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.

[good]

http://www.youtube.com/mr3izah#p/u/1/gOvh9DEcVvw

[Wyvern]

Response: It is not technically the qur'an which says that but rather the translation of the qur'an in which you've read. When reading one's translation, you should also read there commentary. For the best way to know what a person means by their translation is through their own commentary. But I must also add that some commentary and translations are not not fully correct.

The literal meaning of the verse is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In this translation, we see nothing about slaves or captives at all. However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed. I agree, a better translation would have been better. But they chose to translate it that way. But as stated earlier, the correct translation is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In short, a captive is freed once they are married. They do not remain captives or slaves and sexual relations takes place after marriage.

I think you should look at that verse again it mentions wives and slave girls. I don't care how bad a translator is at their job if they even vaguely know the language they aren't going to turn one thing into two. You still have a problem with the verse mentioning having sex with slaves and your explanation does not make a lot of sense. Why would any mention be made of slaves if they were having sex which means they no longer were slaves according to you. Could you possibly show a different translation that does not show this discrepency that you mention? Could you also please show a quote from the translators where they admit to what you say.

[Woland]

Hello TheWayIsOne,

I do not disagree that it was permissible to have relations with a slave.

Even for men who are already married, as the Quran and Hadith suggest?

Is this compatible with the notion of respecting your wife, in your opinion?

Do you acknowledge that Muhammad had at least one concubine in addition to his wives?

However, to say that Islam calls to sex with slaves is very misleading.

That's good, since no one made that claim.

The entire issue has to be understood in light of where the world was at that time, 1500 years ago.

I disagree.

It would be the case if Muhammad didn't proclaim himself to be a great example, and if Islam didn't portray itself (and Muslims didn't portray it) as an immutable, perfectly moral, complete way of life dictated by an infallible deity. As things stand, it's doubtful at best to say that Muhammad is a moral example for modern humans. If you mean to say that people shouldn't act as Muhammad did and that Islam is representative of the moral standards of ignorant humans from ancient times and has nothing to do with an omnipotent omniscient creator of everything and everything to do with human ignorance, I agree.

Briefly, slavery was something that existed in all known parts of the world at the time. Islam's approach was to abolish slavery not all at once which may have not really been possible, but rather by encouraging the freeing of slaves in general, making the freeing of slaves obligatory in some situations, and prohibiting new enslavement of any free person.

Although a case could be made for the encouraging freeing etc., this is certainly not the case for the prohibition of the enslavement of any free person. To say this is to completely disregard the many instances where free people were enslaved by Muhammad and his gang. Unless by "free person" you meant "free Muslim"? Please substantiate your claim that Islam prohibited enslavement of any free person.

Furthermore, Islam prohibited forcing a slave to sexual relations, not with oneself or with any other person which would be a form of prostitution,

Could you tell me where it says that you can't force a slave to have sex with you? I know that it was prohibited to force a slave to sex with others, but I am not aware of verses or Hadith which prohibit forcing a slave to have sex with his master. In fact, many Hadith seem to suggest that Muhammad's men were forcing women to have sex with them and when asked about it he replied some pseudo-theological nonsense about the alleged fact that only Allah can decide whether or not a soul will be born as a result of coitus interruptus with slaves.

For followers of Christianity or Judaism, passages and texts are evident for that which Islam is being blamed here. One example that I quoted earlier,
"Bid the slaves to be submissive to their masters and give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory…� (Titus 2:9) This seems to indicate that the slave must fully submit to their master regardless of the situation. This would seem to be worse than the reality of what Islam teaches with regards to slaves.

Yes, but most Christians have some way or other of denying that those verses are representative of the will of their deity. Are you ready to deny any verse in the Quran in the way that Christians usually do, by claiming a "new covenant" or by saying that the scriptures are "inspired but not dictated" by a deity?

At any rate, I consider most Christians to collectively be in denial of the reality of the barbaric God depicted in the OT.

If your point was that the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so evidently man-made and representative of the questionable moral standards of ancient societies that the religions could not possibly come from a deity who created everything, then I agree.

Same goes for Islam.

If you were trying to say that the scriptures of any religion should be excused of condoning despicable actions because they are texts considered holy by some, or indeed for any reason at all other than their being invented by ignorant men, then I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

Just as I don't believe Christianity would currently call to slavery despite many scriptural occurrences, neither does Islam call to slavery now that it has been abolished and is no longer accepted. Rather Islam came with a methodology to end slavery 1500 years ago, while slavery was only recently abolished in the west.

Did your prophet enslave countless people, or not?
Is he proclaimed by Muslims to be a great example, or not?

I hope our dialog is beneficial, if the response remains 'see Islam says have sex with slave girls' then obviously we don't have the intention of benefiting or moving forward.

Islam permits (or permitted? if so, how can you seriously claim the Quran is morally infallible?) sex with slave girls, as you admitted, and I thank you for your honesty on the matter. This, in my view, severely impacts Islam's claim to moral perfection.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Response: It is not technically the qur'an which says that but rather the translation of the qur'an in which you've read. When reading one's translation, you should also read there commentary. For the best way to know what a person means by their translation is through their own commentary. But I must also add that some commentary and translations are not not fully correct.

The literal meaning of the verse is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In this translation, we see nothing about slaves or captives at all. However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed. I agree, a better translation would have been better. But they chose to translate it that way. But as stated earlier, the correct translation is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In short, a captive is freed once they are married. They do not remain captives or slaves and sexual relations takes place after marriage.

I think you should look at that verse again it mentions wives and slave girls. I don't care how bad a translator is at their job if they even vaguely know the language they aren't going to turn one thing into two. You still have a problem with the verse mentioning having sex with slaves and your explanation does not make a lot of sense. Why would any mention be made of slaves if they were having sex which means they no longer were slaves according to you. Could you possibly show a different translation that does not show this discrepency that you mention? Could you also please show a quote from the translators where they admit to what you say.

Response: The explanation makes perfect sense, supported by the fact that you could not show a fault in it. There is no problem in the verse, as the verse, when read within it's context and commentary, clearly states that the slaves involved in sexual relations are married.

I don't know of any commentary posted on the web, but if you want to know the commentary, you can simply purchase the qur'an with commentary. Perhaps a search of Muhammad Asad and his translation of 70:30 or 23:6 of the qur'an in your search engine will help. As for the reasons why the term slave is being made is because of the different meanings of the term "right hand possessions" which can refer to the possession of slaves, wives, or property which is rightfully possessed. What exactly is in possession depends on the context. Because the qur'an does use the term in reference to captives, a translator may keep the consistancy and always translate it as captives. Or you can simply leave it as "right hands possession" which means a rightful possession. This is why the term slave or captive is used in the verse speaking of sexual relations. The term again does not mean slave or captive, it means rightful possession, which can be a slave, wife or property. Slave is used because it was used that way in other parts of the qur'an. Secondly, because the term means "a rightful possession" when using the words slave, it refers to marrying a slave, for naturally, that is the way to rightfully posses a slave. It is to posses them in marriage.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

If your point was that the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so evidently man-made and representative of the questionable moral standards of ancient societies that the religions could not possibly come from a deity who created everything, then I agree.

Same goes for Islam.

It took me a long time to develop the courage to admit this to myself, but eventually I did. And that turned me away from it (amongst other things).

As for your talk about the hadith regarding sex with slaves: you’re almost right. The fact is that the question of rape doesn’t even crop up in the hadith! Anyone with a thinking brain will deduce this from the text, but the hadith is included ONLY to relate a point about coitus interruptus! In fact, there is no real mention of rape as a bad thing anywhere in Bukhari’s massive collection of Sahih Ahadith.

[Woland]

As for the reasons why the term slave is being made is because of the different meanings of the term "right hand possessions" which can refer to the possession of slaves, wives, or property which is rightfully possessed. What exactly is in possession depends on the context.

Are you saying that Muslims may refer to their wives as "right hand possessions", a term which you admit is used throughout the Quran to refer to slaves?

Please substantiate your claim that "right hand possessions" can mean anything else than slaves.

Please explain why the verse would talk about wives and wives, which is your contention, and which is redundant and useless.

Because the qur'an does use the term in reference to captives, a translator may keep the consistancy and always translate it as captives.

Right, because it's not like the many translators who wrote about slaves and captives could tell the difference between slaves and wives and insert the alleged proper word instead of clearly speaking about slaves.

Explain to me why a translator (a MUSLIM translator, of all things) would write down slaves if the term meant wife. Your explanation of "consistency" is rejected because you are suggesting translators would write down a verse which doesn't mean what it says in English at all while it would have been possible to "better" translate it without leaving room for confusion.

The term again does not mean slave or captive, it means rightful possession, which can be a slave, wife or property.

A wife can be a rightful possession in Islam, like slaves or other property?
Is this really what you are suggesting?

Slave is used because it was used that way in other parts of the qur'an.

Are you saying that the most widely respected translators couldn't tell the difference in English between slaves and wives in the Quran?

Secondly, because the term means "a rightful possession" when using the words slave, it refers to marrying a slave, for naturally, that is the way to rightfully posses a slave. It is to posses them in marriage.

"Possess them in marriage"?
I suppose we should thank you for helping us make the case that Islam views women as property.
You repeatedly implied this in your last post.

Please substantiate your claim that "right hand possession" was ever used to refer to wives, without resorting to special pleading. Show me a single instance in the Quran where "right hand possession" means wife except the passages we are discussing. It looks very much like you are fabricating alternative definitions of "right hand possessions" to suit your needs.

"Ma malakat aymanukum" means slaves captured in wars. I am certain that some Muslims who were embarrassed by the verses tried to convince themselves that the verse were reffering to wives...and wives...as you did, but it remains that this excuse is highly suspect and amounts to nothing more than special pleading considering the use of the term in the text, and the nonsensical meaning it gives to the verses we are examining.

Please substantiate or retract your claims.

-Woland

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Additionally, as this page shows (Surah 4: Verse 25) with its multiple translations in Urdu and English, allah gives permission for a man to marry women from what his ‘right hand possesses’

مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَان�ك�مْ

if he doesn’t have enough money/power/etc. to marry a free and believing woman.

If he can marry someone from what his right hand possesses, how can that right hand possession refer to existing wives?

[Fatihah]

As for the reasons why the term slave is being made is because of the different meanings of the term "right hand possessions" which can refer to the possession of slaves, wives, or property which is rightfully possessed. What exactly is in possession depends on the context.

Are you saying that Muslims may refer to their wives as "right hand possessions", a term which you admit is used throughout the Quran to refer to slaves?

Please substantiate your claim that "right hand possessions" can mean anything else than slaves.

Please explain why the verse would talk about wives and wives, which is your contention, and which is redundant and useless.

Because the qur'an does use the term in reference to captives, a translator may keep the consistancy and always translate it as captives.

Right, because it's not like the many translators who wrote about slaves and captives could tell the difference between slaves and wives and insert the alleged proper word instead of clearly speaking about slaves.

Explain to me why a translator (a MUSLIM translator, of all things) would write down slaves if the term meant wife. Your explanation of "consistency" is rejected because you are suggesting translators would write down a verse which doesn't mean what it says in English at all while it would have been possible to "better" translate it without leaving room for confusion.

The term again does not mean slave or captive, it means rightful possession, which can be a slave, wife or property.

A wife can be a rightful possession in Islam, like slaves or other property?
Is this really what you are suggesting?

Slave is used because it was used that way in other parts of the qur'an.

Are you saying that the most widely respected translators couldn't tell the difference in English between slaves and wives in the Quran?

Secondly, because the term means "a rightful possession" when using the words slave, it refers to marrying a slave, for naturally, that is the way to rightfully posses a slave. It is to posses them in marriage.

"Possess them in marriage"?
I suppose we should thank you for helping us make the case that Islam views women as property.
You repeatedly implied this in your last post.

Please substantiate your claim that "right hand possession" was ever used to refer to wives, without resorting to special pleading. Show me a single instance in the Quran where "right hand possession" means wife except the passages we are discussing. It looks very much like you are fabricating alternative definitions of "right hand possessions" to suit your needs.

"Ma malakat aymanukum" means slaves captured in wars. I am certain that some Muslims who were embarrassed by the verses tried to convince themselves that the verse were reffering to wives...and wives...as you did, but it remains that this excuse is highly suspect and amounts to nothing more than special pleading considering the use of the term in the text, and the nonsensical meaning it gives to the verses we are examining.

Please substantiate or retract your claims.

-Woland

Response: The absurdity continues. But before the debunking begin, we should first acknowledge how you used my reference of Muhammad Asad to know the original arabic term "ma malakat aimanakum". But of course, you're reluctant to acknowledge it. Nonetheless, since you like to quote passsges and terms as if you know them, then let us see your knowledge at work. Because if we here you tell it, you are correct in your knowledge of the qur'an (despite knowing no arabic), yet you don't even know the commentary of the text in which you've quoted to that proves yourself wrong. What's the matter Woland? We were speaking of commentary earlier. Commentary of texts that you quoted. So produce the commentary. But you won't, and never will, because you and I both know what the commentary says which speaks against your stance. In short, the proof is in the commentary. So Woland, produce the commentary. Don't be afraid.

Now to address your claims. For starters, I never said that "right hand possession" means wives, so your claim is a strawman from the start. I said that "right hand possession" means to rightfully possess something or someone, which can mean to rightfully posses slaves, wives, or property. What it refers to depends on the context.

Secondly, possession does not mean property. So the fact that you suggest so is just another demonstration of a lack of comprehension on your part, not islam. Saying that I possess a wife does not mean that she is property, for property and possession is not synonymous terms. Possession and "have" is. Thus possessing a wife would mean to have a wife. Simple english, which apparently evades you.

Lastly, we now will watch you play the dodge game as I ask the following question, "show me from any arabic english dictionary where the term "ma malakat aimanakum" means slaves or captives, if you are truthful. This is what happens when you quote terms as if you really know the meaning.

(By the way, I know the arabic word for slave. So be wise. This should be entertaining).

[Wyvern]

Response: The explanation makes perfect sense, supported by the fact that you could not show a fault in it. There is no problem in the verse, as the verse, when read within it's context and commentary, clearly states that the slaves involved in sexual relations are married.

The problem is that I did find fault in your explanation of this. You said there is no sex outside of marriage but the passage does not make specific mention of having sex with ones wives but with that which ones right hand possess. Here in this very post you state the slaves having sex are married to their master but you have also said that once a female slave gets married they are no longer a slave which means your explanation can not be correct otherwise they would not be referred to as slaves if they were wives.

1. Wives can not be slaves.
2. If a female slave marries they are no longer a slave.
3. Sex is not allowed outside of marriage.
4. You stated that the slaves having sex are married.

These are all things you have written. If 1,2 and 3 are all true then 4 can not be true.

[Wyvern]

Lastly, we now will watch you play the dodge game as I ask the following question, "show me from any arabic english dictionary where the term "ma malakat aimanakum" means slaves or captives, if you are truthful. This is what happens when you quote terms as if you really know the meaning.

It means literally what your right hand possess and is such a broad term that it can mean anything from wives, servants, slaves, prisoners of war or even inanimate objects. I thought you said the koran was easy to understand? Why would it include such an unspecific term, I'm pretty sure Allah knew what he was talking about when he told Mohammed so why would Mohammed put such an inexact phrase which has multiple possible meanings into the koran when the specific phrase for any one of these items exist in arabic.

(By the way, I know the arabic word for slave. So be wise. This should be entertaining).

In phonetic english it is ''abd but there are gender specific terms as well.