The Myth:

The Quran places men and women on equal foundation before Allah. Each person is judged according to his or her own deeds. Women have equal rights under Islamic law.

The Truth:

Merely stating that individuals will be judged as such by Allah does not mean that they have equal rights and roles, or that they are judged by the same standards.

There is no ambiguity in the Quran, the life of Muhammad, or Islamic law as to the inferiority of women to men despite the efforts of modern-day apologists to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically held no such progressive interpretation.

After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men. In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands. Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers. There are four Quranic verses in which "Allah" makes clear that a Muslim master has full sexual access to his female slaves, yet there is not one that prohibits rape.


The Recent Facts:

ISIS and Yazidi Women

Hundreds of Yazidi women abducted by ISIS have either been sold or handed out to members of the Sunni extremist group, according to an organization that monitors the crisis. In the past few weeks, ISIS has "distributed" to its rank and file about 300 female members of the persecuted religious minority, says the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group aligned with the opposition in Syria.

Those women were initially kidnapped in Iraq before being taken to Syria. In ISIS' eyes, the girls and women are "captives of the spoils of war with the infidels," the Syria monitors said, claiming that some had converted to Islam so ISIS fighters can marry them. SOHR says it could confirm at least 27 cases in which women were "sold and married" for about $1,000 each to ISIS militants in Aleppo and Raqqa suburbs and Al-Hassakah.

Boko Haram and Nigerian Girls

Fears for the fate of more than 200 Nigerian girls turned even more nightmarish Monday when the leader of the Islamist militant group that kidnapped them announced plans to sell them.
"I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah," a man claiming to be Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau said in a video first obtained by Agence France-Presse.
"There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women. I sell women," he continued, according to a CNN translation from the local Hausa language.
Boko Haram is a terrorist group receiving training from al Qaeda affiliates, according to U.S. officials. Its name means "Western education is sin." In his nearly hourlong, rambling video, Shekau repeatedly called for Western education to end.

Iman Huwaini and Spoils of War

According to Huwaini, after Muslims invade and conquer a non-Muslim nation—in the course of waging an offensive jihad—the properties and persons of those infidels who refuse to convert or pay jizya and live as subjugated dhimmis, are to be seized as ghanima or “spoils of war.” Huwaini cited the Koran as his authority—boasting that it has an entire chapter named “spoils”—and the sunna of Muhammad, specifically as recorded in the famous Sahih Muslim hadith wherein the prophet ordered the Muslim armies to offer non-Muslims three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death/enslavement.

Huwaini said that infidel captives, the “spoils of war,” are to be distributed among the Muslim combatants (i.e., jihadists) and taken to “the slave market, where slave-girls and concubines are sold.” He referred to these latter by their dehumanizing name in the Koran, ma malakat aymanukum—“what your right hands possess”—in this context, sex-slaves: “You go to the market and buy her, and she becomes like your legal mate—though without a contract, a guardian, or any of that stuff—and this is agreed upon by the ulema.”

“In other words,” Huwaini concluded, “when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person you're responding to, but I'm not 23:35. I'm sorry, but a lot of this glosses over what's in the Quran and also doesn't reflect historical reality. Who do you think was selling black slaves to the European slave traders? It was Muslims selling African polytheists to the European Christians. You haven't even attempted to deny that the Quran condones taking non-Muslim (kaafir) prisoners as slaves, instead you've offered some fairly unconvincing arguments about how slave-taking is limited (ask West African polytheists how this worked out for them a few centuries ago). As for your point about how Islam didn't invent slavery, the pity of it all is that a document that purports to be God's direct word to humanity actually condones slavery.

PS. I would encourage everybody here to seek out additional opinions, by reading the relevant passages of the Quran for yourself and by googling. The way to increase your own understanding is not to accept my opinion, or to accept Muslima's carefully curated selection of favorable apologetics. I am pretty confident, however, that when you read the actual passages of the Quran (in translation, but for most of you this can't be avoided) you will see through some of the cut-and-pastes that Muslima has provided.

Actually, I will encourage every person curious about Islam to take their copy of the Quran to any mosque, go ask to talk to the Imam, ask about their credentials, sit down with them and ask all of your questions about any passage, chapter, story, ect that you are confused about. We Muslims don't have anything to hide. Islam is not a religion you learn through Google or Sheikh Wikipedia. Scholars spend years and years to study every piece, section and verse of the Quran, its tafseer, meaning, year it was revealed and reason behind the revelation. To understand the Quran as a Non-Muslim you would have to understand or Know the life of the prophet Muhammad saw to even understand what some verses are referring to. The Qur'an is not arranged chronologically. Chapters come in groups joined by similarity or identity of the first verse, similarities of verse structure or length, and sometimes similarities of subject matter. Another point to be taken note of is that, as hinted above, the methodical nature of the Quran is not just an incidental matter in the study of the Quran, it is integral to the meaning of the Quran. In plain terms, since the Quran has an organic structure, every verse or group of verses and every surah has a definitive context and interpretation of any portion of the Quran must be based on a correct understanding of that context.

It is unfortunate how some people misuse the Quran. Too often its verses have been torn out of context to prove some particular juristical opinion or sectarian notion. Frequently its terms and phrases have been misconstrued by those who come to it seeking, in some odd verse, support for views they have already formed on other than Quranic grounds. It is indeed a great irony that all heresies have been claimed by their propounders to have their basis in the Quran. And if these heresies looked plausible to many, it was because the context of the verses constituting the so-called 'basis in the Quran' was not properly understood. As Mawlana Islahi has shown, contextualization gives to countless verses a construction different from the one usually placed on them; it throws new light not only on the doctrinal and creedal aspects of the Quranic message but also on the methodological aspects of the message; it lends new significance not only to the moral and legal injunctions of the Quran but also to the stories and parables narrated by the Quran; and it affords a deep insight not only into the continually changing style and tone of the Quran but also into the varied patterns of logic it employs.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

The issue is, who defines what is "evil" and "unjust"? There is a great deal of latitude for interpretation here, obviously.

A crucial point for the current ISIS crisis is that Muslims are required to live under Muslim law, i.e. with a Muslim government and courts to enforce sharia law, with an Islamic banking system, et cetera. In a Muslim state, sharia rules apply to everybody, including dhimmi (non-Muslims). Therefore, teachers can define "evil" to include any secular (read: religiously tolerant) government. ISIS wants a "caliphate" to impose sharia law on everybody within the Islamic state's borders, because secular governmental structures are "evil."

False!One of the fundamental teachings of Islam is that non-Muslims are guaranteed freedom to practise their religions and customs without any restriction as long as non-Muslims reciprocate by not being insensitive to the Muslim community. The Constitution, too, categorically restricts Most Islamic laws to Muslims. And one more time, Muslims are not required to live under sharia law, they are required to follow the law of the land they live in. In Islam obedience to the law of the land is a religious duty. The Qur'an commands Muslims to remain faithful to not only Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (saw), but also the authority they live under.

Also, the Quran is quite clear that you can't kill your prisoners of war, but you can certainly make slaves out of your non-Muslim prisoners. This is applies equally tor capturing non-Muslim women and children. If your slaves convert to Islam, you must free them. It strikes me that Muslima is gilding the lily when she calls this "asylum" in her post above.

PP again. I should add, I believe it's permissible for Muslims to sleep with female captives/prisoners of war, in addition to with their wives. Mohammed did this.

When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves. In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.

Concerning having slave women, this was a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves. Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free. Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.


Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status. It made no distinction between a slave or a free man, and all were treated with equality which was unheard of in that society 1400 years ago. It was this fact that always attracted slaves to Islam. It is painful to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam should take no notice of this principle of equality, when even in this enlightened age there are countries where laws are made discriminating against the vast majority of population, to keep them in practical servitude. This dignity restored to slaves was documented even by Non-Muslims throughout history:

P. L Riviere writes:

"A master was enjoined to make his slave share the bounties he received from God. It must be recognised that, in this respect, the Islamic teaching acknowledged such a respect for human personality and showed a sense of equality which is searched for in vain in ancient civilization"

Source: Riviere P.L., Revue Bleaue (June 1939).
And not only in ancient civilisations; even in the modern Christian civilisation the ingrained belief of racial supremacy is still manifesting itself every day. A. J. Toynbee says in Civilization on Trial:

"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue..." Then he comments that "in this perilous matter of race feeling it can hardly be denied that (the triumph of English-speaking peoples) has been a misfortune."

Source: Toynbee, A.J., Civilization on Trial (New York, 1948), p. 205.
Napoleon Bonaparte is recorded as saying about the condition of slaves in Muslim countries:

"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."

Source: Cherfils, Bonaparte et l'Islam (Paris, 1914)
Annemarie Schimmel writes:

"The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). “

Source: "Islam: An Introduction", p. 67

Islam recognises no distinction of race or colour, black or white, citizens or soldiers, rulers or subjects; they are perfectly equal, not in theory only, but in practice. The first mu'azzin (herald of the prayer call) of Islam, a devoted adherent of the Prophet and an esteemed disciple, was a slave. The Qur'an lays down the measure of superiority in verse 13 of chapter 49. It is addressed to mankind, and preaches the natural brotherhood of man without distinction of tribe, clan, gender, race or colour. It says:

“O you men! We have created you of a male and a female, and then We made you (into different) races and tribes so that you may know (and “recognise) each other. Surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the one who is most pious among you; surely Allah is All-Knowing and “Aware.” The Qur'an 49:13

it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, but it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with them. The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227). It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them. Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war.

I'm the person you're responding to, but I'm not 23:35. I'm sorry, but a lot of this glosses over what's in the Quran and also doesn't reflect historical reality. Who do you think was selling black slaves to the European slave traders? It was Muslims selling African polytheists to the European Christians. You haven't even attempted to deny that the Quran condones taking non-Muslim (kaafir) prisoners as slaves, instead you've offered some fairly unconvincing arguments about how slave-taking is limited (ask West African polytheists how this worked out for them a few centuries ago). As for your point about how Islam didn't invent slavery, the pity of it all is that a document that purports to be God's direct word to humanity actually condones slavery.

Look, I am not here to deny or approve of anything according to your liking. I am here to share the true teachings of the Quran through how it was taught to me for years that I spent studying and my understandings as a Muslim and my life as a perpetual islamic Student. I am not just an ignorant anonymous googling random verses that they don't know anything about, no context, not the reason why the verse was revealed, when it was revealed, what the tafseer of the verse is and spreading lies on the internet. Whether you like it or not, Islam doesn't condone slavery especially not slavery in the barbaric way it was practiced in the WEST. In short, it is not only the institution of slavery that causes revulsion in the human heart, it is the attitudes of inhumanity which sustain it. And the truth is, if the institution no longer formally exists but the attitudes persist, then humanity has not gained much, if at all. That is why colonial exploitation replaced slavery, and why the chains of unbearable, unrepayable international debt have replaced colonial exploitation: only slavery has gone, its structures of inhumanity and barbarism are still securely in place. Before we turn to the Islamic perspective on slavery, let us recall a name famous even among Western Europeans, that of Harun al-Rashid, and let us recall that this man who enjoyed such authority and power over all Muslims was the son of a slave. Nor is he the only such example; slaves and their children enjoyed enormous prestige, authority, respect and (shall we say it) freedom, within the Islamic system, in all areas of life, cultural as well as political. How could this have come about? Islam amended and educated the institution of slavery and the attitudes of masters to slaves. The Qur’an taught in many verses that all human beings are descended from a single ancestor, that none has an intrinsic right of superiority over another, whatever his race or his nation or his social standing. And from the Prophet’s teaching, upon him be peace, the Muslims learnt these principles, which they applied both as laws and as social norms:

"Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and whosoever castrates his slave shall himself be castrated." (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa’i, Qasama, 10, 16). For this reason ‘Umar and his servant took it in turns to ride on the camel from Madina to Jerusalem on their journey to take control of Masjid al-Aqsa. While he was the head of the state, ‘Uthman had his servant pull his own ears in front of the people since he had pulled his. Abu Dharr, applying the hadith literally, made his servant wear one half of his suit while he himself wore the other half. From these instances, it was being demonstrated to succeeding generations of Muslims, and a pattern of conduct established, that a slave is fully a human being, not different from other people in his need for respect and dignity and justice.

Muslims were encouraged by their faith to enter into agreements and contracts which enabled slaves to earn or be granted their freedom at the expiry of a certain term or, most typically, on the death of the owner. Unconditional emancipation was, naturally, regarded as the most meritorious kind, and worthiest of recognition in the life hereafter. There were occasions when whole groups of people, acting together, would buy and set free large numbers of slaves in order to obtain thereby the favour of God.

There is not a single verse in the Quran that says "Slavery is forbidden" just like there isn't a verse in the Quran that says "Alcolhol is forbidden" but all Muslims know that alcohol is haram and forbidden in Islam. However, there are several verses which refer to the freeing of slaves as an act of righteouness and for the purification of sins, this means that eventually the slave industry ( in the context of what it was back then ) would have died out. If every religion or culture had the right to enslave another because it was not forbidden to do so then that would lead to chaos and revolts.....it is human conciousness that has made the practise redundant ( that is in the form in which it was formally practised and not the economic slavery that exists today ie Vulture Capitalism ) ..and this human conciousness is consistent with the Quranic verses on FREEING slaves. The Quran aknowledged the practise but did not encourage it but rather the freeing of slaves and equated the freeing of slaves as a righteous act....now ask yourself that question...why do you think Allah has encouraged the Freeing of slaves?????think about it!.and then think again! As there is NOT A SINGLE statement in the Qur’an, whereby believers are commanded to enslave other human beings, and as the Qur’an has called for freeing of slaves as a meritorious act, alleviated their status by way of marriage as well as economic support, and declared that servitude is due to God alone (51:56) and no human being, no matter how high a status he may occupy, has the right to say to people ‘be my slaves’ (3:79), it is wrong to suggest that the Book sanctions slavery.

The great genius of our religion, and one of the great truths of our Prophet saw is that he came as a mercy to everyone. He created multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies. He had all types of people: Persians, Romans, Africans, Arabs from different tribes and he brought them into a fraternity of mercy. He had Jews and Christians and he honored them, and spoke to them kindly. He was not a harsh person, he was a gentle person. He created an open society. Our religion honors people and treats them with dignity and that is something you can not change!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mohammed was a pedophile and murderer. He was violent and barbaric.

Islam is a cult of pedophiles and murderers that follow Mohammed's example.

Jesus was peaceful and never led an army of murderers.

The difference is night and day and we are experiencing this horror of Islam over and over and over.

Jesus was peaceful and never led an army. Yes. And for that he was crucified.

C'mon. Stop this. Publishing this kind of trash is completely irresponsible of you. I am a Muslim. I am no violent or barbaric. I do not murder people and am not a pedophile. Of all the Muslims I know, none are. I spent a great deal of my life doing charitable work, helping both nonMuslims and Muslims. I supported refugees from other countries, taught a Chinese man to speak English, and volunteered at public schools. If you don't understand Islam, then find a really qualified Imam and ask him to sit down with you while you ask him questions. Bring a Quran with you. Most Imams would be happy to explain anything to you. In Virginia, the most knowledgeable Imam is Imam Magid at the ADAMS group. But to make such erroneous sweeping judgments about the entire religion is so completely unfair and false.

please clarify what is the trash and what is the erroneous judgement? I think these are facts not judgements.

Was Mohammed a pedophile - yes

Was Mohammed a murderer, excuse me, a warrior - yes

And yet you don't understand why people that follow this type of example, think they can kill non-muslims? political correctness to the extreme. but this is reality today, and what your children and grandchildren will be fighting. - judgement

In the medieval ages the average girl from a dignified family gave birth to her first child around the age of 16-17. Since the average life expectancy was 35 at the time, you can see why. It was deemed that when a girl began menstruation, she was ready to be married. Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife, married by age 14. Muhammad was born around 570 AD. Are you judging his life according to today's definition of pedophilia? That wouldn't make much sense now, would it?

Was Muhammad a murderer? Of course not. He only fought those who threatened to kill Muslims or prevent Muslims from practicing their faith.

You clearly have no knowledge of history.

Some Muslim apologists have recently claimed that Aisha was actually older than nine lunar years at time of the consummation of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad. They have attempted to explain that Aisha was in fact not nine-years-old as the Sahih hadiths of her own testimony claim, but some other ages derived from misquotations, indirect sources, fuzzy dating techniques and slander. These dubious research techniques have led to several conflicting ages to be proposed for Aisha at the time of consummation, including 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 years.

This article analyzes every single argument put forward by these apologists, and provides additional information on the origins and history of the "Aisha was older" apologetic arguments, and the only logical purpose behind making them.

On closer inspection of these polemics you will discover that the various claims can be broadly categorized into these categories; unjustified slanders against Hisham ibn Urwah and the Iraqi narrators, the use of non-sahih information to refute otherwise sahih hadiths, the use of secondary and indirect sources in preference of direct testimonies, the use of ‘imprecise’ dating in preference to specific dates and statements of age, the use of misquoted references and erroneous information, the use of incorrect logic, and personal opinion.

Aisha was nine lunar years old at the time her marriage to the Islamic prophet was consummated and there is simply no valid evidence that suggests otherwise. The majority of Muslims today, including both scholars and the general Muslim population, agree. This has been the mainstream Muslim understanding throughout Islam's 1,400 year history, and many of these honest Muslims take offense to these lies propagated by Muslim apologists who are embarrassed by their own prophet's actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mohammed was a pedophile and murderer. He was violent and barbaric.

Islam is a cult of pedophiles and murderers that follow Mohammed's example.

Jesus was peaceful and never led an army of murderers.

The difference is night and day and we are experiencing this horror of Islam over and over and over.

Jesus was peaceful and never led an army. Yes. And for that he was crucified.

C'mon. Stop this. Publishing this kind of trash is completely irresponsible of you. I am a Muslim. I am no violent or barbaric. I do not murder people and am not a pedophile. Of all the Muslims I know, none are. I spent a great deal of my life doing charitable work, helping both nonMuslims and Muslims. I supported refugees from other countries, taught a Chinese man to speak English, and volunteered at public schools. If you don't understand Islam, then find a really qualified Imam and ask him to sit down with you while you ask him questions. Bring a Quran with you. Most Imams would be happy to explain anything to you. In Virginia, the most knowledgeable Imam is Imam Magid at the ADAMS group. But to make such erroneous sweeping judgments about the entire religion is so completely unfair and false.

please clarify what is the trash and what is the erroneous judgement? I think these are facts not judgements.

Was Mohammed a pedophile - yes

Was Mohammed a murderer, excuse me, a warrior - yes

And yet you don't understand why people that follow this type of example, think they can kill non-muslims? political correctness to the extreme. but this is reality today, and what your children and grandchildren will be fighting. - judgement

In the medieval ages the average girl from a dignified family gave birth to her first child around the age of 16-17. Since the average life expectancy was 35 at the time, you can see why. It was deemed that when a girl began menstruation, she was ready to be married. Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife, married by age 14. Muhammad was born around 570 AD. Are you judging his life according to today's definition of pedophilia? That wouldn't make much sense now, would it?

Was Muhammad a murderer? Of course not. He only fought those who threatened to kill Muslims or prevent Muslims from practicing their faith.

You clearly have no knowledge of history.

Again. More Sunni (and other) Muslims speaking out against ISIS. Egypt's grand mufti from Al-Ahzar a leading Sunni scholar and leader, Turkey, Saudi, and other groups.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

So stop with the lies.

And more muslims from Iraq, Indonesia, North America. Speaking out against ISIS.

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5715563

Here are British Muslims speaking out against ISIS:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/uks-sunni-shia-religous-leaders-unite-isis/195283/

Here are more Muslims speaking out against ISIS.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/muslims-condemn-isis.html

Nothing ISIS is doing is condoned by Islamic teachings. And many Sunnis are speaking out against them.

Here's just one recent one.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/08/26/muslims-condemn-isis-as-enemies-of-humanity-at-michigan-rally-141341

Muslima wrote:If you open a modern Oxford English dictionary, you would probably
find the definition of Jihad as “a holy war undertaken by Muslims againstnon-believers”. This is a very poor definition.  Before trying to define what Jihad is, we should first define what it is NOT.
Jihad is NOT Holy War
Jihad is NOT blowing up one’s self  (Suicide is a sin in Islam)
Jihad is NOT killing innocent people
Jihad is NOT flying a plane into a building packed with civilians
Jihad is NOT fighting out of anger and hatred
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they don’t agree with you
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they are not Muslims
Jihad is an Arabic word from the root Jee Ha Da. It literally means to
struggle or strive. Jihad is struggling or striving in the way or sake of
Allah. Jihad takes a very important status in the doctrine of Islam and is one of the basic duties for every Muslim. Though, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the term Holy War. Such a term, or its equivalent doesn’t exist in the Islamic doctrine. The Christian Crusaders in the mid-ages invented this ideology of Holy War.
Jihad has many forms:
Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb): is referred as
"The greater Jihad” (al-jihad al-akbar).It is one’s inner struggle of good against evil; refraining oneself from the whispers of Shaitan (Satan).This process involves allowing Islam to transform one’s soul to achieving internal peace; and forgoing hatred and anger.

Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan): It is defending Islam and spreading Islam by scholarly lectures, speeches and debates. It often overlaps with Da’awah (invitation to Islam, or spreading the message of Islam).

Jihad by the pen/knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm)

Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) In contrary to Jihad of the
heart/soul; this form of Jihad is referred as “the lesser jihad” (al-jihad alasghar).Sometimes it is necessary to undertake Jihad by the sword. This would include usage of arsenals and engaging in a combat. This could be simply a bunch of freedom fighters or an organised campaign of army.Jihad by the sword is use of arms to engage into a combat. It is not misuse of arms to create violence.There are only two situations were Jihad by the sword is allowed to be
undertaken.

1) For self-defense. When someone attacks you or when your
nation has been attacked. Engaging into combat due to self defense.

2) Fighting against evil and unjust. It is also a sin if a Muslim sees unjust been done, capable of stopping it, yet not doing
Anything about it. This can include war on drug, war on child labour as well as war on terror!The Muslims already announced the war on terror fourteen centuries ago, under the name of Jihad bis saif!

There are many rules and limitations when engaging in combat under the title of Jihad. For example, civilians are not to be harmed; trees are not tobe cut down; women and children can't be killed, asylum should be granted to surrendering enemy soldiers;etc.

“And if anyone of the Mushrikun seeks your protection then grant
him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then
escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men
who know not.”
{Quran, Surah 9: At-Taubah, Verse 6; Mohsin Translation}

The treatment for prisoners of war is also clearly stated in the Quran.
Prisoners of war under Muslim prisons are to eat, drink and dress the
same Muslim soldiers eat, drink and dress.And even under the unfortunate event of shortage of food, it is the prisoners who are to eat first before the Muslim soldiers guarding them!

Despite the fact that Jihad by the sword is the lesser Jihad, it is the only form of Jihad that most of the people in the world perceive Jihad as.This is unfortunate, especially for the Muslims. Many so-called “teachers of Islam” have been misusing this to assemble their so-called “holyarmy” to fight their so-called “holy war”. But you can’t blame the religion for what a few of its people do.

There are no marches and no protests by Sunni Muslims of ISIS because ISIS behavior is Sunnah. And, Sunnah means living as Mohammed lived. Islam teaches that Sunnah should be the goal of every Muslim.

ISIS behavior is perfectly correct in terms of the teaching of Sunni Islam as defined in the Islamic Trilogy of writings called the Hadith, the Sira, and the Quran. Respectively, short stories of Mohammed's life, the biography of Mohammed's life, and the revelations of Allah as given to the prophet Mohammed first in Mecca and then in Medina. The revelations of Allah given to Mohammed in Medina abrogate, or repeal, the revelations of Allah given to Mohammed in Mecca.

Islam clearly teaches that people are divided into two groups; Kafirs or Muslims. Anything can be done to Kafirs. Beheading, rape, slavery, humiliation, misleading, lying to, et cetera. are each and all approved and promoted for Kafir in the Hadith, the Sira, and the Quran.

If you are not Muslim, then you are Kafir. Islam teaches that all of the above and MORE can be done to you not only with Allah's approval but also with the approval of other Muslims.

Islam also clearly teaches that the world is divided into two parts; Dar al Islam or it is Dar al Harb. Respectively, the land of Islam and the land of War. Anything can be done to advance Islam in Dar al Harb.

Therefore, Sunni Muslims are not marching against ISIS because ISIS is killing Kafirs (Shia Muslims are Kafir) and ISIS is doing it in Dar al Harb to spread Sunni Islam.

Therefore, there are no protests against ISIS by Sunni Muslims because ISIS actions are perfectly Sunnah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mohammed was a pedophile and murderer. He was violent and barbaric.

Islam is a cult of pedophiles and murderers that follow Mohammed's example.

Jesus was peaceful and never led an army of murderers.

The difference is night and day and we are experiencing this horror of Islam over and over and over.

Jesus was peaceful and never led an army. Yes. And for that he was crucified.

C'mon. Stop this. Publishing this kind of trash is completely irresponsible of you. I am a Muslim. I am no violent or barbaric. I do not murder people and am not a pedophile. Of all the Muslims I know, none are. I spent a great deal of my life doing charitable work, helping both nonMuslims and Muslims. I supported refugees from other countries, taught a Chinese man to speak English, and volunteered at public schools. If you don't understand Islam, then find a really qualified Imam and ask him to sit down with you while you ask him questions. Bring a Quran with you. Most Imams would be happy to explain anything to you. In Virginia, the most knowledgeable Imam is Imam Magid at the ADAMS group. But to make such erroneous sweeping judgments about the entire religion is so completely unfair and false.

please clarify what is the trash and what is the erroneous judgement? I think these are facts not judgements.

Was Mohammed a pedophile - yes

Was Mohammed a murderer, excuse me, a warrior - yes

And yet you don't understand why people that follow this type of example, think they can kill non-muslims? political correctness to the extreme. but this is reality today, and what your children and grandchildren will be fighting. - judgement

I'm 12:49 and I have read the Quran, although that was many years ago in college and I've forgotten some details. That's how I knew, however, that Muslima wasn't being straight with us about the "asylum" issue.

Islam? Read the Koran. Islam is like Protestantism. You only need the book, not "pope" or other men to tell you what's right/wrong.

Like any religion, focus on what the good book tells you to improve yourself in relationship with yourself, with your family, neighbors, and with God.

People who judge and hide behind Islam are trying to cover up their shortcomings (or swindle you) by pointing out alleged faults before they're accused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:49 here. Dear Jesus poster, please take it to another thread. Muslima is already proselytizing here (viz the rosy view she's painting), we don't need another proselytizer.

The thread is tell me about Islam. And boy am I. If you don't like religious discussion, go atheize somewhere else.

I'm not an atheist. I am, however, trying to pin down some very specific points about what Muslima is calling "asylum," i.e., the treatment of prisoners of war.

That is a mole hill. I am pinning down the mountain.