Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi guys,
Last week I was horrified once again by the incredibly ignorant and stupid attitude by
a Muslim apologist, who got me really mad by spewing sheer silliness and total nonsense.
Anyone who has spent just a bit of time looking into Islam and the reality of this system
in the 21st century has come across the absolute claims some Muslims make about their book
and the resulting interpretations.
Anyone who has spent just a bit of time looking into the basis or foundation of the system,
the Koran, will have realised how vague and ambiguous the wording of this book is and
how much the entire system is reliant on interpretation by humans and the personal opinion of humans.
Anyone who has spent just a bit of time looking into the basis of the system, the Koran, will
have realised how Muslims are dependent on the writings contained in the traditions of
Muhammad, the Sunnah, which was collected hundreds of years after his visits to a cave
near Mecca. Muslims today even consult fictitious biographies, the sirah, which contain really
weird stories such as the water in the well, which rose to greet Muhammad's mother, Aminah,
while he was still in the womb so that she would not have to bend down so much or how
later, during child-birth, the palaces in Syria were lit up by the light emanating from
her pudendum. If you believe this, you'll believe anything.
Anyone who has spent just a bit of time discussing Islam and the built-in social, political,
legal and economic concepts and systems as well as the religion will have come across
anything from really outrageous to incredibly funny claims by ignorant and zealous Muslims.
One area of such claims concerns women. While women in Islam are supposedly treated equal
to men - yet somehow have a great deal of laws and regulations cantered on them - women
in the non-Muslim regions and countries, labelled by the nebulous, undefined term: "The West",
are really a sad case. Exploited as faceless bodies and mindless puppets, they are only
used for marketing purposes as naked sex slaves.
A Muslim who wants to insult me claims he has had sex with my older sister, who has
maybe lost a part of her brain and both legs in a car accident. Or with my mother, an old
woman. Why this would constitute any form of pleasure for these guys or serve as an
insult to me is anyone's guess.
It seems that many Muslims are very much focussed on this area of women and sex. Maybe it is
because there are so many suppressed men out there, who, under the artificial rules set
by some old men hundreds of years ago, revolt by exercising really sick sex practices (as
is evidenced using Google analytics) and, in more benign cases, call *** clad women
on Arabic sex channels, abundantly present on satellite TV.
Don't believe me? Well, let's look at TV channels on just a single satellite location and we
find that out of 1100, almost 100 channels are directed exclusively at an Arabic speaking
audience. This is just on a single satellite position. There are more satellites carrying
Arab channels, but this is the most popular in the Middle East. If more than 20% of these
satellite channels in Arabic are sex based channels in Arabic, what does that tell you
about the state of affairs and the claims regarding morality made by Muslims? These
channels make money, not propaganda.
In general, religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high ***
rates, abortion, *** promiscuity and suicide, as has been documented in this study, showing
the propensity of religious zealots to ignore the evolved ethics within the species and
commit atrocious crimes. Luckily, the sector with the fastest growth is that of non-religious
secularism. We also see that - according to the Global Peace Index - the countries with
highest percentage of atheists are the most peaceful countries and - sadly - vice versa.
Studies into the role of women in society away from home show a huge discrepancy between
what clerics would like to see and what reality shows them. If your fashion ideal is this,
well then you will not appreciate reality in Lebanon, a majority Muslim Arabic republic,
where people treat each other with an attitude of building a society without the hatred and
condemnation of anyone who is different from you, a society, where individuals are allowed
to have fun, together with other individuals who don't want to oppress or suppress or stifle
or demand or anything. A society which is built on respect for the person next to you,
behind you or in front of you. Respect, not fear. Respect, not judgment. Where the female
is shown respect, even if she is not covering her entire body. Not every man on the planet
can do this and there are instances where the primitive instincts of conquest and domination
take over and primitive genes which should have long evolved into advanced rationality
still cause the well-known but badly documented crimes of domestic violence or *** battery,
i.e. ***, where numbers are estimates, not facts. Yet apologists do not tire of using
*** as a statistic against non-Muslim countries and governments as though they were facts.
Without presenting an honest definition of the numbers or assumptions made. Example:
one study asks college girls: Have you had *** intercourse when you didn't
want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?
An affirmative answer was counted as ***. In other words, a woman who regretted a one
night stand after a night of drinking was considered as having been sexually assaulted.
What communists used to do, is tell their equally oppressed fellow comrades that in
the "West", using the same nebulous and undefined term we know so well, the "Western" women
were "exploited" and "abused", whereas under communism women were celebrated. Yet at the
same time they were treated like useful idiots. Communists had the same kind of showcase women
to pacify their own ranks, but somehow, no woman has ever headed a Communist Party.
Using the very same tools, Muslims are indoctrinated with rubbish, telling them that Islam actually
liberated women. They are not told that a woman such as Cleopatra did not require a
whole lot of liberation. None of the female leaders such as Eleanor of Aquitaine or any
queen ever required much liberation. But Muslim clerics pretend these women never existed.
We have incredibly simple and naïve people as a result, which spread the most amazing
lies and deceive others without any scruples or thoughts for the consequences.
Instead, these simpletons propagate the virtues of polygamy, making it look as though this
is the best solution for society in the 21st century.
There are also women who propagate this kind of absolute rubbish and they also don't check
this and just take for granted: this is the truth. Deluding themselves.
But what about female leaders in antiquity, such as Cynisca of the Greeks?
Queen Erato of Greater Armenia? Queen Shaqilat I in Jordan?
Helena, or have they looked at Livia, the wife of Augustus? She displayed the virtues
of a Roman matron, which included chastity, modesty, frugality, loyalty, and dignity - but
advised her husband, the Emperor, for 51 years. Cleopatra of the Egyptians? Was she also seen
as evil and a sign of the devil? Empress Ariane of The Byzantine Empire?
I will conclude this list with Hind al-Hunnud, the woman who led a battle against Muhammad
in 624.
And still, I have to read the following nonsense, which is present in so many excuses of polygamy
in Islam:
Yet because Islam recognizes the nature and needs of women, and does not want them to
live alone to bear all the economic and other burdens of life on their shoulders, or to
spend their lives without the love and care of a husband or the blessing of children;
because it takes into cognizance that there are unusual situations such as barrenness
or chronic illness in women which might make marrying more than one wife desirable, the
permission for plural marriages has been given. For example, after a war the number of women
is often much greater than that of men and many women are helpless and destitute.
Why are some unusual circumstances provided as foundation for a general rule? Why are
only men seen as providers for a family and only men allowed several partners? Are men
in the Muslim society the only *** and women the only righteous?
But for some odd reason, when I look at reality in the non-Muslim countries, I see the full
scope of human behaviour, which seems to be present in today's species of humans: women
as *** and women as sophisticated leaders.
Just like men.
In Islam, I come across the most mundane and non-committal phrases such as: "always uphold
the status and dignity of women" or "after the arrival of Islam, it was proven that the
female could breathe in the air freely and the task of building a community that is cultured
and civilized, was given to them." What does "guarding their private parts" mean? What
does "the best garment is the garment of piety/righteousness" mean? What does any of this mean?
Who are women who guard their "chastity", "modesty" or "private parts"? What does "keeping
his wives' hearts pure" mean? All of these metaphorical expressions require human interpretation
which can then be re-interpreted to mean anything.
Nowhere in the Koran does it say: "female Muslims must cover their bodies except face
and hands." The fact that females in Muslim regions cover themselves using different methods
and different materials and different degrees of covering shows that this is not a religious
act, but a cultural convention. The Koran doesn't even mention a hijab as clothing (7:46,
33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45, 19:17, 83:15). It's all down to interpretation, by humans,
by male humans, by old, male humans.
And when these old, male humans feed young, female Muslimahs the lie that they have to
cover themselves excepting the hands and face, they lie to them about why this has to happen
and at the same time lie to them how happy they need to be when compared to the women
in the "West", who can wear what they want, eat what they want, do what they want and
when they want.
When all this was due to women in the hot, arid climate of Arabia who did not see any
need to cover everything. But all that was to change and with their rights to wear what
they wanted, they also lost different other rights, which someone like Khadija, Muhammad's
first wife, still had.
Yes, I can see why the women in the "West" urgently require liberation by Islam. Or is
it from Islam? Where a woman testifying in court as a witness is not worth the same as
a man. Where a woman inheriting from her father receives
half of what her brother receives, regardless of the circumstances.
Where a woman can't be a judge in a Shariah court and only recently has been allowed to
lead the traditional Friday prayer.
But I have to admit: not all is well in the "Western" world. A flight taking off from
Paris with an all-female crew is still a news item. So there is still room for improvement.
} "Mexico"
Well, at least the bus-driver taking the ladies to their plane was a man, so there are still
things men can be trusted with.
Do the pilots or the cabin staff look as though they were enslaved? Does a Mrs. Merkel, the
Prime Minister of Germany, or her counterparts in Australia, Bangladesh, Iceland, Jamaica,
Thailand, and Trinidad and Tobago and in the self-governing territories of Bermuda, Sint
Maartin and the Åland Islands? Does the Queen of Denmark, The Netherlands
or the United Kingdom? Do the madam Presidents of Argentina, Brazil,
Costa Rica, India, Kosovo, Liberia, Lithuania, Malawi, Mauritius, San Marino or Switzerland?
Do female CEO's of companies such as HP, IBM, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, DuPont, and so on and
on look enslaved and exploited only for their nude bodies? What laughable rubbish!
What about Monisha Kaltenborn, CEO of a company in the most competitive industry on this planet:
Formula 1, where technology, electronics, hydraulics, mechanics, materials, aerodynamics,
Business Intelligence and strategy all come together, where even a gearbox has 30 sensors.
Is she also a sexually exploited sex-doll? What laughable rubbish!
What about nuns? They have devoted their life to an invisible entity and have no physical
contact with men at all and live outside of society. Would Muslims seriously want to compare
all their women, wives, mothers and aunts with Christian nuns? What laughable rubbish!
And - just for once - think of the consequences, as nuns, who consider themselves as slaves
of their god don't fall pregnant much, so Islam would die out within a few generations
or lack thereof.
Talking about slavery: what about female slavery in Islam? There are hundreds of references
in books, texts and the Hadith that deal with slavery in Islam. Not by a god, but humans.
Entire chapters of the Koran and the Hadiths/Sunnah are dedicated to
dealing with the taxation, treatment, sale, and jurisprudence of slaves. In addition to
this, numerous Hadith mention slaves, and their relation to their Muslim masters. Here
is a selection of Hadith on slaves: [all Hadith are from Sahih Bukhari, unless noted.]
To begin with, the Quran justifies slavery, and often mentions slaves. Here are only some
of the many relevant verses:
33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries
and the slave girls whom God has given you as ***."
This verse clearly shows that Muslims believe that taking slaves in war was a God-given
right. These slaves were considered '***' or the spoils of war. As the saying goes:
to the victors go the spoils.
23:5 - "... except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them:..."
The passage's context here (not quoted in full) details how Muslim males are allowed
to have *** relations with their wives and slave girls. Implicit in this is that
Muslim males had slave-concubines. 70:30 is basically a repeat of 23:5.
Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of Muhammad having "relations" with at least
one of his slave girls. Muhammad had *** relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave.
Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave
Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was
of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty." [Taken from Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir"
(Book of the Major Classes), p151].
Ibn Sa'd also writes that Mariyah bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. He died 18 months later.
Sa'd writes: "If he had lived, no maternal uncle of his would have remained in bondage",
p164. This shows that there were other Coptic slaves owned by the Muslims.
The Quran also instructs Muslims NOT to force their female slaves into prostitution (24:34),
and even allows Muslims to marry slaves if they so desire (4:24), and to free them at
times as a penalty for crime or sin (4:92, 5:89, 58:3) and even allows slaves to buy
their liberty, if they meet certain of their master's conditions (24:33). [90:10 'freeing
of a bondsman' refers to Muslims ransoming other Muslims who were slaves of non-Muslims.]
While I think it's nice to allow a slave to obtain his freedom, (at his master's discretion)
it is tragic that Islam allows them to be enslaved in the first place. That's like robbing
a bank and giving some of the money back to the bank, and thinking you did the right thing!
The above verses show that taking slaves was ordained by Allah, and that it was permissible
for Muslim males to have sex with their female slaves. It also shows that slaves were a valuable
commodity to the Muslims; otherwise, Allah would not have imposed the penalty of freeing
a slave to make up for a crime.
We see that in Islam female slaves are not categorically or generally prohibited. In
non-Muslim countries they are. In Islam, women are tilth and seen as objects (2:223). Women
even get organised in clubs, where they "learn" all about being obedient wives to their husbands.
WTF?!?!?
To summarise, I think I have brought sufficient evidence showing that while some women in
non-Muslim countries do work as prostitutes and are exploited by men, the vast majority
of women are not. On the other hand, women in Muslim majority countries are not ever
given the opportunities present in other cultures. I do remember a time when girls went to varsity
in Tehran or Cairo and were able to go outside without covering up and were able to take
jobs and pursue careers.
Are women in either sphere molested less or victimised less or sexually battered less?
Nobody really knows, as the statistics for domestic violence and aggression towards females
are totally inaccurate and unfortunately, these crimes still today carry a certain stigma
with them and are difficult to prove and prosecute. But putting a *** victim into jail for adultery
is like prosecuting someone being chucked out of a car for jaywalking.
One thing however I think I have made abundantly clear: the basis for subjugation and oppression
of women in Islamic societies is not the Koran, but human interpretation and the claim by
Muslims that women outside of Islamic influence are generally enslaved and sexually exploited
is simply made up and fabricated without any substance - and is easily refuted.
Or can any Muslim envisage the Queen of England doing a hot lap-dance in the local strip-club?
I will leave you with this enticing view and thought ....
... and thank you for your time.