Islam is deeply anti-woman. Islam is the fundamental cause of the repression of Muslim women and remains the major obstacle
to the evolution of their position. Islam has always considered women as creatures inferior in every way: physically, intellectually,
and morally. This negative vision is divinely sanctioned in the Koran, corroborated by the hadiths, and perpetuated by the commentaries
of the theologians, the custodians of Muslim dogma and ignorance. (...) The Koran remains for all Muslims, not just "fundamentalists,"
the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places; its ideas are absolutely true and beyond all criticism.
On adultery the Koran 24.4 says: "Those that defame honourable women and cannot produce four witnesses shall be given eighty lashes."
Of course, Muslim jurists will only accept four male witnesses. These witnesses must declare that they have "seen the parties in the very act of carnal conjunction." Once an accusation of fornication and adultery has been made, the accuser himself or herself risks punishment if he or she does not furnish the necessary legal proofs. Witnesses are in the same situation. If a man were to break into a woman's dormitory and rape half a dozen women, he would risk nothing since there would be no male witnesses. Indeed the victim of a rape would hesitate before going in front of the law, since she would risk being condemned herself and have little chance of obtaining justice.
Little did Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, realize how literally true his words were when he said in a 1944 speech:  "No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners."
Abul Kasem (after quoting Q.33.59 and Ibn Kathir comments on it)
Muslim women must always keep their 'meat' covered whenever they venture out. Infidel women who do not hide their 'meat' inside Jilbab and Hijab are either maid servants or whores. The white Australian women who do not dress Islamically are maidservants or whores. In Islam, Muslim men are allowed to have unlimited sexual intercourse with maid servants and/or sexual slaves. A Muslim man commits rape if and only if he has sex with a Muslim woman out of wedlock. Having forced sex with an infidel woman does not at all constitute rape, Islamically speaking.
The natural conclusion is that Muslim men are completely free to Islamically rape these infidel women, if these whores fall in Muslim men's hands. There is no point in accusing this grand Imam. He knows Islam inside out. He is confident what he said is Islamically correct. The Qur'an backs him up one hundred percent, as explicated by none other than ibn Kathir. Blame the Qur'an before you blame this Sheik of Islam.
In fact, this ‘meat’ Imam candidly explained his speech by saying that his reference of ‘meat’ was directed towards whores and prostitutes. What he meant is very clear: white Australian women who dress scantily and provocatively (un Islamically) and venture into an Islamic territory, such as Lakemba, Auburn, Punchbowl, Granville (the Muslim subarbs of Sydney) are truly sluts and prostitutes, perfectly suitable for Islamic rape. The Qur’an allows Muslim men to sexually molest these infidel women are no better than maidservants or prostitutes.
The emperor must have known that surah 2.256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying:
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. (...)
The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest