A scientific and legal unraveling of the Islamic requirements for veiling the Muslim women and sequestering for violent punishments for adultery, and also for the Muslim women from being allowed to see only through one eye for the fear that the two female eyes will be so attractive that they will turn men into beasts..
Not being a One-Eyed Woman
This article is a fatwa to unveil the veil. I hope, it will contribute toward liberating the Muslim Women from the violent and lethal punishments for adultery, liberty to free will, equal rights to education and standards of living!
This is an explanatory article for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For Muslim women, this article is set out as a valid religious opinion on the status of the veil and its more oppressive forms of physical suppressions of women; for Non-Muslim women, its grounds are human commonsense and compassion. It includes scientific and biological arguments, which are valid for all human beings traversing all cultures, and which have implications for the practices of Islam as well as others???
In religious terms, this is a fatwa rejecting the claim that in Islamic teachings, women are required to wear the full-veil, or that it is desirable to do so by cowardly females. It has come about now, because a Saudi cleric has called on Muslim women to wear full-veil or niqab that reveals only one eye.[1] Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan, an influential conservative cleric,[2] who was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel, Al-Majd, said:
‘by showing both the eyes, encourages women to use eye make-up to look seductive and alluring. Although the one-eyed niqab is part of an older tradition, noted in the hadiths. When a religion gets to the point of issuing a command that half the people on the planet are to be allowed to see only through one eye, whenever they go out in the world, it brings that religion into disrepute...? To cut out one eye from being able to perceive the world at large, is an assault on the most basic integrity and autonomy of the human being. The need to cover the woman entirely comes from a mistaken notion that because women are beautiful and attractive; they are entirely awrah (woman’s sexual parts), and thus must be entirely concealed, even to covering one eye or they will pose a shameful threat to themselves and to their family, through being uncontrollably attractive to strange men... This is an assault, not only on women, the sex who bear the living generations of humanity, but on men, social trust, the natural world, and our access to it. It stands alongside dire punishments such as stoning women for adultery, which are an affront to the bismillah “Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate”. Neither niqab, nor stoning, are in the Qur’an, so it is a time to take stock and make the way clear, so women will not continue to be oppressed’…
Having two eyes is a fundamental adaptation of all living organisms; am I right in this claim? There is not one animal that has only one eye, from vertebrates through insects to molluscs. Having two eyes while out in the world is pivotal for survival, because it enables binocular depth perceptions… If Allah (the great?) gave all beings two eyes, then what was it good for and what are the reasons for this sort of forbearing?
It is inconceivable that Allah would deny it to the females of the human race, who bear the live young for the continuity of human race. Simply for this reason, they are must be attractive to men; for the generations to prosper and to survive, women play a pivotal part in the reproduction processes. To deny this right to women, because they may be attractive to men, is a diabolical punishment, invented by nothing but purely eccentric male jealousy only! And hmmmmm…, the same is Allah’s thinking, too?
A fatwa is a religious opinion on the laws by Islamic scholars; and above all, it is also by the god of Islam! The clarity and authority of this argument stems from our broad scholarly experience of the Christian, Jewish, pre-Islamic and present Islamic cultural and religious traditions, without being bound to the restrictions or beliefs, imposed by one sect or traditions… such as Shia’h or Sunni or any other sects. The argument is also clear, in terms of natural biology and female reproductive choices, as a foundation for the emergence and evolution of the human intelligence and the passage of the generations to come. In Quranic terms, this fatwa is a ‘clear argument’, in terms of Surah 43:61-63 concerning Isa (Esau) [3], to “make clear to you part of what you differ in”.
While the conservative scholars try to finesse the Qur’an and Hadiths together (see later) into a tortuous justification for imposing these assaults on the Muslim women’s sovereignty, all independent authorities confirm, there is no basis for these restrictive claims by Islam... Moreover the idea that Allah, prefers women veiled or that a Muslim woman’s entire body or that everything, except her face and hands, is awrah (pudenda) to be ashamed of or that the women needs to be veiled to protect themselves from the ravages of men, and society from immorality, is a false teaching, used by Muslim males to control the Muslim female’s sexual and reproductive choices, and to limit the Muslim women’s access to educational, social and political independence?
The dehumanization of a personal identity, God did not ordain that women, who are the bearers of the generations of humanity, should be reduced to depersonalized ghosts…!.
Does the Quran Require Muslim Women to be Veiled?
The internet encyclopedia About.Com poses the following question:4 ‘Does the Quran Require Women to Wear the Veil?’
One of the most visibly contentious issues for Islam in the Western world is the women's wearing of veil. To so-called westerner conservatives, the veil is a symbol of oppression. To majority of Muslims, it is a symbol of an empowerment, both for its explicit rejections of the Western values and its implicit meanings as a status symbol: many Muslims women see the veil as a sign of distinction, the more so because it evokes a connection to the Prophet Muhammad and his wives. But does the Quran, in fact, require women to cover themselves with a veil, a chador or any other such forms of head covering?
Answer: The quick answer is a relevant NO! -The Quran has no such requirements that any Muslim women need to cover their faces with a veil, or to cover their whole bodies with the full-body burqa or chador; as it is mandatory in Iran, Afghanistan or any other such Islamic Shari’ah government laws being dominated in countries of the world.
But the Quran does address the matter of veiling in such ways that, it has been interpreted historically if not necessarily correctly, by Muslim clerics as applying to all women kind... The veiling of the Muslim women was not an Islamic innovation but a Persian and the Byzantine-Christian customs that Islam had adopted. For most of Islam’s history, the veil in its various forms of bodily coverings was seen as a sign of distinction and self-protection for the upper-class Muslim women. Since the 19th century, the veil has come to represent more assertive, self-consciously Islamic expressions, sometimes in reaction to Western currents: colonialism, modernism, feminism.
Initially in Muhammad's lifetime, the veil was not an issue. His wives didn't wear it, nor did he order that other women in Arabia wear it. As he became more important in his community, and as his wives gained stature, Muhammad began adapting the Persian and Byzantine customs. The veil was among those customs. The veiling goes back to the Assyrians, for whom veiling was not mandatory but a privilege of wealthy married women. The prescribed requirement was the reverse -that prostitutes and slave-women should NOT be veiled[5]. This polarity, in which the unveiled are regarded as licentious loose character women, has continued in Arab Muslim traditions, leading to harassment and violence against unveiled women in both traditional Muslim and Western cultures. There are two passages in the Quran referring to the veil, Surahs 33:53,55 and 24:30-33, whose origins we shall examine in detail next. It neither says specifically that women in general should wear the veil nor that they should be covered from head to toe or be prevented from seeing or being seen.
A History of the Prophet’s Statements on the Veil
Wiebke Walther 6 notes 7: ‘Closely connected with the veil is the exclusion of women from public life, based on a verse in the Koran which refers only to the wives of the Prophet’:
When ye ask them (i.e. the wives of the Prophet) for any article, ask them from behind a curtain; that is purer for your hearts and for theirs” (Surah 33: 53, 55)
An Arab historical work, dating from the ninth century, claims this revelation originated at the marriage of Muhammad to the beautiful Zaynab Bint Jahsh the former wife of his adopted son Zayd Ibn Haritha. Muhammad, had once seen Zaynab in her undergarments as he was about to enter Zayd's house and had coveted her from then on. Zayd wanted to divorce her immediately so that Muhammad could marry her, but Muhammad did not want to accept Zayd's offer.
But then Zaynab had been married with Zayd against her will and now displayed a clear lack of affection for him. In the end, her marriage with Muhammad took place. Towards the end of the wedding feast, the guests showed no signs of departing. This shows that Zaynab's attractiveness for her guests was considered to have been very great! Muhammad impatiently left the room several times and went out into the courtyard, hoping that he would finally be left alone with his new bride. But this was not the case. It was now that the verse quoted above was revealed to him’ Mohammed fell in love with this woman and asked Zayd to divorce her and he married her in the year 628 CE. She was 38 years old. The Koran Surah 33-37 gives the prophet the right to marry his adopted son’s wife as an example to those that should follow:
When Zayd had accomplished his want of her, we gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah’s command shall be performed. (Q 33.37)
Two Muslim opinions that universal veiling and curtaining of women is not prescribed
"the so-called legal scholars assume positions that it is categorically forbidden for a woman to travel by herself for any purpose, so you mean to tell me that all these masters, who were women Imams, who traveled the Muslim world, they were teachers in public -some of them were on the minbar (mosque pulpit) themselves" ..."And her face was uncovered?" "Was she old? Some say when a woman is very, very old" "No she was very young".
"The women of Medinan society were more revolutionary than their granddaughters in the modern Muslim world.” Dr. Tariq Suwaidan: “In many places in the Muslim world, tradition has taken over ... If we take a deep look at what was practiced in the life of the Prophet... then we will see very clearly that there were no walls or curtains separating men from women except in one case and that is the wives of Muhammad ... unfortunately many of the scholars and later on many of the masses have taken what is for the wives of the Prophet (our mothers) and applied it to all Muslim women and thus should not talk to them except from behind a separation like a curtain.”
“O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (Surah 33.59).’
This does not say specifically that a Hijab, or more extreme covering of everything, but the eyes, or one eye, such as niqab, or burqa, is obligatory. Nor can one fairly claim this is a command of God, or al-Llah, because it has an origin in simple propriety when going to the toilet. Moreover there are clearly major differences of interpretation and cultural expectations of dress style among Muslims in the world today, so it cannot be mandatory in Islam, nor the will of God. Islamic opinion and the translations of this passage are varied and used in misleading ways to imply face cover. In a web site advocating the niqab the verse is first translated as follows:
‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks ("Jalabib") veils all over their bodies (screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way Tafseer Al-Qurtabi) that is most convenient that they should be known (as such) and not molested and Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful."
The Arabic text of this ayat is, "Ya ayyuha an-Nabi, qul li azwajika wa banatika wa nisa al-muminin yudnina alayhinna min jalabib hinna; dhalika adna an yu'rafna fa laa yu'dhayn. Wa kana Allahu Ghafur ar-Rahim", which literally translates as:-
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close around themselves; that is better that they are recognized and not annoyed. And God is Most Forgiving, Merciful".
There are actually a number of opinions given in this tafsir about what to "draw their jalabib close around themselves" means. Among these are, "she should bring the jilbab close to her face without covering it" (reported by ibn Abbas in this tafsir of Tabari, and graded as sahih by Shaykh Albani); and, "Others believe that the women have been directed to secure their jalabib firmly on their foreheads" (commentary of Tabari in his tafsir of this ayat). Thus we can see that it is a valid opinion that the jilbab does not have to cover the face?
An early Arabian historian explains that Muhammad's wives had been bothered by his opponents in Medina, when they left the house at night to 'relieve themselves', because they took unveiled women for slaves (Walther). This ties in with Assyrian traditions in which it was mandatory for all slaves and 'available' women to be unveiled and veiling was a 'privilege' of the wealthy married women. It is known fact that the noble ladies of the trading city of Mecca wore veils even before Islam’s conquest. There is no specific mention of veiling the face. In a hadiths in Sahih Bukhari (1.4.149) Muhammad allowed his wives to go out in the desert, in a secluded spot under the night sky, to answer the calls of nature hidden under the trees and shrubs, although he restricted them to the night hours only. In Sahih Bukhari (6.60.203) we also read that performing sexual intercourse in the open sky was quite common in those days. Nevertheless, Umar the second Caliph, urged Muhammad to change this. Umar used to watch these ladies in the open and requested Muhammad to cover his wives with veils whenever they went out to do their business in the open fields at night. At first, Muhammad ignored Umar’s plea, but when Umar kept pestering, Muhammad turned to Allah for His suggestions, resulting in Surah 33:59...???
Thus there is no valid claims, that can be made by the Islamic scholars that the veil is somehow ordained or preferred by Allah or that women are pudenda over their entire body and so must be secluded and their shame be covered, even to the extent that they can see only through one eye? It is simply a tradition that Muhammad instituted for his wives, both out of impatience at undue interests in a new wife he desired to consummate his marriage with, and a concern at the vulnerability of his own many wives in public. These are the very last reasons, as to why a woman should give credence to or to justify these impositions upon their autonomy, of a requirement to cover themselves from head to toe.
The most eminent tafsirs (exegesis) writer, Ibn Kathir comments on this verse: Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the believing women -especially his wives and daughters, because of their position of honour -to draw their Jibes over their bodies, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the women of the Jahiliyyah and from slave women. The Jilbab is a Rida', worn over the Khimar. This was the view of Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ubaydah, Qatadah, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Sa'id bin Jubayr, Ibrahim An-Nakha'i, 'Ata' Al-Khurasani and others. It is like the Izar used today. Al-Jawhari said: "The Jilbab is the outer wrapper... 'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that Allah commanded the believing women, when they went out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from above their heads with the Jilbab, leaving only one eye showing. Muhammad bin Sirin said, "I asked 'Ubaydah As-Salmani about the Ayat: (to draw their Jalabib over their bodies.) He covered his face and head, with just his left eye showing.'' (That will be better that they should be known so as not to be annoyed) means, if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not servants or whores.
However the flip-side of this ruling is dire and violent: NOT wearing the hijab equates a woman under the Quran and under the Islamic laws to mere slaves or whores... They are thus considered as meat for abuse, or even rapes!!! When a violent rape of non-Muslim Australian girls by young Muslim men took place in 2007 in Australia, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women, who do not wear the Islamic headdress, with ‘meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats’[11]:
Addressing 500 worshippers on the topic of adultery, Sheik al-Hilali added: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it… whose fault is it -the cats or the uncovered meat?” "The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."
In outlining the sexual discriminations in even the Quranic provisions, these restrictions on the Muslim women's modesty, are far more detailed and severe than for Muslim men:
Men: “Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them; surely Allah is Aware of what they do” (Surah 24.30).
Women: “And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess [slaves], or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! So that you may be successful” (Surah 24.31).
Essentially Muslim women are regarded as sexually so provocative and sensual that, unless they are completely regulated they will either entice Muslim men into fornication or they will become helpless victims of male ardour! This is confirmed by the way a Muslim woman who is no longer sexually enticing is exempted:
“And (as for) women advanced in years who do not hope for a marriage, it is no sin for them if they put off their clothes without displaying their ornaments; and if they restrain themselves it is better for them; Allah is Hearing, Knowing” (Surah 24.60).
Thus the source of veiling and chaperoning is the idea that the Muslim men cannot control their sexual desires and that this is a Muslim woman’s fault for being ‘shameful enticing pudenda over her entire body’, so that even if it is covered entirely by an abaya with only their two eyes showing, the beauty of their eyes alone might seduce a Muslim man who is not their husband, brother, father, or uncle; essentially and centrally a defence of tribal honour, so that a Muslim woman should have to see only through one eye wherever she goes, outside the seclusion of the zenana, or women’s quarter in their homes...
Continued in Part 2
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by jenniffer , July 07, 2009
written by mhw , July 07, 2009
written by Chris Octon , July 07, 2009
written by Philip Saenz , July 07, 2009
The God of Love, the True God also gave women a clitoris, but Satan/Allah, the god of the Muslims tells the wicked Muslims to cut off a girl's clitoris. Now, do you see why I prove once again that Allah isn't the True God, the God of Love, the God of the Christians and Jews?
Chris Octon, I'm sorry that I have to correct you. Since paedophile, child abuser, child rapist, slave owner, wife beater, polygamist, adulterer, murderer Muhammad was all the above, we must not refer to him as a prophet but as a false prophet. Muhammad was the child of Satan/Allah, and working for Satan/Allah as a false prophet.
Muhammad was worse than the atheist Adolph Hitler, the atheist Benito Mussolini, the atheist Joseph Stalin, and the atheist Mao Tze Tung combined. In other words, false prophet Muhammad was extremely evil, and millions of people are still suffering because of him.
I especially feel sorry for the Muslim women who are stoned to death by the evil sadistic Muslims, and for little girls who are legally raped by scraggly old Muslim male sex perverts in backward Muslim Third World Countries. I can't understand why these wild Muslim beasts, who rape little girls, don't at least shave their ugly beards that are probably full of lice. These poor little girls probably have nightmares every night. No doubt it's a living hell for them, but can depraved Muslim male rapists show pity? There is no chance of that since these Muslim animals are sadists, and sadists enjoy hurting others.
P. S. WE MUST DESTROY ISLAM BEFORE ISLAM DESTROYS US.
written by The two-eyed weirdo! , July 07, 2009
What next mullahs? The poor women gotta wear a pirate's patch on the other eye?
written by Humanity , July 07, 2009
Any non-muslim telling islam is religion of peace is either moron or fooling others. Its the worst evil on earth.
Europe wake up, force your politicians to stop immediately any muslim immigration. Pay from your savings for forced muslim emmigration, otherwise your coming generation will have to bear the cruelty of Islam.
written by Kafirist , July 07, 2009
And the Quran is the literal word of God, too. How do I know? Because Mohammed said so.
What more proof do you need?
written by Jim SE Texas , July 07, 2009
written by Apostate... , July 07, 2009
About veiling, historically it was never an issue that faced opposition on religious and legal grounds until the modern times. Great scholars like Ibn Kathir says Islamic veiling (33:59) demands that face should be covered.
Let us consider the three translations of 33:39:
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
These translations say when out of homes, women must:
1) 'cast their outer garments over their persons'
2) 'draw their cloaks close round them'
3) 'they let down upon them their over-garments'
Here, only the third translation is a bit confusing: it is either asking for letting the veil come down from the head downward, or that it is asking them to throw it away---the latter can't be the case.
In the first case, Allah commanding Muslims to cast the veil over "their person", i.e. 'their body'. It seems for Mr. James, eyes, face etc. are not part of the body, but hands, legs, heads etc. are.
The second case is similar as the first case: women must draw the veil around them, i.e. their body, whatever are the part of it.
The most grotesque misreading, or twisting, of fact by Mr. James is the picture of travelling medieval female imam---who, he says, is travelling alone & "unveiled". That's what one may see in this picture only when one is blind.
In this picture the woman is inside a clock, something like a palankin, but drawn in a transparent way to make her visible from outside: she is in fact sitting inside a prison-like tent, totally invisible to passers-by.
We can obviously see she is not alone too. At least, two persons behind are escorting her---one of them is an unveiled woman, must be a slave-girl.
written by Philip Saenz , July 08, 2009
Jim SE Texas, I see you're a fellow Texan. It's good to have neighbors like you. You mention "rag." That's not any rag that Muslim women or young girls must wear on their heads lest their husbands or fathers murder them. It's a "Muslim rag."
written by vbv , July 08, 2009
written by Victorio , July 08, 2009
Theses book really describe a monster:
pedophile, slave owner, wife beater, polygamist, adulterer, murderer indeed, and your forget torturer and sexual pervert too. None of the big "messengers"
Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Confusius, Zarathustra etc have displayed such flaws of character.
1) What type of teaching can come from such individual ?
2) Given that poor Muslims are brain washed in thinking he was The perfect man and his life should be emulated - What type of behavior do we expect from Islamic countries toward us and Muslim immigrants ?
The problem is that the official medias and governments, for unknown reason, try to hide theses facts and keep us in total ignorance about the evil of this cult.
Just by revealing the true nature of the beast, which is easy just read the "holy" books, we could protect us.
Information is our best weapon and the mullahs know it
that is why they try to kill free speech. The sad truth is 90% of Muslims do not even know their own scriptures, if they knew a great deal of them would convert out of it
written by balam , July 08, 2009
written by TrueMuslim , July 08, 2009
The women should fear his husband, he can just say 'talak, talak , talak' game finished for women.
He can blame her for adultery and she can be stoned, thats why muslim women are in control and very few divorces (another benefit).
There is a legal provision of temporary marriages also (allah is so merciful), the poor girls can get some money and rich muslims can enjoy them. A beautiful women can earn a lot of money legally with temporary marriages. Mullahs are very good in that they keep a album of the beauties and help the rich guys in the temporary marriages. In Iran 3,00,000 mullahs help some 5 million girls to get a good employment and enjoyment in a very legal way.
All males accept Islam and enjoy the beauty of Islam.
written by i agree......i reverted back t , July 09, 2009
beside i actually married my wife and also her younger sister,and i enjoy threesome all the time,and they cant complain else they r out and new women r in.
i am a wealthy guy so can even afford mutta marriage.and i am not so old at age 40.
finally i will get the 72 virgins in jannat.
now which religion gives so much fun ????
jai ho !!!!!
written by Sam , July 09, 2009
- Lennard James
"It isthe psychological nature of man to lust more for things hidden.In remote jungles of South America and even in Africa ,Women walk about bare breasted without any inhibistion and fear of being raped."
- bahal
In my opinion, neither argument, from balam, Mr. James or from fanatical Muslims seeks really to win because of some blatant logical disparites. You are all wrong in either way and proof will follow after my dissecation.
First, you men wouldn't let your women go nude outside and neither let them practice their "free of will" rampantly. We all should agree that women MUST respect certain rules and value honor. Otherwise some people [http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/terror.html] will be disappointed.
It's also hard to dispute that women make themselves sex objects and use men as their personal tools (authors Esther Vilar, Van Creveld and Warren Farrell are an enlightening read). Just as fanatical Muslims are dangerous, we are at risk of the equally fanatical "cult of the vagina". Every year we men kill more buddies and commit suicide under women instigators due to adultery and women-led false accusations than jihad terrorrists. It's very true that "the vagina is the world's most powerful political weapon".
If women were instinctively puritane their vests wouldn't be a problem. But women tend to overcome men using sex and tactics against our fragile instincts, Arthur Schopenhauer argued. How many men do you know who had their lives ruined because of cruel and provocative sexy women? A lot I bet. The Muslim, in reality, are correct in proposing the hijab but its imposition is bad. Muslim men also suffer from a lot of heavy Shari'a impositions only for males and the authority power handed to them is easily converted into more responsabilities, albeit many of us aren't so quick and eager to answer.
To argue the contrary is like blowing out hot air in an embracement of moral relativism.
Ultimately, muslims are right in their dislike of the Ocident due to its pool of rampant depravity, promiscuity, abortions of holocaust proportions, and democracy for demagogy. And you are to a point correct in condeming their violation of the right to free will.
About the tribes that bahal mentioned above, men are educated from birth in order to not deify women and women are equally educated in order to do not provoke men with sexy attitudes. Dating is rigorously controlled and they generally carry severe punitions against transgressing men and women.
written by FinalSolution , July 09, 2009
Man and women are equal, why the hell women should suffer from men's erection. Plus the non-muslim world is having very low crime rate, while muslims have high rate.
In muslim society almost 50 % of population is unproductive.
written by Ithar , August 07, 2009
I'm a Muslim for almost 7 years and I'm from Argentina.
You know what? We cannot have a job because the people don't allow us to work with veil, now in some countries we cannot also study, so where is the so call democracy? We have a lot of right in Islam and the non Muslim are taken them.
Look, there is a lot of wrong information and for that make our religion been seen like extremist and many other things.
Don't ask to a non Muslim how is one Muslim.
If do you want to have a real information about Islam you can search for mi in facebook, my name is Ithar Ghada Faied.
Take care
written by Ithar , August 07, 2009
Think about this, if what you are saying is true, then why Islam is groin for every where?
Allah *God* is the same in the others religions, the only difference is that Muslims continue to practice the Qur'an as it is and not change anything.
In the bible says that women covering their hair, and if you do not it's better that she is bald.
Among Catholic nuns are the only covering her body, and that too is becoming a thing of the past as there are nuns who dress as if they were not, nor cover their hair.
Jesus said whoever is without sin, to throw the first stone. Who saved him from being killed in this way? From who saved her?
Female circumcision has existed since immemorial time, was practiced and still is practiced not only among Muslims but among Catholics and Jews.
Rapists, thieves, prostitutes, etc. exist everywhere, do not tell me that you are all saints, the difference between you and us is that we punish those who practice any type of crime.
Read what the Qur'an says, read what the biography of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and you will see that what you know is totally wrong.
Ugly beards?????????? so you are against the Prophets (all of them use the beard) and the Jew, who still practice this.
I see that everything you say is simple ignorance, if you should had a little knowledge you will never express in this way.
written by Ithar , August 07, 2009
Maybe a woman detained in a convent, and be deprived of having a family is very good.
Perhaps a woman is deprived of having a family to reach the top of her career is very good.
Perhaps, being completely drunk or drugged and raped is very good.
Perhaps, having several sexual partners with which to acquire AIDS is very good.
Maybe I'm a fool for thinking that if my husband gets a new wife to whom he can save from being unmarried, or who can help if is a widow to rebuild her live and especially to help if she has already children.
Maybe I'm a fool for not having to necessarily go out to work.
Maybe I'm a fool for being at home enjoying my children.
Perhaps I am a fool, because the way I dress, I earned the respect.
Perhaps I am a fool because people see me as a person and not as a sex object.
Maybe I'm an fool for enjoying the security of my home.
written by Ithar , August 07, 2009
Before the women veil, in the Qur'an say to the men to lower their gaze.
So people, first go and read, then you can talk.
You people are moving around like blinds.
There are many Islamic web pages from where you can learn.
I will live some of them here:
http://www.bakkah.net/
http://www.fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm
http://www.spubs.com/sps/
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/
http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/
http://www.islaam.ca/
http://www.salaf.com/
written by Kenmirzz , August 07, 2009
Secondly, in Islam, there is allowance to have sex with captive of wars, the female jariyya unlimitedly, this is denigratory to the status of women in general. It is irony that this female prisoner of wars do not require to be covered islamically at all, differentiating them from the normal free women. They can bare their head and hair to be seen and lusted by their masters. Please dont tell me that this is untrue or fitna against Islam. Check the Quran if you want to clarify my point. Suraa Al-Mu'minuun: Allaziinahum a'alaa furuujihim haafizun, illaa a'laa azwaajihim, awmaa malakat aymaanukum.....
and here the complementary hadith that do not contradict of this verse:
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150)
Ms Ithar, this is real Islam and get along with it if you have to, or break away from it if you have sane intellect. You are obviously living in a dreamland where all the sweet things of Islam being programmed into your mind, concealing the ugly thing that all Muslims should know.
Humanity is but one family.
written by Ithar , August 11, 2009
The Prophet Muhammad (sws) had a life without luxuries, his companions also did the same.
Why one woman who is not a Muslim are going to have to dress in Islamic way?
In that time everybody had slaves, and that was one of the reason for the Islamic veil, to separate the Muslim from the slaves, Christians, Jews and the pagans.
And don't forget that in all over the world the people have slaves and treated badly. Humiliated, abused, raped, tortured, and so on.
Especially in United States until recently there was slavery. How many atrocities the Yankees, practiced on the slaves?
I don't know about the ahadith what you show me, but for what I see is fabricated, they are many of them, I can see is fabricated for the reason that the woman what the people use to posses was single, and more over in Islam is not allow to see or show the people nudity, so, how the Companions are going to have sex in front of others? and more over in front of the husbands of that woman's? That Ahadith is a big lie.
Annemarie Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction: Slavery was not abolished by the Koran, but believers are constantly admonished to treat their slaves well. In case of illness a slave has to be looked after and well cared for. To manumit [free] a slave is higly meritorious; the slave can ransom himself by paying some of the money he has earned while conducting his own business. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam. The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of the women's quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions.
Roger Du Pasquier, Unveiling Islam: Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression. To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone. It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle.
It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.
There are many other hadiths which define Islam's true attitude in this regard. The Prophet said: 'Your slaves are your brethren; therefore whoever has a brother who depends upon him must feed and clothe him in the way he feeds and clothes himself; and should not impose upon him tasks which exceed his capacity; should you ask them to do such things, then you are obliged to help them.' The Sharia takes this injunction, among many others, into account when defining the responsibilities and duties of slaveholders.
There is another teaching which enjoins respect for the human dignity of slaves: 'Let none of you say, "This man, or this woman, is my slave". He must rather say: "This is my man, and this my woman."' Putting into relief the provisional character of social ties and the authority exercised by slaveowners over their slaves, the Prophet said: 'It is true that God has made you their masters, but, had He so wished, He could equally well have made you their slaves.'
To manumit a slave has always been regarded as one of the most meritorious of all acts, and many passages of the Qur'an recommend or even require it, particularly as a means of expiation for serious faults. Traditional legislation lays down the methods of voluntary liberation of slaves by their masters (itq), and there were very many Muslims who observed these, especially at the end of their lives, so as not to die and appear before God without having given full freedom to the human beings placed in their power during their earthly lives.
Additionally, slaves had the ability to enfranchise themselves at their own initiative, without waiting passively for the goodwill of their masters: the procedure known as mukataba allowed them to buy their own freedom with sums which they saved from their work, and which the state frequently augmented with advances -- a measure which the slaveowner had no right to oppose. In contrast to the situation under Roman law, slaves were not deprived of the legal ability to exercise their rights and to appeal to a judge against their masters in all cases of illegal treatment.
Besides domestic slavery, which was generally imbued with a patriarchal character, there also existed a form of military slavery, which was frequently employed by princes in need of recruits, especially for their personal guards. This situation had the effect of conferring an often considerable influence and power on men of servile condition or origin, and some of these became the founders of great and illustrious dynasties such as the Tulunids and Mamlukes of Egypt.
The object of a prosperous commercial sector, which under the Abbasid Empire was often the speciality of non-Muslims, particularly Byzantine and Venetian Christians, and Jews, slavery gradually declined in importance until, at the beginning of the present century, it was confined to a few survivals which have now disappeared entirely. Thanks to the strict traditional controls which have always regulated the practice, it would be difficult to deny that social conditions were remarkably humane during the great periods of Muslim civilization, and that these, moreover, were in conformity with the 'egalitarian' spirit of Islam, which, in a hadith, teaches that 'the blackest of Abyssinians' is superior to most noble of Quraishites, if he has more faith. p. 104 - 107
Ali A. Mazrui, 'Islamo-Fascism,' Western Hegemony and Cross-Cultural Violence: While Islam has been relatively resistant to racism, genocide, and the equivalent of the Inquisition, it has been more ambivalent about slavery. Muslims have both owned and traded in slaves across the centuries. But slavery among Muslims has been almost race-neutral. Slaves could be white, black, brown or other. So could masters. This is in contrast to the trans-Atlantic slave-system which was racially polarized: white masters-black slaves.
Second, slavery in Muslim history allowed for high upward social mobility. Both Muslim Egypt and Muslim India produced slave dynasties.
Howard Zinn, Declarations of Independence: The idea that entered Western consciousness several centuries ago, that black people are less than human, made possible the Atlantic slave trade, during which perhaps 40 million people died. -- p. 1
Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi, Slavery From Islamic and Christian Perspectives: Among all the religions it was only Islam that attacked the very foundations of this evil. -- preface
Sylviane A. Diouf, Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas: Author asserts that Islam was the first revealed religion followed by African slaves, and describes their struggle in upholding Islamic practices.
written by Yas , August 12, 2009
written by adam poorshed , August 14, 2009
Average persons are much more reasonable than intellectuals. They are practical adopting what is useful and discarding what is not. This is so regardless or religion or in spite of religion.
Therefore, it does not matter what a certain religion teaches or not. What matters is how people interpret it.
Muslim societies are forcefully prevented from the most important change in modern history: Industrialization.
As Muslim societies are left out to fend for themselves, deprived of capital (not cash) and industrial class, they find themselves controlled by feudal lords (presidents, kings...) with armies interested in plundering and preservation of power. This leaves societies to fend for themselves and protect themselves. This is at the heart of the problem. An industrial society based on Capital accumulation will free all society from the medieval status by turning every human into labor and every relation inot money-labor relation. This did not happen in Islamic societies. It did not happen in China until the West decided to invest thus turning china into the factory of the world. India, which until recently was a medieval society is sllowly transforming due to infusion of capital (not cash). The caste society in India, a medieval institute, is breaking down slowly but surely due to industrialization.
You are shedding a false light on muslims and Islam. It is not exclusively Muslims and the issue is not convincing, it is infrastructrue for modern society based on labor and capital. This does not exist. When it does, women will naturally be liberated. They may turn into commodities as in Western societies, but they will nontheless shed the veil.
written by Ithar , August 16, 2009
And, all the freedom has show to me how the people finish. suicide, drugs abuse, unlike pregnant, HIV, prostitution, homosexuals, etc., etc., etc..
We follow what the Qur'an say, because we are sure that is the message from God. You people don't believe in anything and try to liberate to who believe.
Why that?? nobody ask for your help. If do you want to help do it whit your people, you don't see what is happening in front of your nose??
Of course there are good Muslims and bad Muslim, but, that don't mean that the Islam is wrong, the Qur'an say many things what the people don't know before, specially 1430 year before.
Now the modern science come to discover many things, when there are already in the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
So, there is not doubt that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) got the message from God, and not was something what He create.
http://scienceislam.com/
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/Quran-Islam-and-Science/
http://www.islam-guide.com/
http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html
http://www.islamicity.com/science/
written by Ithar , August 20, 2009
Tell me that you never desire any woman. Tell me that the men in any country don't watch the women in the streets, office, etc...
written by Harssha , September 06, 2009
written by Kenmirzz , September 09, 2009
Why the hadith is a big lie? Because you said so? The early Muslims saw no problem with the action of the Companion having sex with female captive of wars because the practice was sanctioned by the prophet. Please stop foisting your own moral and idealism into their behavior and then when you found out that certain actions contradict your ideal, you dismiss the hadith as fabricated. Please dont sound apologetic in whitewashing Islam.
What about this one:
Ibn Aun has narrated: ?I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.? Bukhari 3.46.717 (see also Muslim 019. 4292)
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-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 interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who 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." [Sahih Bukhari. Book #59 Hadith #459]
Ms Ithar, I used to think the same way as you do. Unfortunately. the prophet was not saintly as you tried to picture him to be. The problem is that Muslims had concealed and buried this fact for 1400 years. Even you feel shocked what read the stories at first, am I right?
A person who have more than 10 wives plus a child bride name Aisha, cohabit with female slaves and instructed more than 75 wars expedition could never be a prophet Ms Ithar.
Humanity is but one family.
written by M Rob , October 15, 2009
