www.islam-watch.org

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Incest in Islam

E-mail Print PDF

Prophet Muhammad's incestuous marriage to his daughter-in-law Zaynab in well known. But not many people know that Quranic verses also leave scope for marriage with one's biological daughter and Shafii Islam, indeed, allows it...

 


 

(Caution: This essay may offend some readers)

Introduction

The Oxford Dictionary defines incest as sexual intercourse between near relations.

Elaborating on this Encyclopaedia Britannica (CD ROM version) writes:

Generally speaking, the closer the genetic relationship between two people, the stronger and more highly charged is the taboo prohibiting or discouraging sexual relations between them. Thus, sexual intercourse between a father and daughter, a mother and son, or a brother and sister is almost universally forbidden. Sexual relations between an uncle and niece or between an aunt and nephew are also generally taboo, and relations between first cousins are prohibited as well in some societies.

On the harmful effect of incestuous relation Encyclopaedia Britannica also writes:

Highly inbred populations have diminished reproductive success and become gene pools for hereditary disorders.

Incest in the Qur'an: Marriage between father and his biological daughter

Muslims will find it hard to believe that Allah in the Qur'an has violated the universal condemnation of incest. Let us read verse 4:23‑24 which lists the categories of women that a Muslim man may not marry.

004.023  (Yusuf Ali)
YUSUFALI: Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-
004.024
YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

One might think that verse 4:23 specifically prohibits a man from marrying (that is, to have sex) with his biological daughter. However, this may not be so. Hashim Kamali, one of the most eminent scholars of Islamic Jurisprudence and currently the Professor of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at International Islamic University Malaysia writes:

An example of the zanni in the Qur'an is the text which reads, ‘prohibited to you are your mothers and your daughters’ (al‑Nisa’ 4:23). The text is definitive in regard to the prohibition of marriage with one’s mother and daughter and there is no disagreement on this point. However, the word banatakum (‘your daughters’) could be taken for its literal meaning, which would be a female child born to a person either through marriage or through zina, or for its juridical meaning. In the latter sense ‘banatukum’ can only mean a legitimate daughter.

The jurists are in disagreement as to which of these meanings should be read into text. The Hanafis have upheld the first of the two meanings and have ruled on the prohibition of marriage to one’s illegitimate daughter, whereas the Shafis have upheld the second. According to this interpretation, marriage with one’s illegitimate daughter is not forbidden as the text only refers to a daughter through marriage. It would follow from this that the illegitimate daughter has no right to inheritance, and the rules of guardianship and custody would not apply to her. (Hashim Kamali, pp. 21‑23)

Note: The Qur'an scholars divide the Qur’anic verses into two classes: qati—definitive, no speculation and zanni—speculative. Even the eminent Sharia expert Professor Hashim Kamali admits that the Qur'an is ambiguous. (Hashim Kamali, p. 33.) 

This will be a bombshell to the Muslims. Hashim Kamali testifies that at least one sect of Islam (that is, Shafi) allows a Muslim man to marry his biological daughter and have sex with her if the daughter has been born illegitimate.

We may wonder how a Muslim man could have an illegitimate daughter since in Islam all sex out of marriage, except sex with one’s sex-slaves, is forbidden. Let us ponder on the following situations:

A Muslim unmarried man has sex with a Muslim unmarried woman.
The woman gives birth to a daughter. Because of their Zina, both of them receive one hundred lashes. The punishment over, they depart---going their own way, or they decide to marry, but the daughter remains illegitimate. When the daughter turns eight or ten the biological father marries his daughter.

This incestuous marriage is allowed by the Shafi rule, according to professor Kamali. If they are Hanafi or other sect the father may not marry the illegitimate daughter.

A Muslim unmarried man (of Shafii sect) has sex with a Kafir woman. She gives birth to a daughter. The father receives the Islamic lashing. The woman may go scot free depending on which Islamic country she resides, because in some Islamic countries non‑Muslims are exempt from Sharia laws. The illegitimate daughter lives with her mother. When the illegitimate daughter turns eight or more she becomes halal for her biological father. He marries his biological daughter.

A Muslim unmarried man commits adultery with a married Muslim woman. She becomes pregnant. As per Sharia law the man receives one hundred lashes and the woman is sentenced to be stoned to death. However, her stoning is postponed until she gives birth to her child and weans the baby of breastfeeding. This condemned woman gives birth to a daughter. At age two the baby girl is taken away from her mother. Then the mother is stoned to death. The hapless child may be sheltered in a foster home or even live with her biological father. When the daughter turns eight her biological father marries her.

Let us ponder on what might happen if a Hanafi unmarried man has illicit sex with a Shafi married woman

Presumably, Malaysia follows Shafi, Bangladesh follows Hanafi.

Malaysian married Muslim woman + Bangladesh unmarried man = Zina and adultery.

Malaysia's religious police catch them in action. Both of them receive Islamic punishment as per Shafi law. The woman may not receive stoning--as it is not enforced in Malaysia.

The woman gives birth to a girl--this is the illegitimate daughter to the man. Let us call her daughter A.

What about the woman? Will the daughter be illegitimate to the mother? As per Islamic rule, yes. Later, the woman's husband divorces her. She moves on, along with her illegitimate daughter.

The sex offender man marries the woman. May be, the wife gives birth to another daughter--this time legitimate. Call this daughter B.

Now, as per Islamic Law can we say A and B are sisters? Nope.

The entire family lives under one roof. When A, the illegitimate daughter, turns 8 or more, the biological father marries her.

He now has two wives--his sex partner wife + his own illegitimate daughter. That is, the man is simultaneously married to the mother and the daughter.

So, Islamically, he may have sex with his biological daughter and her mother—perfectly legal as per Shafi rule.

I am not sure if this incidence happened, say in Bangladesh or India or Pakistan, what would happen as these countries follow Hanafi Muslim laws.

We must remember when a Muslim lives in Malaysia whether he is a Malaysian citizen or not he must abide by the Islamic Sharia of Malaysia which is largely Shafi.

Sex between sons and their father’s concubines

Stepping further on verse 4:23‑24, it may even be Islamically possible for a son to have sexual intercourse with his father’s concubines or father’s sex partners. In this case the mother is not a biological mother, but still a mother, no matter what—just as step mother.

On the restrictions women who can be married as depicted in 4:23-24 Maulana Maududi  writes:

The word 'mother' applies to one's step-mother as well as to one's real mother. Hence the prohibition extends to both. This injunction also includes prohibition of the grandmother, both paternal and maternal. There is disagreement on whether a woman with whom a father has had an unlawful sexual relationship is prohibited to his son or not. There are some among the early authorities who do not believe in such prohibition. But there are others who go so far as to say that a woman whom a father has touched with sexual desire becomes prohibited to the son. (Maududi 4/34.)

Incestuous marriages among close blood relations

Here is another verse from the Qur'an that may suggest that incestuous marriages are permissible in Islam.

025.054
YUSUFALI: It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things).

Eminent tafsir writer Jalalyn writes:

And it is He who created human beings from water (sperm) and then gave them relations by blood and marriage—because men and women marry to seek progeny. Your Lord is All Powerful, possessing the power to do whatever He wills. (Tafsir Jalalyn, Tr. Aisha Bewley, p. 781).

Some scholars say this verse allows Muslim men to have sex with their daughters [incest]. See this video (Reader may find the video has been removed from the first link. When I tested I found the second link working.)

Marriage between father-in-law and wife of an adopted son

In the Arab society in which Muhammad lived the tradition of adoption was noble and sanctified. Their adopted sons were like their own biological sons and the wives of adopted sons were like their own daughter-in-laws. Zayd bin Haritha was Muhammad’s adopted son. Muhammad even got Zayd married to his (Muhammad’s) cousin sister Zaynab bt. Jahsh (Tabari, p. ix.134). But later, when Muhammad saw her beauty and sex appeal, he became passionate to have sex with her. In the Arab society this kind of marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, whether of adopted son or not, was considered incestuous. But Muhammad did not care. He sought Allah’s help, and Allah promptly sent down appropriate verses to let Muhammad satisfy his desire. Zaynab became Muhammad’s eighth wife. Accordingly, Allah also changed the adoption rule—He permitted Muslims to marry their adopted sons’ wives after they obtain divorce from their husbands (33:37). Even Tabari and Waqidi admit that Muhammad married his cousin sister Zaynab bt Jahsh out of last (Tabari, p. viii. xii). Here is what the eminent Islamic historian Tabari writes about this ‘incestous’ marriage of Muhammad.

Muhammad had uncontrolled fascination for Zaynab bt. Jahsh

The Messenger of God came to the house of Zayd b. Harithah. (Zayd was always called Zayd b. Muhammad.) Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that moment, so as to ask, “Where is Zayd?” He came to his residence to look for him but did not find him. Zaynab bt. Jahsh, Zayd’s wife, rose to look for him but did not find him. Because she was dressed only in a shift, the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said: “He is not here, Messenger of God. Come in, you are as dear to me as my father and mother!” The Messenger of God refused to enter. Zaynab had dressed in haste where she was told “the Messenger of God is at the door.” She jumped up in haste and excited the admiration of the Messenger of God, so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly: “Glory be to God the Almighty! Glory be to God, who causes hearts to turn!” (Tabari, p. viii.2)

While the Messenger of God was talking with A’ishah, a fainting overcame him. When he was released from it, he smiled and said, “Who will go to Zaynab to tell her the good news, saying that God has married her to me?” Then the Messenger of God recited: “And when you said unto him on whom God has conferred favour and you have conferred favour, “Keep your wife to yourself…” (33:37)—and the entire passage. (ibid, p. viii.3)

In‑breeding: Cousin Marriages

In Islam cousin marriage is quite popular and widely acceptable. Cousin marriages, especially among first cousins, are a potentially harmful practice because the children born out of such marriages suffer from many genetic disorders. A comprehensive article about this debilitating practice among Muslims can be read here: Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society

Let us find out why Muslims are more likely to indulge in first cousin marriage than other communities.

033.050
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This verse unabashedly permitted Muhammad to have sex with his first cousin sisters even without marrying them. Why Allah permitted Muhammad to indulge in such a reckless incestuous relationship? For the answer, we need to know the context of this verse. A hadis in Tirmidhi (print version) tells us this:

Muhammad proposed Umm Hani, his cousin sister, to marry him. She declined. So Allah revealed that Muhammad could have sex with his cousin sisters who had migrated to Medina without marrying them (33:50). Umm Hani said though she was Muhammad's cousin sister, Muhammad could not have sex with her as she did not migrate to Medina. She only embraced Islam after Muhammad had conquered Mecca. (Daif)…(Tirmidhi 5.3214)

Here is the complete Hadis:

Tirmidhi, vol. 5, Hadis 3214, p. 522
Umm Hani bint Abu Talib said: “The Messenger of Allah proposed to me, but I asked him to excuse me, so he did excuse me. Then Allah [Most High] revealed: “Verily We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their due, and those whom your right hands possess—whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles, and the daughters paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles, and the daughters of your maternal aunts, who migrated with you, and a believing woman, if she offers herself to the Prophet… (33:50). She said: “So I was not lawful for him because I did not perform Hijrah; I was one of the Tulaqa.(Daif)

[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan [Sahih] we do not know of it except from this route as a narration of As‑Suddi

[In a footnote the translator describes the Tulaqa are those who accepted Islam after the conquest of Makkah.]

The readers should note that Abu ‘Eisa is Imam Tirmidhi’s kunya (that is, father of ‘Eisa). According to Imam Tirmidhi this Hadis is Hasan, meaning it is a reliable Hadis.

Umm Hani was the daughter of Abu Taleb, Muhammad’s uncle. AbuTaleb brought up Muhammad in his home. Muhammad fell deeply in love with Umm Hani, but was greatly aggrieved when he asked to marry her but Abu Taleb refused. This meant Abu Taleb, a Meccan pagan, did not like first cousin marriage. But, as demonstrated in the above verse, Allah found a way to satisfy Muhammad’s desire to have sex with his old flame.

The truth was: although Allah said in the verse that those of Muhammad’s first cousin sisters who had migrated with him to Medina were eligible to have sex with him, Muhammad never followed Allah’s instruction. The great Islamic scholar Maulana Maududi writes:

The ladies from among his first cousins, who emigrated along with him. The words "who emigrated with you" do not mean that they accompanied the Holy Prophet in his migration journey but this that they also had migrated in the way of Allah for the sake of Islam. The Holy Prophet was given the choice to marry any one of them he liked. Accordingly, in A.H. 7 he married Hadrat Umm Habibah. (Incidentally, in this verse it has been elucidated that the daughters of one's paternal and maternal uncles and aunts are lawful for a Muslim. In this regard the Islamic Law is different both from the Christian Law and from the Jewish Law. Among the Christians one cannot marry a woman whose line of descent joins one's own anywhere in the last seven generations, and among the Jews it is permissible even to marry one's real niece, i.e. daughter of one's brother or sister. (Maududi 33/87.)

To justify the marriage between first cousins among Muslims, Maulana Maududi cites irrelevant matters of the Jews and the Christians. While currently, the first cousin marriage among the Jews and the Christians is indeed rare, the same may not be true for the Muslims as the statistics from the above article demonstrates.

In fact, Dr. Mahathir the former Prime Minister of Malaysia was so concerned about the first cousin marriages among the Muslims in Malaysia that he wrote a book, The Malay Dilemma. In this book Dr Mahathir postulated that one of the main reasons for the absolute backwardness of Malays is due to their practice of in‑breeding. He was a medical professional. He wrote that because of in‑breeding the Malays have a very limited genetic pool.

Here are a few excerpts from Dr Mahathir’s book The Malay Dilemma.

Generally speaking, modern ideas on the evolution of man are not acceptable to Muslims and therefore to Malays. But even Malays admit that certain characteristics are passed from parents to offspring. “Bapak borek,  anak beritek” is a well‑known Malay saying which means “A spotted father begets a speckled son.” The meaning is obvious. If this is so for an individual then hereditary influence must play a role in the development of a collection of individuals which constitutes a race. What is not generally known by the Malays is the effect of in‑breeding.

In this book I have explained how the laws of genetics, which govern the transmission of hereditary characteristics, are affected adversely by in‑breeding and other marriage practices.

There has been a lot of scientific thinking on the subject of in‑breeding and the effect on human society. Cyril Dean Darlington, a British geneticist, in his book, The Evolution of Man and Society, takes the extreme view that the evolution of human society is the product of genes. According to him, civilizations flourish and decay in obedience to genetic decrees. He pointed out that once a ruling class fixed itself in power, it sought to conserve that power by in‑breeding, thus denying the infusion of fresh stock. It was this habit, according to Darligton, that expedited the decline of the Pharaohs, the Ptolemies and the Caesars.

This interesting hypothesis is perhaps too extreme to be generally accepted even by non‑Muslims. In any case, Darligton was referring mainly to incest, a practice which is unknown among the Malays. However, the modern definition of in‑breeding includes marriages between first cousins and other close relatives, a practice fairly common among the Malays. Hereditary influence also produces an adverse effect in a society which, abhorring celibacy, insists that everyone, fit or unfit, should marry. Thus, the deformed in mind and body are somehow paired off and reproduce.

While it must be admitted that inbreeding is not general among the Malays, what cannot be denied is that the instances of in‑breeding are greater among them than among the other major races in Malaysia—the Chinese. In fact Chinese marriage customs specifically prevents in‑breeding. And so it is correct to say that in‑breeding together with forced marriages of the unfit produce a much greater percentage of human failures among Malays as compared with other races.

This explanation is offered in mitigation and defence of my views. Nevertheless it is not expected that they will be easily accepted. The implications are too depressing and hold no promise of easy or rapid remedies. (Dr Mahathir Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, p. 1, 2.)

Mendel’s law states that offspring are not intermediate in type between the two parents, but that the type of one or the other is predominant according to a fixed law. The importance of this law lies in its rejection of the popular concept that offspring must be a dilution of the opposing characters of the parents.

Mendels’s Law is best illustrated by experiments in breeding white and brown mice. Provided that a sufficiently large series of experiments is carried out, the mating of white and brown mice will produce not spotted or brownish white mice but white mice predominantly. But if this (sic) first generation of white mice are mated among themselves, the offspring are not all white but a mixture of pure white and pure brown in the proportion of three whites to one brown. The point this illustrates is that white is a dominant characteristic which shows up in the first generation. However, even though the first generation appears pure white, it has a hidden brown factor which is transmissible to the next generation. But this brown factor is weak as shown by the fact that only one in four of the second generation is brown in colour. (Dr Mahathir Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, p. 17)

A dominant characteristic tends to cancel a recessive characteristic, and it is clear that if the parents have different sets of dominant characteristics, then the offspring will have a combination of all the dominant characteristics of the parents. It follows therefore that the best offspring are those resulting from parents with different good dominant characteristics. Thus since close relatives tend to resemble each other and the chances of carrying similar recessive characteristics are greater, marriage between such relatives will not produce the best offspring. On the other hand, as unrelated people have more differences in characteristic, a marriage between such people would tend to produce ideal offspring with good dominant characteristics of both parents, while the recessive characteristics are cancelled. (Dr Mahathir Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, p. 18‑19)

Predictably, after the first publication of The Malay Dilemma, the Malaysian Government banned it, and Dr Mahathir was expelled from the Malaysia’s most dominant Muslim party UMNO (United Malays National Organisation). Malaysian Law stipulates that all Malays are, by definition, Muslims. A few years later, Dr Mahathir was again admitted into UMNO, and he finally became the UMNO president, but his book The Malay Dilemma remained proscribed. Only after Dr Mahathir became the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the ban on this controversial book was lifted, and republished in 1981.

Admittedly, Dr Mahathir is very knowledgeable in genetics and his courage to tell the truth is admirable.

But Dr Mahathir did not have the supreme intrepidity to blame the genetic root of Malay backwardness to Islam—more precisely that the Malays, being deeply Islamic religious, are simply following Islamic rules on first cousin marriage and emulating their prophet, Muhammad. Dr Mahathir was too fearful to be seen as anti‑islam. He blamed the Malays for their proclivity towards in‑breeding and not Islam. It was too dangerous for him to do so.

Conclusion: Like it or not, Incest in Islam is alive and kicking well as can be illustrated from several verses of the Qur'an. The various interpretations, often contradictory, just prove that these words could not be from Allah. Allah cannot be so dim-witted not to know what is best for His Ummah. All‑knowing, almighty Allah cannot be so careless that He would leave His words in such a manner that what one group of Muslims means to be halal may be death to another group of Muslims. The topic of incest in Islam is such a dangerous game. It also possible that the inherent backward of the Muslim in general might be rooted in their limited genetic pool because of incestuous marriage practiced in many Islamic nation.


 

Bibliography:

  • al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir, The Victory of Islam, vol. viii. Translated by Michael Fishbein. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1997. ISBN 0‑7914‑3150-9
  • al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir. The Last Years of the Prophet, vol. ix. Translated by Ismail K. Poonwala. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990. ISBN 0-88706-692-5.
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite CD ROM version.
  • Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At‑Tirmidhi, Jami’ At‑Tirmidhi (vol. 1-6), Tr. Abu Khaliyl, Final review by Islamic Research Section Darussalam, Darussalam, P.O. Box 22743, Riyadh 11416, Saudi Arabia, First Ed. November 2007.
  • Jalalu’d-Din Al‑Mahali and Jalal’ud‑Din As‑Suyuti. Tafsir Al‑Jalalyn, translated in English by Aisha Bewley. Dar Al‑Taqwa Ltd. 7A Melcombe Street, Baker Street, London NW1 6AE, 2007. ISBN: 1‑870582‑61‑6
  • Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. PRINCIPLES OF Islamic JURISPRUDENCE.First published by the Islamic Text Society of Cambridge, U. K.1991. Second Revised Edition, sixth printing, 2009. ILMIAH PUBLISHERS SDN. BHD. Regalia Business Centre, no. 33, Jalan USJ 1/1C, USJ 1, 47620 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
  • Mohamad, Mahathir Dr. The Malay Dilemma. FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS SDN BHD. 8238 Jalan 222, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 1981. First published 1970.
  • The three translations of the Qur’an: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html

--------------

Abul Kasem writes from Sydney. Send your comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments (143)Add Comment
0
Mr. Abul Kasim.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 01, 2010
Abul you begin your article as “Prophet Muhammad's incestuous marriage to his daughter-in-law Zaynab in well known. But not many people do not know that Quranic verses also leaves scope for marriage with one's biological daughter and Shafii Islam, indeed, allows it”.

I have to make a minor observation that Zainab, or whatever name she had, was not daughter in law of Muhammad. Her husband Zaid was not son of Muhammad. The marriage was not incestuous by any definition.

Also “But not many people do not know that Quranic verses also leaves scope for marriage with one's biological daughter”.

You are just being humble in saying ‘not many people do not know’. Actually nobody knows any such verses in Quran.

There seems a printing mistake which calls for correction from you.
0
...
written by Ibn Kammuna , December 01, 2010
Reed Wilson,
Zainab Bint Jahsh was a close blood relative of Muhammad, not just his adopted son's wife. I am amazed that you do not feel ashamed of following an evil person like Muhammad.

Peace

0
I dare Reedie to follow this link -
written by Tanstaafl jw , December 01, 2010
http://consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalence

Sort of sums up what Abul Kasim has written in a visual form.
0
Tanstaafl jaw
written by Reed Wilson. , December 01, 2010
To Tanstaafl jw. Please tell me why you want me to read:
http://consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalence

0
Ibn Kammuna.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 01, 2010
Ibn Kammuna. You write "Reed Wilson,
Zainab Bint Jahsh was a close blood relative of Muhammad, not just his adopted son's wife. I am amazed that you do not feel ashamed of following an evil person like Muhammad".

I will say "No she was not". What is your proof? Ibn Kathir who in the end writes "Only Allah has the correct knowledge"? Do you have their family tree? Her DNA?

I should only be ashamed of my deeds. I am not responsible and questioned for what Abraham Moses Jesus etc did.

53:39 "That mankind will only have what he has earned".

Peace
0
Ms
written by spicedchilijam , December 01, 2010
it is sad that highly inteligent and articlate people can be so badly self-decieving. A new trend in moslem mind is to deny their own history whenever actions and sayings of the man they have been brought up to consider "the model for all humanity for all the time" falls short of the most basic of human decency. denying Tabari, Ibn hesham ,etc. has become the answer of choice amongst the "enlightend" moslim, begging the questio: then where the devil all the so called history of islam is supposed to come from ?
rather than facing the truth of the shamefull life of an all round despicable creature of lust and wantom murder, to say nothing of his incestous behaviour with his daughter fatima and other close family members as well as rape and violation of unaccounted others, nor of his counless lies or his trading in slaves, they chose to ignore it all by denying their very own history. On this last point I came across a an almost rabid black moslim in New York a couple of years ago who was proclaiming his faith by insisting that islam is agaist slavery!. Self delusion has no depth, keep on decieving yourselves, moslims.
Abul Kasem
Reed Wilson
written by Abul Kasem , December 01, 2010
Thanks. I have requested the IW editor to correct the caption.

I did not write the caption.
0
Reed Wilson is lying yet again
written by Guy Macher , December 01, 2010
Mohamed claimed that an adopted son is the same as a natural son. Since Mohamed was a poor sire (thank the Lord Jesus!) he had to adopt a son. Mohamed lusted for Zainab and ordered up a nice little verse allowing Mo to escape his own rule. Reed Wilson knows this and thus is lying when he claims no incest was committed.

Imam Tabari wrote (History of Tabari, vol 8):

"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zaid (Mohammed's adopted son). Now there was a covering of hair cloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet".

The admiration was noticed by Zainab. She mentioned it to her husband Zaid later. He rushed to his father's house and offered Zainab to him. Mohammed worried about possible bad press and refused to accept it. But Allah will not take no for an answer and sent an instant revelation insisting on their union. [Very convenient!]

Koran 33:37 We gave her (Zaid's wife) unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons".

Muslims follow the example of a pervert and psychopath.
0
To Reed Wilson
written by Archpagan , December 01, 2010
You wrote- 'I will say "No she was not". What is your proof? Ibn Kathir who in the end writes "Only Allah has the correct knowledge"? Do you have their family tree? Her DNA?'
Do you have any scientific proof that Allah really sent down a message to Muhammad?
0
The consequences of in-breeding
written by skipper , December 02, 2010
Has this article been referenced yet?

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3910:muslim-inbreeding-impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society&catid=294:social-practices-interactions&Itemid=6

Dr Mahathir had known it a long time ago. Now we know why they are dumbasses.
0
Preventable conditions
written by duh_swami , December 02, 2010
Rapid breeding, incest or otherwise, leads to a weakening of the whole...In the Ummah this is expressed by increasing hemophilia, and other blood conditions, increasing mental retardation and a general weakening of the immune systems, allowing for more diseases like TB and leprosy...The bigger Islam gets, the weaker and sicker it gets...I just listed a few conditions, the possibilities are endless...Combine that with women who have to stay indoors most of the time and wear complete covering, are subject to addition problems due to vitamin D deficiency, and you have a sick ummah...
0
Mr. Abul Kasim
written by Reed Wilson. , December 02, 2010
We cannot insist that the woman, who was divorced by Zaid, was daughter in law of Muhammad. There is no evidence of her being Muhammad’s first cousin.
Even in the fabricated ahadith we don’t find any Jahsh in the clan of Muhammad. He was not son of any uncle of Muhammad and there is no reported sister of Abdulla reported father of Muhammad.
The logic behind asking Muhammad to marry her is given in Quran. Quran declared that Muhammad was not father of any male and instructs that only biological father is to be called father.

There is no need of interpretation of 4:23-24. Quran does not permit interpretations of Quran. Quran is not revealed for interpreters and is not interpreter dependent. Every individual should think over Quran and practice according to his understanding sincerely. God is aware of their limitations and intentions. I know Hashim Kamali. He is not popular among informed people.

I appreciate you have given sources for your reports like research writings whereas your sources have not bothered to give their sources. Tabri, Hisham, Ishaq and Syuti are not contemporaries of Muhammad. I will discuss their authenticity in my forthcoming posts.



0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 02, 2010
Archpagan. You are asking "Do you have any scientific proof that Allah really sent down a message to Muhammad?

I will try to do that for you. Please tell me your concept of 'scientific proof' in such cases. What will you do with the proof?
Are you a truth seeker?
0
To Reed Wilson
written by Archpagan , December 02, 2010
I want something as concrete as DNA. I am trying something for you. As per scientific evaluation Muhammad was either a fraud or a schizophrenic with some hallucination. You prove otherwise. A Palestinian apostate has already jotted down the New Koran which has been published in this site. You prove he is not a prophet. Even both you and me have the same title to prophet-hood as Muhammad.
0
to Reedie -
written by Tanstaafl jw , December 02, 2010
It is a map of the world showing how prevalent consanguinity is - country by country. Guess which countries lead the pack? Is that why you are afraid to look? Is it possible that Islam does allow incest? Oh, no!
0
More help for Reedie
written by Tanstaafl jw , December 02, 2010
Don't look at this site -

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3910:muslim-inbreeding-impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society&catid=294:social-practices-interactions&Itemid=6

Allah and Mohammed do not like knowledge.
0
Consanguinity
written by Amboyduke , December 02, 2010
In certain British cities the sad results of incestuous "marriage" is rampant. Mental retardation, weakened immune systems, and a myriad of other birth defects is the norm. It is in Mooslim communitees where this crap is happening.
Britain, years ago, has allowed these immigrants in expecting them to "assimilate" into British society, but due to some crazy edict from their religious leaders, they are instructed to stick together and not allow themselves to intermarry with the non Mooslims.
That's why half the time they have one eye looking for dew worms and the other eye looking up at Orion.
They are truly crazier than shit house ra.
Abul Kasem
Reed Wilson
written by Abul Kasem , December 02, 2010
O.K. If Hashim Kamaili, the professor of Islamic Jurisprudence, ibn Kathis, Tabari...do not know Islam, tell us who knows Islam best?
0
Reed Wilson
written by Rationalist , December 03, 2010
Reed, why did Muhammad adopt Zyed as his son? Muhammad even arranged for the marriage between Zyed and Zainab. An adopted son is equivalent to one's own son. Right? It means Zainab was lawfully his daughter-in-law.

Muhammad's lust for Zainab was the reason why Zyed had to divorce Zainab. Use all logic in the world. Tell me why Muhammad adopt Zyed as his son? After marrying Zainab, did Muhammad give up his relationship with Zyed? yes/no?

Logical conclusion is that Muhammad was a monster when it came to carnal desires. He didn't differentiate between sex-slave, daughter-in-law, and child.

Before you use your skewed logic in support of Muhammad, here is a situation for you. Assume you visit your friend's son's place. I presume you are of Asian culture. You treat your friend's son's daughter as a kind of daughter. Would you marry her? It is certainly not possible in our Indian culture. If you say yes then I would say that is dog's culture.
0
Daughter in Law.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 03, 2010
Mr. Abul Kasim. Your question “O.K. If Hashim Kamaili, the professor of Islamic Jurisprudence, ibn Kathis, Tabari...do not know Islam, tell us who knows Islam best?

They all might know Islam. My point was not this. Was the woman divorced by Zaid Muhammad’s daughter in law?

The logic behind asking Muhammad to marry her is given in Quran. Quran declared that Muhammad was not father of any male and instructs that only biological father is to be called father.

Tabari is a historian. As he was not contemporary of Muhamad he needed reliable sources about any such discourse. He tells me that he learned from Ibn Hesham. Ibn Hesham says that he learnt from the works of Ibn Ishaq. And we know that there was no work Ibn Ishaq available to him. This can be verified that there was no published work of Ibn Ishaq.

I am sorry for not being clearer in the first instance.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 03, 2010
Rationalist. "You write “Reed, why did Muhammad adopt Zyed as his son? Muhammad even arranged for the marriage between Zyed and Zainab.

How do I know? I even dont know that he arranged the marriage.

You write “An adopted son is equivalent to one's own son. Right? It means Zainab was lawfully his daughter-in-law”.

Does she remain daughter in Law after her divorce? See my post above.

0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 03, 2010
Archpagan. You write "I want something as concrete as DNA". A concrete scientific proof that Allah really sent down a message to Muhammad?

Do you want me to match DNA of Quran and of Allah and of Muhammad? Do you need such proofs for faiths?

Here Allah says that he revealed Quran on Muhmmad to dissiminate tp people. Muhammad says he received the message and conveyed to people.

I have received the message as people.
0
Reed
written by Tanstaafl jw , December 03, 2010
Does Islam allow incest? Stick to the subject. After the evidence I have presented, at the best you can say that Islam tolerates incest and does NOTHING to prevent it. It is the doom of any insular society to fall from a lack of genetic diversity. Maybe if Sharia allowed muslimahs to marry outside of their faith......................but then how would Muslim "men" mate with nice infidel men competing for "their" women? What to do? What to do?
0
Achievements of Islam
written by The Great Buana , December 03, 2010
Highest rates of genetical disorders because of inbreeding, lowest IQ rates, very low education standards, low productivity, low employment, very high rates of diabetes and many related deseases because of muslim ignorance and habits, that do not allow sports for women and many more to tell. Why is fast food halal as well as chocolate while squid or other molluscs and crabs, scampies, lobsters and the like are haram? Obesity has become a major problem in rich arab countries because Islam has no answer to it. Veiled women do not care about it and the opportunities for sports are very limited. Thus, many of the muslim traditions are not good at al for the people.
0
Our Islamic Future
written by Anti Clot , December 03, 2010
Planet of Apes
0
Tanstaafl jw.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 03, 2010
Tanstaafl jw. After reading the erudite article the question remain unanswered for you. You are asking "Does Islam allow incest? Stick to the subject".

Please/kindly read the article carefully and ask questions on basis of the article. Ask where you are not convinced.
0
Why?
written by The Great Buana , December 04, 2010
Why does the quran suggests that inbreeding is halal (okay)? Combined with the practice of mahr (the gift to the bride from the groom) Allah seems to invite his followers to inbreeding which means that he is inviting them to produce children who are much more likely affected by genetical deseases, mental retardation, early deaths, illnesses and so forth. Why should a merciful god do this? In fact sexual reproduction is useful to achieve higher variation and thus, more opportunities for the development of a species. However, islam contradicts the laws of nature by sticking to inbreeding which is much more like an unsexual reproduction or the way of more primitive creatures.
0
All we need is a little jihad
written by duh_swami , December 04, 2010
Most religions consist of two basic parts, a philosophy, and things to do...The power generated by a religion, if it generates any, does not come from the philosophy but the 'doing' of the things to do...In Christianity, the things to do may include, prayer, and ritual, including ritual drama and symbolism, like Eucharist, the swinging of the incense censor, consecrated wafers etc. Rosary, charity to those in need, ministry to those who are ill...The Hindu types have similar doings, they pray, they have dramatic rituals, and celebrations, they do the beads, japa with a mala, many are charitable and minister to the sick...
Their philosophies are different, but their doings are similar...
With Islam, the philosophies are way different, but many of it's doings are similar, except for one glaring difference...Jihad...Hindu's, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Satanists, and Wiccans, have no jihad...Only Islam has jihad, and I don't mean inner struggle...The main purpose of jihad is to remove obstacles from the spread of Islam...Those religions that have no jihad are targets because they are kufr, non or dis-believers, and they are in the way...
Jihad has a motto...'First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people'...
In actuality, jihad is attacking the whole weekend at the same time, and will soon attack Monday, then Tuesdays people, etc, until they capture the whole week for Allah...If these other religions and countries don't want to get run over by rampaging Islam, they need to get a little jihad themselves...It fine to swing the incense censor and eat wafers, but that won't disarm a pious Muslim with a sword or a bomb...



0
Re: Reed
written by Rationalist , December 05, 2010
How do I know? I even dont know that he arranged the marriage.
=========
What makes you think that the hadith and biography (Ibn Ishaq) that describe the Zainab-Mohammed-Zyed story is wrong? Just at the drop of a hat countless fatwas are issued by your islamic mullahs. When so many muslims have followed ahadith for centuries together, why should stories that look sour be discarded? If we go by your logic then you might cast doubt on the existence of Aisha and Khadijah as Quran does not mention their names.


You write “An adopted son is equivalent to one's own son. Right? It means Zainab was lawfully his daughter-in-law”. Does she remain daughter in Law after her divorce? See my post above.
============
Holy $hit. Your prophet was a sex-maniac. Why the hell he adopted Zaid in the first place? Why couldn't your Allah forewarn Mohemmed about the impending danger before the adoption? Once a person is adopted as son, he will remain so. These etiquette do not come in the realm of Islam because every Muslim (including you) are bent on saving your prophet from his true whorish image. The underlying story is simple: he lusted Zainab. Hence he had to get rid of Zaid. Because of this incident all muhammadans are forbid from adopting children.

OK Ok tell me why Muhammad tell in the Quran that his cousins from maternal and paternal side are lawful for him in marriage? Didn't Allah know it leads to genetic disorders? I really want an answer from you on this.
0
Quran 33.50
written by Rationalist , December 05, 2010
Reed, the last part of my question is in relation to 33.50: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Question 1) Why it is lawful only for Muhammad and why not for other believers?
2) What about the genetic disorders as a result of such marriages? Even if you say there is no proof in "quran" to prove that Muhammed had indeed married his cousins, why did Allah reveal a scientifically-incorrect verse?

Looking forward to your answers

Rationalist

0
Rationalist,
written by Reed Wilson. , December 05, 2010
According to Bible incest can be defined as Sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry legally, the "near of kin" (Lev. 18:6). These include: parents (18:7); stepmother (18:8); sister (18:9); granddaughter (18:10); aunt (18:12-14); daughter-in-law (18:15); sister-in-law (18:16); stepdaughter and step-granddaughter (18:17); and wife's sister during the former's lifetime (18:18). The above list is complete and does not include any other relations.

0
Contd.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 05, 2010
In terms of verse 33:50 various relations are made lawful for the messenger. Marrying with women of those is not forbidden in Bible also. Permission is neither an order, nor a suggestion to marry.
0
Reed: common man
written by Rationalist , December 05, 2010
Reed,if you think Mohemmed's sexapade with Zainab was not incest, fair enough. There is no need to bring in Bible here. However, you haven't answered my questions yet.

1. Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders. When Allah revealed 33.50 to Muhammed, didn't he think twice about genetics?
2. Why only Muhammad can marry daughters of his paternal and maternal uncles and aunts, and why not his followers (including you)?

Is aya 33.50 scientifically correct? yes/no? If you say yes then I am afraid I am discussing this issue with a dullard. If you say no, then Allah is wrong and so is Quran. so Mohemmed was a fake.

Looking forward to ur reply
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 05, 2010
Rationalist. You write "1. Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders. When Allah revealed 33.50 to Muhammed, didn't he think twice about genetics?

I have posted my answer. He didnt marry his close relation. In the meantime please difine close relative.

Marrying is not sexapade.
0
Quran 33.50: Reed
written by Rationalist , December 05, 2010
Reed, whether Muhammed married his close relatives or not is NOT important here. What Allah says in 33.50 is EXTREMELY important. Allah is permitting Muhammad to marry daughters of his paternal and maternal uncles and aunts. Aren't they blood relatives? Now stick to the question and say whether Allah is approving of Muhammad's marriage with close relatives? To simplify

(1) Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his father's sister's daughter (paternal aunt's daughter)
(2) Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his mother's sister's daughter (maternal aunt's daughter)
(3) Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his father's brother's daughter (paternal uncle's daughter)
(4) Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his mother's brother's daughter (maternal uncle's daughter)

The above are blood relationship, and marriage with such relations causes genetic disorders in off-spring. OK why this is only reserved for Muhemmed and not for his followers?

Rationalist

ps- you are playing al-taqiyya by stating that the moderator has to review your post. If it didn't contain any offensive material or it is not too lengthy, then it would appear instantaneously. You are unable to answer my questions. as simple as that!
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 05, 2010
Rationalist. Your charges and their replies:

(1)Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his father's sister's daughter (paternal aunt's daughter)
His father has no known sister
(2)Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his mother's sister's daughter (maternal aunt's daughter)
His mother had no sister
(3)Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his father's brother's daughter (paternal uncle's daughter)
Is that close relation. I asked the definition of close relatives.
(4)Allah grants permission to Muhemmed to marry his mother's brother's daughter (maternal uncle's daughter)
There was no brother of her mother in history.

"If it didn't contain any offensive material or it is not too lengthy, then it would appear instantaneously".

No. It is not the policy whcih is declared.

0
Reed
written by Rationalist , December 06, 2010
Common Reed, don't be silly in your reply. I just gave you examples of what might constitute a blood relationship. Hadith and biography describe Zainab as his cousin (you cannot deny this unless you have an irrefutable evidence). Even if other blood relatives did not exist, what was the need for Allah to reveal such scientifically-crappy verse? If he didn't have female blood relatives, Allah should have shut his stinking mouth. Why is he giving such priority only for Muhammed and not for other believers. Answer this question first.
0
Here is the proof
written by Rajiv , December 06, 2010
Hello everyone,
Instead of talking what Islam says here is what Islam does -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imrana_rape_case
The above link will take you to the famous Imrana rape case from India.
A women was raped by his father-in-law. Instead of arresting him the Islamic clerics(idiots) declared that her husband is now her son as she had sex with her father-in-law.
Please read the full article it is authentic, from Wikipedia. To know more go to the reference links.
http://themmindset.wordpress.com
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 06, 2010
Rationalist. Do you still believe that " you are playing al-taqiyya by stating that the moderator has to review your post" and that I was lying?

I dont have a proof and you dont rely my words.
0
Reed Wilson
written by Rationalist , December 06, 2010
Mr. Wilson, now don't divert the topic. Here are the questions. Take time to answer them sincerely.

Even if other blood relatives, as you believe, did not exist, what was the need for Allah to reveal such scientifically-crappy verse? If he didn't have female blood relatives, Allah should have shut his stinking mouth. Why is Allah giving such priority only for Muhammed and not for other believers?

Answer this question first.
0
The Truth
written by Ruth , December 07, 2010
A pervert.....pedophile.....predator......and a [prophet FALSE ONE AT THAT]. The full character of Mohammed.
0
...
written by Ruth , December 07, 2010
Does his life blossom into one of holiness and righteousness????? Only murder, envy,
suppression, dictatorship, evil doings. What a personality. Deceitful, deceiving under
the disguise of god, purporting to be true.
0
Reed where are you?
written by Rationalist , December 08, 2010
Reed, see my comments above. Are you finding it difficult to answer? Don't put blame on moderators. You see Allah's reputation is at risk. Answer the questions I have posed.
0
To Reed Wilson
written by Archpagan , December 08, 2010
Economists say money is what money does. Similarly, Islam is what Islamists do. Nobody is concerned about your private Islam.
0
To Raionalist.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 08, 2010
To Rationalist. I give the answers of your questions below:

1.Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders. When Allah revealed 33.50 to Muhammed, didn't he think twice about genetics?

No. Genetics has not proved any such thing. There are statistical reports of increased incidence which might have been due to some other reason.

2.Why only Muhammad can marry daughters of his paternal and maternal uncles and aunts, and why not his followers (including you)?

Followers can also marry and they do marry.

3.Is aya 33.50 scientifically correct? yes/no? If you say yes then I am afraid I am discussing this issue with a dullard.

The aya is scientifically correct.

Edgar Allan Poe, Albert Einstein, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Jerry Lee Lewis, prominent author and 2010 Nobel Prize laureate Mario Vargas Llosa, and former Peruvian beauty queen Marina Mora married to their cousins.

Higher total fertility rates are reported for cousin marriages than average, a phenomenon noted as far back as George Darwin during the late 19th century.

You write “Reed, if you think Mohemmed's sexapade with Zainab was not incest, fair enough. There is no need to bring in Bible here. However, you haven't answered my questions yet”.

I quote Bible because it is believed as divine book. It was neither sexapade nor incest. Please correct yourself.


0
To Archpagan.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 08, 2010
Archpagan. Your post above. You most of the time come with sensible and interesting observation.

You write "Nobody is concerned about your private Islam".

I agree. My study of Bible and Quran endorse you.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 08, 2010
To Rationalist. You write "You see Allah's reputation is at risk".

I dont have to bother for Allah's position. I am not his advocate. I have to worry about my own stakes.
0
...
written by duh_swami , December 08, 2010
1.Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders. When Allah revealed 33.50 to Muhammed, didn't he think twice about genetics?

No. Genetics has not proved any such thing. There are statistical reports of increased incidence which might have been due to some other reason.

That answer is so ignorant and uninformed and ill informed, it is nearly a waste of time responding...It is established medical knowledge that close relative and inner family reproduction of children 'causes' various negative conditions such as hemophilia, other blood conditions, and mental retardation...
When you add rapid breeding to the mix, you have a failing Islam...
0
Reed- inbreeding causes genetic disorders
written by Rationalist , December 08, 2010
No. Genetics has not proved any such thing.
=========
Reed, it seems you try to behave as if you do not know about genetics. Here is the website which gives a list of scientific articles describing why inbreeding causes genetic disorders: http://wwwDOT2dixDOTcom/pdf-20...rs-pdf.php . Here is another journal article from Digital Journal website: http://wwwDOTdigitaljournalDOTcom/article/250164 . Now don't tell me the websites are not working. In that case google "British Muslim Inbreeding Causing Genetic Disorders" AND "inbreeding genetic disorders" where you will find heaps of scientific journal articles. You better brush up your knowledge on genetics before debating on a forum, okay?

2.Why only Muhammad can marry daughters of his paternal and maternal uncles and aunts, and why not his followers (including you)?
You said: Followers can also marry and they do marry.
==========
You are not only fooling yourself but also making Allah look stupid. Here is the part of the verse 33.50: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee .... daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); Now it clearly states that this facility is granted only to your Prophet and not for the Believers
-- ACCORDING TO YOU MUSLIMS ARE OVERRIDING THEIR ALLAH'S COMMAND? You have lost the case Mr Wilson.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 10, 2010
Rationalist. Harsh language will not work. It will rather show your weakness.

Please don’t give me the reading list. Just show me a proof of your "Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders". There is no such scientific proof.

There is one exception of the categories for the apostle. You will understand if you understand Arabic grammar. What is lawful for believers is given elsewhere. Compare and find.

Albert Einstein married first cousin ignoring the science.

“Made lawful to marry” does not mean ‘do marry’. It is lawful for you to marry Drew Barrymore. It depends. You may not like to marry a 35 years actress even if she likes you.

"You have lost the case Mr Wilson". I don't think you are a lost case Mr. Rationalist. I am doing Jihad. I am not responsible and I dont have to bother for success.
0
Reed
written by duh_swami , December 10, 2010
I am doing Jihad.

What's that? Where did you get the idea to do it?

You are full of it Reed...I already wrote that it is established medical FACT that rapid inner breeding or any interbreeding can cause physical and mental defects, it is not an absolute in individual cases, but it is a risk to society that is recognized in medicine and law...This is the main reason close relative marriage is illegal in civilized societies...Incest is illegal...If you believe differently it is up to you to PROVE it, or quit...
The Royals of Europe used to intermarry a lot, mostly for political and financial
reasons. Many of them were bleeders (hemophilia)...They also didn't bathe...
Perfumes were not used to enhance but to cover up revolting body odors, they put white powder on their faces to cover up the dirt, they wore white wigs to cover up greasy filthy hair...But they did know how to dress...It was said that you could smell a French Kings feet across the court...Inner breeding Reed, one cause of decadence...But as we know, the western civilizations pretty much got away from it, free sex helped a lot as it broke up genetic stagnation...But free sex has it's own complications, both medical and social, the secular west is at the moment paying for its dalliances, and so is Islam, but as yet neither have given them up. Islam because of more ways to sin genetically, and lack of medical diagnosis in many cases, and poor advice from Islamic role models, manufactures more genetically disturbed people than the west. This is all preventable, and amounts to crimes against humanity...
0
To Swami and Reed
written by The Great Buana , December 10, 2010
There are people who will never listen to arguments and Reed Wilson is one of them. He will always have an answer because it is the same thing with quran. During the time when it was written its authors again and again invented new answers to new questions and new criticisms. Meanwhile, time has changed and today we have modern science and can refute the quranic answers very easily. However, there are and will always be guys like Reed Wilson who will never agree with the reality and the facts but only with the quran. We should not care about people like him or about suicide bombers, radicals, fundamentalists and whoseoever. Maybe it is even a mistake to try to help them like in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia or any place where muslims are ruling. They would not survive very long without foreign help but they have chosen by themselves to chop off any helping hand. So let the inbreedings stupids die from starvation and illnesses and let them kill each other. I am so tired of them. How can we talk to others and try to help them if they dont want to understand the truth and the reality?
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 10, 2010
duh-swami. Good you showed up. You write "This is the main reason close relative marriage is illegal in civilized societies...Incest is illegal"

Marrying cousins is not incest. What is your definitionof incest? Is it marrying cousins?

You write "If you believe differently it is up to you to PROVE it, or quit".

By which formula I was supposed to prove? Rationalist says that "Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders". I think he will Inshallah show me the proof of genetics. He didnt complicate it with the incest.

What you are telling me is your opinion. Fine. It should be backed by science.





0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 10, 2010
The Great Buana. For heavens, it is one and the same thing. Rationalist says "Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders". I am requesting him to show me the proof.

I am not bringing Quran here. If genetics proves, there should be findings in forms of research reports and periodical articles. You know statistical researches are assumptions and dont make a law.

You write "Meanwhile, time has changed and today we have modern science and can refute the quranic answers very easily". So refute if it is so convenient.

Do it now. Time always changes. It is always 'modern' also. Science refutes science.
0
Here is you evidence!
written by The Great Buana , December 10, 2010
You asked for evidence and here is it;: http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7573/831.full

Quotes:

High consanguinity rates—25-60% of all marriages are consanguineous, and the rate of first cousin marriages is high (figs 1 and 2; table A on bmj.com).4 w1 In addition, isolated subpopulations with a high level of inbreeding exist. Furthermore, in many parts of the Arab world the society is still tribal.5 6 w1 This has made the epidemiology of genetic disorders complicated, as many families and tribal groups are descended from a limited number of ancestors and some conditions are confined to specific villages, families, and tribal groups, leading to an unusual burden of genetic diseases in these communities (table B on bmj.com)1 2 5

Is this enough?
0
The Facts
written by Anti Clot , December 10, 2010
Thank you, Great Buana! You provided evidence that islamic ethics which is including the veil, the stoning of women who commited so-called adultry according to islamic standards, that all the other islamic practices such as early child marriages, marriages within the family with close relatviis and so on is DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO HIGHER RATES OF GENETICAL DISORDERS, GENETICAL DESEASE AND LOWER IQs. THIS IS THE RESULT OF ISLAM!!!! ISLAM MAKES PEOPLE STUPID!!! THERE IS NO MAJOR CIVILISATION WITH LESS ILLITERATES THAN ISLAM!!!
0
Reed
written by duh_swami , December 10, 2010
Marrying cousins is not incest. What is your definitionof incest? Is it marrying cousins?

I'm not going to follow your obfuscations into a debate about 'what is incest'...
But here is the dictionary definition...

1.sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
2.the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

And here is what US law says.
According to US law this about sums it up: From Wickidpedia: In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, .....first cousins.... Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.

Get that 'first cousins'...

The laws about incest vary from state to state, and country to country, but at least in some states incest includes first cousins...But the reasons are always the same...Incest contributes to genetic disorders as does rapid and indiscriminate breeding...For many, first cousins are too close...

The Great Buana adequately posted the facts...You should study them...
0
Thank You.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 11, 2010
duh_swami. Please read mine “Marrying cousins is not incest. What is your definition of incest? Is it marrying cousins?

You are telling “I'm not going to follow your obfuscations into a debate about 'what is incest'. But here is the dictionary definition...

1.sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
2.the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden”.

Dictionary is always judge for me. There is no marrying cousins there. Even in secondary meanings there is no cousin. 'Sexual intercourse with close relations' can be with fathers and brothers. What consanguity when mothers and fathers are different?

I am afraid we are going away from the subject. Rationalist says "Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders". Close relatives are maternal paternal cousins here. Rationalist has confidence.

You write “I'm not going to follow your obfuscations into a debate about 'what is incest'. Why sir? This is the dispute.

Neither Bible nor the US law is violated by marrying cousins.

The Great Buana adequately posted the facts. However, he did not genetically prove that marrying cousins causes genetic disorders.

Marrying cousins is neither incest nor causes genetic disorders. The learned author has loosely used the term. You can safely marry your cousin if she also likes you. Good luck.
0
Incest and Inbreeding
written by The Great Buana , December 11, 2010
In general Incest means sex between directly related persons such brother and sister, father and daughter and so on. Everything else such as between cousins is called inbreeding or consanguinity. However, sometimes cousin marriages and so are also considered incest. In Ethipia, India and oither places this seems to be the case since cousins are considered brothers and so on. Concerning the risks of cousin marriages I can provide another nice link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/pro...442010.stm

Quote: British Pakistanis [with 55% cousins marriages] are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

There is no need to provide more evidence. Millions of muslim children with disorders are enough. In some Gulf countries there are already programs underway to teach people not to marry their cousins or other relatives.

And there is also no doubt that polygamy is also contributing to more genetical deseases because the genetical diversity deteriorates. It is very clear that the sense of sexual reproduction is more diversity. In contrast, the habits in muslim society are against genetical diversity. Therefore, what muslims are doing is against the evolution of their human species. It is stagnation and this means deterioation.
0
Perfect lasting conclusions; not in Science, but supposedly in Quran
written by Demsci , December 11, 2010
Perhaps people like Reed have a need for perfect lasting conclusions. Science can't provide this, Science only can give us better explanations-conclusions than the previous ones, until a better one on the subject comes along.

But look at Muslims; they stubbornly cling to one "Theory", the Quran, and without real proof for it's extraordinarily claims take it as a perfect lasting conclusion, supposedly until the end of time. When do they figure that Allah is going to pull the plug and end this world??? If mankind does not end but continues to progress until the year 3000, will they cling to literal Islam all that time? No matter what?

Look at what Muslims have become? Either totally disinterested in scientific facts and good logic. Or displaying a very proof-demanding and highly skeptic attitude to everything that contradicts their beloved favorite book. While at the same not applying the same standards to that book and their prophet in the slightest!!!

They almost hypnotically believe the worst proven most extraordinary claims while at the same time rejecting the best scientific research and mankind's perhaps God-given rational minds can offer if the 2 contradict.

And that would be somewhat understandable if Muslims then at least admitted that truth-seeking is NOT their goal at all. That their goal is only living Islam because of it's cozyness, it's supposed merits and its way of avoiding possible hell in the afterlife, and possible execution or ostracising by their family and community in this life.

Reed, if you really were a truth-seeker, you would not assume all of the Quran is true fact and claim. Maybe only a few bits.

Now, you and many Muslims are only looking like bad gamblers, you gamble that Quran is the truth and will reward you. And you just don't see any attractive alternative for it, I suppose.
0
Reed
written by duh_swami , December 11, 2010
Marrying or having sex with cousins...

You ignored what I wrote about US law of the States where it is illegal to have sex or marry 'first cousins', second cousins seem to be exempt...Maybe it is legal where you live, but it is not legal here...So stop lying about it, you have no leg to stand on...The reasons for these prohibitions are to help prevent genetic or other disorders caused by too close in breeding...
0
Perfect lasting conclusions.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 12, 2010
To Demsci. Thanks for the post. We were discussing here:

•If marrying cousins was incest.
•If marrying cousins leads to deformity in the off springs.

No proof is advanced in favor of above. ‘Rationalist’ claimed that "Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders". Close relatives are maternal paternal cousins here. I asked him for that proof.

When a person is doing sex himself he names it as ‘love’ but the same act is done by someone it is branded not less than rape. There is subtle, if not vulgar, bias in it. If one is conscious of the fact that he is answerable to god, he wouldn’t do that.

Quran says ‘it is made lawful to marry cousins’ and it doesn’t say do marry cousins. There is a difference and in my opinion the US laws, as quoted by duh, were contravening Quran. It is however difficult that this permission of Quran could be harmful.

Normally muslims are ignorant of Quran. Quran is not for them only. Their behavior towards it shows that it was not for them. Quran does demand faith in it. This faith should not and does not inhibit enquiry. There are innumerable things of Quran which were believed and verified logically. I give examples of body of Pharaoh, the green pigment for production of food, the divinity of Mary, suffocation at high altitudes. These things were verified recently and not by the so called muslims.

A friend, here on this site, quoted several verses from Quran calling them threats from god. I submitted that they were warnings and one can ignore warnings at his own cost. Warnings are kindness. They always ended up on ‘if they correct them, god is forgiving’.

You are right in regretting “Look at what Muslims have become? Either totally disinterested in scientific facts and good logic. Or displaying a very proof-demanding and highly skeptic attitude to everything that contradicts their beloved favorite book. While at the same not applying the same standards to that book and their prophet in the slightest” Your other observations also not far from the facts.

Demsci, do you also believe that marrying cousins was incest and science disapproves marrying cousins? Do not give heed to Bible/Quran.

0
My mistake in above post.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 12, 2010
Mr. Demsci. Please read as "There is a difference and in my opinion the US laws, as quoted by duh, were NOT contravening Quran.

Missing NOT changed the message. I regret.
0
To Reed
written by Anti Clot , December 12, 2010
You may be right that the quran does not literally urges anybody to marry ones cousin. Hiowever, the fact is that this is very common in the muslim world. Inheritage laws, gender seggregation, veiling and severe punishments for any flirt as well as the fact that Mo did it too make it not only possible but also easier and more likely that muslims marry within their family. And this consitutes inbreeding or even incest according to more strict standards. The result is that genetical disorders becpme more likely and this is the case in the muslim world.
0
Verifications?
written by The Great Buana , December 12, 2010
Body of Pharao? To begin with, the title Pharao is used like a name in the quran and there is no hint what Pharao is meant. In fact the title Pharao was not in use by the alleged lifetime of moses and there are no historical accounts mentioning him or any of the stories of him. Now about his body. At first we should recognise that the quran contradicts itself because there are two different stories. Moreover, ancients Egypts produced mummies for centuries and the fact that bodies can dry out was well established. BUt anyway, the story was drawn from the bible including all the mistakes and contradictions. There has been no historical Moses and the whole story is fiction. There has never been any archaelogical verification and both quran and bible show never any particular knowledge of ancient Egypt. For example cruxification was never used for punishment.. And divinity of Mary? Is this a fact? You are only laughable. We already talked about "green pigments" and I refer to Arthur Schopenhauer, the famous German scholar who said that the quran is a bad book and that he did not find any useful thought in it. The problem is that, in my view, the quran does not look like an intelligent book written by somebody who is intelligent. No it is so boring, lengthy, contradictious, with many calls for hate and violence, prejudice against women and infidels. No, whoever wrote the quran is think was not a wise man. The author must have been very primitive in his thinking.
0
Reed Wilson- genetics
written by Rationalist , December 12, 2010
Mr. Wilson,

See how well you are contradicting yourself. First, when I asked you why only Muhammad had special permission to marry his cousins (based on 33.50), you said " Followers can also marry and they do marry." I had to highlight the part of the verse that says only Muhammed can do it. After realizing your fault, you said "There is one exception of the categories for the apostle. You will understand if you understand Arabic grammar. What is lawful for believers is given elsewhere." If what you say is true then believers cannot marry their cousins and ONLY Muhemmed can. If that is the case then the current practice of intermarriage amongst muslims is wrong-- according to you and Allah*

You say: Albert Einstein married first cousin ignoring the science.
======
At the time of Albert Einstein genetics was not established. If Einstein had known it he wouldn't have married his cousin. However, Allah should have known it 1400 yrs ago!

Even after providing conclusive evidence in the form of scientific articles, you refuse to admit it. It is mainly because Allah is looking like a fool because of that evidence. Instead of behaving like a fool try to go through those articles and admit the mistake of Allah. Your Quran looks crappy throughout.

How stupid of you when you say “Made lawful to marry” does not mean ‘do marry’.
0
Quran of necessity obsolete, in need of heavy updating
written by Demsci , December 12, 2010
Thanks Reed, you are a very kind and gentle man.

You love the Quran and cling to it. You prefer to follow it's instructions above all else. But surely even you cannot by now maintain it is perfect. How can it be? It's at least 1200 years old! Even Allah cannot let a mere human of his time write something that evolves dramatically, while the writer has to use words understandable to the people of his time. Don't you doubt it that when Allah tries to tell US something existing 1200 years from now, that would be impossible for him? Either he tells it as it is and we don't understand it. Or he tells is as we understand it, but then it has to be UPDATED all the time.

About incest; yes, cousins marrying is incest, yes, by now we need proof that it IS detrimental LESS THAN proof that it is NOT. Where it's long since shown in animals in farms and zoos.

Perhaps Quran is in some instances right, in others not wrong. But I never believe it's a manual from God and even if it were that, that of necessity it needs heavy updating.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 12, 2010
Rationalist. You so vehemently claimed that "Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders". I wanted to learn that. I sought for the proof.

Instead of obliging me with the proof, you come, after long absence, with different stories such at the time of marriage of Ablert Einstein the genetics was not so advance.

You don’t tell when it was discovered that marrying cousins was so detrimental; immediately after his marriage or immediately after his death in 1955?

Another issue is stupidity of Reed Wilson. I will not contest that.

Rationalist if we keep on hopping from one issue to another, it will lead us nowhere...
0
Reed
written by Amboyduke , December 12, 2010
Reed:

With all due respect, what don't you understand about all these intelligent, brilliantly well presented facts concerning Islam???

I've seen stubborn dogma before, but Good God man, you are something else.

Several of these commenters REALLY know what the hell their talking about and if it came to a seroius moderated debate, they would make you look like a fool.

It gets tiring seeing you constantly get verbally "whooped" on here, but I do rather enjoy it.
Why don't you give up and turn apostate?

Surely it would be easier and more importantly it would indicate that you are a rational, thinking, reasoning human being.
0
To Demsci.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 12, 2010
Thank you Demsci for the post and for the compliments. I wish if I deserved it.

It is not loving Quran and clinging to it. It is my faith that Quran is book from god, the same god of Abraham, Moses and Jesus; The god who has absolute knowledge. A period of 1200 years or 12000 years is not even a wink for him. All the changes taken place under his will and command.

God has not updated his previous books like Vedas, Torah, Gospel and others by revealing Quran. It contains same message which is being reminded.

Quran is a code for human beings and it is not time bound. Still, I do discuss the issues where we apprehend that they do not justify the requirements of the time. What ever the human beings achieve is given by the god and he (human) has to just explore it.

I have given my beliefs above which I am not trying to impose on others.

I give below the Oxford Dictionary meaning of incest:

Incest: Sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
•The crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

Please observe that it is not marriage and it does not relate to marriage of cousins. I made certain observations to the author of the article which inter alia included incest. The decent man did not insist on incest and accepted the other errors.

If you feel that Quran needs updating you you must be having some logic for it.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 12, 2010
The Great Buana. You may be right in saying “In fact the title Pharaoh was not in use by the alleged lifetime of Moses and there are no historical accounts mentioning him or any of the stories of him”.

The author of Gospel and Torah is same. There is no mention of preservation of body of Pharaoh in Bible.

You write “And divinity of Mary? Is this a fact? You are only laughable”.

Yes divinity of Mary TGB. It is a recent development in the RC Church.

You refer "I refer to Arthur Schopenhauer, the famous German scholar who said that the quran is a bad book and that he did not find any useful thought in it".

For me you are bigger scholar than Arthur Schopenhauer. May be you are German also. Even if not German. You also write "The problem is that, in my view, the quran does not look like an intelligent book written by somebody who is intelligent". You are rather nicer than Arthur.

The Great Buana, do you by any chance think Chlorophyll and photosynthesis were known in 6th century? I just gave 3 examples. The idea was not to highlight Quran.



0
Mr. Amboyduke.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 12, 2010
To Amboyduke. You write “With all due respect, what don't you understand about all these intelligent, brilliantly well presented facts concerning Islam???”

No. No. No. No respect due. When I don’t understand ‘intelligent, brilliantly well presented facts’ I don’t deserve any.

You are asking “Why don't you give up and turn apostate? I think I have not reached to that stage. My well wishers are trying.

0
The Identity of Reed
written by The Great Buana , December 12, 2010
I am wondering who you are and where you are from. Are you from Saudi Arabia and now living in USA or UK? Your arguments seem to be very common in the arab world. Like the arab edutainment programs on TV always praising the quran and that the quran knew everything first like Black Holes etc. I hope you will realise that this has nothing to do with education but only obscurantism. Bucaille? No! Please try to be honest to yourself as well as against others. Give the truth a chance!
0
To The Great Buana.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 13, 2010
To Dear TGB. You want my identity. They will kill me:). I should be known by my thought. I wish Arabs had sanity and broad mindedness. Quran has not touched them because they ignore it.

If I am praising Quran I am not right. Quran is not to be praised. We dont praise our service rules. We follow them.

Yesterday I meticulously wrote "I appreciate choice of word 'does not love' instead of hates". But if you feel I am doing that please do point me out. I will try to correct myself and will thank you.

Praising will develop reaction. Quran is my faith. I have accepted it. I would have not propagated it if I was not asked for it. I am not doing it nicely. God knows my limitations
0
RW
written by Rationalist , December 13, 2010
Reed, you contradicted twice in regards to special treatment given to pedophile Muhemmed in 33.50. Even after providing conclusive evidence on genetics you are behaving like your uncultured prophet. Everyone except the muslim world accepts that marriage with cousins is genetically harmful. Sorry mate, you are a nut case and gone case.

End of debate
0
what's fixed is fixed unless you unfix it
written by duh_swami , December 13, 2010
In psychiatry it's called, 'fixed delusion'...You can't talk anyone out of a fixed delusion because it is fixed...They will hold on to it and defend it like their very life depended on it...When a person with a fixed delusion runs out of ways to defend it, they will resort to obfuscations, lies, fibs, prevarications, falsehoods, and they will make things up...Trying to reason with such a person is like trying to reason with a drunk...
0
Reed
written by Machmoed , December 13, 2010
you wrote: The god who has absolute knowledge. A period of 1200 years or 12000 years is not even a wink for him. All the changes taken place under his will and command.

Reed, you don't know that. A god who has absolute knowledge is uncomprehendable for us humans. It's the same as the universe is infinite. It doesn't say anything usefull like Allah is great or Allah knows best. These sentences are actually useless.

How do you know that all changes took place under his command and will. If it is true then it is his will that we critisize human achievement called islam. Especially when you know that some lies never could be from god. We all know meteorites/stars etc are not used by allah for shooting the jinn. This is a major lie. But maybe Allah wich was worshipped before Muhammad was born as a moon god with the name Hubal, likes lies. I swear like allah on this city (la uqsimu bihathal balad) that islam is not based on truth.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 13, 2010
Rationalist. You write "Even after providing conclusive evidence on genetics you are behaving like your uncultured prophet". Who provided the conclusive evidence and when?

Rationalist. You so vehemently claimed that "Genetics has proved that marriage with close relatives causes genetic disorders". I wanted to learn that. I sought for the proof. I was expecting a proof from you.

Now you are winding up the debate, due to the special treatment for Muhammad in 33:50. You can yourself understand the meaning of the verse and I have already explained about your objection according to my understanding. God himself will explain you.
0
God himself will explain you.
written by duh_swami , December 13, 2010
He will have to since you are incapable...
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 14, 2010
To duh_swami. "He will have to since you are incapable". Yes he will. He has promised.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 14, 2010
duh-swami. You write "When a person with a fixed delusion runs out of ways to defend it, they will resort to obfuscations, lies, fibs, prevarications, falsehoods, and they will make things up".

Who they?

0
...
written by duh_swami , December 14, 2010
To duh_swami. "He will have to since you are incapable". Yes he will. He has promised.

He didn't promise me so I won't hold my breath...

Reed...Who they?

I should have said 'HE' instead of 'THEY', but the principal is the same...an old saying, 'a word to the wise is sufficient'...If Allah is willing, and he always is...
Or at least sometimes he is willing, if he's in a good mood...
0
Mohammed was a brazen adulterer in the eyes of God
written by Mule , December 14, 2010
Matthew 19 v 9 kjv:
Jesus said:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

If it is debatable whether or not the marriage described in this article was incestuous there is no doubt that it was a brazen act of adultery.
0
True face of Islam
written by lw1 , December 14, 2010
13/12/2010. Bomb hits school bus in Pakistan

A bomb blast has hit a school bus in the NW Pakistan city of Peshawar, killing the driver and a 13 year old boy.The roadside bomb of the type used against NATO troops in Afghanistan, was planted in a bin. The device went off in the busy Bhana Marri area on the Kohut Rd, the scene of many blasts. Last week a suicide bomb claimed by the Taliban killed more than 40 people in NW Pakistan.

A Muslim: I will kill you for my belief. EVEN IF YOU ARE A MUSLIM.
0
Allah is not perfect
written by lw1 , December 14, 2010
2.106 Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, BUT WE BRING (IN PLACE) ONE BETTER OR THE LIKE THEREOFF. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

16.101 And when WE PUT A REVELATION IN PLACE OF (ANOTHER) REVELATION, -- and Allah knowest best what He revealeth -- they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.

Almighty God is all-powerful, all- knowing --PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE.

Allah did not have that knowledge of the future and that is why he had to bring a BETTER revelation.

A soap powder salesman would bring a better soap powder.
0
To duh_swami.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 15, 2010
duh_swami. You write "He didn't promise me so I won't hold my breath".

I think his promise covers all of us.

32:25 Verily your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment, in the matters wherein they differ.
0
Reed
written by duh_swami , December 15, 2010
I think his promise covers all of us.

Speak for yourself...I know Allah, but he does not know me, no matter what you or Mohammad say about it...And he is not going to know me, no matter what you or Mohammad say about it...
Do you know of Ensign Pulver? In a Hollywood movie, he was a junior officer on a small Navy ship for four years...The Captain of the ship never saw him once and did not know who he was...That's because Pulver was really good at ducking the Captain...I am the Ensign Pulver of Allah's ship...I have been around a long time, and he knows me not...That's because like Pulver, I am good at ducking, bobbing, and weaving. Allah has tried to catch up with me several times, but I always outsmart him...
0
Mr.duh-swami.
written by Reed Wilson. , December 15, 2010
Duh-swami. Sorry, I don’t know Ensign Pulver, but I do know that it is impossible that a captain would not know his officer.

There are two main sides in a ship: nautical and engine. The officers include mate, second mate, third mate and cadets. So also on engine side; chief engineer, second engineer, third engineer and engineering cadets. There used to be radio officers also. I don’t know what the status of signaling now is.

Under officers there are crew; Quarter master, Topas, sea cunny, sarong etc. There seven ranks of crew. I don’t remember all. In passenger vessels and in oil tankers there are other designations in addition. Purser is the one who keeps the account.

All the above category staff is under captain. He must recognize them. He has to exact work from them. It is rather impossible to entertain, even in fiction, that a captain does not know his team.

We can not compare god with capacities of captain. God says:

يَا بُنَيَّ إِنَّهَا إِن تَكُ مِثْقَالَ حَبَّةٍ مِّنْ خَرْدَلٍ فَتَكُن فِي صَخْرَةٍ أَوْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ أَوْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يَأْتِ بِهَا اللَّـهُ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ لَطِيفٌ خَبِيرٌ

"My son, God keeps the records of all the good and evil deeds, even if they are as small as a grain of mustard seed, hidden in a rock or in the heavens or the earth. God is subtle and All-aware”. (31:16)

“O you who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. God is well-acquainted with all that you do”. 5:8.

Duh-swami. God has given his attributes in Quran. He only can tell us about himself; His likes and dislikes and the requirements from his servants.


0
...
written by duh_swami , December 15, 2010
Were you ever in anyones navy? I doubt it...Stop extolling the glories of Allah to me...I spit on the faker Allah, so save your breath...
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , December 16, 2010
duh_swami. "Were you ever in anyones navy? I doubt it".

I enjoy communicating with you and deliberately enlengthened my post.

"Stop extolling the glories of Allah to me". I didnt do that.
0
Reed
written by duh_swami , December 17, 2010
"Stop extolling the glories of Allah to me". I didnt do that.

Yes you did, that's what you do, and it was not the first time...you don't reserve it specially for me, you spread it around...Spitting on Allah is a little strong if it was really God we were talking about, but since Allah is fake, it's just a symbol for disgust...
0
Allah the faky one
written by Machmoed , December 19, 2010
Allah as a deity was fake al along. Why do you think Muhammad felt the urge to change this God. His fater and his family (not all) worshipped Allah but died as Mushriks (polyethists). In order to elevate this moongod, arabs made him the chief and later Muhammad made him the only one. The arabs were devided and one God like the jews and christians would get the arabs together/united. The image of allah was in need of levelling and Muhammad did that. Now we understand why Allah was always nice to Muhammad. Muhammad had Allah in his pocket and every time he needed him, Allah was there to satisfy his needs. Allah the fake became Allah the greatest.
0
Machmoed
written by duh_swami , December 20, 2010
What I want to know is, whatever happened to Ar-Rahman? Where is he? What's he doing now? He used to be god, but Mohammad threw him away in favor of Allah, so Rahman has been without a job for 1300 years...He must really feel rejected...
0
Ar-Rahman
written by Amboyduke , December 20, 2010
Rumour has it he's working in heaven as a waiter bringing tea to God and his myriads of angels.
Not much pay and no tips, but steady work.
0
Duh
written by Machmoed , December 21, 2010
The jemenites before Muhammad worshipped Ar-rahmaan. He (Muhammad/arabs) hijacked this God and made Him one aspect of Allah. Ar-rahmaan is one of the 99 names or charasteristics of Allah.

Muhammad/arabs stuffed all those deity's in one deity Allah.......the clan god of the hashims where Muhammad is said to be a hashim himself. It could be that this is just a story to justify the choice of Allah being the supreme God by the state. We have to remeber that there was the state (arab empire) first and then the religion "islam".
0
Amusing
written by Abu Abdullah , December 21, 2010
I find it quite amusing how discussions between Muslims and Islam-bashers and atheists eventually deteriorate into the Islam-bashers resorting to name calling and mocking Islam/Muslims/Allah.

When the atheist cannot be convinced, it is because the Muslim does not have proof. But when the Muslim cannot be convinced, it is because he is a dimwit.

Also, it is interesting that the "inherently backward" Muslims gave the world Algebra, laid the foundations for Algorithms, Chemistry, Optics and a host of other things on which modern science is based including proper numbers. I would love to see one of you Islam-bashers solving mathematical problems using Roman Numerals.

Peace.
0
Re: Amusing
written by The Great Buana , December 21, 2010
Maybe that the Arabs made some scientific discoveries during the early stages of islam. In fact they inherited a lot from their neighbours from the Byzantine Empire, Perisa, India and even from China. For example, the numbers were invented by the indians and not by the arabs. Moreover, and this is much more important, the muslims themselves decided to abolish logic and science because it is contradicting the quran and islam. The school of islam during the so-called Golden Age does not exist anymore because it was abolished by the muslims themselves. Even bookprinting was forbidden in the whole islamic world for centuries. Today the islamic world is most behind in terms of science and this because of islam. There are more illiterates than anywhere in the world and the book-conusmption is the lowest. BTW, it is also a matter of fact that the muslim habit of inbreeding (the subject of the article) produces children with lower IQ.
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , December 21, 2010
Agreed that the numbers were inherited from the Indians, but the Muslims made significant improvements. Which is why you use Arabic numerals and not Hindi Numerals in the West.

Muslims did never abolish logic. The Golden Ages was the time when Muslims _were_ adhering to Islam not the other way around. How can Muslims be illiterates if they are practicing Islam given that the first word revealed in the Quran is: "Read". The reason that the Muslims are behind is not because of Islam but due to their lack of adherence to it.

0
Why?
written by The Great Buana , December 21, 2010
Because only a few words later after "read" there is the contradiction against science: That humans were made clot. I can ensure you that never ever in the world a single human being was created of clot. Thus, the quran is wrong from the very beginning. And you know by your own that most muslims are not able to read the quran. And it was Ib Taimyya and his followers who were against the teaching of modern sciences in muslim teaching facilities. This has not changed very much until today. Why do you think that the people in the Far East learnt much faster than the arabs and the other muslims? And BTW, the most advanced muslim country, Turkey, is also the most secularised one. And why is India better off than Pakistan and Bangla Desh? Yes, and islam is the only major religion in the world that prohibited bookprinting! Hahaha! There is no religion that caused so much intellectual damage to the world throughout history. There can be no doubt about it. Face it!! And there is no other major religion which has caused so much genetical damages to mankind and so many genetical deseases! Face it!
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , December 21, 2010
Seems you never even tried to understand what that verse means. See http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

Ibn Taymiyyah was not against the teaching of modern sciences. And when did Islam prohibit bookprinting. As usual the Islam-bashers keep repeating their own lies to amuse themseslves.

Without Islam's intellectual contribution, the West would still be in the Dark Ages. But your ego is too big to allow you to accept that fact.

0
Here is it
written by The Great Buana , December 21, 2010
Before blaming others to tell lies you should better do your own job and research: But here you have the quote: "Bayezid [II] is also responsible for certain self-inflicted intellectual wounds in Islamic civilization, such as the outlawing of all printing in Arabic and Turkic, a ban lasting in the Islamic world until 1729" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_II Printing was also forbidden in Persia and - according to my knowldge - in the whole islam world. There is even the unic case of the Uigurs, who were one of the first who used printing of buddhist texts, but abolished it again when they converted to islam. The results are incredibly bad for education and science. There was almost no bookpinting until the 19th century and the arabic world faces the problem that the arabic language is not standardised very well until today! They are also facing highest rates of literacy and lowest rates of book consumption. While the muslims had access to paper much earlier than europe, they failed to make use of it because of their superstitious religion. When the europeans learnt to produce paper, they also invented book printing very soon, much like their chinese counterparts. Only the muslims between them failed to do so for centuries only because of this famous 2 Surahs (96 and another one), understanding them in a way that it is forbidden to write with anything different than their pens made from grass (alaq?). So much about muslim science.
0
2 Abu Abdullah
written by Machmoed , December 21, 2010
What's your point Abu Abdullah. Muslims didn't do anything since 1492 when the spanish with the help of others killed almost all muslims (ouad alkabir/gadalqivuir turned red by their blood) en even before. Even if they helped maths develop etc. but eventually they didn't do anything with it. The west is pumping the oil to the surface. The west is providing engineers and technique to build their innovative buildings amd infrastructure. All the scientific tools are from kufar.

Islams glory is no more! it gets worse when the oil in the middle east runs out. Poverty, illiteracy and sickness is what most muslimregions await. Some regions are used to this poverty etc. but many are following. This is not because Allah is punishing them for disobidience or whatever, but because they didn't invest in their region and themselfes.
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , December 21, 2010
TGB, you are taking a political incident and paraphrasing it to sound that, "Islam is the only major religion in the world that prohibited bookprinting!" Nowhere do you find Islamic scholars prohibiting bookprinting. But as usual, the Islam-bashers will use the flimsiest of evidence to attack Islam.

Your attempt to deny the contribution by Muslims to Science is not based on facts but due to your ego which is unable to accept the truth when it comes to Islam. Sadly, you will also eventually come down to name calling and mocking (pens made from grass ??? is a sign in that direction).

Paper manufacturing was well and alive among the Muslims despite your assertion to the contrary. Muslims transformed the making of paper from an art into an industry. The House of Wisdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom) would not have been possible without paper.

I pray for your guidance.
0
Total nonsense!
written by The Great Buana , December 21, 2010
When I wrote that the arabs did not make the right use of paper I referred to the fact that printing was forbidden by the muslim authoriities. Bayezid II was sultan and the highest authority. It is well known that even the printing of the quran was forbidden and this not only in the Ottoman Empire but also in Persia and even the Uigurs in Turkestan abolished it after embracing islam. All this was influenced by surah 68 and 96 which both refer to the pen as only accepted writing utility, at least most muslims understood it in this way. Therefore, it was not before the 19th century when lithographic printing was invented, that printing became widespread in the muslim world. So there is no reason for you to become angry. I am not denying anything. There had been some discoveries in the House of Wisdom but most muslims forget that the development was stopped by the muslims themselves while the westerners improved more and more. It is also an exaggeration to say that there would be no science without islam. The muslims did not contribute so much. Many scholars were jews and christians even under Abbaside rulership and in fact the arabs took so much knowledge from everywhere. No, the opposite is true. We must ask why the muslim world is still so much behind while the japanese, korean and chinese people already succeded in achieving the same standard of living even without oil. I think this also has to do with the muslim way of thinking and learning. Muslim think that education means memorizing and parroting and thats all. They are wasting so much time and energy and brainpower with praying and memorizing and parroting while westerners and far easterners are only doing their jobs very well. They are also not as fatalistic as their inshallah brothers in the muslim world.
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , December 21, 2010
No, you actually wrote: "Islam is the only major religion in the world that prohibited bookprinting!" Now trying to wiggle yourself out of this. It was a political issue not an Islamic prohibition and certainly not due to any surah in the Quran.

I am not angry, just pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument.

Muslims contributed a lot to modern science. You can try hard to deny that but you cannot change the facts. The House of Wisdom was destroyed not by Muslims but by the Mongols who invaded Baghdad. The river of Tigris turned black from the ink in the books that were thrown into it and remained so for six months.

There are many reasons for the state of Muslims today but adherence to Islam is not one of those.

And, btw, how can the inshallah brothers be fatalistic when Islam does not ascribe to fatalism? See http://www.islamonline.net/ser.../LSELayout

Regards...
0
No!
written by The Great Buana , December 21, 2010
Sorry, but I have to correct you again. Here you can find many about the aspects of printing and not printing in the muslim world. http://www.asafas.kyoto-u.ac.j...4aqeel.pdf A quote: ... the Muslim
mind could not put up with the printing for a long time to come. This aversion was, perhaps, also based on the dictates of their conscience which told them that using the press invented by the infidels was tantamount to participating in or co-operating with the profanity." And there are also hints that muslims also refused to make use of other inventions such as clocks, weapons and electric light.

In fact there are many discussion why printing was forbidden for muslims for so many years. Even the import of printed books such as the quran from europe and the trade with it was forbidden. It is indeed very difficult to explain all the reasons nowadays, however, it is very clear that it has to do with the islamic view of writing and calligraphy, memorizing and so forth. Politics are not the reason but aesthetics and religious reasons.
0
Political issues cannot be equated with Islam
written by Abu Abdullah , December 22, 2010
Again, you are trying to equate a political decision with Islam. While some parts of the Muslim world did not use bookprinting, there were other parts that did utilize bookprinting. And, even then, bookprinting was largely prohibited for Islamic works but not for scientific works. Which goes to show that even where it was banned politically, it was due to certain concerns but it was never due to Islamic reasons.

And, not having bookprinting did not mean that Muslims did not have books. It is a well established fact that book trading flourished in the Muslim world.

Also, your point re. inventions is not valid. Case in point: Caliph Harun-Al-Rashid presented Charlemagne with a clock around 800AD.

In conclusion, Islam is/was not a reason for the situation of the Muslims.
0
No, no, no!
written by The Great Buana , December 22, 2010
First of all, in Islam there is no separation between religion and politics. Secondly, printing was explicitely forbidden in Arabic, and this throughout the islamic world, whilst minorities were allowed to print in greek or hebrew, and there were also printed books available in foreign languages, such as engineering of weapons and so on. But what does this mean? What kind of political reasons were shared by the Ottoman and Persian empires not to allow printing in Arabic? But even the muslims ruled by westerners in Greater India, Indonesia and elsewhere did not print by this time! What was the common political reason for all these different regions? The common reason has little to do with politics. What was the political reason even to ban the import of qurans printed in Europe??? Thus, there was no political reason but many other reasons closely related to religion: Aethetical reasons, reasons connected to muslims habits, islamic superstition and the islamic arrogance not to introduce things invented by infidels and the fear of islamic scribes to become unemployed. You agree that printing was banned in Arabic. Can you imagine what this meant for the arabic people, arabic literature and even the arabic language? Even today it remains very difficult if not impossible to express many things in arabic and the obvious reason for this is Islam and the muslim habit not to accept anything that is not islamic. Today we can express anything in chinese, japanese of korean but not in arabic. Do you think this has political reasons, too?
0
Books flourished among Muslims
written by Abu Abdullah , December 22, 2010
It was not printing per se that was banned. But it was due to various concerns that the political establishment had at that time, like accuracy and misprinted copies of the Quran from Europe. Which is why book printing was allowed for works not related to religion.

Also, lack of printing did not mean the lack of books. Muslims started using paper for making books, a first. The art of making paper was guarded as a secret by the Chinese but the Muslims spread this knowledge and improved on it in various ways. The Muslims also developed a way of reliably reproducing large quantities of a book whereby hundreds of copies could be produced in a few reading sessions. There hundreds of bookshops and libraries in the Muslim world at that time. So, there was no scarcity of books at all.

I don't know where you get the idea that "it is very difficult or impossible to express many things in Arabic". Quite the contrary, you can express things very easily in Arabic. Of course, you do need to know the language, but I think that is a given.

As a matter of fact, Arabic was the intermediary language through which works from various cultures came to the west. And if you look at history, you will see that science flourished when the Muslims were adhering to Islam and their decline started only when their adherence to Islam started to wane.

For a cursory glance at the scientific achievements by Muslims, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
0
Islam against Knowledge
written by The Great Buana , December 23, 2010
Islam was not only against printing but also against translation of the quran, against painting and against music. Even today there is so much censorship in the muslim world that many authors prefer to publish their books in english or french. Anyway they cannot expect to have many readers because most muslims just do not read books. Perhaps you should read the UN Arab Human Development Report written by arab intellectuals for arabs. The arab bookmarket is smaller than anywhere in the world and this by a huge margin. While westerners or people from other civilized contries read some books a year, arabs will only read a few pages on average. The arabian world is the worlds black hole ignorance and this is of course because of islam!
0
Islam not against printing
written by Abu Abdullah , December 23, 2010
Islam is not against printing, it never was. Else, how do you explain that the Quran is printed nowadays. As is usually lamented that the Muslims don't allow any changes in their religion, the ban on printing was never an Islamic ban but due to conerns inherent in printing in those days. Is there censorship in Muslim countries on scientific works ? or was there ever a censorship in the Muslim world at any time for scientific books? The answer is a resounding no.

If the Muslims are not reading, it is not because of Islam. Remember, the first word revealed in the Quran is: "Read"
0
Not only Printing was forbidden!
written by The Great Buana , December 23, 2010
Even today it is obviously forbidden to call the things by name. IMuslim leaders do not want their stupid sheeps to know such things about islam. They only teach glorious things and not the bad things. Because if they woiuld teach the truth, people would start to ask questions. Why dont you realize that the muslim leaders are only fooling people like you? Until today, there is no critical research about the quran and islam in general possible in the muslim world. Otherwise many muslims would begin to understand that the quran was written by humans influenced by judaism and christianity and their books, friom where many texts of the quran were drawn from more or less literally. But it is even not possible to talk about such topics because there are hateful muslims everywhere who are always prepared to kill everybody who only opens his mouth. Please tell me again: Why was printing forbidden in the islamic world? And why is talking forbidden? You can find the answer even in the quran: Whoever critisizes islam is to be killed or will enter hell! Here you have your islamic freedom of expression. BTW, the frist word READ refers only to the "Revealed" text. Yeah, it was "revealed" that humans were made from clot! This is islamic science for clotties!
0
2 Abdullah
written by Machmoed , December 23, 2010
Abdullah, for a long time it was forbidden to paint any living entities. About 40 years ago they denounced this (alazhar in Egypte) as haram (Reed knows more of this issue). Now even muslim mumins use internet and all kinds of media with images etc. This is also the reason that calligrafy (mainley developed by sufi's) writings are allowed in Mosques, qur'ans etc. but you would never see an image or painting in mosques, qur'an or any other religious islamic book. The concept of what is haram or halal is not always clear and absolute. It changes by time bit by bit. Smoking cigarettes wasn't haram but makrouh but nowadays it's haram because it could kill you and according to those who do understand islam best if you die because of cigarettes, you go directly to hell as if it is suicide. Horsemeat is also not haram but makrouh according to many scholars and served in islamic countries to university students (students of university in Fes in Marocco for example). At the end there aint such thing as haram. When there is nothing to eat, pork/horsemeat etc become halal when it means survival. My point is, even the so called laws of allah are not absolute.

The absolute law of the creator is survival. Look at the cicle of life. It's all about survival my friend. Not about worshipping or printing.
0
Books and knowledge flourished among Muslims
written by Abu Abdullah , December 23, 2010
Actually, many people who have done critical research of the Quran and Islam have come to the conclusion that it cannot be the work of man. I am not a person fooled by any leader and so are many Muslims who have carefully studied the Quran with an objective approach. It seems that for some people the only possible outcome of study of Quran is that it was written by humans. With such a foregone conclusion you can never be objective.

The myth that the Quran was sourced from the Judeo-Christian books has long been busted. No point in trying to resurrect that myth.

Printing per se was not forbidden. There is not a single verse in the Quran that can be taken to support that. Maybe you want to think that it was forbidden by Islam, but sorry, you could not be more wrong.

Seems like you have never really read the Quran objectively. Maybe you have never read it at all.

Regarding freedom of speech in Islam, I will quote from this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) what al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) sent in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason:

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empery of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be with you and the blessings of God!"

Also, where did you get that the first word "Read" refers only to the revealed text. It is general and does not refer to the revealed text only. And since it was the first word, there was no "revealed" text to refer to in the first place.

And since it seems that you are fancied by the reference to "clot" in the Quran, I again need to ask you to refer to this page to understand this: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm
0
To Machmoed
written by Abu Abdullah , December 23, 2010
In Islam, there are principles for considering things halal and haram. If you know the principles, then the examples you have quoted become easy to understand. Earlier, the danger posed by cigarettes was not known, hence it was considered makrouh due to its bad smell, but when it became clear that it can kill you, scholars considered it as haram based on that. The point is not the cigarette is halal or haram, but the principle on which the decision of halal or haram is made. The principle being that anything whose harm exceeds its usefulness is considered haram to consume.

There are certain things that take priority and these are clearly described in Islam. Again it is a matter of principle. Preserving life is a priority and if you are in a situation where there is no halal food, then Allah is merciful and allows you to take food that in normal circumstances would be haram in order to preserve life. Islam is a practical way of life and not some rigid rituals as some people have made it to be.
0
2 Abdullah
written by Machmoed , December 24, 2010
Abdullah, you're missing the point. Cigarattes didn't exist in the time of Muhammad and ofcorse it's about intention/principle. My point is that only time can reveale to us what to put in practice. Science (mostly the west scientists) showed us that smoking can kill you and Muslim scholars considered it haram based on that. Science is used to understand the word of Allah. Do you see it!

You wrote: islam is a practical way of life and not some rigid rituals as some people have made it to be.

Not entirely true. Islam is mostly about rituals (salats, wudu,hajj/when someone dies, when someone merries, stepping into a house, stepping out of a house/home, driving a car etc) and every civilization incorporated it and mixed it with their rituals etc. For example: In Algeria and Morocco you have a lot of Marbouts/saints. Marbouts (graves of so called holy people/saints) are holy ones or saints. People go to a marbout for quring diseases, receive blessings etc. many villages in north have a marbout and people use to bring food. We all know it is haram and still it became a part of their religion/belief system islam.

Islam is an ideology wich is outdated. Women are not lessworthy or less intelligent then men. Science begins to reveal us that it is quite the contrary. Because islam and all other religions are human achievement and fiction, it was outdated as it was written or implemented or believed.

It's about searching further. keep searching
0
To Abu
written by The Great Buana , December 24, 2010
You are writing nothing but nonsense! Where is the evidence that the quran wasnt written by humans? And who can deny the influences by jewish and chrisitan scriptures? You are ignorant and you dont want to learn! This is true ignorance and I am afraid many muslims are suffering from this desease. The same thing can be told about your opinions concerning printing. In China, buddhist monks invented woodblock printing in the 7th century or even earlier. We know very well that it was also in use by the Uighurs who were buddhists at this time but they gave up printing after converting to islam. In Europe printing was introduced much later in the 15th century because they had no paper and no direct contact to china. Now the islamic world had access to paper and woodblock printing but they did not makes use of it because they believed that books had to be written with the qalam aka kalamos in greek which is mentioned twice in the quran. In 1483 printing in arabic was forbidden by Bayezid II. This lasted for more than 200 years, but even after this law was lifted it took another 100 until printing became widespread with the introduction of lithographic printing. This means that the islamic world was more than 1000 years late compared to china and almost 400 years later than Europe while they had access to all the knowledge. Do we need any more evidence for the backwardness of islam? Now I am all tired of you. It does not make sense to paint a dirty wall. You dont want to learn anything. You are afraid that all your studies of the quran with memorizing and reciting and praying, your fasting and observing of all rules what is haram and what is halal was only a waste of time. But let me ask the other way round: Was this useful for anything? Do you have any merit from it?
0
GB
written by duh_swami , December 24, 2010
The Great Buana...I learn something every time I come to this site...Posters like yourself and Machmoed are a wealth of information...My education primarily followed my interests which change now and then, so it covers numerous topics...While others were studying world history, I focused on America's old west and frontiers. various religions, magickal practices and human psychology...I didn't pay much attention to Islam until 911...Unlike Reed and a few others, I am not so much interested in the philosophy of Islam, but the end results...Those are observable...and they are ugly...Where else in the world do you see sustained ugliness? Just looking at the treatment of Jews and Christians in remote outposts like Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia to name a few, is proof of ugly, and we all know of the ugly treatment of women and children..I can't define ugly, but I know it when I see it...Jesus said that you can't get good fruit from a bad tree...Islam is a bad tree and all the fruit that falls from it is ugly...That is the result...Someone can put a pretty ribbon on ugly, but it is still ugly...
0
To Swahmi
written by The Great Buana , December 24, 2010
I could not agree more. Guys like Abu will always turn it the way they like to have it. If we criticize islam for being intolerant he will tell you the quote from the quran that there should be no compulsion in religion. However, he of course knows very well that the muslim scholars also teach other verses to persecute disbelievers and then that the first quote is being abrogated because the violent verses came later. So in this way islamists will always turn it the way they like it and this is only possible because the quran contradicts itself very often. Of course they will deny this too and ignoring even the facts they can take from the quran. So while the quran itself claims to be easy to understand there is indeed so much confusion in the quran and the whole muslim world suffers from it because nobody really knows what to do. There are so many fatwas out contradicting each other and so much trouble everywhere. Is this what an almighty, merciful god wants? I cannot believe in such a nonsense!
0
To Machmoed
written by Abu Abdullah , December 24, 2010
Science is not used to understand the Quran. But yes, science is used and applied by Muslims in implementing the principles of Islam. Islam has laid the principles which are timeless.

It is true that many people have made Islam just a set of rituals and deviated from its true teachings. But that is not the fault of Islam but that of those who deviated from it. Islam does not have holy people or saints. All are equal in Islam. There are scholars whose duty is to convey the message but they are not be regarded as holy men in Islam. If some people are making something declared unacceptable in Islam as a part of Islam, then that is not true Islam but a deviated form of Islam for which Islam cannot be blamed.

Islam does not consider men better than women. The Quran says: "If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them. " (4:124)

In Islam, the paradise is under the feet of mothers and men are ordered to treat their mother with three times more respect than their fathers.

I have searched a lot. And read a lot about various ideologies/religions. Honestly, I never found anything like Islam. Mind you, not just anything that is trotted around as Islam but the true teachings of Islam. I am open to any idea and believe me I have tried to evaluate every thing that has come across my way from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Judaism, Christianity and even Atheism/Agnosticism. I have seen people try to downplay the truth of Islam by engaging in tangential discussions and hateful portrayal of Islam but have never come across any honest discussion that can show that there is something better than Islam out there. My conviction is a result of my own personal research and not due to any outside influence. If you can honestly show me that my convictions are wrong, please be my guest.
0
Full of Shit
written by Amboyduke , December 24, 2010
They're all full of shit.
The only ones who know for certain are all those in the cemeteries and they ain't talkin'.
NO one can dispute that. NO one!
If there is a true God, there can only be one. (God help us if there's a committee!)
I hope the hell He knows what He's doing because none of down here can get it right...never have...never will.
There must be a better day coming down the road.
I personally believe in God. But that's as far as I'll take it. I have no definitive answers but that is as far as my faith goes.
God knows the human race needs something to help us get our shit together.
0
To Abu
written by The Great Buana , December 25, 2010
Yes, you evaluated all religions and found that there are so many disgusting christian, jewish, buddhist and jain sucide bombers, right? And so much backwardness. poverty and ignorance, right? And then you found that islam is perfect with their perfect societies, were all people are happy and everything is in best order, right? Are you kidding or are you only dreaming? No, you are trying to deceive! But you should that every deceiver always deceives himself, too!
0
2 Abu Abdullah
written by Machmoed , December 25, 2010
For islam being the jungest religion you mention, it is not that shocking that it has stipulated more rules etc. If we look at the laws applied today, it's more accurate, more fair and more humane than what Allah or Jahweh has ordered. Many islamic countries do not apply all the sharia laws because they themselfes believe it is outdated on some issues.

You wrote: It is true that many people have made Islam just a set of rituals and deviated from its true teachings. But that is not the fault of Islam but that of those who deviated from it.

It's not their fault indeed, it's Allah's fault. He was not mubeen and muslims invented all kind of stories to make it understandable/ mubeen.

You wrote: My conviction is a result of my own personal research and not due to any outside influence. If you can honestly show me that my convictions are wrong, please be my guest.

Before researching anything you have to be unbiased. You were a muslim and are a muslim and so you can't be a real researcher. Didn't you find the assertions of some verses in qur'an ridiculous and false. Do you really believe Allah is shooting the jinn with stars/ meteorites/ comets or whatever?

tradition: Do you believe the story of Mi'raj when Buraaq took the assumed messenger to the seven heavens?

What about the many sahaba of Muhammad who said that much of the qur'an was lost (hadith Buchari saheeh)?

If you had researched history, you would have known that sunna is created by the syrians and killed the rulers of Mecca (Jazid) after ahl albait. The islam of today (the majority) is that of the opponents of Muhammad. It was they who canged the qibla to Mecca, not Muhammad. There are scriptures of christians from the time of 641 A.D. where Ishmaelites and jews were allies and helped invade Jarusalem etc etc.

Islam is very paganistic in case you didn't know. Muhammad brought nothing new actually.

You really didn't search enough.
0
To Machmoed
written by Abu Abdullah , December 28, 2010
**Note**
I have not been able to reply recently as this website has been giving this message: "Our system has determined your activity as hostile, threatening and harmful to our network. You have been permanently banned from accessing our property." Wonder why is this?
********

>For islam being the jungest religion you mention, it is not that shocking that it has stipulated more rules
>etc. If we look at the laws applied today, it's more accurate, more fair and more humane than what Allah
>or Jahweh has ordered. Many islamic countries do not apply all the sharia laws because they themselfes
>believe it is outdated on some issues.

Islam does not have more "rules" than other religions. It is a very practical way of life. Other religions have more restrictions than Islam like the Sabbath or the celibacy in Buddhism, etc. Regarding what is humane or not, it is a matter of perception. For example, Capital Punishment for murder might not sound humane to the murderer but it definitely is humane to the next would-be murder victim. The laws applied today are only as humane as the regime applying it and they can and do flout humaneness when it is to their advantage.

>You wrote: It is true that many people have made Islam just a set of rituals and deviated from its true
>teachings. But that is not the fault of Islam but that of those who deviated from it.
>It's not their fault indeed, it's Allah's fault. He was not mubeen and muslims invented all kind of stories to
>make it understandable/ mubeen.

Re. deviating from the true teachings of Islam, stories were invented by people for their personal gains and their followers blindly followed them. Had they studied Islam, they would have found the Quran mubeen. It is easy to blame others for your own ignorance.
0
To Machmoed.
written by Abu Abdullah , December 28, 2010
See here to for a clarification of your points: http://bit.ly/hKOlkq
0
Cannot agree with Abu
written by The Great Buana , December 28, 2010
Not many rules in Islam? There are so many. The whole world is divided into haram and halal and than the muslim has to pray five times a day, observe the fasting during ramadan and than there are rules concerning what to eat, what to wear and even how to beat ones wife! In Buddhism, only the monks have to observe many rules while common people have only five: Not to kill, not to steal, much like the 10 commandments except those concerning god. But in Islam people do not only have to pray, but even the right direction must be observed and than their are so many other things: No handshake with woman, gender segregation etc. There is nothing useful because there is much superstition behind and nothing else. It is the believe that there is a single god who knows and rules anything and who is so arrogant that all people have to serve his ego by praying five times every day to him and that he punishes everybody who does not believe in him. This nonsense makes only sense to those who teach this nonsense. The rulers and scribes are the ones who make profit on that by exploiting the people and treating them as useful idiots. Instead of paying them the money they deserve they only need to promise them a life in paradise after death. This is the true nature of islam and thats from the very beginning: To keep people stupid in order to control them.
0
"To keep people stupid...(?)
written by Amboyduke , December 28, 2010
To The Great Buana:
Maybe not so much "stupid" as afraid and ignorant...? Why is it the human race has this inherent need to believe in, or worship, something? It is apparently in all of us.
It does make us vulnerable to any and all religious belief structures, in my opinion.
This need to believe seems to wane when we are still young and full of the promise of life, but just let someone face a terminal illness or the eventual onset of old age and death, then we all tend to turn to "God" when there is no other way out. Or so it seems.
But you are as right a rain about the controlling nature of religion.
And I've always wondered why a God needs to be worshipped...???
It's all about control of those "useful idiots".
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 03, 2011
Amboyduke,

How so?

I am a Muslim and pray five times a day. How does that give anybody any kind of control over me ?

Prayer is spiritual fulfullment and entirely a personal thing.

Similarly, following any of Islam's rules, how does that give anybody any control over me?

Please explain.
0
Abu
written by Amboyduke , January 03, 2011
Hello Abu
In my opinion, the main purpose of a structured religion is to instill fear, guilt, and anxiety into the people who believe. Through that fear and guilt religious leaders can control many aspects of a believers life. Even countries can use religion to control people.
The concept that "if you don't follow these rules you will burn in hell" let's say, certainly has a controlling factor over those who believe such things. This isn't a phenomonon that is only found in Islam. It's in all religions.
They feel if they don't believe, they will be punished in the after life. It takes faith to believe anything that cannot be proven. Religion, as all mankind practices it, cannot be proven. No one knows what happens to you when you die, or where you go...NO ONE. Faith is not a bad thing as long as it is not forced down someone else's throat. Again, all religions try to do this.
May I ask you why you pray 5 times a day?
Because you are TOLD to pray 5 times a day as part of your belief structure. Why not 2 times a day, or 12 times a day?
That is a form of control. I agree with you that prayer is a personal thing. My question is WHY 5 times a day?
As a none Muslim but someone who has been trying to research the Koran, Haddith and Sura of late, I don't understand how anyone can stay in the Islamic faith given the multitude of what I think is nonense I have found...?
Not only that, but if I was a member of a "religion" that was doing the horrific thinks that Islam is doing all over the world, I'd be out the door so fast my head would spin. If you are a "moderate Muslim", you're still commanded to follow and do the Koran's bidding and if you wanted to become an apostate, you risk being killed for leaving Islam....right?
That, my friend, is real control if ever there was such a thing.
(I am mostly hard core agnostic, but I do belive in "God", just not one I can define).
Even in the West, with the creeping Islamic agenda, sharia law, a strange sense of honor in the killing of wife's and daughter's is something I will never understand, let alone adhere to. These things have happened in Canada as well as in the U.S.
I personally would not pray to any God that condoned such things and I don't understand how anyone else can do so.
Thanks for your interest in my post, but you might refer to the post above mine by the great buana as well.
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 05, 2011
Amboyduke,

My point/question was how does praying five times a day or following any of Islam's "rules" give someone/anyone control over "me" the "useful idiot" ?

In Islam, there are no religious leaders, but there are scholars. I am not obliged to follow any religious leader in existence today but can and do take Islam from the Quran and Hadith. Hence my question, how does this lead to me being controlled by the leaders/rulers/scribes ? Given that, can it still be asserted that "It's all about control of those "useful idiots". " ?

Regarding honor killings and other horrific things, these are not condoned by Islam just like Hitler's concentration camps or the Serbian ethnic cleansings are not condoned by Christianity.

I don't know what you have found that you consider nonsense. Care to shed light on this aspect ?

And, as a Muslim, I do not believe that "God needs to be worshipped". It is for my own spritual fulfillment.

Regarding "the great buana", I have to agree to disagree with him as it is futile to reason with someone who seems quite emotionally charged when discussing Islam.

0
Abu
written by Ambyduke , January 05, 2011
Why do you feel you must follow the Koran and the Hadith?
How can you deny the Koran tells Muslims to kill the infidel? Either he converts to Islam, or is shamed into paying a "tax" as a lesser person than a Muslim, or he is murdered for refusing to convert?
How about "takkiya"?
Children being brainwashed to be suicide bombers?
How about the treatment of women as third rate creations?
A goat seems more valuable to a Muslim man than his wife or daughter?

Whether these things are considered by you to be in the Koran or not, they are indeed the harsh reality of your faith.
They are practiced by Muslims every day all over the world.
I could not be part of a group of people who claim belief in God and yet continue to do these things in his name.
That just makes no sense to me what so ever.

"Regarding honor killings and other horrific things, these are not condoned by Islam just like Hitler's concentration camps or the Serbian ethnic cleansings are not condoned by Christianity."

You may not think these things are condoned in the Koran, but there is one helluva lot of Muslims who obvious do.
Let me ask you this, straight up: If you consider yourself a "moderate Muslim", how do you and the rest of the "moderate Muslims" intend to clean up your "religion"?
How do you intend to get rid of all the crazies that you infer are not following the Koran?
Listen, if there are 1.6 billion of people in the world who believe in Islam, and your arguement is that you "religion" has been hi-jacked by a "small group of radicals", what do you, (second person PLURAL) intend to do about it?
It is essentially an Islamic problem, and no where in the world is there evidence of any "moderate" group doing one damned thing to change them.
Why?
Because the Koran DOES condone all the things I mentioned and the "moderate" practicers of Islam are either afraid to act, which given the consequences of speaking against the Koran, I can have a certain empathy,
or they must follow the Koran as it is written.
Why do you feel you must follow this religion when there s so many horrific things done in it's name?
How can you stay in it and be aware of all these horrible things?

As far as you personally feeling that "God needs to be worshipped", that is indeed a personal thing, and I respect that.
If you Ayatolahs aren't your spiritual leaders, what are they?
Or you Ummahs...or Imams? They're certainly not Scholars.
That is of itself a major problem within Islam...they don't have any firm direction. No one is "in charge".
They're all over the place. Anything goes, you might say.
0
One more thing
written by Ambyduke , January 05, 2011
I love the posts from the Great Buana and duh_swami.
I have learned a great deal from these posts.
The following is a very small partial list of Koranic quotes.
Any opinion?

1.Enjoy polygamy (Quran 4:3)
2.Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them (Quran 9:5)
3.Prohibit and desecrate other religions (Quran 109:1-6)
4.Intercourse with concubines/female slaves (Quran 24:33)
5.Cut off the hands of thieves (non-Muslim) (Quran 5:38)
6.Beat your wives (Quran 4:34)
7.Desecrate holy books other than the Quran (Quran 2:79)
8.Circumambulate seven times around Kaaba as the Pagans did and do (Quran 2:158)
9.Loot the properties of your enemies, kill them and rape their widows (Quran 8:69-70)
10.Don’t question or think logically; just do as you are told (5:101-102)
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 06, 2011
Ambyduke,

My reply was considered too long by the system, so I put it here: http://wp.me/p1gnmq-h
0
Waste of Time
written by Ambyduke , January 06, 2011
Abu.
I read your resoponse to my post in "Exposing the Attackers of Islam" and I still vehemently disagree with you.
How can you defend such a group that constantly commits such world wide attrocities in the name of "religion"?
You can't. None of you can.
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 07, 2011
Ambyduke,

The group that you are referring to is just using the name of the religion to perpetuate their own agendas. It is not the religion's fault. e.g. The leader of 9/11 spent the night before 9/11 drinking in a bar. If his actions the night before is not Islamic, why does his action the next morning automatically be considered due to Islam ? As a Muslim, I do not and essentially cannot defend this group as their actions are un-Islamic.

All orthodox Muslim scholars --- and not just moderate ones --- strongly disagree with what is being done in the name of Islam. Case in point: The friday sermon in Makkah's main mosque on 14th September 2001 condemned the 9/11 incident in the strongest terms and labeled it as unislamic. This sermon is attended by over a million people and watched on television by millions more Muslims. Yet, the notion that Muslims are doing nothing is being spread.

Hundreds of books have been written in Muslim countries by Muslim scholars in the last decade that point out in detail that Islam does not and cannot condone any terrorist activity.

But yet, some people insist on taking their understanding of Islam from Al-Qaeda or similar groups instead of trying to really see what the understanding of Muslims scholars is. No wonder they have a heinous image of Islam.
0
One Last Thought
written by Amboyduke , January 07, 2011
Abu.
The group I am referring to is the group that no one is doing anything about.
What, please tell me, are you doing to exterminate these people that you say are not the true representatives of Islam. The whole world is watching more and more each day and we see NOTHING being done to curtail any of these horrific acts.
Nothing. The evil is spreading daily, and you surely must know that?
You are obviously a bright individual.
Name just 3 books written by these Muslim scholars that one can read.
I'll bet you some crazy Ayatollah has placed a Fatwa against the authors.
You are right to realize the world in general has a hienous image of Islam. Who can blame them.
At the risk of being redundant, I ask you again, what is being done by the "moderate Islamic element" to stop this crap?
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 08, 2011
A lot is being done in the Muslim world to ensure laymen do not get caught in their traps. It simply is not true that nothing is being done.

There are many books written, many sermons delivered, many fatwas issued. Saudi Arabia alone has been on the lookout for this deviant group and has done a lot to keep them at bay despite what you may have heard in the media. Remember, the Grand Mosque at Makkah was attacked by extremists in 1979 -- a lot longer before terrorism was even talked about in the west. And since then many scholars have spoken out about this phenomenon.

As for books, there are many books in the Arabic language as the target of these books is not the west but Muslims.

Compared to Arabic books on the subject, I have seen very little in English like "Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam" Amazon link: http://amzn.to/edHGtN

There are many websites also put up by Muslim scholars which show that Islam does not condone terrorism. e.g. See http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/

So, it is not simply that nothing is being done. Quite the contrary, sincere Muslims, and not just moderate ones are doing everything they can to ensure that atrocities are not committed in the name of Islam.

If you want to see what has been done in Arabic, I can provide you with a long list.


0
...
written by Amboyduke , January 08, 2011
Abu,
I guess I'll sum it up this way:

"There are many books written, many sermons delivered, many fatwas issued. Saudi Arabia alone has been on the lookout for this deviant group and has done a lot to keep them at bay despite what you may have heard in the media."

"So, it is not simply that nothing is being done. Quite the contrary, sincere Muslims, and not just moderate ones are doing everything they can to ensure that atrocities are not committed in the name of Islam."

They are losing the battle and it's a battle they can't afford to lose.

0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 08, 2011
>They are losing the battle and it's a battle they can't afford to lose.

How?
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 08, 2011
Maybe I should re-phrase:

How did you arrive at the conclusion that "the battle is being lost" ?
0
...
written by Amboyduke , January 08, 2011
Islamic violence is growing world wide daily. That is not a sign of victory. It isn't even a sign of progress. Whom ever you think is "fighting" the radical faction of Islam is losing.
If they don't win this battle, the free west will ultimately win it.
Abu, this hate filled ideology must be wiped from the face of the earth.
The battle WILL be won, but it won't be won by anyone in Islam.
How can you stay in this organization with a clear conscience?
In my opinion, by staying a Muslim you are condoning every act they do.
0
...
written by Abu Abdullah , January 09, 2011
There is no "Islamic" violence that is growing daily. That is something that people might want to portray about Islam but it does not reflect facts.

The battle is being already won. For example, in Saudi Arabia, where these extremists strike hard, a few years have gone without any terrorist attack. To the contrary, many have been caught and even some have been reformed and have turned into preaching why they were wrong earlier. They have already been defeated on the intellectual front.

The hate filled ideology belong to some fringe elements and not to Islam or Muslims. And, I agree that their ideology should be exterminated. This can only come about by getting a correct understanding of Islam and not by portraying the Al-Qaeda view of Islam as a correct one.

My being a Muslim and millions of others is in no way a condonement of extermists. It actually shows that despite all their efforts, they have not been able to recruit any significant amount of Muslims into their ranks. This is their ultimate defeat.
0
ABU.
written by Amboyduke , January 09, 2011
I hope you're right Abu. I sincerely do. Time will tell, but I have my doubts.
Our banter has been stimulating even though it was off topic. (Incest in Islam)

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna

islamic-jihad-cover


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
islamic-jihad-bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Announcements

Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy

Syndication