It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by InfaRedMan
So, a couple of men claiming to be Muslim are raping women.
What about the many more rapes occuring by men claiming to be Christian?
What about the Catholic Priests molesting the children, basically encouraged by the church?
The point here, is that you can't blame a whole group of people based upon a few who claim to have an identifying connection, such as religion.
Originally posted by airspoon
So, a couple of men claiming to be Muslim are raping women. What about the many more rapes occuring by men claiming to be Christian? What about the Catholic Priests molesting the children, basically encouraged by the church? The point here, is that you can't blame a whole group of people based upon a few who claim to have an identifying connection, such as religion.
Robert Spencer on rape and jihad
What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).
After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.
Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.
Here's what Vice Director of Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, whom I rate in league with Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq as among the best commentators of Islam in this age, has to say about the issue (scroll down):
'For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct'
For non-Muslim women, they are in every respect -- the way they walk, the way they talk, those bedroom eyes we all know so well -- simply asking for it, and Muslim men have every right to do what they wish.
It is not understood that Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hands -- by demographic conquest rather than military conquest. It has worked in many parts of Africa; and if Muslims fail to reproduce even faster than they do, there is always the expedient of killing the remaining Infidels.
All over France there are cases of rapes, by Muslim gangs, of French girls. In Australia, in 2000, Bankstown and Greenacre (in Sydney) had a succession of gang-rapes, in which the victims testified to the particularly gruesome details of being assaulted by a dozen or more men at a time, screaming at them for being "Aussies" or "Christians." It made a big splash in Sydney, when the cases came to trial in 2002. Alan Jones, an Australian commentator, noted: "Let's not mince words here -- these are racist attacks against ordinary Australian girls carried out by out of control Muslim Lebanese...." The girls themselves all testified to the fact that the attacks were full of observations about, not race, but religion -- and the confusion of Jones here is understandable. The Western world is still groping to understand something of which it had been so remarkably and indeed, in some ways so fortunately unaware; it is the attitudes engendered toward Infidels -- a Frenchman who is beaten to death for trying to retrieve his daughter's stolen bicycle, a mother and her year-old-child assaulted on an RER train near Louvres, the thousands of assaults which are a modern version of the rape and pillage that Muslim conquerors were permitted whenever they conquered Infidel lands. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime.
Have we forgotten the mass rapes, at the hands of Muslims (Turks, Kurds, and in the Syrian Desert, Arabs) of the Armenian women, those helpless "giavours," in the first full-scale massacres in modern times, those of 1894-1895, and then the genocidal campaign that began in 1915 and went on for years? Have we all forgotten what happened to the Assyrian Christian women during the Assyrian massacres of 1933, when -- just a few months after the British left -- Muslim Iraqis had a high old time with their helpless Christian population? What about the rapes of the Christian women, kidnapped in Ramadi, Iraq last year -- never to be returned to their husbands, and now the permanent property of the Muslims who kidnapped them? Shall one recall what happened to the Christian Maronites in Damur, at the hands of the PLO? What about the Copts, in Egypt? Or, during the Algerian War the mass rape of Christian and Jewish women by the FLN (scarcely given enough attention in Alastair Horne's reticent "A Savage War of Peace" but given much more by such writers as Jacques Soustelle, the great ethnographer of Mexican culture, and a perceptive analyst of the Algerian situation and the real nature of Islam -- akin, in his way, to Andre Servier).
The figures on Muslim rape of Western women in Europe are astounding. In Denmark and Norway, between 65% and 70% of all rapes are committed by Muslims, who as yet still less than 5% of the population. One local judge in Norway actually exonerated one rapist by accepting his defense that the victims dress was taken by him to mean that she was egging him on. Her dress was nothing special to Norwegians, but the judge found it to be unbearably provocative to this poor Muslim immigrant. A curious argument, is it not? Even if she had been dressed a la Gisele Bundchen doing a shoot for Victoria's Secret -- and she of course was not -- rape is not an acceptable response.
Originally posted by skajkingdom
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The problem is Shariah law
NOWHERE in the Sharia Law does it say that a woman MUST wear a burqa.
N O W H E R E.
If a girl doesn't wear hijab, does that mean she will go to hell? But what if she reads Salat, Quran regualrly, acts decently, doesn't look at boys, doesn't gossip/babckbite etc, will not wearing hijab condem her to hell despite all her good attributes?
Praise be to Allaah.
First of all it is essential to know that Muslim men and Muslim women are obliged to follow the commands of Allaah and His Messenger, no matter how difficult that may be for people and without feeling shy of other people. The believer who is sincere in his faith is the one who is sincere in carrying out his duty towards his Lord and obeying His commands and avoiding that which He has forbidden. No believer, man or woman, has the right to hesitate or delay with regard to commands; rather he or she should hear and obey immediately, in accordance with words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allaah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision” [al-Ahzaab 33:36]
A sin may appear insignificant in the eyes of a person when before Allaah it is serious, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“you counted it a little thing, while with Allaah it was very great”
Based on the above, we cannot say for certain whether a woman who does not wear hijaab will enter Hell, but she deserves the punishment of Allaah because she has disobeyed His command to her. With regard to her specific fate, Allaah knows best what it will be. We cannot speak about things of which we have no knowledge, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And follow not (O man, i.e., say not, or do not, or witness not) that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned (by Allaah)” [al-Israa’ 17:36]
It is sufficient deterrent for the Muslim whose heart is aware to know that if he does a certain action he will be exposed to the punishment of his Lord, because His punishment is severe and painful, and His Fire is hot indeed.
“The Fire of Allaah, kindled,
Which leaps up over the hearts” [al-Humazah 104:6-7]
On the other hand, for the woman who obeys her Lords commands – including observing complete hijaab – we hope that she will enter Paradise and attain the victory of salvation from the Fire and its torments.
It is strange indeed that a woman whose character is good, and who prays and fasts and does not look at boys, and avoids gossip and backbiting, does not wear hijaab. If a person really achieves these righteous deeds, this is a strong indication that she loves goodness and hates evil. Let us not forget that prayer prevents immorality and evil, and that good deeds bring more of the same. Whoever fears Allaah concerning his nafs, Allaah will support him and help him against his nafs. It seems that there is much goodness in this Muslim woman, and she is close to the path of righteousness. So she should strive to wear hijaab as her Lord has commanded her. She should ignore the specious arguments and resist the pressures of her family. She should not listen to the words of those who criticize her, and she should ignore the specious arguments of those sinful women who want to make a display of themselves according to fashion, and she should resist the desires of her own self which may tempt her to show off her beauty and feel proud of it. She should adhere to that which will afford her protection and modesty, and rise above being a mere commodity to be enjoyed by every evil person who comes and goes. She should refuse to be a source of temptation to the slaves of Allaah. We appeal to her faith and her love for Allaah and His Messenger, and we urge her to observe the hijaab enjoined by Allaah and to obey the commands of Allaah (interpretation if the meanings):
“and not to show off their adornment” [al-Noor 24:31]
“and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance, and perform As Salaah (Iqamat as Salaah), and give Zakaah and obey Allaah and His Messenger”[al-Ahzaab 33:33]
And Allaah is the Source of strength and the Guide to the Straight Path.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)
Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by sos37
How is allowing someone to wear a piece of cloathing, "bending over backwards to accomidate them"? Some of these French citizens have lived their entire life in the country, why should they now all of the sudden be banned from practicing a part of their religion or culture? Again, it's hardly "bending over backwards to accomidate them".
Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Mdv2
Half of the source material you post is simply propaganda and the other half, while terrible, is just made up of isolated cases.