2 of 15
2
“The Truth About Islam” blog
Posted: 27 January 2008 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-12-27

kodak-muslim-moment.jpg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-12-27

mollah.JPG

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/16.htm

Pedophilia in Islam

Muhammed -The Pedophile -

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari Aisha: that the Prophet (Muhammed 53 years old) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/muhtpammed.htm

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:

“A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”

Khomeini, “Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

“It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/JenniferKing50718p2.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7595
Joined  2007-03-02
Freethinkaluva - 27 January 2008 09:47 PM

kodak-muslim-moment.jpg

Freethinka, I jumped out of my skin as though they were the KKK when I saw that pic.  Then I realized they are in black with round “hoods” and not the League of the South or the Arm, Cross, and the Sword.  Please don’t make us jump like that again.  :(  Then again, they could be the Nation of Islam, which is in KC MO and St. Louis:  Hate groups by state

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7595
Joined  2007-03-02
Freethinkaluva - 27 January 2008 09:48 PM

mollah.JPG

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/16.htm

Pedophilia in Islam

Muhammed -The Pedophile -

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari Aisha: that the Prophet (Muhammed 53 years old) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/muhtpammed.htm

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:

“A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”

Khomeini, “Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

“It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/JenniferKing50718p2.htm

That’s just sick and disgusting!  They approve of incest too?  Surely this isn’t accurate, because if it is, they need some serious psychological help or put in jail for life.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 11:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

OK. I’m afraid I’m going to have to modify my prior position that morality is dependent on the society.  While there may be a bit of latitude, this is insane.  While historically, females have been assigned less value that males, as we are becoming more civilized and humane, that attitude is disappearing in Europe and the U.S.  However, the above posts demonstrate that the Islamic countries are about 1,500 years less civilized and less moral than the rest of the world.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2008 09:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2008-01-06

I think what the above posts show is that Ayatollah Khomeini was crazy, as were/are his followers—but that’s not news, not even to most Muslims.

That, plus the fact that secular humanists can be just as gullible as theists.  Either that or they’ve never heard of Photoshop.  smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2008 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Freethinkaluva - 24 January 2008 07:39 PM

Was out for dinner with a couple friends a few weeks ago. A couple I really didn’t know all that well. We were having fun & discussing religion especially Christianity. That was okay but he went out of his way to make a big deal to say

“Islam has some of the best laws to protect women in the world”.

I was surprised & shocked. My lady friend couldn’t hold back and said,
   
“No, that is definitely not true. They have some of the WORST treatment of women.”

Your lady friend is correct in her statement about the worst treatment of women, but incorrect in her assumption that the original statement about “protecting women” had anything to do with women being in a position where they are free to choose and live their lives as they see fit.

Laws (Islamic or otherwise) protecting women (or anyone for that matter) do not automatically translate to a better life.  Think about it.  Children are protected.  But in doing so, they hardly have any of the rights we adults have.  They can make no major choices about their lives.  But what about adults?  Where is an adult most protected on Earth?  Solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison.  No one can hurt a prisoner in such a cell.  Guards watch to make sure the prisoner can’t hurt himself.  He won’t OD on drugs.  He won’t get shot, stabbed or strangled – by himself or others.  He won’t starve.  His 3 meals a day are provided for him without him having to even ask for them.  Even if he tries to starve himself, he will be fed intravenously – against his will if necessary.  His medical care will be taken care of without him even having to think about it.  Technically, he won’t have to worry about – or do – anything.  All is taken care for him.  He is secure.  He is protected, just as women in the Islamic world are “protected”.  The only minor trade-off is that they are both prisoners!

Islamic women are “protected” against a whole host of things their male protectors feel could harm them: Sexuality (STDs!, out-of-wedlock births!), Driving (clearly a danger to life and limb!), Education (might learn some dangerous things!), Etc.  Don’t misunderstand me, I abhor such treatment and disagree that any adult needs to be “protected” from such things against their will.  Granted, a few might actually want to be “protected” and live such a life and even fewer would actually need such “protection,” but that doesn’t mean every woman in the Islamic world should be forced into such “protection.”  The choice should be there’s.  But the fact that they have no choices is not antithetical to them being “protected.”     

And should a woman in the Islamic world try to do any of those things, she is punished.  Just as the hypothetical prisoner in the example above would be punished if he tried to do anything dangerous.  The beatings Islamic women suffer through is rationalized away by their “protectors” as being “for her own good” which will, in the long run, help “protect” the woman.   

Again, I’m not saying Islamic women should be treated this way or that they deserve it.  They shouldn’t.  And they don’t.  I’m just pointing out the rationalization that is used in “protecting” them.  “It’s for their own good,” is an excuse that has been used (quite successfully) throughout the ages to oppress people.  And not just in the Islamic world.  And not just women. 
Living a protected life does not necessarily mean living a good life.  Especially when others are “protecting” you and say they are doing it “for your own good.”

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2008 10:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7595
Joined  2007-03-02

I don’t see how any of that is good, Rocinate.  I don’t see it as protection of women, but rather oppression.  Women are not children who can’t take care of themselves. It also seems quite primative to me.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2008 10:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22
Ron Webb - 28 January 2008 09:01 PM

I think what the above posts show is that Ayatollah Khomeini was crazy, as were/are his followers—but that’s not news, not even to most Muslims.

That, plus the fact that secular humanists can be just as gullible as theists.  Either that or they’ve never heard of Photoshop.  smile

I agree that we can’t take any statement as fact until we research it and trace it back to the source, however, I’m not convinced that most Moslems don’t accept some version of his statements.  Since he had a fairly large following, I’m not sure that most Moslems think he was crazy.  If even a small to moderate percent of Moslems believe similiarly to his statements, then I stand by my response.

As far as the photo, it may or may not be Photoshopped, but I wasn’t basing my response on that.  Do you have any evidence that it was?

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2008 11:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Mriana - 28 January 2008 10:14 PM

I don’t see how any of that is good, Rocinate.

I’m not saying it is good.  It isn’t.  But, unfortunately, that’s the way it is.  You don’t have to convince me.  You have to convince the Muslim population. 

Mriana - 28 January 2008 10:14 PM

I don’t see it as protection of women, but rather oppression.

Of course it is oppression.  But any protection taken too far will lead to oppression.  When the person being “protected” has no choice in their protection, then it has gone too far.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2008 05:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15405
Joined  2006-02-14
Occam - 28 January 2008 10:42 PM

As far as the photo, it may or may not be Photoshopped, but I wasn’t basing my response on that.  Do you have any evidence that it was?

IIRC mouth-kissing is more acceptable in some societies; it amounts to kissing on the cheek in Europe. Now, I don’t know the circumstances of that photo but I wouldn’t jump to conclusions that there’s necessarily anything sexual about it. At least, I wouldn’t without some further information. This could simply be a cultural misunderstanding.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2008 06:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I think Doug is right. Here is a part from a New Scientist article you might find interesting. (‘ll only copy a part of it as it is probably illegal to show the whole thing; and you’d have to pay to be able to read it on their website.)

New Scientist, issue 2583, December 2006.
Even our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, cannot agree on what kissing is all about. Chimps specialise in the kiss of reconciliation. “Within a minute of a fight having ended, the two former opponents may rush towards each other, kiss and embrace long and fervently, and then proceed to groom each other,” writes primatologist Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, in Chimpanzee Politics. Bonobos kiss in an entirely different way. In his book Our Inner Ape, de Waal tells the story of a zookeeper used to working with chimps, who was introduced to bonobos and accepted a kiss from one of his new primate friends. “The keeper was understandably taken aback when he felt the bonobo’s tongue in his mouth,” de Waal recounts. While chimps are masters of the kiss of peace, bonobos are enthusiastic tongue-kissers who will make a pass at almost anyone.

For us humans, kissing contains elements of both the chimp and the bonobo, with the balance between platonic and passionate shifting throughout history. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the on-off relationship between Christianity and the kiss. Saint Paul told fellow believers to “salute another with a holy kiss”. This, scholars argue, signalled defiance of cultural norms of the day and the birth of a radical new community. As the converted touched mouths and exchanged their breath, they also shared the Holy Spirit.

By medieval times, kissing had become a central part of Christian worship. At a crucial point in the Catholic mass, the faithful would say “Peace be with you” and embrace one another, uniting their lips. And it didn’t stop there. “By the high middle ages, the ‘holy kiss’ was given or exchanged in Christian rituals of baptism, ordination, the consecration of bishops, coronations, absolution of penitents and in the marriage ceremony,” says historian Craig Koslofsky of the University of Illinois, Urbana. Its power even extended to the law, where a kiss might be used to seal a contract or settle a dispute. In 13th-century England, village courts could even order a day of reconciliation, or “love day”, which ended with former enemies sharing a kiss.

Alas, the kiss of peace went into steep decline, with a growing perception that the practice was open to abuse. “Clergy and laypeople found the public face-to-face kiss (same-sex or mixed) increasingly troubling,” Koslofsky says. So, by the 15th century, congregations were kissing an ivory or metal plate often bearing the image of the crucifixion, rather than each other. The Protestant reformation sealed the kiss’s fate. “Protestant liturgies suggested that public kisses were always treacherous,” says Koslofsky. “The resulting shift of the kiss from the social to the erotic, and from the communal to the private, is fundamental to its place in the modern west,” he suggests.

Nevertheless, public kissing was still fervently embraced in some quarters. We may think of ourselves as more uninhibited and sexually liberated than previous generations, but our social displays of affection are nothing compared with what was going on in England 500 years ago. In the 1500s and early 1600s, foreign visitors often remarked on this apparent forwardness; women of the household greet even complete strangers with a kiss on the mouth. The “English salutation” began to wane, however, and as the 17th century progressed, Puritan moralists railed against “wanton” or “lascivious” kissing. Mass-produced periodicals featured “agony uncles” who advised their bourgeois readers on how to kiss platonically.

By the 18th century, as the concept of “English reserve” emerged, the bow and the handshake became the preferred form of greeting, and kissing moved almost exclusively into the realm of the erotic. That the English social kiss had traditionally been on the lips may partly explain its demise. The French habit of a kiss on both cheeks was less blatantly erotic and survived. Now, of course, social kissing is back in vogue, although the proliferation of books on kissing etiquette suggests we are deeply confused about proper usage. Given that much of the advice is conflicting (see “The perfect platonic peck”), we may just have to accept that this is a minefield of modern manners.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2008 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-12-27

Sam Harris makes the case that the foolish liberal stance on Islam is based on ignorance and is dangerous.

“Liberals Need to Stop Defending Islam/Jihad in America” VIDEO
http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com/2007/08/jihad-in-america.html

;

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2008 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7595
Joined  2007-03-02

Um… Freethinka, the Muslim got to that video and made it no longer available.  rolleyes

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2008 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
Mriana - 29 January 2008 05:22 PM

Um… Freethinka, the Muslim got to that video and made it no longer available.  rolleyes

I doubt radical Muslims had the video pulled.  If radical Muslims were behind it, the building that housed the ISP server would have been bombed, the person who posted it would be beheaded, and they would claim to be the real victims and demand everyone who viewed the video attend sensitivity classes and apologize to all Muslims - and then convert to Islam.  grin 

By the way, you can watch the Sam Harris video here.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 15
2