Friday, August 14, 2009

Submit Sexually or Starve!

When are Muslim lawmakers going to realize that Islam promotes women's rights (so long as we throw out numerous passages in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Tafsir and Sira literature)?

AUGUST 14, THE GUARDIAN--Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.

"It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying 'blood money' to a girl who was injured when he raped her," the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN.

Although Karzai appeared to back down, activists say the revised version of the law still contains repressive measures and contradicts the Afghan constitution and international treaties signed by the country. Read More.


Radical Moderate said...

yeah give muslims the right to vote and they vote for islam.

Dragostea said...

I dont get the muslims that leave in the west: cant they see that this is what a muslim country heads to...their chance is to separate religion from the state, but you see then they will end up losing people with the you come with the SOLUTION for muslims

nma said...

Torture in the Quran and early Islam

Adam said...

Where Is Dr.Zakir Naik MBBS?

happy to see mohammedans mice aka Landias trying hard to defend their islam and their self claimed prophet Hope to see the rat Zakir Naik MBBS soon debating Christian Apologists.

Unknown said...

Question:When are Muslim lawmakers going to realize that Islam promotes women's rights (so long as we throw out numerous passages in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Tafsir and Sira literature)?

Answer: That's easy. When Wood starts being truthful.

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Answer: That's easy. When Wood starts being truthful."

Note: I just looked up "truthful" in Ibn's Dictionary of Ordinary English Terms Used in Radically Different Ways. Here's what it said:

truthful (trooth-fuhl, adj.)--ignoring what all Muslim sources say on a topic and preferring whatever makes modern Muslims feel good.

I'm sorry Ibn. I can't be "truthful" in that sense.

(How many people think Ibn is now going to try pointing out a fallacy he looked up on Wikipedia and can't manage to address properly?)

nma said...

Ibn said...

Answer: That's easy. When Wood starts being truthful.

Ibn, you are trying to divert attention from the topic, a usual and dishonest Islamic trick. Your assertions come from an ignorant and confused mind that is conditioned by a religion full of diabolic lies, deception and dishonesty, so there is nothing surprising here.

minoria said...

Yes,in the Muslim world it is "one step foward,two steps back."The people who should be most protesting against this never do:Shabir Ally,CAIR,Al-Azhar,Qaradawi of Al-Jazeera(the most popular Muslim preacher in the world,he has a weekly show watched by millions and he's in favor of suicide bombing),Tariq Ramadan,the Israeli-Palestinian Rula Jebreal.Or they just say a few words,and that's it.Then it is again with the "campaign against Islamophobia."

They are the LEADERS of the Muslims,what kind of an example is that?


It is a terrorist group that has killed innocent men,women and children.They were elected to power by the Palestinians.A Muslim woman from Algeria,very famous in France ,called HOURIA BOUTELDJA,always defends them.She is the spokewoman for "Indigenes de la Republique"(natives of the republic(French republic),which is against racism and discrimination in France and supports Hamas.
What a combination.She says she fights for human rights of non-whites in France yet agrees with killing innocent people in Israel.

Fernando said...

Hi Ibn...

juste remember: islam spread by violence (and still does -- as we see--, as also withe marriages...) and since we can imagine a greater being than allah, then allah is not God...

for Ibn, itt shoulde bee forbidenn to testify the incovenient trues aboutte islam... showing the truth is the reason why muslims around the worls persistt in violence; intolerance; barbary: lyies; killings; degradating women, men and God...

thate won't happen anymore... the net will always bee the door to the true face off islam...

Sepher Shalom said...

Sahih Bukhari V7B62N121:
The Prophet said, "If a man Invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning."

Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an.

It seems the law makers in Afghanistan are just being consistent with the teachings of Muhammad and the historical understanding of Islam.

nu said...

Ibn said:

Question:When are Muslim lawmakers going to realize that Islam promotes women's rights (so long as we throw out numerous passages in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Tafsir and Sira literature)?

Answer: That's easy. When Wood starts being truthful.

Truthful about what Ibn?

Fernando said...

nu asked Ibn: «Truthful about what Ibn?»...

nu: do nott makke hard questions to Ibn... you know... it's thate time off the year many muslims go to theire homecountries in order to get another fakke weddings so thate they can, latter, brng thousands more off muslims inmigrantes to the west, thate same west they accuse off being behinde the barbaric expressions off islam we see eberyday...

butt then, nu, aske Ibnwhere's the ilogicality is this argument: iff God is the greates being one can image; and since we can all imagine greater beings than allah, then allah is nott God... or maybbe he can explain us why islam spread, and still does (just as well withe taqqyia and dawa and marriages) bie violence...

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

Read some more on ARISTIDES DE SOUSA MENDES(1885-1954).You can verify him in Wikipedia in several languages.I thought he would be available only in Portuguese but he's really quite famous.I had known for some time that 30,000 refugees had made it to Portugal at the start of WW II.

I did NOT know till you told me that they were all due to ONE MAN,and that he had DISOBEYED his government.


It's true,he was a believer.He said that "if I have to disobey then I prefer that it be the orders of men than of God."He made a moral choice.

He decided to give VISAS to ALL who asked.His government had sent him the order to deny visas to JEWS,plus several other categories,he disobeyed.

He saved at least 10,000 Jews,and 30,000 in all.And he was mistreated by Salazar,the dictador,and died in poverty.He was only a CONSUL in one city, Bordeaux.You know Portugal had several consuls in France,plus an ambassador.But he was the only consul who really helped,the others didn't.

minoria said...

So I give more.Have you ever heard of HANS FRANK(1900-1946)?He was a German Nazi who was the GOVERNOR-GENERAL (Nazi ruler) of POLAND during the war.He participated in the Holocaust.In his territory were the extermination(not concentration) camps of Maidanek,Sobibor,Treblinka and Belzec.He also killed many Poles and was called "the Butcher of Poland".He was a Judeophobe.


After the war he was captured and there war the famous Nuremberg Trial of Nazi leaders:Goering,Ribbentrop,etc.They all pleaded "nicht schuldig"(not guilty).But HANS FRANK was the ONLY one who said he was guilty and gave all the information he could against himself.He said he deserved to be executed.


During his imprisonment he came to know better the ideas of Jesus.He realized he had been wrong.And he became a Christian,as hard as it is to believe,a Catholic one.He repented,astonishing as it sounds.That was why he pleaded guilty and gave info agaisnt himself.I believe he was sincere,and he was hung,as he said he should be.It shows the ideas of Jesus can change even a Holocaust Nazi,hard to believe as it is.

minoria said...

I have already talked of how the ideas of Jesus influenced 2 very different men:MENDES SOUSA and HANS FRANK.Here there is a bit about DANIEL ZION (1881-1976).

He is another hero of WW II.He was one of the chief rabbis of Bulgaria.Then there were 50,000 Sephardim Jews.Zion was from Salonika,which then had 75,000 Sephardim Jews.They all spoke a dialect of Spanish called Ladino.I have read it,it's like 98% Spanish,easy to read.

They were descended from Spanish-speaking Jews thrown out in 1492.Sephardim in Hebrew means "Spaniards".They certainly liked the language,it's astonishing they kept it in Bulgaria.


DANIEL ZION had several visions of Jesus in his life.He accepted him as Messiah and saviour.In 1943 he sent a letter to King Boris III of Bulgaria telling him God had revealed to him not to give in to Hitler's demands to give him the Jews of Bulgaria.The king obeyed.

In fact Bulgaria was the only country in Europe during WW II where the Jewish population actually increased.Later Daniel Zion was publicly flogged by the Germans for being Jewish.After the war he left for Israel where he had weekly lessons about Jesus.I believe God used him to help the Jews of Bulgaria.

So we have 3 different lives touched by the ideas of a man from Nazareth,a Portuguese aristocrat and diplomat,a German Nazi participant in the Holocaust and a Jewish rabbi,and the rabbi saved 50,000.

Fernando said...

brother minoria... thankes for your referrences... yes: the path off Jesus is ALWAYS a pathe that implyes misunderstands from all off those who hate the truthe and love... I'll try to learnn more aboutte Hans Frank and Daniel Zion... all these silentte examples off persons who gabe all theire life to the others as Jesus did...

minoria said...


I want to add my part to the info about MARK 16:9-20.When you know all the details it appears there was NO conspiracy to add it.


It was added to some manuscripts in 150 AD, but NOT to the great majority. Regarding the manuscript evidence that has survived:

1. It is NOT in the earliest manuscripts that have MARK 16: the CODEX SINAITICUS and CODEX VATICANUS ( both from 325 AD )
2. It is NOT in the SYRIAC SINATICUS ( also called the SINAITIC PALIMPSEST ): a translation into SYRIAN ARAMAIC found in St. Catherine's Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It dates from the late 300's AD.
3. Not in 100 ARMENIAN translations.
4. Not in the Latin CODEX BOBIENSIS: it was a 2nd century translation. We have a 4th century copy of it.
5. Not in the 2 OLDEST GEORGIAN copies ( from 897 and 913 ).


Here is my source. He wrote in his " A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament " ( 1971), pages 122-126:

" 16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (à and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).

CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA ( my note: lived 150-215 ) and ORIGEN ( my note: lived 185-254 ) show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore EUSEBIUS and JEROME ATTEST that the passage was ABSENT from ALMOST ALL GREEK COPIES OF MARK KNOWN TO THEM. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8.

NOT A FEW manuscripts which contain the passage have SCRIBAL NOTES stating that OLDER GREEK COPIES LACK IT, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the CONVENTIONAL SIGNS used by copyists to indicate a SPURIOUS ADDITION to a document. "

minoria said...


If there was a conspiracy to make changes by church leaders ( and I am talking about an ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN, not a solitary individual ), something like what appears in the forgery THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION ( where Jewish leaders secretely get together to organize the Jewish control of the world ) then we would NOT have the documents we do.


JEROME ( 347-420 ): famous for the Latin translation of the Bible ( directly from Hebrew and Greek ) called the VULGATA. One of the most important church figures. In his writings he tells us that MARK 16:9-20 was almost absent in any of the manuscripts he knew.

EUSEBIUS ( 275-339 ): he wrote the ECCLESIASTIAL HISTORY, was first a Christian and later became an Arian, also wrote that MARK 16:9-20 was not in almost any of the copies he knew.


Here we have TOP leaders who lived some 200-250 YEARS AFTER someone had added MARK 16:9-20 FREELY telling this, they did not hide it. They were searching for the facts. Does that sound like there part of an ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY? It shows that even after 250 years the conspiracy to add MARK 16:9-20 still had not started.


We have 9 copies that include it but with an ASTERISK or other MARKER that was meant to indicate the copyist doubted it was part of the original. We have FAMILY 1, Minuscules: 22, 138, 205, 1110, 1210, 1221 and 1582.

I do not know the dates for minuscules 1110, 1210, 1221 and 1582. But:

1. Minuscule 22 is from the 12th century.
2. 138 is from the 11th century.
3. 205 is from the 15th century.
4. Family 1 is made up of several copies from the 12th-15th centuries. There 2 copies have MARK 16:9-20 with the sign meaning " of doubtful authenticity. "


At least half copies that doubt MARK 16:9-20 as authentic are VERY LATE ( 11th-15th century ). It shows that there was no conspiracy.


I have said that the evidence is in favor of most scribes having a real interest in TRANSMITTING the ORIGINAL WORDS of the NT. And also in that there was no organized conspiracy to add or eliminate words in the NT. But in MARK and APOCALYSE we really have a dramatic example:

1. The GREEK of both is BAD, the grammar is bad, especially that of Apocalypse.
2. It is evident that the writers were native ARAMAIC-SPEAKERS ( Mark and JOHN? )
3. As evidence of the intent of the church to TRANSMIT the ORIGINAL words of the NT they never CORRECTED the grammar, they kept it the way it was. Why keep bad grammar? Because they wanted to transmit the original words.


Not because of an organized conspiracy but because they took the attitude of " let us put it in " just in case " it really was by Mark. " In fact it seems probable MARK 16:9-20 may have not been meant to be a forgery in the first place because:


We have all seen books in the library where somebody has added a few words AT THE BOTTON or AT THE SIDE of the page. They express the thoughts of the reader like " never thought of that before ", " not convincing ", " that is true ".

The SAME with some NT copies. People wrote comments at the bottom or side. It possible somebody between 125-150 AD wrote 12 verses at the bottom of his copy of Mark, based on what he had read in Matt and Luke. His personal commentary on the text and it was mistaken by another copyst years later as really being part of Mark. And that continued in a limited way for centuries.

minoria said...

Thank you Fernando,I do it because knowledge can change things.I did not know till you told us about ARISTIDES DE SOUSA MENDES.Probably none of us did.That was why I first came to this learn more.

And I have.You probably know about ABBE PIERRE,the most popular man of France.He died recently.Or PADRE PIO,the most popular priest in Italy.They are famous to all there.


A bit more info.The European slave trade began in 1441 by the Portuguese.10 million Africans were taken of which 10% appoxim. died on the way,a trip of 4 weeks.

At least 80%,I repeat,at least 80% of all African slave were SOLD to the Europeans by AFRICANS.So if it had not been for Africans,then only2 million would have been taken.Do they tell us that in the politically correct documentaries and articles?


In 1462 Pope PIUS II in a letter condemned European enslavement of Africans by name.He called it an "enormous crime" and said church authorities should sanction those guilty.It had no effect but it shows that unlike Muslim leaders,Western civilization really "questions itself."


In 1537 in the Pontifical Encyclical SUBLIMIUS DEUS,the Pope condemned slavery.There is debate if he only meant American Indian slavery or slavery of all,but there is condemnation.