Dawood

They take the Christian bible just as literally.

For myself, as a woman, I don't believe there is a religion in the world that really treats women as autonomous equals - there is always some kind of catch.

While I have friends who wear the Hijab - I really don't understand. And I am glad that I don't feel compelled to cover up (I really believe that the onus is on men to act responsibly with regard to how they view women). I accept their reasons, the same as I accept my Jewish girl friend for keeping a kosher kitchen - I once house-sat for her and happily agreed to follow the rules regarding dairy and meat.

What is going on here however, is a foolish attempt by the extreme Christians to 'warn' women just how sexist Islam is. Like their religion is any different! A female pope? Probably not in my lifetime.

But good on you Dawood for not succumbing to their deliberate jibes - they goaded Irfan until he couldn't take it any longer. Of course if you continue to remain polite and reasonable they will just say "wolf in sheep's clothing" impossible isn't it? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

A pox on all fundamentalists.

Scout: a funny story. There is a well known hadith that extremists (both Muslim and non-Muslim) like to quote to show what Islam "is". It goes something like "There is no more fitnah (test/tribulation) for mankind than women." Many quote this to show why women should only show one eye, be locked up in the dark recesses of home or why Islam is so wicked etc.

When I was in the UK a Shaykh was giving a sermon and quoted this hadith then proceeded to explain "they are a test for us because mankind feels free to continue the status quo and does not stand up for their rights." He then proceeded to talk about how men should treat women in the best way, and not be either physically or intellectually lax in that regard. I could not understand all the Arabic he said (but got the English), but noticed the older men around me were 'switching off' as he basically laid in to their domestic practises.

I found it rather interesting. He concluded basically by stating that we should all be "feminists" as it is our Muslim duty!

Dawood, are you serious about Islam considering women as equal beings?

All the evidence on the ground suggests that Islam is backwards in this regard, much the same, well no, Christianity never sank to such depths, similar to how Christians used to be.

Clerics commenting that unveiled women deserve to be raped, teachings that women are worth half of men in a Sharia court, hadiths where Mohammed claimed that Allah showed him hell and that it's mostly filled with women as women have evil spirits within them, and so on.

Any culture, religion, that considers women in a lesser light is obviously going to give rise to "honour killings" and other disgusting practices such as how in Iran, Saudi, and some other nations, women can't leave the house without a male, can't drive a car, and so on.

I've actually heard of cases in Australia where women are basically under house arrest, and of cases of female genital mutilation.

You need to read widely about women in such nations who are fighting for their rights, for the right to be able to have a say in their own divorce!

I've heard such claims your making before, by detestable Islamic leaders like Keysar Trad & Kuranda Seyit (the one who wants us to get rid of Christmas he's so intolerant) and as always, they speak nonsense.

All that matters is how Muslims live, and treat women, and nobody can escape the disgusting misoginy that Muslim males have. Not all of course, there are a few, but not many. If there were, there would be protests to have Sharia provisions dropped from constitutions and so on.

You need to do this, as a Muslim, you need to protest for womens rights. Only then will the western world believe that you are serious.

Until then though, most of us laugh when we hear comments such as "In Islam women are actually treated better", as the immorral Trad once claimed. It was he who asked for Sharia provisions regarding divorce, although the biggest opposers were who? Muslim womens groups!

BOAZ_David,

“Immigrants must swear an oath of allegiance…when they apply for entry to our country.”

Two problems:

1. In view that the god of islam Allah allows his followers to lie (and commit other atrocities for the cause of propagation and world domination); most or all will lie to gain entry.
2. What about the ones that are already here? What would constitute an acceptable reason for kicking them out?
Well said about Qur’anic “revelations” for expediency – it is so clear to the rest of us how duped Mohammad’s followers are.

Exposing the dark side of islam is as beneficial to muslims as it is for rest.

dawood,

I think BD’s point was more on the convenient progressive of the so called revelation to Mohammad and not the grammatical construct.

If you want to be pedantic – why are most male Arabic songs addressed to ‘females’ are written in the masculine?

You said:

“The hadith is talking about the fact that marriage is a highly recommended act, and the "best" thing a man can do, …”

What is the opinion of a woman in that “best thing a man can do”?

I spare you the answer: TOTAL SUBMISSION! And I didn’t even google it.

You can fool Scout any time but why continue to fool yourself? – You sound like an intelligent and rational person. Which begs the question: How could you have falen for islam?

Any such thing as a woman Cleric/ Imam leading mixed gender congregations in prayer?

What about women being allowed up to 4 husbands? Or does this constitute adultery?

Can women say “no” to sex without being bitten and divorced?

Who determines if the man is “fair” with all 4 wives?

All convenience, all Mohammed rulings worshiped like a god.

Hi all

(cont) To: Irfan & all

[read from prior post 6:27:08 PM 19/3/06 for continuity]

Ali reported the Prophet saying: "Women have 10 'awrat (external genitals). When she marries the husband covers the 1, & when she dies the grave covers the 10." Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol 22 Hadith 858.
then there can be little doubt as to the 'intentions' of Islamic thinking.

None of that gives great 'promise' for a just & non-discriminatory prospect for the "marriage section" of Sharia law.

IRFAN, as per my question to you, in paragraph 5, my post 12:04:06 PM 1/3/06 - respectfully, WOULD YOU KINDLY ANSWER THE QUESTION? ... & I quote: "Which specific "British Common Law" doctrines are taken from Islamic Sharia jurisdictions?"
(16/3/06)

MzzDemeanor (post 12:55:13 PM 15/3/06)

Your comment that Christian "wives should obey husbands" is probably, as I suggested, taken from Colossians 3:18-25. I quoted that in the hope that you would open a Bible & read it - in context.

However, it could've been stated in connection with Eph 5:22 and 25 & 28; 1 Pet 3:1 & 7, where husbands are also called to ".. love your wives, just as Christ loved .." & ".. love their wives as their own bodies.". That doesn't suggest any subjugation. Rather, a degree of equality.

There's no doubt or denying that a Christian wife should regard her husband as the "head of the household". But that is clearly in terms of leading all to Christ (spiritual leadership), & being the principle "breadwinner". There is no text suggesting that women should be beaten - the Qur'an approves of beatings, & the Ahadith support the Qur'an.

Your comment, that it was 8-years ago, makes acquiring a copy of the sermon almost impossible. If you know the speaker/presenter I would be glad to discuss your 'grievance' with them in order to clarify the matter - I have contacts at 'senior' levels into most churches.

I would likewise be interested to know the results of any conversation that you now might have with that American preacher from your children's' school. ....

... (t.b.c.)

Cheers all

LittleAgreeableBuddy,

"However, it could've been stated in connection with Eph 5:22 and 25 & 28; 1 Pet 3:1 & 7, where husbands are also called to ".. love your wives, just as Christ loved .." & ".. love their wives as their own bodies.". That doesn't suggest any subjugation. Rather, a degree of equality."

For some that implies that as Christ is vastly superior to humankind and that humankind should be subject Christ so husbands are superior to their "weaker vessel" wives and those wives should be subject to them (not many would admit to the gulf being as great). I suspect that only a limited portion of the christian church directly holds that view nowdays but traces of it remain and it was not so long ago that such an interpretation was more widely held.

There is a clear way of interpreting this stuff which has been used and which does suggest subjugation, really all a matter of interpretation and the world views that lie behind that interpretation. Same kind of mechanisms which impact on how other faiths (such as Islam) use their scriptures. Thanks for the great example.

R0bert