Saturday, November 12, 2011

More Than 3000 Women/Girls Facing Forced Marriage Every Year . . . in Germany

If you even suggest that Islamic culture is incompatible with Western civilization, you're immediately branded a "racist," a "bigot," and an "Islamophobe." I wonder how much more research we need before reality kicks in.

GERMANY--More than 3,000 women and girls in Germany, most from Muslim families and many of them minors, faced forced marriage in the course of a year, official research released this week indicates.

The first federal study of its kind found 3,443 recorded cases in 2008 - the most recent year with sufficient data - in which people living in Germany were forced to wed or threatened with a forced marriage.

Most were between the ages of 18 and 21, although nearly a third of them were under the age of 17.

Almost all were female and the children of staunchly religious immigrant families, most frequently from countries including Turkey, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Those who force their own children to marry someone they don't love, or a perfect stranger, against their will are committing a brutal act of violence against them," Family Minister Kristina Schroeder said, presenting the study funded by her ministry.

More than half were beaten or otherwise physically abused to convince them to marry, while more than one in four were threatened with weapons or told they would be killed if they did not go through with the marriage. (Read more.)


Kim said...

Teach them Islamic laws and jurisprudence and that can clear their ignorance instead of trying to convert them to a religion that offers them no solution.

D335 said...

0h wait, I'm having a vision!. More comments coming in, more and more comments.

All directed to spank someone's ass!


jonnykzj said...


This is the first time I'm replying to you. I used to be a sunni Muslim. Then i became quran alone coz of the obvious absurdities in hadith BUT NOW even the quran is making less and less sense to me overall. To put it another way one person WITHN ME(quantified possibly by one specific region or rather one specific neural connectivity in my brain) has already accepted christianity whilst the other still believes in quran alone, though even the other has less and less arguments for doing so.
NOW with that said let me address this statement of yours. In islamic law THERE'S THE CONCEPT OF MALE GUARDIANSHIP for a woman, which before marriage is promarily her father, then brother and after marriage her husband. As long as a girl is not considered an adult her guardian can make all the decisions and even decide to marry her off. Below the age of 9 lunar, i.e. 8+ solar, scholar agree there be NO PENETRATIVE sex. However activities like thighing or carassing etc can take place EVEN whilst the girl is still a baby and married since there is NO MINIMUM age for marriage.
BESIDES THAT if an adult muslim woman chooses to marry someone not liked by her guardian, he can accuse her of becoming an apostate and thus could be justified islamically in killing her.

simple_truth said...

Kim said...

"Teach them Islamic laws and jurisprudence and that can clear their ignorance"

The problem with that is that this is part of the Islamic cultural, political, and religious landscape. Early Muslims who followed Mohammad did it as an act of political unity. Mohammad married for that reason too. Such marriages unite communities that would otherwise be at odds with each other. You should know that from Islamic history and from the example of your prophet.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a specific area won't implement such laws as part of sharia. The problem with Islamic law is that it can vary from place to place and not yet completely violate certain Islamic principles. One jurisdiction may not adhere to such a practice; but, there is no way to claim that such a practice is in any way un-Islamic.

"instead of trying to convert them to a religion that offers them no solution."

Probably any religion other than Islam would be a step up. Most other religions at least allow the individual to make their own decision and not have the threat of religious backlashes for not conforming. Islam is a step back if you are willing to investigate it from the outside and from the prospective of most other religions. Even if one just looks objectively without even considering religion as a factor, they can come to the same conclusion if they are honest with themselves.

D335 said...


do you really exist? all your arguments were all straightforward opposites.

Kim is currently the top "spank-magnet" of
Samatar and Osama are way behind.

David should consider how to employ your special talent regularly.

Nimochka said...

@Kim: Islam had 1400 years to civilize Muslims, but it very clearly has failed! They stayed as barbaric as people of the 7th century!

So I think you guys should look into other religions because Islam most definitely offers no solutions! In fact it is creating a lot of problems that either people didn't have before or others long have solved and Muslims are lingering and lagging behind trying to solve them but every time they get close to solving it Islam gets in the way!

In my country Iran in the 60s and 70s we were modernizing fast and we were on our way out of 7th century barbarity! But lo and behold the Islamic revolution happened and Islam and Sharia came back with a vengeance! Again it was legal to force little prepubescent 9 year olds to marry men at least twice their age, again women had no right to divorce, again abusive men got away with it, again the women who were not wearing the hijab had acid thrown in their faces and beaten up and/or arrested. Again the savage punishment of execution by stoning was re-instituted according to the "Sunnat al Rasoul Allah" (the tradition of the prophet). If anybody dared to say anything against all these changes he got arrested and dealt with very quickly!

There are private tapes of Khomeini that you can listen on Youtube (in Farsi) where he orders mass executions and bloodshed on the pretext that: "Look what Rasoul Allah did with the Jews of Banu Quraitha! When he realized that they don't come to the straight path he ordered all of their men to be beheaded in one single day! Why are we so soft and lenient towards these Moharebin?!! (meaning all those people that didn't want Iran to become a Sharia based Islamic state)" They shot and hanged thousands of people right after this speech! Isn't your religion of peace inspiring, Kim!?

Again prison guards started to rape women political prisoners because they were considered "Mohareb" or fighter against Allah and of course fell under the category of female war captives and according to your Quran and your so-called prophet it was Halal and Mobah to rape them. Here is a witness to the savagery of Iranian Islamic prisons watch and weep! I did when I watched this:

And example like her abound! Even men were raped in their "Islamic" prisons! I guess if you are a Mohareb against Allah (meaning fighting against the regime) anything can be done to you! Your whole body is fair game! After all those Muslim prison guards were just hating for the sake of Allah like good Muslims!

By defending this barbarity called Islam you are sanctioning and making apology for cruelty and savagery and barbarism and unspeakable evil. Don't do it Kim! Have a heart!!! You are better than that!

Kim said...

The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated).

Sharh Muslim, 9/206

It is preferable for a guardian not to marry off his daughter when she is still young unless there is a valid reason for that.

Al-Nawawi said:

It should be noted that al-Shaafa’i and his companions said: It is preferable for fathers and grandfathers not to marry off a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission, lest she end up in a marriage that she dislikes. What they said does not go against the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, because what they meant is that they should not marry her off before she reaches puberty if there is no obvious interest to be served that they fear will be missed out on if they delay it, as in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah. In that case it is preferable to go ahead with the marriage because the father is enjoined to take care of his child’s interests and not to let a good opportunity slip away.

And Allaah knows best.

Sharh Muslim, 9/206.

Kim said...

The Purple Marquise I truly do feel sad for that woman. It's not right at all that prison guards should beat their prisoners, its entirely UN ISLAMIC to treat prisoners this way. I can understand why it is oppression living in those "muslim" societies, because they are oppressive governments themselves. They fail at establishing true Islam. I feel better living in the U.S than living in Iran mostly because of its opressive leadership at the moment and it's shia cult society.

Nimochka said...

@Kim: Oh Kim! You are a Shafii???!! What a coincidence? I wonder what you have to say about this gem of a ruling straight from Shafii website,

Assalamu Alaikum
What is the mu`tamad qowl (relied upon position) of the Shafi`ee Mazhab regarding the khatnah (circumcision) of women? Is it wajib (obligatory) or sunnat?
Also, what if a woman was ignorant if it being wajib will it be incumbent on her during her advanced age to perform khatnah?
الحمد لله رب العالمين ، وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين، وبالله التوفيق
الختان واجب على الرجال والنساء عندنا (المجموع: 1: 164)
ويمنع من ختان الكبيرة لخوف التلف (الروضة: 3: 384)
Circumcision is obligatory upon men and women according to us (i.e. the Shafi’is). (Majmu’ of Imam An-Nawawi 1:164) The circumcision is wajib upon men and women according to the rājih qawl of Shāfiʿī madhhab. In a situation a woman is in her advanced age, it is not permissible to circumcise her if it may harm her (al-Rauḍah of Imam An-Nawawi: 3: 384).
والله أعلم
Allah knows best
Answered by:
Sidi Abdullah Muḥammad al-Marbūqī al-Shāfiʿī
Checked by:
Al-Ustāż Fauzi ibn Abd Rahman
Shaykh Nuh Keller translates and comments in his Reliance of the Traveller (عمدة السالك):
“Circumcision is obligatory (Shaykh ‘Umar Barakat: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (Shaykh Nuh Keller: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert).”
We would like to point out that this “circumcision” is not what is commonly known as female genital mutilation."

....The "clarification" made me really laugh out loud! (or maybe I should have wept out loud) YAYAYAYA... female circumcision is not the same as female genital mutilation!!! Right right!!!!

Who do they think we are? Six year old gullible children? Semantic manipulation and poppycock, that's all they do to cover up their tracks! Ya! Just chop a little bit less of it and it will be alright!!! It won't be FGM!


jonnykzj said...


May i ask you something? Did you convert/as muslims say revert to Islam coz Kim sounds like a western name?
NOW back to the issue. You mentioned a scholarly article that states it is not allowed to have intercourse with a girl not ready under the age of 9 but at or after her consent is not necessary. I ask you would you be fine if you had a daughter who was 9 OR EVEN 30 for that matter and she was forced to sex by her husband and the husband tells you that she was not sick, tired or menstruating? Would you honestly then support the husband and say it was perfectly fine and with his right to have done so coz ur daughter cant just refuse sex coz she might not be in the mood?
IMHO this alone is enough to discredit this monstrous religion. BUT u shld remember that i also mentioned whilst PENETRATIVE intercourse may not be permissible with oung girls NON PENETRATIVE e.g. THIGHING IS FINE WITH A BABY GIRL NE IS MARRIED TO. How sick is that?

Rale said...

Hi everybody,

sorry for being off-topic but I would really like to share with you a wonderful numerical miracle I've found in the Bible. Inspired by our muslim friends, I've tried to look for interesting numerical patterns in the Bible, and here is the first I got (probably someone's already noticed that one) :

The word דָּג (dag), the masculine for "fish" occurs 20 times in 18 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV (, and, guess what, the word ἰχθύς (fish) occurs 20 times in 18 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV. Ouah! Both the number of occurances and the number of verses match! How can that be a coincidence!

This is very important since ἰχθύς are the initials of Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ (Jesus Christ Son of God Savior). Remember that the Bible has been written over a span of more than 1000 years, and by more than 40 authors. How come that we find this double coincidence at the end? The only explanation is that the Bible is from God, and it clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT.

I think I should make career :-))

jonnykzj said...


As far as Iran goes you can make the excuse they're shia and cultish, fine. BUT CAN U DENY that the TALIBAN ARE MOST CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE SUNNAH AND SHARIAH OF ALL ISLAMIC REGIONS? If ure honest u cant N THEY R THE WORST. SO we have a spectrum here. The more a people/country follow shariah the worse it gets and the less they do, the better it gets.
Perhaps David can provide you with some stats in this regard. It might open your eyes after all.

Nimochka said...

jonnykzj said: "@Kim

As far as Iran goes you can make the excuse they're shia and cultish, fine. BUT CAN U DENY that the TALIBAN ARE MOST CLOSELY FOLLOWING THE SUNNAH AND SHARIAH OF ALL ISLAMIC REGIONS? If ure honest u cant N THEY R THE WORST. SO we have a spectrum here. The more a people/country follow shariah the worse it gets and the less they do, the better it gets.
Perhaps David can provide you with some stats in this regard. It might open your eyes after all."

Amen Brother! Very well said! Actually as bad as Iran is it is SO MUCH better than the Taliban's Afghanistan that we cannot keep the Afghan refugees and illegal immigrants off of our eastern boarders! The poor Afghans in Iran are like Mexican illegals in America only treated much much worse! They really have no human rights and are treated practically as slaves, but they are still happy to run away from Taliban and come to "Cultish Shia" Iran and would do anything to stay!

Of course ever since Americans partially kicked Taliban's rear end many of them went back (i.e. less Sharia=better country) but I have heard from my parents who live in Iran that ever since Taliban has started to make a comeback recently the Afghan illegal immigrants are back in Iran in droves (i.e. more Sharia=worse country)

Nimochka said...


Shia is very cultish, but so is the rest of Islam. It is the cult of Muhammed through and through! But having said that Iran actually is not the worst. Taliban and Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan are far worse places to live, not because our government is nicer, but because Iranian people are not personally and individually as religious as people in those countries. So our government has already given up on some of the Sharia which had found too hard and impractical to enforce.

The Iranian government will be more than happy to implement Sharia 100% but they know that if they push it that far they will have a serious revolt on their hand. For example Hijab is compulsory in Iran and many times they tried to make Chador (which is a little bit like burqa) also compulsory, but people weren't having any of that!

Even to the extend that they made us wear the hijab (a long coat, pants, and a normal scarf or a long scarf for students and government workers) they had to force people and jail them and whip them in order to scare them into wearing it. You saw in the video I posted before on one of the victims of their Hijab-enforcement reprisals! She refused to wear it and they throw her into prison and did the things that they did to her to make her and people like her an example for the rest to terrorize the people into wearing hijab.

But since for every step of implementing sharia they have to subdue a huge resistance they pick their battles carefully and don't insist on 100% sharia implementation. Although they implement enough of it to make life a living hell for everyone.

Even with the kind of hijab that we are forced to wear women try to pick as colorfully as possible, and they try to shorten the hem of their coats at least a little bit every year. Then after a while the people push it too far for the tolerance level of the regime and a crackdown starts. Then all women role back down their hems for a few months until the moral police calms down a bit and then again the hems start to get shorter and shorter again. Also the scarves go further and further back and a little bit more of the hair in front start to show.

If you see pictures of Iranian women online and elsewhere rarely do they wear the hijab as tightly as the arabs or south east Asians do. They also put tons of make up as a sign of protest. Every now and then the moral police again starts to crack down on bad hijabs and make-up and ladies slow down a little bit or sometimes get arrested by the police and jailed or whipped or fined. But anyway after a while the calm is restored and the make-ups start to get brighter, then the scarves get more colorful and loose and more and more hair shows!

Really to observe this silent and subtle battle between the ladies and the Sharia authorities is really hilarious! Kim, do you think it is right to force these totally unwilling ladies (who are millions upon millions in Iran) to wear hijab which they so clearly detest? How does that make for a happy populous when they cannot even pick their own clothes?!!

Nimochka said...

@Kim: By the way non of the things that I wrote in my first post that happened in Iran after the revolution were exclusively Shia!

The lowering of the age of marriage is according to the Sunnah of your prophet observed by all branches of Islam. Imposing of Hijab also was according to Islam of all branches and our hijab is actually lighter than the Sunnis'. Then the rape of the female captives is straight from Quran:
Quran 4:24"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God 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 God is All-knowing, All-wise. "

And Hadith: "Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 "Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."

Stoning is also in the Hadith and is done in Sunni and Shia countries alike. Cracking down on anti-Sharia protestors also has nothing to do with Shia "cult" specifically. In Quran says that if anybody tries to do mischief in the land and fight against Allah and his messenger (i.e. the Islamic sharia government) his punishment shall be killing, or cutting of the hand and feet from the opposite sides. So by that definition those people who left the prison with their hands and feet intact actually have been dealt with in an "un-islamic" non-Sharia way!

If our "Cultish Shia" government would have wanted to implement sharia fully like the non-cultish Sunni Taliban or Wahhabi Saudi Arabia all those who rebelled against the Islamic government and Sharia rule should have been amputees!

So I wonder which part of what I mentioned in my post was exclusively Shia and un Islamic!

I guess none! Kim! Don't fool yourself! Islam is evil in all of its shapes and forms! And as jonnykzj already said: More Sharia=Worse country-Less Sharia=Better country...... and I add No Sharia=Much much much better country!

Rale said...

Just to expand on Nabeel's article (and my comment) :

1+5+3 = 9 = 3x3
The word "fish" occurs 3 times in the chapter
This is Jn 21: 21 = 7x3 and 2+1 = 3

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the "fish miracle" of the Bible, and it proves the doctrine of the Trinity! Too bad the fathers of the Church that lived during the arian controversy didn't know that one.

jonnykzj said...

@The Purple Marquise

"Amen Brother! Very well said!..."

JK- Thankyou sister and note that this is the person of jonnykzj addressing you who has accepted Christ. But the other person in my being(divided possibly by two distinct neural connections in my brain) still insists on the Quran alone without hadith. Join me and let us pray for him so that he joins me, for i cannot exist alone for long without being in harmony with him.

Deleting said...

you said-
' But the other person in my being(divided possibly by two distinct neural connections in my brain) still insists on the Quran alone without hadith.'

Romans Chapter 7. It's your old nature that prevents this. There are people who are former mormons and I heard someone talk about going back to their old mindset and terminology by saying 'heavenly father'...(For those muslims who don't know about mormon terms. Mormons believe everyone person is a son/daughter of 'heavenly father' and you preexisted with him as a spirit baby of Elohim (that's the mormon God's name) and one of his MANY wives. You were sent here to work out your own righteousness and your performance and adherance to the mormon laws determines which of the three heavens you go to or if you get to become a GOD. The bible teaches that you are a creation of Gods but until you accept christ you do not belong to God and therefore God is NOT your 'heavenly father'.")
(That was a really long explanation)
But basically it's this johnny. There are parts of you that will still cling to the old mindset. The only way those come out is by reading the word. Romans and both corinthian letters are good for helping to do that because they are so thick on doctrine.

Deleting said...

I also forgot to mention hebrews. That has a lot of good doctrine regarding faith (chapter 11)

Deleting said...

I said in my post to Johnny,
'The bible teaches that you are a creation of Gods but until you accept christ you do not belong to God and therefore God is NOT your 'heavenly father''

Oopies. This is what happens when you don't proofread before hitting reply.
You belong to God but you are not his child until you accept christ and can not call him 'father'. You are then his child by adoption. That's what I should have said.
Sorry for the confusion.

Kim said...

johny, poor fellow, are you really going to leave Islam because of a few things youve seen on here? Maybe you havent been hanging around Muslims who know their religion well and know how to defend it. byw being Quran only i believe throws you outside of Islam, so you havent been a true Muslim for long, since you rejected the Hadith for no good reason.

Make sure you know what youre doing and have deeply thought about everything. Sigh.

minoria said...

There is a man called Joel Richardson who has written a book called "The Islamic Antichrist" and if his ideas are correct then we might as well give up.

He contends,and he has good points,that:

1.There will be a mass apostasy of Christians because they will become convinced Islam is true.


His idea is the Antichrist will not be a European but a Muslim.

It will be a man claiming to be the MAHDI,or descendant of Muhammad,the guided one.


Revelation talks of a false prophet who will be with the Antichrist and do miracles.

Richardson asks,what will it take to convince YOU Christianity is FALSE?


What is somebody who looks like JESUS appears,does miracles and says ISLAM IS TRUE(like according to Islamic theology).The Muslims would believe him and the vast majority of Christians would become Muslim.WHY?

They dont know nor are interested in finding out WHY from a TECHNICAL point of view the Koran is false.


For several years Islam will rule the world.Richardson has pointed out REVELATION SPECIFICALLY says Christians who dont accept the Antichrist(Mahdi?) will be BEHEADED...a typical Muslim form of execution.

THOSE who dont convert and publicly show they are Muslim will NOT be allowed to BUY things.But in the end the real Jesus would come.

philip.zhao said...

I am a simple man. For all I know, American women will be the same under Shariah which is near !!

D335 said...


"johny, poor fellow, are you really going to leave Islam because of a few things youve seen on here?"

JohnyKZJ might be a little out of my taste. But he has his own right, to choose what he believes for himself without anyone forcing him. Naive would be otherwise.

I do not expect him to become a Christian by what he seen in here, but by everything he seen in life.

I don't wish for him to know Christianity by the sugar and spice alone, but I wish for him to know Jesus deeply even in the times of troubles.

I don't wish for him to stay in a religion in the name of peace. But I wish for him to believes in the name of the Lord. For conversion bears many risks, facing many hard obstacles.

I don't wish Johny to become a Christian in the manner of a house built on sand, but I wish Johny to be a Christian like a house built on the rock.

As I wish the same for you too, KIM.
And to JohnyKZJ: nope, I'm not defending you. It's time for you to fend for yourself, proclaim what you believe. Find guidance and light.
I believe that prophecy has become a history, therefore I believe in Christ.


Rale said...


We all pray for you brother, your progress is tremendous!

Deleting said...

Kim said, "johny, poor fellow, are you really going to leave Islam because of a few things youve seen on here? Maybe you havent been hanging around Muslims who know their religion well and know how to defend it. byw being Quran only i believe throws you outside of Islam, so you havent been a true Muslim for long, since you rejected the Hadith for no good reason."

Johnny hasn't fully left islam yet and he's NOW getting static from muslims.
Shows just how 'open to dialogue muslims really are.

jonnykzj said...


"johny, poor fellow, are you really going to leave Islam because of a few things youve seen on here?"

JK- Definitely not the reason. I've studied everything myself and that's what is leading me to this conclusion. SOme things ive already pointed out to you.

" Maybe you havent been hanging around Muslims who know their religion well and know how to defend it. byw being Quran only i believe throws you outside of Islam, so you havent been a true Muslim for long, since you rejected the Hadith for no good reason."

JK- I rejected the hadith at 19. before tht i was Deoband Sunni. i did this coz they seemed absolutely contrary to quran like commanding apostates to be killed whilst i thght the quran doesnt, at lest not directly. THIS IS THE MOST problematic command coz it wld lead fallible humans TO KILL EVER MORE AMONGST THEMSELVES AS THEY CONSIDER EACH OTHER KUFAR OER EVER SO MINOR ISSUES. thats exactly what we see in islamic countries. muslims infact suffer the most in those countries coz of other muslims can go after them coz they say the former r not muslim anymore n cld thus kill them.

"Make sure you know what youre doing and have deeply thought about everything. Sigh."

JK- Oh I've done so and am still doing so. Id never come back to hadith islam tht is for sure. TELL ME Kimdoe it make sense on a round earth for God to command facing any speific location on earth for ll times in all palces? How can tht be done? Infact if u stood right opposite to the kaaba on the globe ALL DIRECTIONS, by waling, wld lead u to the kaaba thus breaking down the unity completely. EVEN OTHER THAN tht there r ALWAYS TWO WAYS to reach the kaaba at any point. Also the command if taken literally means TO FACE, NOT THE WALKING DIRECTION. To correct for this muslims had to invent more n more details which were originally not present n this regarding the basic rituals. it seems like Muhammad didnt know the earth was round...

jonnykzj said...

@Kim again

ONE OF THE, IF NOT THE BIGGEST PROBS OF ALL that lead me to doubt even the Quran is that it 1) Claims that if Muhammad needed proof tht wht was revealed is true he SHLD ASK THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK, 2) the quran states that Jews AND CHRISTIANS SHLD JUDGE BY THE torah AND GOSPEL N NEVER CLAIMS ANY OF THOSE TWO WERE CORRUPTED ONLY HT BESIDES THOSE PPL INVENBTED SAYINGS IN THE NaME OF GOD. But if we look at what Christians ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD AS GOSPEL, n hence it wldnt make sense for the quran to have meant another one which they didnt even know, we find in the Gospel CLEARLY THAT JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD AND THAT THE WORD IS FULLY DIVINE. Other than that the Gospel is full of statements which clearly show that Jesus is God. He starts out subtly and is never absolutely direct but step by step reveals His Glory N THT IS EXACTLY how Christians have always understood it. Muslims ofcourse have not thght of this n Muhammad has misrpresented their beliefs...

jonnykzj said...

@Kim again...

...Here ill show u how the Quran misrepresents some of the core beliefs of Christianity. The Quran says in 5:73
They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity(THALITH U THALAAHA):

Notice first how falsely Y.Ali translated this TRYING TO HIDE wht the Quran actually says for he living in the 20th century now knew better, though not fully, wht the Christians beleifs were in this regard. The phrase "Thaalith u Thalaatha" means "THIRD OF THREE". THIS IS A TOTAL STRAWMAN for no Christian, NOT EVEN THE UNITARIANS, has ever claimed that God is the third of three.
5:116 And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods besides God'?"
AGAIN NO CHRISIAN HAS EVER said that Mary is a god, or a god besides God. Yes some people worshipped Mary or rather appealing to Mary in order for her to intercede for the person with God coz she is considered more holy than other people. An orthodox Christian explained this to me. BUT NEVER wld they call or make her god/godess/divine.
The Quran never addresses the trinity as it has been understood by Christians right from the start. The best it perhaps comes close is:
4:171 ...Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him:...
NOTICE HOWEVER again Y Ali uses the term trinity which is NOT THERE. The verse simply says "Do NT SAY THREE.PERIOD!" But this although not as wrong as the others IS COMPLETELY AMBIGUOUS and hence totally useless. For one can ask "what three"? Three attributes? NO tht cant be it coz Allah himself specifies three main attraibutes of his right in the Bismillah, Allah, Arrahman n Arraheem. Why didnt thr verse just clearlx say "wa laa tqaqoolu ALLAH THALAATHA ASHKHAAS" i.e. "and dont say tht God is three PERSONS"? tht wldve at least been correct definition of Christian belief. The verse then also continues saying " will be better for you: for God is one God..."
Again this is a STRAWMAN. Christians NEVER claime(d) that there is more than one God BUT THT GOD HIMSELF IS THREE PERSONS, OR ONE BEING AND THREE PERSONS.

jonnykzj said...

@Kim again

Another claim ive often heard the muslims make is that they dont deny that God once used the terms "father" and "sons" in the old testament but that He distanced Himself from that in the Quran COZ THEY, SUPPOSEDLY, MISUSED THE TERMS. Muslims claim that with Christianity they talked about a begotten son which they understood tht Christians argued God, God forbid, had sex with Mary n thus sired a son WHICH ONCE AGAIN IS TOTALLY FALSE. Even the Quran makes these false accusations when it says things like "how can he have a Son when HE HAS NO CONSORT?" as if any Christian has claimed that.
Christians just like Jews HAVE ALWAYS understood son and father in the SPIRITUAL SENSE EVEN IN CASE OF JESUS. ALSO Christians dont believe Jesus became the begotten or better UNIQUE son of God through Mary BUT WAS BEGOTTEN IN ETENITY BEFORE ANYTHING WAS MADE.
Besides that by acknlodgeding that God has used terms like "sons" and "father" in the OT, muslims have only dug there own grave FOR THE QURAN DENIES ANY SUCH:
5:18 (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

SO CLEARLY u can see that the Quran even denies the spiritual sonship. And look at the silly reason given as to why ppl cant be God's spiritual sons NAMELY "COZ HE PUNISHES US FR OUR SINS". Now tell me does not a human father as we know punish his children? Infact a father is more harsh to his child than others would be or are allowed to be IN ORDER TO DISCIPLINE THEM when theyve done wrong. So this is no reason at all. ALSO NOTE how the Quran acknoledges HOW GOD CLD ACTUALLY HAVE A SON BUT CHOSE NOT TO:
39:4 Had God wished to take to Himself a son, He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistible.
AGAIN this shows tht God, according to the Quran, doesnt want any spiritual sons either so the whole of the OT wld also be invalid according to muslims n it wld contradict their claims tht God initially had no probs with ppl calling themselves sons of God.

Peter said...

Kim wrote: "the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. [...]Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated)."

Everybody will agree that humans mature at different ages. No question about it.

But to suggest that a 9 year old girl could be physically and mentally ready to engage in sex with a 54 year old man is either ignorant or blatantly evil.

Muhammad lived for 62 years and Aisha lived for 66 years. Sure life expectancy was a little bit shorter in 7th century Arabia than today, but there is NOTHING to indicate that girls were sexually mature at the agee of 9. The claim is absurd, and it is embarrasing to see pseudo scientist muslims try to argue that she had some kind of a uniquely developed physiognomy and mentality. We know that she was still playing with dolls at the time. She was a child like any 9 year old and there's no running from that.

Muhammad didn't have any children with Aisha. At the age of 54 HE could certainly have had more children. But it is very unlikely that this child could become pregnant. If Aisha had a child at an early age, then you could argue that she was in fact developed. But she didn't.

Muhammad married a child and had sex with her when she was 9 years old. Throughout time muslims have not questioned this fact.

The problem is that muslims are instructed to live like the prophet. That leaves only 2 options:

1) Determine that Muhammad was correct and that muslim men therefore are allowed to marry and have sex with children "if they are ready for it".

2) Determine that Muhammad was wrong and therefore reject him as the prophet.

I choose (2) and I cannot find it in my heart to ever accept a 54 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl, no matter how many people thought she was "ready for it". There is simply no excuse, and it is a crime, not just legally but morally.

Kim said...

The mahdi wont do miracles lol. Try again.

andy bell said...

I don't know what the big uproar about this is. Yes, women are chattel in islamic cultures. And yes, they can be forced to marry. They can also be forced to cut their clitorises. They can also be forced to wear a garbage bag. They can also be forced to be in a polygamous marriage. They can also be beaten by their male handler. They can also be forced to have sex. They can be forced to convert to islam. They can be forced to move to the back of the masjiz during prayer time.

All perfectly legal within islam. Most of it stemming from arabian culture. Women were seen as weak. They couldn't fight like the men. And also, they were a liability if they were raped. That was seen as a shame to the tribe (ummah). All concordant with an uber-patriarchal society.

Nimochka said...

@jonnykzj: My friend you have been in my prayers ever since we exchanged posts about the trinity and the cults! You seem to be an openminded fellow and I pray that any doubts and hesitations that you have about accepting Christ will be removed by the power of The Holy Spirit. Amen!

But I also want to ask you to explain to me exactly what this Quran only position is. I never really understood it. You see when I read the Quran if I don't also read the Hadith and Asbab-Al Nozoul and Sirah literature I don't even know what on earth the text is talking about most of the time.

I also don't understand how then do you know anything about your prophet, the man who supposedly gave you the Quran and on whose trust and authority you accept the Quran itself. If you know nothing about him because you rejected all of the Hadith and Sirah literature then how do you know that he was a man of good enough character and worthy of such huge trust.

I mean you almost learn nothing about Muhammed when you read the Quran itself and Quran is based on Muhammed's authority. Right? But without Hadith you know absolutely nothing about him. be continued

Nimochka said...

@jonnykzj .....continuation:

My other question is this: Why do you reject ALL of the Hadith and on what grounds? If Muhammed was actually a good guy then why his followers right after his death bursted out of Arabia in 7th century and started to slaughter and plunder and enslave the people of neighboring countries (mine one of them) who had never bothered them before?

What motivated them to do these things? These actions of Muhammed's immediate followers are not recorded just in the Hadith. They are already part of secular and non-Islamic history and they are just as unflattering towards Muslims as the Hadiths are.

Besides explain to me why the ardent followers of a prophet of God would go around make up really heinous and hair-raising stories about the very man they claim they love and admire and follow.

Yes, as David Wood said in one of his brilliant videos Muhammed had A LOT of enemies, and maybe some of the more heinous stories in the Hadith are made up by some of them. But the most important question is if he was such a nice man why did he have SO many enemies?! And why non of his true followers stood up and said: "Hey! What are these lies you enemies are spreading about our beloved angelic prophet? We know him! He wouldn't commit such crimes and he taught us not to do so either!" ?

You see with Jesus also there were some fake converts and heretics that tried to invent fake stories about him as well. But Jesus true followers right then and there stood up against them and called out their lies and heresies. The students of the real apostles and disciples of Jesus said: "Hey! I learned my Christianity from apostle John, or apostle Peter or Paul, and he never told these teachings and these stories that the gnostics or other heretics are telling in their fake new gospels!"

And on top of that I must add that even the heretics and gnostics hardly invented any such horrible stories about Jesus' unspeakable cruelties and sexual exploits!!

The stories were just exaggerated and rather mystified or made Jesus their mouthpiece to teach other doctrines. But they never said Jesus was a genocidal maniac! Even the heretics of Christianity never invented any story to deliberately blacken the name of Jesus, because they all in their own misguided way really loved and respected Jesus. But those enemies of Islam who were considered Muslim but invented horrific stories about Muhammed to discredit him and blacken his name could not have loved or respected him. In fact they must have hated him. Why such ardent enemies of Muhammed where also amongst muslims if not because they had been converted by the sword on their neck!!!! ?? be continued

Nimochka said...

@jonnykzj: ......continuation:

Besides the fact that Muhammed's followers had such high tolerance for the awfully violent stories about their prophet and were not even sure whether those horrific stories were true or not shows that the actual Muhammed could not have been a lot better than those stories show. Otherwise no muslim scholar would have ever included some of them in his collections with the stamp of Sahih on it!

If he was a true prophet then his teachings would have changed the lives and world views of his immediate followers and they in turn would have acted truly differently and taught a very different Islam to their followers. The kind of Islam that when it reads in the Hadith that their prophet was a slave trader and a mass murderer of innocent civilians would have been shocked and outraged. But they were not! So that means the Islam that Muhammed himself taught them could not have been much better than what they practice.

And last but not least, what in the Quran makes you think it is such a good book to be proud of. Yes the Hadith are horrific, but Quran is pretty embarrassing too! It approves of wife-beating, polygamy, sex slavery, genocide, cruelty, and hatred of others and violent Jihad is found in the very verses of Quran. In fact the best and most poetic and "peaceful" part of Quran which are the short Meccan suras are not so much about human on human violence, but they are almost exclusively about God on human violence! The God that is portrayed in the best and most poetic and peaceful part of Quran is so vengeful that almost every other verse is threatening the people that if they don't accept Muhammed as prophet he will do such horrific things to them in the after life!!!

Just read Sura 111 (Al Masad). It is a vitriolic rant against Muhammed's uncle Abu Lahab and his wife. In the old testament also like in Psalms sometimes we can find some prayers by David or Israel to God to curse their enemies and take revenge on them. But the very crucial difference is that the the Psalms are prayers towards God and man is speaking to God and telling his hearts secrets to his Lord and sharing his pains with Him. But Quran supposedly is only God's word towards man! What is the God of universe doing preoccupying himself with one wretched Meccan who happens to be the uncle of his prophet and his wretched wife???!!!

I mean to dedicate a whole sura to an ad hominem rant against this Abu Lahab seems like the waste of time for the God of the universe, and much more a waste of time for us sitting 1400 years later as a Quran only Muslim and wondering who the heck this Abu Lahab is whose hand should be cut?! And by rejecting the Hadith you won't even have any way to know who the heck he is and why he is being cursed with such vitriol and his wife too!

And all of those curses and threats to unbelievers before Allah even gives a clear message about redemption and showing exactly how to live a good life and love one another and how to pray and have a relationship with Him!!! Just fear and intimidation! It is a ridiculous message and it is no wonder that most people as long as a sword was not on their neck rejected it!

So I want you to tell me my dear brother in humanity, why Quran holds such a grip on you?! What do you see in it!? Why such attachment that despite your own better judgement you cannot let go of it. I really want you to write me back and tell me how you feel about the Quran and what you see in it. Who knows, maybe I am missing something!

Kim said...

@jonnykzj as well as
are good websites for you to look at atm. Theyve destroyed every false argument folks on here have come up with, including the confirmation in torah and gospel. Check it out

Peter said...

Kim wrote: "theyve destroyed every false argument folks on here have come up with"

They definitely have not. But even if we don't look at the textual arguments, as a rational person (and I think you are one) you at least have to reject Muhammad as a person to emulate. The Quran tells you almost 100 times that Muhammad is a role model and that people should act like him and so on.
But that is definitly not a good idea. He had sex with Aisha when she was 9 years old, he hit her, he accepted that other men hit their wives if they told them off, he approved of torture, capital punishment and a lot of other very nasty things. Do you really want people to behave like that?

So either you have to embrace (some) violence, (some) rape of children and (some) opression of women or else you have to say "no, this man is not the perfect role model for all humans". And if you agree with me, that Muhammad was not the perfect role model for all humans at all times, then you must reject Islam, because then it is false and harmful.

Think about it: If you started behaving like Muhammad, you would be thrown in jail immediately. Doesn't that tell you that something is wrong? Or do you really believe that the laws of Western countries are fundamentally wrong and should be replaced with Sharia (including stoning of adulterers, wife beating, marriage and sexual realtionships with children, killing of homosexuals and so on)?

Do you really believe that I should be murdered for saying that Muhammad was just a man, and that he was indeed a criminal?

Otherwise you have to reject Muhammad and Islam, because behaving like Muhammad is something all muslims should be able to to agree with. And Muhammad would definitely have me killed for what I am writing here.