Islam is anti women

[CabinInTheForest]

The oppression of women that Islam advocates is not only disturbing, but is direct contrast with everything that Christian civilization stands for when it comes to the rights of women.

The Quran

A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like

Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status

A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . .

A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.

A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man and then this second man divorces her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry

Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war]

A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.

A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense.

Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. Islam supports peadophilia.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.

Mohammed had an 8 year old wife (peadophilia).

Although in the Quran he would limit his followers to having four wives, Mohammed himself took more than four wives and concubines.

It also poses a logical problem for Muslims. Because the Quran in Sura 4:3 forbids the taking of more than four wives, to have taken any more would have been sinful for Muhammad.

LIST OF MOHAMMED WIVES

1.Khadija 12. Hend
2. Sawda 13. Asma (of Saba)
3. Aesha 14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
4. Omm Salama 15. Habla
5. Halsa 16. Asma (of Noman)
6. Zaynab (of Jahsh) 17. Mary (the Christian)
7. Jowayriyi 18. Rayhana
8. Omm Habiba 19. Omm Sharik
9. Safiya 20. Maymuna
10. Maymuna (of Hareth) 21. Zaynab (a third one)
11. Fatema 22. Khawla
12. Hend
13. Asma (of Saba)
14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
15. Habla
16. Asma (of Noman)
17. Mary (the Christian)
18. Rayhana
19. Omm Sharik
20. Maymuna
21. Zaynab (a third one)
22. Khawla

The first 16 women were wives. Numbers 17 and 18 were slaves or concubines.

The last four women were neither wives or slaves but devout Muslim women who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.

Aesha was only eight or nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, she was still playing with her dolls. This facet of Muhammad's sexual appetite is particularly distressing to christians and hindus.

This aspect of Muhammad's personal life is something that many scholars pass over once again because they do not want to hurt the feelings of Muslims. Yet, history cannot be rewritten to avoid confronting the facts that Muhammad had unnatural desires for little girls. Islam and Mohammed is immoral.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Islam banned using slave women as prostitutes which was a common practice at the time and also banned forcing them into sexual relations if they opposed it.

Sources for this please.

[TheWayIsOne]

Islam banned using slave women as prostitutes which was a common practice at the time and also banned forcing them into sexual relations if they opposed it.

Sources for this please.

وَلَا ت�كْر�ه�وا �َتَيَات�ك�مْ عَلَى الْب�غَاء� إ�نْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَص�ّنًا ل�ّتَبْتَغ�وا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاة� الد�ّنْيَا

"And force not your maids (servants) to prostitution, when they desire chastity, in order that you make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life" (24:33)

It was reported that this verse was revealed when a slave girl came and complained to the Prophet that her master was forcing her to fornicate. So this verse has been interpreted and explained by more than one of the most famous and widely used explanations of the Quran to apply to forcing her to prostitution and also forcing her to have sexual relations with oneself.

And in regard to the correct treatment of a slave man, here is one narration recorded the Sahih of Al-Bukhari that the Prophet Muhammad said to a man, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and God has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 2, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Again Islam does not condone or support slavery, neither does any Muslim rather this was the beginning of the end of the slavery that already existed, it began with the correct and fair treatment of slaves which lead to the abolishing of slavery altogether.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

The challenge to show these exact words is fallacious, and I'm certain you know it.

therefore your claims were "bogus".

This is called intellectual dishonesty.

It's no wonder you continuously abstain from addressing the verses I posted. You have no way of showing how the verses could ever be interpreted to be speaking of wives only.

You are reading meaning that isn't contained in the verse, perhaps because sex with slaves seems distasteful to you.

I believe I said "implied". Do you understand the difference between "implied" and "stated"?

If this was the best explanation you could come up with,

The above comments, as well as the general tone of this post, are less civil than they could be. Most of them are direct comments on Fatihah's personal character, and not relevant to the topic.
Please be careful about the rules against incivility in the future.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: More of the same redundancy. After failing to show islam as degrading as your ideology, you again try the same desperate attempt. You make the ridiculous claim the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" does not have to be in the text for it to mean so. An apparent example of failing to comprehend english. For I've also stated in the previous post that the words, nor anything synonymous to it exist in the text.

This is incorrect. You stated, and I quote:

Response: Once again, you're failure to produce a verse with the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" is further proof of your bogus claims. Then you poke fun of yourself when criticizing one's comprehension of english when you yourself are reading words which are not there. Hilarious.

You asked for the exact words, not for anything synonymous (which is what I indisputably and repeatedly provided). There is more than one way to convey a given meaning in any language. If the verses imply (and they do) that sex with wives or slaves is permissible, and you agree that wives cannot be slaves at the same time, logic dictates that sex outside of marriage is permissible.

Do you disagree? Please show where the logic is flawed, and please do not refer me to a verse prohibiting zina - zina does not encompass "right-hand possessions".

I will quote the verses again so that you may see that there is no possible way that the verse could be interpreted to mean that sex is limited to wives only. If you disagree, please explain to me how you interpret the verse to mean what you say it does.

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,
PICKTHAL: And who guard their modesty -
SHAKIR: And who guard their private parts,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
PICKTHAL: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
SHAKIR: Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

and

FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor...

There we have it.
->Sex with slaves, not blameworthy.
->Carnal desires for slaves, no problem since slaves are lawful. You can lust after wives and slave girls, but not after others.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Please quote the verses and give your alternative interpretation, if you have one.

But according to your logic, it doesn't have to.

It doesn't have to have the exact words "sex outside of marriage is permissible in Islam" for the verse to imply the same very clearly. This is also what I previously claimed, and which you denied. Do you disagree?

Then this also means, according to your logic, that your arguments are false and your ideology is trifling. Now do you say these words? No. Do you say anything synonymous to it? No. But according to your logic, you didn't have to. Thus you're own logic admits that your arguments are false and your ideology is trifling.

I honestly did not understand what you were trying to say here at all. Could you try again with different wording?

But you don't stop there. You say that the fact that the qur'an condemns adultery is not proof that islam only condones sex within marrriage. More nonsense. For if there are only two options concerning sexual relations and one is condemned, then the other is allowed. Basic math.

Nowhere is sex with slaves condemned in the Quran, and "zina" does not apply to "right-hand possessions". The Quran, Hadith, and mainstream scholars agree. Please address the verse above and tell me how it doesn't imply that sex with slaves is permissible in Islam.

But I guess it's not your strong suit either. Then you claim that the words stating that Muhammad is a prophet, therefore he makes no decisions on social matters in islam unless Allah orders him to means Muhammad is immoral because he didn't speak against sex with slaves. Then based on your own logic, so are you. For you never spoke of rape as being immoral in your whole post. And as your logic goes, since you didn't speak against it, you must condone it. More examples of your degrading ideology, not islam.

This example is very inadequate.

Here's why.

We are not discussing rape, and no one is telling me that they raped someone.
If I saw someone rape someone else, I would immediately intervene.
When Muhammad heard his own (married) men talk about sex with slaves, he said it didn't matter if they did coitus interruptus or not.
Do you understand the difference between the situations?

Also, please stop this continual misrepresenting of other people's arguments. You have been doing it incessantly in this thread and others. "According to your logic this, according to your own logic that" when anyone can clearly see that you are inventing the fallacious logic out of thin air and projecting it onto your debate opponents. It's very rude - at best.

Are you really implying that Muhammad should be excused from not having reprimanded his own men who were having sex with slaves (and indeed from having condoned the practice by saying that it didn't matter if they did coitus interruptus (with slaves according to the context)) simply because Allah hadn't prohibited sex with slaves yet?

As I asked you, what if Muhammad saw a woman being beat by a group of his own men for a reason which Allah hadn't yet declared haram or halal? Would he just stand idly by and say "Sorry woman, Allah hasn't yet told me if these men are allowed to beat you up, and I can't help you even if I (allegedly) think it's wrong."?

-Woland

[Woland]

Hello TheWayIsOne,

Is the goal here to arrive at the truth or is it just to insult and defame a religion?

The goal is not to insult a religion but to examine its sacred texts, which are allegedly dictated by a divine entity.

My contention, which is corroborated by several scholars, is that Muslims are allowed to have sex with their wives and with their "right-hand possessions" i.e. slaves, and that this is made clear by the verses which I provided to Fatihah.

Do you disagree?

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: More of the same redundancy. After failing to show islam as degrading as your ideology, you again try the same desperate attempt. You make the ridiculous claim the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" does not have to be in the text for it to mean so. An apparent example of failing to comprehend english. For I've also stated in the previous post that the words, nor anything synonymous to it exist in the text.

This is incorrect. You stated, and I quote:

Response: Once again, you're failure to produce a verse with the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" is further proof of your bogus claims. Then you poke fun of yourself when criticizing one's comprehension of english when you yourself are reading words which are not there. Hilarious.

You asked for the exact words, not for anything synonymous (which is what I indisputably and repeatedly provided). There is more than one way to convey a given meaning in any language. If the verses imply (and they do) that sex with wives or slaves is permissible, and you agree that wives cannot be slaves at the same time, logic dictates that sex outside of marriage is permissible.

Do you disagree? Please show where the logic is flawed, and please do not refer me to a verse prohibiting zina - zina does not encompass "right-hand possessions".

I will quote the verses again so that you may see that there is no possible way that the verse could be interpreted to mean that sex is limited to wives only. If you disagree, please explain to me how you interpret the verse to mean what you say it does.

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,
PICKTHAL: And who guard their modesty -
SHAKIR: And who guard their private parts,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
PICKTHAL: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
SHAKIR: Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

and

FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor...

There we have it.
->Sex with slaves, not blameworthy.
->Carnal desires for slaves, no problem since slaves are lawful. You can lust after wives and slave girls, but not after others.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Please quote the verses and give your alternative interpretation, if you have one.

But according to your logic, it doesn't have to.

It doesn't have to have the exact words "sex outside of marriage is permissible in Islam" for the verse to imply the same very clearly. This is also what I previously claimed, and which you denied. Do you disagree?

Then this also means, according to your logic, that your arguments are false and your ideology is trifling. Now do you say these words? No. Do you say anything synonymous to it? No. But according to your logic, you didn't have to. Thus you're own logic admits that your arguments are false and your ideology is trifling.

I honestly did not understand what you were trying to say here at all. Could you try again with different wording?

But you don't stop there. You say that the fact that the qur'an condemns adultery is not proof that islam only condones sex within marrriage. More nonsense. For if there are only two options concerning sexual relations and one is condemned, then the other is allowed. Basic math.

Nowhere is sex with slaves condemned in the Quran, and "zina" does not apply to "right-hand possessions". The Quran, Hadith, and mainstream scholars agree. Please address the verse above and tell me how it doesn't imply that sex with slaves is permissible in Islam.

But I guess it's not your strong suit either. Then you claim that the words stating that Muhammad is a prophet, therefore he makes no decisions on social matters in islam unless Allah orders him to means Muhammad is immoral because he didn't speak against sex with slaves. Then based on your own logic, so are you. For you never spoke of rape as being immoral in your whole post. And as your logic goes, since you didn't speak against it, you must condone it. More examples of your degrading ideology, not islam.

This example is very inadequate.

Here's why.

We are not discussing rape, and no one is telling me that they raped someone.
If I saw someone rape someone else, I would immediately intervene.
When Muhammad heard his own (married) men talk about sex with slaves, he said it didn't matter if they did coitus interruptus or not.
Do you understand the difference between the situations?

Also, please stop this continual misrepresenting of other people's arguments. You have been doing it incessantly in this thread and others. "According to your logic this, according to your own logic that" when anyone can clearly see that you are inventing the fallacious logic out of thin air and projecting it onto your debate opponents. It's very rude - at best.

Are you really implying that Muhammad should be excused from not having reprimanded his own men who were having sex with slaves (and indeed from having condoned the practice by saying that it didn't matter if they did coitus interruptus (with slaves according to the context)) simply because Allah hadn't prohibited sex with slaves yet?

As I asked you, what if Muhammad saw a woman being beat by a group of his own men for a reason which Allah hadn't yet declared haram or halal? Would he just stand idly by and say "Sorry woman, Allah hasn't yet told me if these men are allowed to beat you up, and I can't help you even if I (allegedly) think it's wrong."?

-Woland

Response: First, I did mention "synonymously", as shown in post 61. That Is why my words say that the fact that the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" is "further" proof, meaning it is more proof based on the fact that the texts does not mention any words synonymous to "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam". Since the words is neither there nor any words synonymous to it, then it can't possibly mean or "imply" sex outside of marriage. To suggest otherwise would also mean, according to your logic, that "the cat is fast" means "the dog is fast". Clearly dog and cat are different words and are not synonymous, but according to your logic, neither has to be the case for it to mean the same. Thus dog means cat, according to your logic. Clearly, this is a flaw in your logic, not islam.

Secondly, the fact that adultery is condemned in islam is proof that sex is only allowed in the confines of marriage, including "right hand possessions", for the texts does not say "except in right hand possessions or anything synonymous to it. The verses in which you show clearly says sexual "desire", not sex. And even if we use the word sex, the verse clearly refers to sex within marriage, as the qur'an clearly condemns adultery.

Lastly, your logic is that because Muhammad did not say something, then he condoned it. Your proof is based on him not "saying" something . Then according to your logic, since you've never said rape is not bad, then you condone rape, according to your logic. Again, a clear flaw in your logic, not islam. As for your example, Muhammad would speak against a woman being abused and has done so several times. The issue with you is that you quote hadiths which are not relative to the topic in contention then ask why wasn't it addressesd. Simply put, because it's not the topic of the report. Hadiths are reports, not a detailed biography. They are reports intended to show what Muhammad said or did relating to certain topics. If you want to know his view of slavery, you go to the "topic" of slavery. You want to know his view of women, you go to the topic of women. So when reading a hadith in which Muhammad is shown not to do something, it's not because he didn't, but rather it was not reported because it's not relating to the topic. The hadith of coitus interuptus is to show Muhammad's view of coitus interuptus, not slaves. So there is no reason for the reporter to mention his view of sex with slaves on the topic of coitus interuptus. To know his view of sex with slaves, you read the hadiths on the "topic" of sex with slaves. Thus it is not a case of Muhammad not doing anything, but rather it is not reported, because it's not the topic.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

its sacred texts, which are allegedly dictated by a divine entity.

To quote someone from this very forum itself, and everything he writes is accurate according to purely MUSLIM sources:

That's the formula, but the actual myth is that Allah told Gabriel told Muhammad to have his followers commit this passage to memory or write it down on the scapulae of oxen until it could be collected by a committee appointed by the third rightful caliph in order to stem the spread of alternative rescensions.

As such, it is at best fourth-generation hearsay.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

It seems that you will just keep running away from the issues while repeating the same already-refuted nonsense, sprinkled with fallacious and projected logic.

We're done here.

You can take pride in the fact that you've bored me to death with your unsound logic, repeated fallacious claims, and unwarranted triumphalism. Your denial of the clear words in the Quran is commendable but ultimately dishonest, and this is why you never dared to address the verses themselves as you were repeatedly asked to do.

Just another example of self-contradiction which you will never admit to:

The verses in which you show clearly says sexual "desire" [Woland here: for slaves and wives], not sex.

->

2. In islam, it is not condoned to lust for any woman who is not your wife or a woman you seek to have a legal marriage with. So the answer to your question would have to be no.

Now, no doubt, in the face of this blatant contradiction, you're likely to invent a nonsensical explanation whereby you can lust after slaves which you want to marry, which is ridiculous when you read the verse as it would imply that you can't lust after non-wives and non-slaves even if you want to marry them.

FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor...

Whatever. Your position has been soundly exposed, what you do with the knowledge that your religion condones sex with slaves for married men is your own business. You can deny it for the rest of your life, but you will never change the words in the Quran, just as you will never be able to address them.

Farewell.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

It seems that you will just keep running away from the issues while repeating the same already-refuted nonsense, sprinkled with fallacious and projected logic.

We're done here.

You can take pride in the fact that you've bored me to death with your unsound logic, repeated fallacious claims, and unwarranted triumphalism. Your denial of the clear words in the Quran is commendable but ultimately dishonest, and this is why you never dared to address the verses themselves as you were repeatedly asked to do.

Just another example of self-contradiction which you will never admit to:

The verses in which you show clearly says sexual "desire" [Woland here: for slaves and wives], not sex.

->

2. In islam, it is not condoned to lust for any woman who is not your wife or a woman you seek to have a legal marriage with. So the answer to your question would have to be no.

Now, no doubt, in the face of this blatant contradiction, you're likely to invent a nonsensical explanation whereby you can lust after slaves which you want to marry, which is ridiculous when you read the verse as it would imply that you can't lust after non-wives and non-slaves even if you want to marry them.

FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor...

Whatever. Your position has been soundly exposed, what you do with the knowledge that your religion condones sex with slaves for married men is your own business. You can deny it for the rest of your life, but you will never change the words in the Quran, just as you will never be able to address them.

Farewell.

-Woland

Response: To the contrary, we can clearly see that your absurd, faulty logic and degrading ideology has been debunked repeatedly, yet you still insisted on portraying islam to suit your warped ideology other than the beautiful religion that it is. Your quote of mine is post 51, which clearly was a typo, as the next sentence clearly states that lusting for a woman who is your wife or intending to marry is allowed. Your false interpretations and interpolations have been debunked convincingly and repeatedly. The verse mentions sexual desire with a slave, but no where does it say "outside of marriage", thus your own evidence to say it does proves you wrong. Even verse 4: 25 of the qur'an in which you referred to yourself in one of your references states concerning women captives:

"..so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair, they being chaste, not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours. And if, after thet are married, they are guilty of lewdness, they shall have half the punishment prescribed for free married women".

The verse clearly states that the woman captives are to be chaste and not to commit fornication. Simply put, no sex outside of marriage EVEN the women captives.

Thanks once again for helping to demonstrate the beauty of islam and to helping me to clarify and debunk the propaganda which tries so desperately to show otherwise.

Peace.

[Woland]

The verse mentions sexual desire with a slave, but no where does it say "outside of marriage"

->

Are Muslims, according to your version of Islam, allowed to marry female slaves and consider them and refer to them as slaves after marriage?

Response: Not at all

The verses refer to slaves and wives, making an undeniable distinction between the two.
Slaves can't be wives at the same time and vice versa, according to your own words above.
Therefore, the verses aren't limited to the confines of marriage - i.e. to wives.

Simple, undeniable logic.

If you persist in saying that sex with slaves is zina (i.e. that zina isn't in fact sex with others than wives and "right-hand possessions", as the Quran clearly implies), then you are saying the Quran contradicts itself.

I have no problem with that.

Choose wisely, for these are your only two options.

Please quote the verses and tell us your own interpretation of what they are "actually saying" when they are talking about lust being only permissible with wives and slaves.

-Woland