All Comments (52)

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

The Cair document:
'Innocent civilians' and 'Fellow Citizens'
What are 'Innocent civilians': Ahteists, Animists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, tree worshippers, and any other religious or non-religious people as well?
Or only Muslims? As Islam states that anyone should be a Muslim, or otherwise will go to hell.
Let them explicit declare what 'Innocent civilians' are.
Hans

as indeed we do- over and over again-

listen to what muslims say-

this is a link to the unequivocal condemnation of terrorist acts by muslims

http://www.cair.com/html/911statements.html

victoria,

you said:
"see how hatred drives the reasonable away?"

yep, i see VERY CLEARLY how much muslims hate! just see middle east media and be suprised!

and this hate is religious ordained:

Dawud :: Book 40 : Hadith 4664
Narrated AbuUmamah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone loves for Allah's sake, hates for Allah's sake, gives for Allah's sake and withholds for Allah's sake, he will have perfect faith.

don't expect reasonable people to ignore muslim hate for all non muslims. that is suicidal!

we must clearly send a message that this behavior is not tolerated!

see how hatred drives the reasonable away?

The problem is this cult like every other cult brainwashes its followers they go to any lenghts to justify Mo's paedophilia, here is list of the excuses we have collected over the past 3 years:

1. Marrying 6 year olds was ok in those days.
2. Girls matured sooner in those days.
3. Girls matured sooner in dry climates.
4. To teach her true islam.
5. She was a reject (had marriage proposals turned down) so he done her a favour.
6. To establish a relationship with Abu Bakr.
7. She was Allah's gift to him via the angelic dream.
8. Married her when she was 6 but consummated when she was 14.
9. I don't see what the problem is.
10. You are a "#"£$"£!$##' I'll chop your head off.
11. Allah gave him this priviledge, you are just envious.
12. Why do you only bash Mo even catholic priests perform such acts.
13. Sleeping with 9 year old by marrying her is better than raping her!
14. Aisha was in dishonour, she had been 'playful' in her youth and Muhammad was kind to her to marry her, to save her from lifetime of shame.
15. If Mo was a paedophile then why was Aisha the only minor among his wives. (This excuse was given by JAGOTI on this panel)

The modern opponents of Islam relied on some reports by the sick hearted or fifth column Muslim writers to the effect that, once Muhammad passed by the house of his adopted son Zayd in the latter's absence and saw his wife Zaynab in clothes which exposed her beauty. They related that the sight struck Prophet Muhammad and he uttered words of admiration to Zaynab. She proudly reported that incident to her husband, and since then she was no longer an obedient wife and Zayd was forced to divorce her.
Victoria quoted Dr. Dr. M.H. Hayka whom the Islamweb.net posted as revised from: "The Life of Muhammad" by: Dr. M.H. Hayka

Now Victoria quoted Dr. Mohammad Hosayn Haykal wrote this in the 1970s. in response to my quoting from Al Tabari’s account of how Mohammed was enamored upon seeing Zainab (probably near naked)

Tabari VIII.1
"In this year the Messenger married Zaynab bt. Jahsh [a first cousin: Allah's Messenger came to the house of Zayd bin [son of] Muhammad. Perhaps the Messenger missed him at that moment. Zaynab, Zayd's wife, rose to meet him. She was dressed only in a shift…. She jumped up eagerly and excited the admiration of Allah's Messenger, so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly, ‘Glory be to Allah Almighty, who causes hearts to turn!' So Zayd went to Muhammad. ‘Prophet, I have heard that you came to my house. Why didn't you go in? [Dad,] Perhaps Zaynab has excited your admiration, so I will leave her.'"

Tabari VIII:4
"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. Now there was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd.'"

So Victoria is implying that Al-Tabari is a sick hearted or 5th column Muslim. As I have refuted before, how is it that no Muslim scholars in the past before critics quoted from Tabari’s commentaries to show the sordidness of this episode, discredited Tabari? Now for those who find it tiresome to go back to read, who was Al-Tabari. Al Tabari lived (839 -923 CE), which means that Dr Haykal,1200 years later, could somehow find it logical to call Tabari a sick hearted 5th column Muslim for writing about the episode when hundreds of well known and reputable scholars in the past and particularly during the height of the Islamic empire did not find anything wrong with Tabari’s commentaries. On the contrary Tabari was well regarded. Just do a google search on Al-Tabari and read how Muslims regard Al-Tabari. Eg. “Al-Tabari is the most important source for the early history of Islam. He studied in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, but spent most of his life in Baghdad teaching and writing. He condensed the vast wealth of historical and exegetical knowledge in his major works. He wrote numerous commentaries on the Koran and laid the foundations for Koranic and historical sciences. “

The hypocritical thing is that while some Muslim apologists are quick to discredit Al-Tabari for his commentary on Zainab-Mohammed’s marriage, they are equally quick to quote Tabari’s commentary that Aishah reached puberty when Mohammed consummated the marriage with her in order to defend Mohammed. One wonders why Dr Haykal did not specifically mentioned Tabari as the object of his insult “sick hearted 5th column Muslim. Is it because then he would find it difficult to defend his criticism of Tabari and inevitably cast doubt on the scholarships of all Muslims scholars who relied on Tabari’s works?

Victoria cast doubts on my integrity: “I sincerely doubt you will read this or understand it- but it may stop someone else from believing your personal crusade against islam.”
On the contrary I will read her postings with care and reply to show the fallacies she concocted for Islam. Contrast my attitude to her “i dont even read your posts nicole- your intentions are so negative that youve driven away any possible reasonable discussion” Just saying it is negative does not mean that it is not true. Saying a negative thing like “every human will die one day” does not make it a lie. You are challenged to refute the negative conclusions that I arrived from reading the Islamic texts. So please don’t just say that they are lies because they are negative, refute them logically it does not reflect well on Islam whom you represent. I have read your post and I understood them. If I do not understand them, I will not be able to refute the points where I find illogical. Victoria, perhaps in your vocabulary, to understand a position you have is to accept it unquestioningly and unreservedly.

Victoria quoted from Dr. Hakya to refute me.- [Revised from: "The Life of Muhammad" by: Dr. M.H. Hayka
Tuesday : 01/01/2002

Unlike Dr. Hakya, the hadiths writers like Bukhari, Muslim Dawood and the sirat writers like, Ibn Ishaq, Tabari whose texts I quoted from were the earliest records of Mohammed’s life. The Hadiths and sirat writers were not orientalists (not that all orientalists are biased) crusaders (many illogically deny/ignore that the crusade was a response to Islamic invasion, despite some of the horrible ways they went about it) or non-Muslims. On the contrary they were respected and their commentaries were well received by the ummah during their times and even later. It is only when the west began an earnest critical study of the texts that people like Dr. Hakya began their spin and some Muslims scholars began to discredit the hadiths and sirat writers. The question is why none of the early scholars before the recent Muslim apologists or even the Islamic schools of jurisprudence like Maliki, Hanbali, Shafii discredited the hadiths and sirat writers.

Do note that I am using the same logical methodology that Muslim apologists use to say that western science owed Islam for their translation of ancient texts on Greek science and mathematics and their own scientific mathematical discoveries. No scientists will dare to claim that Islamic Ibn al-Haytham works on optics were wrong, rather whatever optical science discovered later will rely on and reiterated rather than contradict his works. Victoria, are you surprised that I can accept facts and give Muslims the credit for it?

So also any materials on Mohammed will have to rely on the earliest materials written of him and should reiterate what was written. To write anything that contradicts the original source materials would be dishonest and illogical.

Victoria quoted:"There was a great deal of historical evidence to the effect that the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) did not marry either A'ishah or Hafsa out of desire."

I challenge any Muslim here to provide a single "historical evidence" earlier than the hadiths, Ibn Ishaq, or Al-Tabari that showed that Mohammed did not marry Aishah out of desire. That should be easy enough since Victoria claimed that there was a great deal of historical evidence; unless this is just another “against the evidence” claim like her claim Koran and Islamic texts showed that they understood the dangers of close blood marriages.

The hadiths and sirat writers I used were the earliest Islamic records other than the Koran. An interesting thing is that the Orientalists claim that the hadiths were written some 200 to 300 years after Mohammed but the Muslims apologists claim that they were written less than a hundred to 150 years after Mohammed about the same time when Ibn Ishaq wrote the earliest known biography on Mohammed. Al Tabari lived (839 -923 CE). The hard indisputable fact is that any other Muslim scholars who wrote anything about Mohammed a few decades or a few hundred years later WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON THE EARLIEST RECORDS. Any Muslim who dare to claim that Allah have revealed anything more to them were denounced as heretics like the Ahmadiyas.

Now Victoria and Dr. Hayka claimed that Mohammed married Aisha in order to consolidate the ties of mutual brotherhood within the new Islamic community.

Here is what Bukhari said and may I remind the readers, Bukhari hadiths are deemed by Muslim scholars as shahih ie reliable.

Please note that Victoria’s seemingly illogical implications that my quoting Islamic texts (whether they be the Koran, hadiths or sirats) makes the texts unreliable or lies. BTW that would make her a blasphemer of Islam. So I have provided the hadiths from the Muslim Students Association – University of California website. Maybe in Victoria’s paranoiac mind even that website is also unreliable and anti Islam. The obvious conclusions from the hadiths are drawn by me here. I will be very happy if Muslims and non-Muslims can logically draw differing conclusions from the hadiths that I quoted here together with the links to the source.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/087.sbt.html#009.087.140

Volume 9, Book 87, Number 140:
Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "

My conclusion of this hadiths in refutation of what Victoria and Dr, Hayak had claimed:
Did the hadith mention anything about marrying her to consolidate the ties of mutual brotherhood? No it does not. Now why would not the all knowing and holy Allah not say so, but simply stated it as a gift to Mohammed wrapped with silk? This would be Mohammed way of paving the way for people to accept the practice of pedophilia, since it was a clear directive from Allah. Victoria, would you allow your nine years old daughter to marry a 53 years Muslims man? – you prophet set the example so you have to set aside all you protective maternal instinct and not question what Allah and his prophet has determined. It must make you feel real good to deny you human side to submit to Allah and his prophet directive. If the marriage was to strengthen the brotherhood, he could have waited till she was really into her teens before he consummated the marriage. Could the reason that Aishah never bore him any children be because her immature womb/uterus was violated at the age of nine, destroying forever her ability to conceive. Why wouldn’t Allah bless the favorite wife of Mohammed among all the other wives that Mohammed had with any children? Any Victoria, don’t give me the cultural and historical context bit because the Koran is deemed by you to be eternal and Mohammed’s example is exemplary for Muslims of all ages and culture to follow.

Note Aishah’s father – Abu Bakt’s reaction when Mohammed demanded for Aishah – was it one of total joy that the most holy 53 years old prophet of Allah wish to consolidate the Islamic brotherhood by marrying his 9 years old daughter who was still playing with dolls? No, Bukhari hadith below showed that Abu Bakr, protested – "But I am your brother.". Mohammed dismissed his protests by claiming that it was Allah’s wish LAW –“ but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.018

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Stay tuned – more to come

Nicole- childish taunts and challenges do not prove anything- if you consider slander an accomplishment-that is a sad and meaningless endeavor-
this is an easily searched response to the above misleading and outright made up haddeth you presented as genuine-

The crusaders, the orientalists and other opponents of Islam repeatedly argue that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) was extremely passionate in his love and desire for women, and that was the reason why he had married many wives just like the lustful and pleasure-seeking kings.

Orientalists like Irving, Washington and Lammens etc. had related fanciful stories about the marital status of the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) and that he had accumulated in a short period of time more than 9 women, although at that time polygamy was common among the Arabs.

Unfortunately some Muslim writers of the Prophets biography were dishonest and painted a sexual portrait of the prophet of Islam and provided rich material to the orientalists and other opponents of Islam, to launch their propaganda campaign against this great man. The truth is that Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) had not married a plurality of wives just for lust and desire as shown by the historical facts given by the unbiased biographers.

The Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) before his prophethood had lived 15 years of married life and thereafter 11 more years with only one wife, namely Khadija ( may Allaah be pleased with her) which was a widow. When they were married she was (40) years old and he was at 25 years of age. He spent the prime time of his potency with an old widow and remained faithful to her for (26) years until her death. Women in pre-Islam Arabia used to move around unveiled, exposing their beauty, and do some rites of Haj (pilgrimage) at Ka'aba totally nude in public.

At that time it was never reported that the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) was a womanizer and the message which he was communicating called for prohibition of obscenity and lewdness. It was not likely that the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) above the age of fifty years old had started to amass about (9) wives (most of them were widows) within a period of (7) years merely on grounds of sexual desire.

There was a great deal of historical evidence to the effect that the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) did not marry either A'ishah or Hafsa out of desire. They were the daughters of two of his viziers and faithful close companions i.e. Abu Bakar and Omar ( may Allaah be pleased with them) respectively. He married most of his wives in order to consolidate the ties of mutual brotherhood within the new Islamic community. The other reason which motivated the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) to marry more wives was his desire to console, support and take care of the widows of those Muslim fighters who fell martyrs in the cause of Allah. Most of those widows were poor, old or had so many children as in the case of Umm Salamah, Zaynab, daughter of Khuzaymah and Sawdah daughter of Zam'ah .

However, the circumstances surrounding, the marriage of the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) to Zeynab, daughter of Jahsh offered a good opportunity to the crusaders and orientalists to give full vent to their evil intentions, towards the Prophet of Islam. They unleashed their imagination and related the story in many erotic and thrilling versions. Zaynab was a cousin of Prophet Muhammad and he arranged her marriage to his adopted son, Zayd Ibn Haritha.

The modern opponents of Islam relied on some reports by the sick hearted or fifth column Muslim writers to the effect that, once Muhammad passed by the house of his adopted son Zayd in the latter's absence and saw his wife Zaynab in clothes which exposed her beauty. They related that the sight struck Prophet Muhammad and he uttered words of admiration to Zaynab. She proudly reported that incident to her husband, and since then she was no longer an obedient wife and Zayd was forced to divorce her.

The opponents of Islam based on these false reports, harshly criticized the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) and stated that he fell in love with Zaynab while she was the wife of his adopted son, Zayd. The Orientalist biographers of the Prophet Muhammad tell their readers, that Muhammad planned to marry Zaynab and he could hardly conceal that secret desire for long. When Zayd decided to divorce Zaynab, the Prophet Muhammad told him to hold fast to his wife. It was taboo at that time to marry the ex-wife of the adopted son. They argued that the Prophet of Islam claimed that a divine revelation came to him to lift that taboo in order to quench his love and desire for Zaynab. All these claims are utterly false and baseless.

The truth was that Zaynab, as a first cousin of the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) was brought up under his care and he knew very well whether she was beautiful or not before she was ever married to Zayed. The Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) would have married her himself at the very beginning rather than give her in marriage to Zayed. Zaynab and her family at first rejected this wedding with Zayd as bridegroom because he was an ex-slave and Zaynab was of a noble family.

Finally, there was a divine revelation that all Muslims are to obey their Prophet : "It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error." (Qur'an - 33:36) and accordingly Zaynab implemented the main principles of Islam that: " No body is superior to others because of his race, or class. The only criteria for superiority is piety and fear of God" It is said in the Holy Qur'an: "Highest in God's view is the most virtuous" (49:13)

The Prophet Muhammad selected his own cousin Zaynab for the hard task of breaking the pagan traditions and customs of the Arabs and to endure all the criticism and despises of the society. However, Zaynab did not like Zayd as a husband and, in Islam, a woman is not forced to spend all her life with a man whom she does not love while she can get divorce. Zayd complained about her to the Prophet of Islam sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) and even consulted with him in the matter of divorcing her. Every time the Prophet would counsel him by saying: "Hold fast to your wife…" ultimately Zayd divorced her as usually happens when marital disputes become beyond solutions. Every day in all times, marriages break down because the couples are brought up in different backgrounds and environments, so why was it an exception in the case of Zayd and Zaynab?!

The marriage of Zayed and Zaynab was a practical demonstration by the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) that slavery is totally abolished and those ex-slaves like Zayd are promoted to the status of noble men and can marry girls from noble families.

The adopted children in pre-Islam era were treated on a par with the legitimate children, i.e. inheritance and the prohibition of marriages on grounds of consanguinity. The divine revelation also abolished this practice and clearly stated that: "God did not make your adopted sons as your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim…" (The Holy Qur'an: 33:4)

The Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) was determined to break the long established practice among the Arabs that adopted sons do not marry the ex-wives of their adopting fathers and vice versa even if it would bring about so much criticism for him. He was supported by another divine revelation: "Would you fear the gossip of the people? Isn't God more worthy of being feared." (The Holy Qur'an - 33:37)

Thus, Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) married Zayanb in order to abolish that obsolete custom and to obey the divine relevation, which had already abolished many other bad traditions and practices.

It is surprising that the crusaders believe in all the miracles or breaches of natural law by Ibrahim, Moses, Jesus Christ and other Prophets (Peace be upon them) and accept the fact that all the prophets, except John and Jesus (Peace be upon them), were polygamous, but yet blame the Prophet Muhammad for the alleged violation of family law, or taking in marriage old widows of his companions.

[Revised from: "The Life of Muhammad" by: Dr. M.H. Hayka
Tuesday : 01/01/2002

I sincerely doubt you will read this or understand it- but it may stop someone else from believing your personal crusade against islam.

what ive been ignoring are your childish taunts.
you only malign islam and the Prophet(pbuh) and it has proven to be a waste of my energy to engage you as if you had honorable intentions-

i dont even read your posts nicole- your intentions are so negative that youve driven away any possible reasonable discussion-

i dont know why you hate islam so peronally-
you clearly have no real knowledge or experience of it and get all your information from the same websites that are easily accessed by anyone-

you pretend tobe addressing me but its just an excuse for you to spread your own prejudices-

i respond because i feel you may poison others with your misinformation-

but i do think its sad that you have no other philosophy of a positive nature- and your entire construct seems to be based upon tearing something apart that you simply havent bothered to learn about.
your hatred will only resonate with others who are motivated by hatred-

and hatred is something that must not be condoned no matter who it is directed at-

What I have accomplished is to educate non-Muslims and perhaps some Muslims out there not to take statements like "Islam is peace, Islam is the perfect religion, Mohammed is the greatest prophet or Islam and Christianity have much in common" at its face value. Instead they are to study the Islamic text critically for themselves instead of falling to taqiyya of the Muslims many of whom are so into cogntive dissonnace.

What I have accomplished is to show to readers out there your inability to defend logically your beliefs. It is amazing how you could claim that Islam knew about the dangers of close blood Amazing how when it is shown so clearly in the Koran that Allah allowed marriages between first cousins.
Sura 33:50
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Go ahead Victoris - say that this Koranic verse is a lie. Go ahead show how it this verse supports your belief that Islam understands about the dangers of close blood marriages.

Whether you respond or not I would have accomplished something good. If you ignore it, I would have accomplished showing the readers your cognitive dissonance to say the least, and proved my point that you should not take claims by Muslims at their face value.

If you respond in the same manner as before, it will further reinforce my accomplishment as above.

If against odds you respond to show that you can see some light, then I also would have accomplished a good thing.

im very aware of the sources you cite nicolei-
its always the same 3- im surprised you dont go faithfreedom all the way and start to post maududi too

but the fact is you spend alot of time spreading slander against the Prophet(pbuh)

why you do this? i dont care -

if you have something of value to say- say it-

otherwise all you do is keep posting hateful pieces
pieces with no value- that are purely destructive and ugly in tone-

it seems a pointless and mean spirited way to spend ones energey and youve lost your audience

i barely glance at your posts now because i know theyre full of anger

i just cantimagine what it is you think youre accomplsihing

maybe its therapeutic for you

I didn't write the stuff about Mohammed instigating the assasination of the poetess Marwan who wrote a poem critical of Mohammed. It was written by Ibn Ishaq.

Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest surviving traditional biography, and was written less than 150 years after Muhammad's death about the same tiime as the hadiths. Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah survives in the later editions of Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari. When all these were written, the ummah then welcomed it and no Muslims were critical of for a millennium that followed it. However western studies began to be critical of it in the recent last century, Muslim apologists began tom respond by casting doubts on the integrity of the episodes as recorded by those early Muslim scholars, something that was not done for hundreds of years especially during the height of the Islamic empire. Now go figure it out who is telling lies and who believes in lies. While you are at it, study a condition called cognitive dissonance

still you try to spread hate and lies?
just give up- this is not a receptive audience-

how ridiculous that you respond with ugliness to someting postive-

Victoria: and in that minute i realized that i have a greater love for Muhammad(pbuh) than i had realized- so it actually had an unforeseen value for me- in maligning and slandering rasul(pbuh) she actually strenghthened my own attachment to him-
go figure-

Here is what Mohammed’s followers were willing to do to show their attachment and loyalty to Mohammed as recorded in the earliest biography of Mohammed.

From the Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guilaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") pages 675, 676.
`UMAYR B. `ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL `ASMA' D. MARWAN She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. `Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:
I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
and `Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
One not of Murad or Madhhij.
Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?
Hassan b. Thabit answered her:
Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma
Are inferior to B. al-Khazrahj.
When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,
For death is coming.
She stirred up a man of glorious origin,
Noble in his going out and in his coming in.
Before midnight he dyed her in her blood
And incurred no guilt thereby.
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.
Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.

Interesting rhetorics, Necolei.

["I have stated my verdict from examining the Islamic own texts.']
So have I and have evolved concurrently given the technology. Yours are based on baseless ancient lipservices which courts are not experienced in.

Richard,
Does one actually have to see the process of evolution to believe that humans descended from apes? Does a jury need to actually witness a crime to arrive at a verdict? I have stated my verdict from examining the Islamic own texts. The Muslims including you are challenged to logically present their version of the episode. I have, can you? Have you done justice to read the episode before you commented, if so please show why it isn’t sordid? Convince me please. The readers out there are the jury to decide which make sense.

By the way the “conjectural” materials that you claimed that I read to arrive at my verdict concerning the sordid episode of Mohammed marrying his daughter in-law are 1. the Koran, 2 the hadiths and 3 Al-Tabari. Al Tabari (839 -923 CE) is btw regarded as one of the most important source for the early history of Islam. His numerous commentaries on the Koran are regarded as foundational for the understanding of Islam.
Are you a Muslim? … because your approach of refutation is along one of the methodology used by Muslims to refute – in this case to dispute the integrity of the source of information. If my source happens to be the Koran, then they will say, that I have quoted them out of context, very often they do so without explaining what was the actual context. Or they will say translation I used (be it Yusuf Ali, Pickthall et al) is inaccurate and only the original Arabic Koran is accurate.

Secondly, as for selective choosing narrations that are bad – this is again baseless and reflects perhaps your shallow understanding of Islamic text and Islam. The Koran was supposedly divine and narrated by angel Gabriel to Mohammed. Al Tabari and the hadiths writers were so enthralled/awestruck by Mohammed that almost nothing that Mohammed did could be wrong. At the same time Mohammed had acquired a god-like reputation that even questioning his motives was like questioning Allah. Mohammed gave enough Koranic revelations to put the fear of hellfire and Allah’s wrath to build this absolute loyalty. Mohammed could literally get away with murder and Muslims will not dare to call him a murderer. Please show me from the Koran, hadiths and other ancient commentaries/narrations that are “good apples” – you will find almost similar context and all of them could not see anything that is wrong with the episode otherwise they would not have recorded it .. I have not selectively chosen the bad apples from the good apples where this episode is concerned. This is a case of cognitive dissonance where the bad apples are believed by Muslims to be good apples.

Thirdly, do you really understand how the Muslims regard Mohammed and the Koran? Mohammed is described as Al-Insan, Al-Kamil, the perfect Muslim whose role model cuts across all ages and all cultures after him. His lifestyle is to be emulated as far as possible by all Muslims. The Koran is deemed by Muslims to be eternal and pre-existed creation. It appears that you do not understand that Muslims do not regard the events that happened during Mohammed days and during the “golden” caliphate era only within its historical and cultural context; they also regard it as the ultimate perfected religion/ideology/philosophy applicable all ages and cultures. The Koran is regarded as the immutable words of Allah and together with the hadiths which recorded the lifestyle and acts of Mohammed, the sharia law is derived. Why is it do you think there is this persistent call and clamor by fundamentalist Muslims today everywhere to be ruled by the immutable Sharia laws. Why do you think Muslims still want to be governed under 7th century laws? I have no problem in viewing what ancient people did or did not within the religious-cultural and historical context, but that is not how Islam views it. My postings are to make Muslims and perhaps people like you to face the consequences of their beliefs.

As for your remarks/questions “Do you expect Muslims to become "angels" when you yourselves aren't? Do you expect Muslim societies (culture) to adopt western culture and WHY?”
Sure I am not an angel, but then I don’t claim to be one. I do not claim to be and prophet and I am not regarded as the most holy prophet of God, I did not establish any perfect religion and neither am I to be regarded as the perfect role model for humankind. This question borders tu quoque on your part. Critics really have to stretch it to vilify other founders of religions like Buddha and Jesus, not that they have not tried hard enough, but because their ancient text simply do not provide any basis or ammunition for the critics to shoot at the Buddha and Jesus. If you think the Zainab affair was an isolated incident, I can quote from the Koran, hadiths and ancient biographies (written by Muslim scholars) to show how Mohammed condoned rape and instigated the assassination of his critics. BTW Mohammed, when he was 53, consummated his marriage with Aishah who was 9 years old. Your pc multiculturalism does not permit you to think pedophilia. I am okay with looking at Mohammed marriage with 9 years old within its cultural and historical context, but I will have a problem if you come over here and marry a nine years old girl just because you most holy prophet did it. I will have a problem if you come over here and say that we hope to eventually replace my country's secular laws with the Sharia which among other things call for the end of democracy and take away freedom of religion. I will have a problem if I am a bank manager worried about security and you insist on wearing the complete veil when you enter my bank. I will be concerned if my children or my workplace’ cafeteria, out of political correctness, must be pork free and all for all other meat, the animal must be prayed over by a Muslim and must be really bled alive (hence they have a problem with stunning animals before slaughter because the stunning instead of the bleeding may cause death) in order to make the cafeteria Muslim friendly. I will be worried if under the name of religious freedom, a preacher can recruit troops to fight against my country’s armed forces – which is what really is happening when calls for jihad are preached in the mosques. I will be horrified if Communist China or Cuba is allowed to come to USA to recruit soldiers to fight for China or Cuba so why should I not be angry to say the least when Muslims come here to convert and recruit soldiers to fight for the Ummah. I hope that answered the other question. Let me ask you one in return- If I am a bigoted anti-multiculturalist why do you think I have no problem with Buddhists, Hare Krihnas, Hindus, Shintoist, Bahai faith, Zorastorians coming to the West. To be sure if Aztec or Mayan religionists come to the west and want to start human sacrifices to appease their gods, I would have problems with that. Or if as a Hindu here in the west wishes to revive suttee (widow immolation) and insist on imposing their caste system in their Hindu community in the west I will have a problem. I am for tolerance, but it seems to me that your tolerance means tolerating intolerance and even protecting such, perhaps its just you lack of understanding the true nature of mainstream Islam.

thats alright- nicole actually did me a spiritual favor- when i read her ugly orientalist 5th colum post- it actually made me feel a little nauseaous for a minute- and in that minute i realized that i have a greater love for Muhammad(pbuh) than i had realized- so it actually had an unforeseen value for me- in maligning and slandering rasul(pbuh) she actually strenghthened my own attachment to him-
go figure-

Nicolei,

First, have you been a WITNESS to all your claims or are you simply basing your OPINIONS by reading conjectural materials and making them facts?

Second, what is your purpose for picking and choosing ONLY those narrations by others which are supposedly "bad"? When one goes grocering for apples, does one choose the "bad" ones for themselves and claim that they are "good" ones? Is that what you call "sordid" logic?

Third, how does your ancient claims for what people did or did not do, must reflect today's generation in totality? Do you expect Muslims to become "angels" when you yourselves aren't? Do you expect Muslim societies (culture) to adopt western culture and WHY?

Richard,

I am referring to my accusations that what transpired between Mohammed, Zayd and Zainab was sordid and I logically backed up my accusations. Read my earlier posts for what transpired based on Islamic text.

A self proclaimed holy prophet saw his daughter in-aw nearly naked or naked and he was enamored by her beauty. His daughter in law told her husband about Mohammed’s visit and his reaction. Her husband then divorced her in order to make way for Mohammed to marry her. To stifle any criticism, Mohammed claimed that he was instructed by Allah to do so in order to show that the tribal taboo of marrying one’s daughter in-law if the husband is not a blood son, but an adopted one, is wrong.. To remove the stigma of marrying his daughter in law, he renounced the his adoption of Zayd as his son.

Nicolei,

Can you give me an example of a "sordid affair" that is logical?

Victoria,

When I make any accusations - like sordid affairs, I am able to back it up logically. I have shown how nonsensical your claim that the Zainab -Zayd case anticipated "dangers in close blood marriages" "before dna testing" was when the Koran clearly allowed marriages between first cousins. You claim of egalitarianism in the Koran, I showed proof that it was otherwise.

Please show logically how I deserve your ad hominem otherwise your ad hominem are but a poor substitute for logical refutation.

NICOLE- it is really moot- Muhammad doing away with monogamy- didnt you see the Qur'an ayats?

you have spent so much time tearing apart my conjecture and subjective words-

that is what they are- my opinions-

ive tried to be responsive but i rad your seld desrcibed 'sordid'hadeeth- and it is indeed slimy and repulsive.

i think you just want an opportunity or excuse to insult the Prophet(pbuh) and islam-

i will not provide you with fuel for such an activity.

i sure you can continue with your intentions on your own and make some bad remarks about me-

i really do try to have suspicion for good in peoples intentions- but it is very clear your intentions are to malign my faith-

so we will agree to disagree and you to your beliefs and me to mine-

salaams

Victoria: “your reasoning that monogamy would not be accepted because the Prophet(pbuh) did away with adoption is an extremely simplistic conjecture-

I believe it should read “that reasoning that monogamy would be accepted because the Prophet could do away with adoption and other taboos”

The Prophet used the threat of Allah’s wrath and hellfire along with accusations of going astray to
1. Make the pagans give up their pagan religions and culture.
2. Stifle criticisms of his breaking the cultural taboos of marrying one’s daughter in-law.
3. Do away with adoption which is practiced by most cultures..
4. Totally prohibit the consumption of wine.

Now you and all the Muslim scholars claim Mohammed did not do away with polygamy because the people would not have accepted it. This is so obviously fallacious and your only defense is that the logical and obvious is “an extremely simplistic conjecture”. A conjecture is guesswork or the drawing of a conclusion from incomplete evidence. I have supplied the evidence to support my conclusion, what evidence could you and the Muslim scholars provide to support your wishful conjecture (which it is if you cannot provide the evidence) that the people will not accept monogamy if Mohammed was to tell them that Allah demanded faithfulness and fidelity within a monogamous marriage?

If Mohammed can make the people give up their pagan religions, polygamy is nothing. Since when is Islam and his prophet dictated by what the people would not accept? Which would be the case based on your fallacy.

Victoria: 2) being a FOSTER PARENT is encouraged in islam
only the concept of continuing a 'bloodline' through inheriting family names etc... was done away with- in islam everyone KEEPS THEIR TRUE IDENTITY- women dont change their names when they get married-
i think anyone can see the honesty and wisdom in this.

If Allah is all knowing why Allah allowed Mohammed to adopt Zayd in the first place? Surely Allah would know that his most holy prophet would be ridiculed and accused of the obvious –the renouncement of his adopted son Zayd was to take away the stigma that Mohammed married Zainab his own daughter in law and a legitimate practice is now made haram and a taboo made halal. A parent-child relationship is very much also a matter of relationship (spirit/substance) too. Mohammed discarded the daughter in-law relationship (spirit/substance) that came into existence when Zainab married Zayd and emphasized the form (bloodline; Zayd not real son) when he married Zainab and renounced his adoption of Zayd.. This is quintessentially Islam, a religion that emphasizes form over spirit/substance.

Victoria: it is interesting that before we knew about geneological lines and science showed us that there were dangers in close blood marriages- this issue was anticipated with the above example.

Victoria, you are not making sense here on two counts. 1. Daughter in laws of even real blood sons has no blood relationship with the father in-law. 2. Zainab was Mohammed’s, cousin. Zainab’s mum was the sister of Mohammed’s father. Rather than anticipating the dangers in close blood marriage it actually showed that Mohammed and Allah whom Mohammed claimed commanded him to marry Zainab, were ignorant of the dangers of close blood marriages. Your nonsensical claims are perhaps indicative of the cognitive dissonance that shield you the awful pain of facing the obvious truth about Islam.

Victoria:”
im not sure how you have the idea thaT 33-36 (which is better translated as strayed into error)
on a clearly wrong path sounds like the old harsh pickthall translation or maybe yusuf ali-“

Its from Yusuf Ali and BTW “old harsh pickthall” translated it the way you preferred.

PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.

It is embarrassing isn’t it that “old harsh pickthall” translated the way you preferred. Anyway I won’t lose sleep over whether “strayed into error” is better or more accurate a translation than “on a clearly wrong path” . Either one clearly shows that questioning Allah and Mohammed is a non-no.

Victoria: “he was the perfect muslim and his life was a constrant sacrifice of his personal happiness- his decisions were as an example to all of mankind- before dna testing- the ssue was addressed and kept straight and clear”

The prophet constantly sacrificed his personal happiness – Not according to Tabari commentary below describing the context of the Koran verses concerning Zainab and Zayd.

Tabari VIII:1
"In this year the Messenger married Zaynab bt. Jahsh [a first cousin: Allah's Messenger came to the house of Zayd bin [son of] Muhammad. Perhaps the Messenger missed him at that moment. Zaynab, Zayd's wife, rose to meet him. She was dressed only in a shift…. She jumped up eagerly and excited the admiration of Allah's Messenger, so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly, ‘Glory be to Allah Almighty, who causes hearts to turn!' So Zayd went to Muhammad. ‘Prophet, I have heard that you came to my house. Why didn't you go in? [Dad,] Perhaps Zaynab has excited your admiration, so I will leave her.'"

Tabari VIII:4"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. Now there was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd.'"

As for the dna testing bit, don’t continue to embarrass yourself, I have addressed that issue that the sordid Zainab –Zayd episode has nothing to do with Islam knowing beforehand the dangers of close blood marriage, on the contrary it showed Mohammed’s ignorance or at best, his disregard for the dangers by marrying the daughter of his father’s sister.
ive never heard a mullah use that to silence any woman- we all stand without heiarchy and before ALLAH on our own- it is not upto mullahs to silence anyone- and they can certainly say what they want- but every muslim has the prerogative to interpert the Qur'an on their own-

Mohammed used it to stifle any criticism of his marrying Zainab and renouncing his adoption of Zayd. Enough said.

Victoria: “the Qur'an is a timely and living book- it is open at all times to the individual interpertation- i have been informed of this by many reputable scholars and countless muslims- that is the major difference between islam and other religions.

You can always find some crazy fundamentalist that will react in a negative way- but one has to make distinction between cultural and traditional values- and what the Qur'an, and hadeeth(sayings) and sunnah(actions of te Prophet(pbuh) actually has to say.”

You defend your right to the individual interpretation of the Koran and hadiths yet you would castigate the fundamentalists and Al Qaeda too I assume, for their interpretation of the violent verses. You have reinforced my opinion that there are “moderate” Muslims and there are violent Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

Victoria: “we are rediscovering all the time the simplicity and wisdom and egalitarianism in the Qur'an”

Simplicity – yet when the obvious is so simple you denigrated it as “an extremely simplistic conjecture”.

Egalitarianism in the Quran? It is more like an Orwellian “Animal farm” where Mohammed had more than a dozen wives but limited others to 4 wives. Now if Islam allowed polyandry and polygamy that would be egalitarianism.

Tell me what contorted semantics will you resort to interpret Sura 33:50 (this only for thee, and not for the Believers) to show the egalitarianism you spoke of? You may want to talk about the dangers of marrying first cousins while you at it.

033.050
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Gen:

I had a look at the web site you posted. A couple of things struck a note with me.

Pentecostals are the ones that call the supernatural being down and people feel the spirit and fall down. That's kinda like the fellow who DOESN'T have a drinking problem. He drinks, gets drunk, falls down, no problem. Pentacostals feel God, get drunk, fall down, no porblem.

What will proof the Bible is a hoax do to faith?

Try this web site. http://www.hoax-buster.org

It's not well written but that can and is being fixed. Good luck to all the sacred scriptures.

NICOLE- No- it is absolutely supported by countless scholars alive today-
i really have noidea where you got this falacious interpertation-

your reasoning that monogamy would not be accepted because the Prophet(pbuh) did away with adoption is an extremely simplistic conjecture-

first- the Prophet stated numerous rimes to Aisha herself that Khadija was his favorite there is no disagreement on this- i have no idea where you got that

2) being a FOSTER PARENT is encouraged in islam
only the concept of continuing a 'bloodline' through inheriting family names etc... was done away with- in islam everyone KEEPS THEIR TRUE IDENTITY- women dont change their names when they get married-
i think anyone can see the honesty and wisdom in this

the marriage to zainab was an example that there is no prohibition to marrying someone who is outside of the bloodline- if it were his real son- he wouldnt have married her-

it is interesting that before we knew about geneological lines and science showed us that there were dangers in close blood marriages- this issue was anticipated with the above example.

and you are right- he was the perfect muslim and his life was a constrant sacrifice of his personal happiness- his decisions were as an example to all of mankind- before dna testing- the ssue was addressed and kept straight and clear.

im not sure how you have the idea thaT 33-36 (which is better translated as strayed into error)
on a clearly wrong path sounds like the old harsh pickthall translation or maybe yusuf ali-

anyway ive never heard a mullah use that to silence any woman- we all stand without heiarchy and before ALLAH on our own- it is not upto mullahs to silence anyone- and they can certainly say what they want- but every muslim has the prerogative to interpert the Qur'an on their own-

the Qur'an is a timely and living book- it is open at all times to the individual interpertation- i have been informed of this by many reputable scholars and countless muslims- that is the major difference between islam and other religions-

you can always find some crazy fundamentalist that will react in a negative way- but one has to make distinction between cultural and traditional values- and what the Qur'an, and hadeeth(sayings) and sunnah(actions of te Prophet(pbuh) actually has to say.

often there are widely divergent views expressed by people clinging to social mores of their cultures-

we are rediscovering all the time the simplicity and wisdom and egalitarianism in the Qur'an

salaams

Victoria,
Prophet Mohammed is "al-Insan, al-Kamil". He is the perfect Muslim who lifestyle is to be emulated by all Muslims for all ages and times. He had more than the "4 wives" limit. Also Mohammed himself could not treat all his wives equally. His "lolita" wife Aishah was his favourite and the Ummah readily acknowledged that.

You said" if at that time the men had been limited to one wife- it would have been simply rejected by the people of that time- BUT"

This is a fallacy (monogamy would be rejected by Muslims) because Mohammed had no problem with doing away the practice of adoption which was a ancient and natural practice by many cultures and tribes. Furthermore, Mohammed’s tribe had a taboo against marrying one’s daughter in-law, yet he had went against the taboo by marrying his adopted son’s wife Zainab, forbid adoption and accused anyone who questioned what he did as going astray with this infamous “revelation” that mullahs love to quote to silence any criticism especially when it involves women.

33.036
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

Read some of my posts here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/karen_armstrong/2007/01/not_one_of_the_world.html#comments

"Many Religious Traditions Created by Men, But Presented as Sacred"

God was created by man but presented as sacred...

SOJA- harems are not an islamic practice- they are a cultural phenomenon- and they are NOT allowed in islam- at the time of the Prophet(pbuh) men would have manymany women as 'wives' they were literally considered chattel or propeerty- there were no social institutions in place to care for a doiscarded woman and prostitution or worse would be her fate. The Qur'an states that a man may have 1,2,3 or 4 wives but they mustall be treated equally in regards to finances- housing- attention and time received- this has been interperted to mean that a man must support his wives in the same standard that he himslef lives- they must have their own houses- receive the same gifts time etc...

if at that time the men had been limited to one wife- it would have been simply rejected by the people of that time- BUT

here is the big BUT

all of this really becomes moot because the Qur'an goes on to say- treat each completely equally-
then the little known and crux of it - it goes on to state that
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE! it actually negates having more than 1 wife by stating the entire concept impossible-

this is a cmon misconception and im sure the detractors will try and find some way to change it into something that suits their preconceived ideas- but it is what it is.

harems are anathema to islam.
salaams

PS Then of course there is the most significant question of all. Are these girly men of faith doing what God or Devil wants. If it's God then God must want chaos. But isn't that what hell is, chaos. How's things in Asia Minor these days? Any chaos?

Did Muhammand http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul sell his soul to Devil? Is he a liar? Of course not. He too like Moses spoke directly with either the supernatural being or IT's agents, angels. Was that God or Devil? We know Moses sold his soul. And we know sale of soul brings the wealth of earth to the seller provided he can convince the multitudes to follow him to the domain of whichever supernatural being that was there in the fire that burns but does not consume.

MKH, we're not just wasting the brains of women but we have overridden them until we've reached the brink of global disaster. She is the one that's supposed to decide it's time to reproduce and not him. But however will he indulge his ravenous carnal appetite unless he uses his muscles and dilude himself into thinking she wants him to do that?

We may all be the children of God, a bit of guesswork. We are all the product of rape, a historical fact.

Nature has built into the "brains" of the females of all species the logic, (women are illogical) to say when it's time to get pregnant. Female humans can do sex without getting pregnant, duh. She is a tad ahead of the rest of the animal kingdom, an awfully good reason for girly men to decide her sexual protocol for her.

Girly men have led us to overpopulation via the rape of the ones with the reproductive brains. I ask then question. Are we seeing the "lemming effect" evidenced by suicide attacks? When population reaches the breaking point there is a "built in" pressure relief valve, suicide? Is our present preocupation with WMDs, a quick fix to overpopulation the product of a 6th sense? There is compelling evidence women have a 6th sense when it comes to reproduction. Therefore women may have no say whatsoever in what God either said or wants.

Patriarchal societies produce patriarchal religions, duh. What a surprise.

Religious leaders with more charisma than thou find ways to interpret their religious doctrines and dogma to support their continued special positions in these religions. Again, duh.

I tell you what, half the brains on this planet, half the minds, belong to women. And we are largely wasting this `brainspace`.

We can blame the men, and we do, for this. We can try to bring women into more positions of power and decision, and we do. But until women stop buying into this primitive, patriarchal, lunatic religious crap we will continue to was half the minds on this plane.

So the men are guilty, yes they are. But we should not forgive the women who have bought this nonsense, for they are as guilty as the men for continuing this waste.

All that needed to happen, happened. Everything happening now, is just as it should be. All that is to come will have to be....or not.
Some stuff happens that does not need to happen, but occurs for reasons that will never be known.

At a purely intitial level, of these "happenings", we will never know what "causes" them.

Religion is humanity's way of coping with this ignorance. As such, it is a mythology at best, at worst it takes itself for reality.

All that ever was or will be is here now.

Talk amongst yourselves.... ; )

We do not need religion for any other reason but to decide who we can kill. Religion needs us.

Even the most progressive world religion, the Baha'i Faith, bars its women from serving on their highest administrative body, the Universal House of Justice. We all just can't figure out why they promote as one of their basic tenets the idea that women and men are equal.
Male god, male administration, male laws equate to women's subjagation for the next one thousand years.

How many men would accept a woman Manifestation of God with a new religion for a new era?? None. The consequences would be much to great for them to tolerate.

A new concept is needed: There is no god, neither male nor female. We are all in this world together. Let us help each other and make the world a better place for all. I am a human and that should be enough definition. Let the species unite.

Thank you. May God Bless you. I have often suspected as much. The Commandments are hard to tamper with.