An Islamic militant group released a video on Tuesday showing the beheading of a second American hostage, blaming the killing on President Obama and raising the pressure on him to order military strikes on the group in its sanctuary in Syria. The hostage, Steven J. Sotloff, is shown in the video kneeling like the previous victim, James Foley, while his masked killer stands above, wielding a knife. Mr. Sotloff addresses the camera and describes himself as “paying the price” for Mr. Obama’s decision to strike the group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, in northern Iraq.

no protests or demonstrations or any significant action by the bearded mullahs.

If it was an exception it would be sad, but it happens wherever Islam comes in contact with other religions. Egypt and killing of christians. Nigeria and killing of christians. India and killing of hindus. Even Buddhists can't get along with Muslims.

I just pray that someday Muslims will want to join the human race. I really don't understand how intelligent people can follow this cult. Women kept under cloth. Men control divorce. Non-Muslims are pushed out of society. Multiple wives. And people blindly follow this.

"We keep blaming Hamas and Gaza, but it is not them, it is this son of a b—- book that I am stepping on right now. This book is the source of all evil and the real catastrophe. There is nothing new here, it is not Omar Abdel Rahman, Abbud or all the others, it is this rotten book that is causing us to run in a demonic circle that will never end.”

PS: If you think women in Muslim countries are never in financial hardship after the divorce, you're blind.

Anonymous wrote:
If a Muslim woman wants to divorce, she may, but has the addl hurdle of seeking a divorce through the court. A man needs two witnesses. The addl requirement acts as a safeguard for women in a system entrenched with institutional discrimination toward women, as it is in place to ensure a woman is not making a decision that will be more harmful to her in the long run. Moreover, men are not permitted to take back anything they bestowed to the wife during the marriage. This is in stark contrast to divorce laws in the US, where spouses often fight for who gets what, and women are in financial hardship after divorce.

Overall, it looks to me that Islam does a fine job of providing true "equality" because it is a more just system.

You follow me??

You're doing the typical Muslim thing where they say the arrangements of their religion is perfect and whatever seems imperfect is really for your own good. Unequal rights to divorce for women? That's for your own good! Cannot travel without male companion? That's for your own good! Have to cede custody of children if you remarry? That's for your own good! Cannot marry without permission of legal guardian? It's for your own good!

So to address, just to humor you, the weak argument you make about divorce:

The system that is entrenched with institutional discrimination toward women did not fall from the sky. It was created and enshrined by that very same religion. The religion that does not see women as capable makers of their own decision and therefore wants to "protect them" from themselves.

Men are not permitted to take back anything they bestowed on the wife during marriage? That's only if divorce is initiated by men. If initiated by a woman, it is very common for women to buy out their way out of the marriage by returning their wedding gift, for which ample scriptural proof is in fact available in the ahadith.

Furthermore, you know what else men are not required to do upon divorce? Share with the wife anything the couple accumulated during marriage. Theoretically, a scenario where a rich husband divorces his homemaker wife of 30 years and sends her off with three months' of maintenance, is perfectly legal Islamically. Doesn't seen fair? It didn't seem fair to the Indian courts either, which ushered in a famous case of Shah Bano, an elderly woman tossed out by her rich husband with nothing. When the court attempted to seek redress via alimony and property division similar to what is available to Hindu women, Muslims went out to demonstrate. India had to weasel out of this predicament by creating a special fund dedicated to maintenance of women who were cruelly - and yet irreproachably, as far as Islam is concerned - tossed out by their husbands.

Anonymous wrote:Think on this - the Bible is the Old Testament from the Jewish people, and the New Testament is all about how the messiah (Jesus) came to die for us so that we may go to heaven.

The Jewish text says the messiah would be crucified. And the whole point of all the New Testament about Jesus is to be good to one another and that he died for us.

So Mohammed says that he believes some of the Jewish text, and almost none of the New Testament? He picks ok, I believe Moses, but not the book of Isaiah. He believes Jesus came, but almost everything else is a lie. So the Jewish bible and Christian bible is full of lies. Doesn't that sound a bit strange? Then why even believe any of the Bible? I mean, Christians and Jesus never said the Torah lied, or any large portion of the Torah is a lie. And Jesus said false prophets would come, and the ONLY unforgivable sin is to turn people away from Jesus.

And one more thing - the biggest humdinger of it all.

John (Elijah) and Jesus fulfilled prophecies. Now wouldn't someone as "special" and important as Mohammed be prophecized about - wouldn't god have told somebody he was coming???? No. There are only two prophecies remaining -

1) false prophets who will turn people away from Christianity and Jesus; and
2) the anti-Christ.

Of course, if you are Jewish, you are still just waiting for the messiah, and we know Mohammed was obviously not that.

But what about THIS? What sayeth you to this?

Anonymous wrote:And Joseph married her, yes, but AFTER Mary got pregnant.

Wow, Muslima! I thought you told us that Muslims revere Mary. Yet here you are, trashing Mary's reputation in order to score points on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

You want people to assume the out of wedlock birth was an immaculate conception based on gospel? But who other than Christians believe in the word of the gospel? Your "proof" is your OWN book though. And it requires me to assume the premise is true. The gospel is true perhaps to you but not to me or everyone else. So your reasoning is ill conceived. Try again.

I think the word " pedophile " was used in this thread, if not by you, then clearly by others.

There has been ample information provided by Muslima to explain Islamic inheritance, testimony, and divorce. I do not rely on Sharia though as Sharia is man made law. I rely on the Quran. Muslima might not have explained everything but she did a fairly decent job. Her "flowery" descriptions rubbed you the wrong way, huh? It sounds like you simply hated that she spoke devoutly about her faith.

Everything was explained to you. So in essence a Muslim woman under a true Islamic State is not required to support herself. She may but isn't required. Her brothers, uncles, father, are required to support her unless she is married. This is why inheritance laws gives men more money, so they can support women.

If a Muslim woman wants to divorce, she may, but has the addl hurdle of seeking a divorce through the court. A man needs two witnesses. The addl requirement acts as a safeguard for women in a system entrenched with institutional discrimination toward women, as it is in place to ensure a woman is not making a decision that will be more harmful to her in the long run. Moreover, men are not permitted to take back anything they bestowed to the wife during the marriage. This is in stark contrast to divorce laws in the US, where spouses often fight for who gets what, and women are in financial hardship after divorce.

Overall, it looks to me that Islam does a fine job of providing true "equality" because it is a more just system.

You follow me??

That sound you hear is everybody reading this smacking their heads against their screens. We don't follow you, Muslima (yes, it's clear from your rhetorical style that you're Muslima, just not logged in at the moment), because the errors in logic are overwhelming.
1. You said Jesus was born "out of wedlock," so it was explained that Joseph married Mary so there was no "out of wedlock birth" as you had claimed several times. So now you're on a different tangent about immaculate conception and how you don't believe the gospels - yet you call us Islamophobes for not taking the word of your holy book. Whatever....
2. You, Muslima, have been told multiple times that your descriptions are half-truths and therefore misleading. To the extent you got all flowery, it was for the purpose of throwing up a smoke screen and avoiding clarity and truth. THAT is the problem with your language and rhetorical style.
3. You haven't mentioned how divorced women lose custody of their children at a young age.

I'm satisfied if the facts get out there. Then DCUM readers can make up their own minds. The problem is, you're exhausting, and a person could spend an entire day tracking down your every logical fallacy and flowery smokescreen that's meant to camouflage the hard facts.

And Joseph married her, yes, but AFTER Mary got pregnant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different PP here from the one you're addressing. So anything that corrects your half-truths is "vile filth"? I agree that it's wrong to call Mohammed a pedophile, but almost everybody, including Muslim historians, agree he married a 9-year-old. I do think "rape" is an appropriate word for what happens to non-Muslim female prisoners of war. Calling people names won't change any of this. And who is "a few of us" who are doing the half-educating, unless it's you, maybe 1 other Muslim who's posted maybe twice, and a bunch of people who are doing some real educating by correcting your half-truths.

Sorry to be blunt, but you're wearing out everybody's patience.

You or whoever that pp was had the gall to repeatedly call a man who is beloved to millions a pedophile. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. How can the second most populous faith in the world and also the fastest growing religion in the world have a following of people who abide by the teachings of a man if he was truly a pdophile?

And if Muhammad was a pedophile what was Mary then, since Jesus was born out of wedlock? Why doesn't anyone justify this?

When you repeat the accusations and completely disregard the exolanations offered in good faith, you show yourself to have ill will. So then this is no longer a sober intellectual discussion but an attempt to vilify an entire religion.

For the record, and since you keep insinuating Mary was some kind of slut... The gospels record:
1. Immaculate conception,
2. Joseph did marry her, after having some reservations and his own visit from an angel. So whatever you think of the circumstances and timing of Jesus' conception, he was not "born out of wedlock" as you keep insisting.

And wow, you just don't get it, do you? I never called the prophet a pedophile, but after watching you dodge and avoid difficult facts that other posters had to point out for you, it's hard to agree that you offered explanations "in good faith" as you claim.

You want people to assume the out of wedlock birth was an immaculate conception based on gospel? But who other than Christians believe in the word of the gospel? Your "proof" is your OWN book though. And it requires me to assume the premise is true. The gospel is true perhaps to you but not to me or everyone else. So your reasoning is ill conceived. Try again.

I think the word " pedophile " was used in this thread, if not by you, then clearly by others.

There has been ample information provided by Muslima to explain Islamic inheritance, testimony, and divorce. I do not rely on Sharia though as Sharia is man made law. I rely on the Quran. Muslima might not have explained everything but she did a fairly decent job. Her "flowery" descriptions rubbed you the wrong way, huh? It sounds like you simply hated that she spoke devoutly about her faith.

Everything was explained to you. So in essence a Muslim woman under a true Islamic State is not required to support herself. She may but isn't required. Her brothers, uncles, father, are required to support her unless she is married. This is why inheritance laws gives men more money, so they can support women.

If a Muslim woman wants to divorce, she may, but has the addl hurdle of seeking a divorce through the court. A man needs two witnesses. The addl requirement acts as a safeguard for women in a system entrenched with institutional discrimination toward women, as it is in place to ensure a woman is not making a decision that will be more harmful to her in the long run. Moreover, men are not permitted to take back anything they bestowed to the wife during the marriage. This is in stark contrast to divorce laws in the US, where spouses often fight for who gets what, and women are in financial hardship after divorce.

Overall, it looks to me that Islam does a fine job of providing true "equality" because it is a more just system.

You follow me??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different PP here from the one you're addressing. So anything that corrects your half-truths is "vile filth"? I agree that it's wrong to call Mohammed a pedophile, but almost everybody, including Muslim historians, agree he married a 9-year-old. I do think "rape" is an appropriate word for what happens to non-Muslim female prisoners of war. Calling people names won't change any of this. And who is "a few of us" who are doing the half-educating, unless it's you, maybe 1 other Muslim who's posted maybe twice, and a bunch of people who are doing some real educating by correcting your half-truths.

Sorry to be blunt, but you're wearing out everybody's patience.

You or whoever that pp was had the gall to repeatedly call a man who is beloved to millions a pedophile. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. How can the second most populous faith in the world and also the fastest growing religion in the world have a following of people who abide by the teachings of a man if he was truly a pdophile?

And if Muhammad was a pedophile what was Mary then, since Jesus was born out of wedlock? Why doesn't anyone justify this?

When you repeat the accusations and completely disregard the exolanations offered in good faith, you show yourself to have ill will. So then this is no longer a sober intellectual discussion but an attempt to vilify an entire religion.

For the record, and since you keep insinuating Mary was some kind of slut... The gospels record:
1. Immaculate conception,
2. Joseph did marry her, after having some reservations and his own visit from an angel. So whatever you think of the circumstances and timing of Jesus' conception, he was not "born out of wedlock" as you keep insisting.

And wow, you just don't get it, do you? I never called the prophet a pedophile, but after watching you dodge and avoid difficult facts that other posters had to point out for you, it's hard to agree that you offered explanations "in good faith" as you claim.

Anonymous wrote:Different PP here from the one you're addressing. So anything that corrects your half-truths is "vile filth"? I agree that it's wrong to call Mohammed a pedophile, but almost everybody, including Muslim historians, agree he married a 9-year-old. I do think "rape" is an appropriate word for what happens to non-Muslim female prisoners of war. Calling people names won't change any of this. And who is "a few of us" who are doing the half-educating, unless it's you, maybe 1 other Muslim who's posted maybe twice, and a bunch of people who are doing some real educating by correcting your half-truths.

Sorry to be blunt, but you're wearing out everybody's patience.

You or whoever that pp was had the gall to repeatedly call a man who is beloved to millions a pedophile. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. How can the second most populous faith in the world and also the fastest growing religion in the world have a following of people who abide by the teachings of a man if he was truly a pdophile?

And if Muhammad was a pedophile what was Mary then, since Jesus was born out of wedlock? Why doesn't anyone justify this?

When you repeat the accusations and completely disregard the exolanations offered in good faith, you show yourself to have ill will. So then this is no longer a sober intellectual discussion but an attempt to vilify an entire religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not Muslima but once again, she is correct here. Widows with no male relatives to support them become the ward of the state.

I am not at all seeing any attitude in Muslima's answers. She has been quite honest in her answers. If she paints Islam in flowery terms its likely because its simply an expression of her devotion and love for it. Nothing wrong with that. She has not been misleading at all in her answers. I am a Muslim also and validate her answers.

The point is, somebody had to tease this out of her before she admitted to it. All she offers initially is flowery stuff about how Islam offers "asylum" to prisoners, and that women get divorce, inheritance and other rights. Somebody else has to post the details, which aren't very flowery at all. Then she grudgingly admits it, and basically insults the person who provided the facts. That is indeed a form of deception.

What did Muslima grudgingly admit to? Islam does not promote equality as the west sees equality, it promotes justice. Inheritance laws were explained. In divorce, Islam does not purport to promote equality as you understand equality. If a woman is granted divorce but after divorce suffers financially and lacks adequate support, or is expected to work to support herself, Islam does not see justice in this, particularly if institutional discrimination toward women would prevent her from making the same as men for the same jobs. So in Islam, divorce may seem more easy for a husband but he is not permitted to retrieve assets he gave her during the marriage. This is very different from the divorce laws in the US where assets are divided between divorcing spouses. Divorce is generally harder financially on women than men. The additional requirement of going to a court to get a divorce is a protective measure for women to ensure every consideration is given to try to salvage the marriage. If, however, the wife fears cruelty, the divorce would be granted. This isn't inequitable to women. It is a more just system because it considers the hardship women often suffer after divorce. So again, equity is not the goal, justice is.

Anonymous wrote:

I am not Muslima but once again, she is correct here. Widows with no male relatives to support them become the ward of the state.

I am not at all seeing any attitude in Muslima's answers. She has been quite honest in her answers. If she paints Islam in flowery terms its likely because its simply an expression of her devotion and love for it. Nothing wrong with that. She has not been misleading at all in her answers. I am a Muslim also and validate her answers.

The point is, somebody had to tease this out of her before she admitted to it. All she offers initially is flowery stuff about how Islam offers "asylum" to prisoners, and that women get divorce, inheritance and other rights. Somebody else has to post the details, which aren't very flowery at all. Then she grudgingly admits it, and basically insults the person who provided the facts. That is indeed a form of deception.

Different PP here from the one you're addressing. So anything that corrects your half-truths is "vile filth"? I agree that it's wrong to call Mohammed a pedophile, but almost everybody, including Muslim historians, agree he married a 9-year-old. I do think "rape" is an appropriate word for what happens to non-Muslim female prisoners of war. Calling people names won't change any of this. And who is "a few of us" who are doing the half-educating, unless it's you, maybe 1 other Muslim who's posted maybe twice, and a bunch of people who are doing some real educating by correcting your half-truths.

Sorry to be blunt, but you're wearing out everybody's patience.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: So, what happens to the woman with NO male relatives and NO inheritance of any substance?

The question posed was about inheritance, not about widows who dont have relatives or any substance. That is a pretty illogical question given that of course someone who doesn't have money or any family to rely on will get a job if they can and want. Otherwise, they become the responsibility of the islamic state and the muslims in that state to a greater extent. Islam is not an individualistic society like the West. The wellbeing of each and every Muslim is the responsibility of all in the state.

OK. But you just finished telling us how Islam institutionalizes 1/2 rights for women in testimony and financial transactions. Also, as you pointed out yourself, there's a pervasive cultural attitude that women are under men's "protection" instead of autonomous. How do these things affect women's ability to function as equals in the workplace?