah again. But Hafsah secretly informed Aisha. But later, Muhammad got a "revelation" allowing him to break his promise, and to have sexual relations with his slave girls again. To free Muhammad from his promise to Hafsah was the object of this chapter. 

Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of other background details. Muhammad was having sexual relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave. Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty." [Taken from Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes), p151]. 

Ibn Sa'd also writes that Mariyah bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. He died 18 months later. Sa'd writes: "If he had lived, no maternal uncle of his would have remained in bondage", p164. This shows that there were other Coptic slaves owned by the Muslims. 

surah 66:1 - Prophet, why do you prohibit that which God has made lawful to you, in seeking to please your wives? 

The background on this verse says: "Muhammad was caught (probably having intercourse) by one of his wives named Hafsah with a Coptic slave (her name was Mariyah). Muhammad was supposed to be spending the day with another one of his wives named Aisha. It was Aisha's turn to "be" with Muhammad. Muhammad asked Hafsah not to tell Aisha and he promised not to have sex with Mariyah again. But Hafsah secretly informed Aisha. But later, Muhammad got a "revelation" allowing him to break his promise, and to have sexual relations with his slave girls again. To free Muhammad from his promise to Hafsah was the object of this chapter. 

Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of other background details. Muhammad was having sexual relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave. Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty." [Taken from Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes), p151]. 

Ibn Sa'd also writes that Mariyah bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. He died 18 months later. Sa'd writes: "If he had lived, no maternal uncle of his would have remained in bondage", p164. This shows that there were other Coptic slaves owned by the Muslims. 

surah 24:34 says that one must not be left to prostitution. But this is part of a network of statements that manipulate a slave girl to be treated like a prostitute - rather than being cared for financially as by a family member, she has the option of remaining in the possession (either as slave, or as "wife"), to be fed and such. What the man gets back is incomparably more than he gave. If a woman isn't helped to live without a sexual price on her, how is this better than prostitution?

Bukhari Vol 5-#459 
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu said, "We went out with Allah's messenger for the Ghazwa (attack upon) Banu Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus we said "How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's messenger while he is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."" 

Thus, being away from women already had, they found captive-taking most useful to their first priority.

Bukhari Vol 5-#637 Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus ([one fifth] of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? "When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes" He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus." 

The note for this Hadith says "Buraida hated Ali because he had taken a slave girl form the booty and considered that as something not good." 

Abu Dawud, vol 2, chapter 683 - "On the Marriage of a Slave without the Permission of His Masters" 

#2074- "Ibn Umar reported the prophet as saying: "If a slave marries without the permission of his master, his marriage is null and void." 

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a scholar and Islamic historian says in his book "Zad al-Ma'ad", part 1, p160: 

"Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves then he sold. He once sold one black slave for two. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold." 

"Muhammad had a number of black slaves. One of them was named 'Mahran'. Muhammad forced him to do more labor than the average man. Whenever Muhammad went on a trip and he, or his people, got tired of carrying their stuff, he made Mahran carry it. Mahran said "Even if I were already carrying the load of 6 or 7 donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load". Tabari and Jawziyya both record this, so Islam accepts this as true."

----------


## Amra

Let's read a little bit from the Bible, shall we?  :Biggrin:  


Deu 20:13 *And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:*  


Deu 20:14 *But the women, and the little ones,* and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] *all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.*  

Deu 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 


Deu 21:11 *And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;*  

Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall *shave her head, and pare her nails*; 

Deu 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 

Deu 21:14 And it shall be, *if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will;** but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.*  


Deu 22:20 *But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel:*  


Deu 22:21 *Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die*: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the *whore*  in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. 

Deu 22:28 *If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found*; 


Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her *shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver,* and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. 


What an amazing way to treat women. Stone her if she is not a virgin, well, let the city judge first if there is blood on the cloth after the first marriage night or not, and then stone her. I guess whoever wrote the Bible didn't know that only 30% of females bleed when losing their virginity,so that makes about 70% of women who would be stoned innocent. If you capture a woman or a little one  :Confused:  during war, you can force them to be your sex slaves, and dispose of them after you are done. And if you catch a virgin in the field  :Biggrin:  and rape her, well, you should pay to her father and make her your wife. Wow. And you come here and tell me something about how women should be treated?!!! Unbelievable.

----------


## Logos

This has become a "my religion is better/worthier/more superior than your religion" discussion, so I'm going to close it. 

Amra and Mililalil XXIV feel free to continue your debate via PM.

----------


## Logos

Oh, and as always, see the Religious Texts Forum Rules if you are confused by this decision to close.

----------

