valul islamic moda sau traditie??????

desuurile sexi

Kathara Postat pe 14 Martie 2009 12:11
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-14 06:57:01 MA TzATzO (acum ti e clar) ATUNCI TE AM FACUT MADAM PHD PT CA TE AI LAUDAT CA AI UN PHD (NU STIU IN CE) NIVELUL TAU DE A JUDECA STRIGA DE LA O DISTANTA CA NU POTI AVEA NICI ZECE CLASE. Mai tatule, In legatura cu educatia mea s-au pronuntat altii mult mai destepti decat tine, asa ca latrii la copacul gresit, De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-14 06:57:01 AI FOLOSIT CUVANTUL "PANARAMA" CARE E VORBIT DE TOTI DERBEDEI SI DE PERSOANE CU O MORALA FOARTE DECAZUTA. IAR CAND TI AM SPUS CA EXISTA UN CUVANT "PANORAMA" CARE ARE CU TOTUL ALT INTELES, AI INSISTAT CU NERUSINARE CA "PANARAMA" E UN CUVANT ROMANESC. MADAM PHD TI AI DAT SEAMA CE IMPRESIA AI FACUT?.IAR ORICAND AI INCERCAT SA SCRII CEVA IN LIMBA ENGLEZA DE LA TINE, A IESIT UN DEZASTRU. Din asta rezulta clar ca esti prost. Ti-am explicat deja diferenta dintra panarama si panorama, daca nu vrei sa intelegi problema ta. A propos, daca panarama e un cuvant urat, afla ca eu l-am folosit ca un substitut pentru "c-rva", asa m-au botezat cucernicele-ti musulmane. In legatura cu engleza ma abtin, as I said it before, I know what I know. De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-14 06:57:01 ZICI CA TU NU CREZI IN DUMNEZEU, NU NE INTERESEAZA, POTI SA MORI FARA NICI UN DUMNEZEU. DE CE TE AI BAGAT INTR O DISCUTIE CARE INCEPUSE INTRE CRESTINI SI MUSULMANI. EI AMANDOI SI IMPREUNA CRED INTR O SINGURA PUTERE SUPREMA, DUMNEZEU SAU ALLAH. DIFERENTA E CA FIECARE IL INTELEGE IN FELUL LUI. SUNT SIGUR, PRIN COMUNICARE CONTINUA, INTR O ZI O SA AJUNGEM LA O INTELEGERE COMUNA. INTREBAREA MEA E CE CAUTA O PERSOANA INTRE NOI CARE N ARE NICI UN DUMNEZEU. CREZI CA ESTI INTERESANTA SAU MODERNA DACA TE DECLAR ASTFEL. NU ESTI DECAT O PROASTA, INTUNECATA LA CREIER SI PLINA DE VENIN. CARAGIALE SARACUL DACA MAI TRAIA, NU TREBUIA SA SE DUCA PREA DEPARTE CA S O CAUTE PE MITzA BASTON. O GASEA AICI PE FORUM. Blah blah blah blah .... imi zici o data contraargumentele sau duci discutia la un nivel personal cum au facut-o atatia musulmani? CONCLUZIA: NU EXISTA CONTRAARGUMENTE LA CEEA CE AM DOVEDIT EU, RESPECTIV CA MAHOMED A FOST UN ANALFABET VIOLATOR, PEDOFIL, UCIGAS SI STAPAN DE SCLAVI. IAR ISLAMUL, DUPA CUM SE VEDE CLAR DIN CITATELE DATE DIN cORAN ESTE O RELIGIE CRIMINALA CARE INSTIGA LA URA. Si cu asta basta, deja am discutat cu prea multi prosti pe topicul asta.
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-09 06:28:33 De la: ocgiogi, la data 2009-03-08 15:10:50salimgandapur Ai vazut asta ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98DBGCubVvE Te rog...si poate aduci si argumente ??! Ma mir ca femeile acelea nu se ridica impotriva voastra sa vedem ce le-ati face? doar nu le omorati pe toate...ca ramaneti fara mult "iubita" pza.... I didn't have the oppertunity to watch the FLV yet, already mentioned by two of you (wdy & your good self). I promise to watch and only then i will be in a position to give my comments about it. ---------------(ca ramaneti fara mult "iubita" pza...)------------------- �Autoritatile� in Islam care au aparut ca ciupercile dupa ploaia lui 9/11, pe toate canalele televiziunii vestice, sunt de obicei impostori despre care se poate dovedi cu claritate ca si au facut din atacarea islamului o profesie si o ocupatie care sale asigure o existenta de faima si opulenta cum isi dorisera cand au venit in vest. Una dintre multi e si Wafa Sultan cum o cunoastem noi dupa aparitiile ei fulminante la cateva canale celebre ca Memri si Al-Jazeera, unul deschis aparand interese Izraeliene, deconstruind Islamul celalt mai onest oferindu i atacatoarei posibilitatea de a si verifica parerile fixate cu cineva cunoscator al problemelor pe care ea evident le incurca din ignoranta si rea vointa. Aducem aici desbaterea ei cu Ibrahim AL Khouly, professor la Al Azhar Cairo intre un nimeni si cineva cunoscut in lumea invataturii Islamice. Partea din discutie apartinand lui Al Khouly, fusese taiata la canalul MEMRI dupa ce o luasera integral de la Al Jazeera. Individa apare in rolul de procuror in procesul intentat de patronii ei unei religii majore pt motive care in ultimii noua ani au inceput sa devina tot mai clare. Femeia sustine ca ar fi psiholoaga desi tot ce a sustinut pana acum s a dovedit mincinos. Titlul academic presupune metoda in discutarea problemelor intelectuale. Metoda ei e calomnia adunata din surse necunoscute chiar ei. Va lasam sa hotarati autenticitatea judecatilor ei dupa ce, cei interesati veti vedea la youtube. URL no 1 cu discursul debatantilor iar pe URL no-2, un fost crestin raspunde la acuzatiile lui Wafa Sultan. 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_MCdw8S7aw 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPLeWxfhh0&feature=related INTRE REGULILE ELEMENTARE ALE UNEI INTREPRINDERI INTELECTUALE ESTE: 1- CUNOASTEREA INTR O MASURA CONVINGATOARE A PROBITATII INTELECTUALE SI PERSONALE A CELUI CU CARE TE ANGAJEZI. CE STIM DESPRE PERSOANA CARE VREA SA NE CONVINGA CA AM FOST NISTE PROSTI TIMP DE 1400 DE ANI PANA LA VENIREA EI IN AJUTOR: (a)-Ea a mintit despre religia ei, declarandu se ateista dupa ce daduse impresia ca ar fi o reformista Musulmana. (b)-A mintit despre identitatea ei intrand in America cu acte false �That's right, according to Infocus, Southern California's online website, Ms. Sultan has not been all that truthful with us. But don't blame the Jews, the Christians or even the governments for this one, she is a confirmed atheist from the Alawi heritage in Syria, and according to the article in Infocus, a real deliberate liar and opportunist as well.� Dr. Wafa Ahmad (her maiden name) arrived in California with her husband Moufid (now changed to David) in the late 80s on a tourist visa. Contrary to what she told the New York Times, they came as a couple, leaving their two children back in Syria. (c)- A mintit despre profesorul ei ca a fost impuscat in fata ochilor ei intr o sala din Universitatea din Aleppo. Nu intram in detalii despre alte reguli de angajare intelectuala pt problemele pe care le ridica, felul in care le rezolva si onorabilitatea motivelor sunt ele insisi graitoare. O MARE DIFICULTATE IN CONTRAZICEREA ACESTOR CAVALERI ISLAMOPHOBI, O PREZINTA TENDINTA GENERALA A MUSULMANILOR INSISI DE APRIVI CA DIVINA ABSOLUT TOATE FAPTELE SI VORBELE ATRIBUITE PROFETULUI DE HADITH (DE ORICARE HADITH) CHIAR DACA ASTA INSEAMNA CONTRAZICERI DESPRE CARACTERUL PROFETULUI, VARSTELE PERSOANELOR DIN FAMILIA LUI, DATE IN TIMP SI IN FAPT ALE UNOR EVENIMENTE LA CARE PROFETUL SAU TOVARASII LUI AU PARTICIPAT SI INTERPRETARI ALE LOR. LIPSA DE SIMT CRITIC IN EVALUAREA UNOR DATE, DEFECT MUSULMAN RECUNOSCUT, EXPLICA USURINTA CU CARE DUSHMANII LOR PROFITA SI ISI AJUNG OBIECTIVELE IN CE PRIVESTE DENIGRAREA ISLAMULUI SI A PROFETULUI. FAPTUL CAEI AU ACCEPTAT FARA SA PUNA LA INDOIALA ORICE S A SPUS BINE SAU RAU IN HADITH DESPRE VIATA DE FAMILIE A PROFETULUI, LE A USURAT TREABA ISLAMOPHOBILOR PERMITANDU LE SA ALEAGA CE LE CONVENEA. IMPORTANTA DISPROPORTIONATA PE CARE POVESTITORII DE HADITH AU ARATAT O CASATORIILOR POLIGAME ALE PROFETULUI CARE AU DURAT IN TOTAL 12 ANI, MAI DEGRABA DECAT CASATORIEI CU Khadija, CARE DURASE 25 DE ANI SI IN CARE PROFETUL II FUSESE CU TOTUL CREDINCIOS SOTIEI SALE, ARATA TENDINTA DE ACONSIDERA NEIMPORTANTA MONOGAMIA, O ANOMALIE IN TIMPURILE ACELEA DAR CARE ARATA PT NOI DE ACUM COMMITMENT-UL LUI FATA DE CASATORIA MONOGAMA. DACA EXISTA DUBII DESPRE COMPORTAMENTUL LUI INCURAJATE DE NEGLIGENTA SI LIPSA DE PREVEDERE A POVESTITORILOR DE HADITH SI CREDULITATEA CELORLALTI, DEPINDE DE SPIRITUL CRITIC AL INTERPRETULUI SA L PRIVEASCA PE PROFET OBIECTIV. Cartea esentiala care ne spune totul despre profet si religia care i a fost revelata de Allah, e Qur�anul. Cartile de Hadith nu sunt DIVINE cum e Qur�an, ele sunt elaborate de diferiti naratori in cursul unei perioade indelungate incepand cu doua trei sute de ani dupa moartea profetului. Aceleasi personae si aceleasi evenimente sunt prezentate contradictoriu in ce priveste timpul, detalii importante si chiar sensul lor. Nu e de mirare ca in analiza Hadithului in general, invatatii Musulmani, au intampinat in cautarea evidentei mai multe probleme ca: (Din lipsa de timp nu traduc, ramane ca acela care cauta adevarul sa gaseasca singur intelesul. EVIDENCE #1: Reliability of Source Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father. First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is strange that no one from Medina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas. The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medina for most of his life. Tehzibu�l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: �He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq� (Tehzi�bu�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50). It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: �I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq� (Tehzi�b u�l-tehzi�b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala�ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50). Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: �When he was old, Hisham�s memory suffered quite badly� (Mizanu�l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu�l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301). CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham�s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha�s marriage and age are unreliable. CHRONOLOGY: It is vital also to keep in mind some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam: � pre-610 CE: Jahiliya (pre-Islamic age) before revelation � 610 CE: First revelation � 610 CE: AbuBakr accepts Islam � 613 CE: Prophet Muhammad begins preaching publicly. � 615 CE: Emigration to Abyssinia � 616 CE: Umar bin al Khattab accepts Islam � 620 CE: Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha to the Prophet � 622 CE: Hijrah (emigation to Yathrib, later renamed Medina) � 623/624 CE: Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with the Prophet EVIDENCE #2: The Betrothal According to Tabari (also according to Hisham ibn �Urwah, Ibn Hunbal and Ibn Sad), Ayesha was betrothed at seven years of age and began to cohabit with the Prophet at the age of nine years. However, in another work, Al-Tabari says: �All four of his [Abu Bakr�s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period� (Tarikhu�l-umam wa�l-mamlu�k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara�l-fikr, Beirut, 1979). If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of seven) and started to live with the Prophet in 624 CE (at the age of nine), that would indicate that she was born in 613 CE and was nine when she began living with the Prophet. Therefore, based on one account of Al-Tabari, the numbers show that Ayesha must have born in 613 CE, three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). Tabari also states that Ayesha was born in the pre-Islamic era (in Jahiliya). If she was born before 610 CE, she would have been at least 14 years old when she began living with the Prophet. Essentially, Tabari contradicts himself. CONCLUSION: Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha�s age. EVIDENCE # 3: The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Fatima According to Ibn Hajar, �Fatima was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old... she was five years older that Ayesha� (Al-isabah fi tamyizi�l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, p. 377, Maktabatu�l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978). If Ibn Hajar�s statement is factual, Ayesha was born when the Prophet was 40 years old. If Ayesha was married to the Prophet when he was 52 years old, Ayesha�s age at marriage would be 12 years. CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth. EVIDENCE #4: Ayesha�s Age in relation to Asma�s Age According to Abda�l-Rahman ibn abi zanna�d: �Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha (Siyar A`la�ma�l-nubala�, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu�assasatu�l-risalah, Beirut, 1992). According to Ibn Kathir: �She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by 10 years� (Al-Bidayah wa�l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933). According to Ibn Kathir: �She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but 10 or 20, or a few days over 20, or 100 days later. The most well known narrative is that of 100 days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.� (Al-Bidayah wa�l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933) According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: �She [Asma] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.� (Taqribu�l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi�l-nisa�, al-harfu�l-alif, Lucknow). According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Ayesha. If Asma was 100 years old in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of the hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old. Thus, Ayesha, being 17 or 18 years of at the time of Hijra, she started to cohabit with the Prophet between at either 19 to 20 years of age. Based on Hajar, Ibn Katir, and Abda�l-Rahman ibn abi zanna�d, Ayesha�s age at the time she began living with the Prophet would be 19 or 20. In Evidence # 3, Ibn Hajar suggests that Ayesha was 12 years old and in Evidence #4 he contradicts himself with a 17 or 18-year-old Ayesha. What is the correct age, twelve or eighteen? CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha�s age. EVIDENCE #5: The Battles of Badr and Uhud A narrative regarding Ayesha�s participation in Badr is given in the hadith of Muslim, (Kitabu�l-jihad wa�l-siyar, Bab karahiyati�l-isti`anah fi�l-ghazwi bikafir). Ayesha, while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says: �when we reached Shajarah�. Obviously, Ayesha was with the group travelling towards Badr. A narrative regarding Ayesha�s participation in the Battle of Uhud is given in Bukhari (Kitabu�l-jihad wa�l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi�l-nisa� wa qitalihinna ma`a�lrijal): �Anas reports that on the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet. [On that day,] I saw Ayesha and Umm-i-Sulaim, they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement].� Again, this indicates that Ayesha was present in the Battles of Uhud and Badr. It is narrated in Bukhari (Kitabu�l-maghazi, Bab Ghazwati�l-khandaq wa hiya�l-ahza�b): �Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation.� Based on the above narratives, (a) the children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the Battle of Uhud, and (b) Ayesha participated in the Battles of Badr and Uhud CONCLUSION: Ayesha�s participation in the Battles of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine years old but at least 15 years old. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden on them. This account is another contradiction regarding Ayesha�s age. EVIDENCE #6: Surat al-Qamar (The Moon) According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha was born about eight years before hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari, Ayesha is reported to have said: �I was a young girl (jariyah in Arabic)� when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed (Sahih Bukhari, kitabu�l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa�l-sa`atu adha� wa amarr). Chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed eight years before hijrah (The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985), indicating that it was revealed in 614 CE. If Ayesha started living with the Prophet at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (sibyah in Arabic) at the time that Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) was revealed. According to the above tradition, Ayesha was actually a young girl, not an infant in the year of revelation of Al-Qamar. Jariyah means young playful girl (Lane�s Arabic English Lexicon). So, Ayesha, being a jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years old at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and therefore must have been 14-21 years at the time she married the Prophet. CONCLUSION: This tradition also contradicts the marriage of Ayesha at the age of nine. EVIDENCE #7: Arabic Terminology According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of the Prophet�s first wife Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in mind. Khaulah said: �You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)�. When the Prophet asked the identity of the bikr (virgin), Khaulah mentioned Ayesha�s name. All those who know the Arabic language are aware that the word bikr in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year-old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier, is jariyah. Bikr on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady without conjugal experience prior to marriage, as we understand the word �virgin� in English. Therefore, obviously a nine-year-old girl is not a �lady� (bikr) (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. .210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut). CONCLUSION: The literal meaning of the word, bikr (virgin), in the above hadith is �adult woman with no sexual experience prior to marriage.� Therefore, Ayesha was an adult woman at the time of her marriage. EVIDENCE #8. The Qur�anic Text All Muslims agree that the Quran is the book of guidance. So, we need to seek the guidance from the Quran to clear the smoke and confusion created by the eminent men of the classical period of Islam in the matter of Ayesha�s age at her marriage. Does the Quran allow or disallow marriage of an immature child of seven years of age? There are no verses that explicitly allow such marriage. There is a verse, however, that guides Muslims in their duty to raise an orphaned child. The Quran�s guidance on the topic of raising orphans is also valid in the case of our own children. The verse states: �And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...� (Quran, 4:5-6). In the matter of children who have lost a parent, a Muslim is ordered to (a) feed them, (b) clothe them, (c) educate them, and (d) test them for maturity �until the age of marriage� before entrusting them with management of finances. Here the Quranic verse demands meticulous proof of their intellectual and physical maturity by objective test results before the age of marriage in order to entrust their property to them. In light of the above verses, no responsible Muslim would hand over financial management to a seven- or nine-year-old immature girl. If we cannot trust a seven-year-old to manage financial matters, she cannot be intellectually or physically fit for marriage. Ibn Hambal (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal, vol.6, p. 33 and 99) claims that nine-year-old Ayesha was rather more interested in playing with toy-horses than taking up the responsible task of a wife. It is difficult to believe, therefore, that AbuBakr, a great believer among Muslims, would betroth his immature seven-year-old daughter to the 50-year-old Prophet. Equally difficult to imagine is that the Prophet would marry an immature seven-year-old girl. Another important duty demanded from the guardian of a child is to educate them. Let us ask the question, �How many of us believe that we can educate our children satisfactorily before they reach the age of seven or nine years?� The answer is none. Logically, it is an impossible task to educate a child satisfactorily before the child attains the age of seven. Then, how can we believe that Ayesha was educated satisfactorily at the claimed age of seven at the time of her marriage? AbuBakr was a more judicious man than all of us. So, he definitely would have judged that Ayesha was a child at heart and was not satisfactorily educated as demanded by the Quran. He would not have married her to anyone. If a proposal of marrying the immature and yet to be educated seven-year-old Ayesha came to the Prophet, he would have rejected it outright because neither the Prophet nor AbuBakr would violate any clause in the Quran. CONCLUSION: The marriage of Ayesha at the age of seven years would violate the maturity clause or requirement of the Quran. Therefore, the story of the marriage of the seven-year-old immature Ayesha is a myth. EVIDENCE #9: Consent in Marriage A women must be consulted and must agree in order to make a marriage valid (Mishakat al Masabiah, translation by James Robson, Vol. I, p. 665). Islamically, credible permission from women is a prerequisite for a marriage to be valid. By any stretch of the imagination, the permission given by an immature seven-year-old girl cannot be valid authorization for marriage. It is inconceivable that AbuBakr, an intelligent man, would take seriously the permission of a seven-year-old girl to marry a 50-year-old man. Similarly, the Prophet would not have accepted the permission given by a girl who, according to the hadith of Muslim, took her toys with her when she went live with Prophet. CONCLUSION: The Prophet did not marry a seven-year-old Ayesha because it would have violated the requirement of the valid permission clause of the Islamic Marriage Decree. Therefore, the Prophet married an intellectually and physically mature lady Ayesha. SUMMARY: It was neither an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as seven or nine years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated. Obviously, the narrative of the marriage of nine-year-old Ayesha by Hisham ibn `Urwah cannot be held true when it is contradicted by many other reported narratives. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to accept the narrative of Hisham ibn `Urwah as true when other scholars, including Malik ibn Anas, view his narrative while in Iraq, as unreliable. The quotations from Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim show they contradict each other regarding Ayesha�s age. Furthermore, many of these scholars contradict themselves in their own records. Thus, the narrative of Ayesha�s age at the time of the marriage is not reliable due to the clear contradictions seen in the works of classical scholars of Islam. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha�s age is accepted as true when there are adequate grounds to reject it as myth. Moreover, the Quran rejects the marriage of immature girls and boys as well as entrusting them with responsibilities. DACA PEDOFILIA AR FI FOST O TRASATURA A PROFETULUI, TREBUIA SA FI FOST CONSTANTA DE A LUNGUL INTREGII LUI VIETI, DAR SE STIE CA SOTIILE LUI AVEAU VARSTE DIFERITE INCEPAND CU KHADIJA, 15 ANI MAI MARE DECAT PROFETUL SI CAREIA I A FOST TOTAL CREDINCIOS. NU TREBUIE UITAT CA I S A PROPUS DE IDOLATRI DIN MECCA SA ACCEPTE DIN PARTEA LOR CELE MAI FRUMOASE SI MAI TINERE FEMEI IN SCHIMBUL INTRANSIGENTEI LUI RELIGIOASE FATA DE IDOLI. CASATORIILE LUI POLIGAME NU SE DATORESC UNUI LIBIDO IESIT DIN COMUN CI SUNT ALIANTE POLITICE CU TRIBURI, INSTITUTII DE CARITATE SI SIMTULUI SAU DE SACRIFICIU IN FATA CIRCUMSTANTELOR LOR NEFERICITE(VADUVIE SI DIVORT). Desi dovezile normalitatii sexuale a profetului ar fi suficiente, raman doua exemple de care SULTAN se foloseste PERVERS ca sa atace Qur�anul cum ca ar fi fost modificat ca sa puna la adapost sis a gaseasca acceptare pt excesele profetului. VA URMA. TE ROG IN INTERVAL NU COMENTA PT CA VREAU SA RASPUND LA TOATE PUNCTELE LUI SULTAN APRECIATE DE VOI, CONSUMATORI SERIOSI DE MELODRAMA CHIAR SCABROASA.
salimgandapur Postat pe 16 Martie 2009 17:21
Sa inteleg ca daca Aisha ar fi avut cu 5 ani mai mult, atunci ar fi fost totul in regula? Totusi diferenta dintre ea si profet ar fi fost de 40 de ani. Nu mi se pare nimic mai scarbos decat asta, la urma urmei ii putea fi BUNIC. Actiunile lui Mohamed se presupune ca sunt exemplare, da? Deci sa ma marit si eu la 55 de ani cu un pusti de 15?

Kathara Postat pe 16 Martie 2009 20:18
kathara ,ei nu sunt cu nimic vinovati ca s au nascut in aceasta religie si au fost invatati sa o respecte si ce scrie in Quran.....te agiti prea mult si fara rost....nu vei schimba nimic.....daca ai fi in locul lor si ar venii una asa ca tine complexata si cu gura mare ai riposta.......oooo si inca cat....asa ca cel mai bine orienteaza-te spre altceva ...te lupti cu morile de vant
myeyes Postat pe 16 Martie 2009 20:52
De la: Ali_Alina, la data 2009-03-16 20:52:25kathara ,ei nu sunt cu nimic vinovati ca s au nascut in aceasta religie si au fost invatati sa o respecte si ce scrie in Quran.....te agiti prea mult si fara rost....nu vei schimba nimic.....daca ai fi in locul lor si ar venii una asa ca tine complexata si cu gura mare ai riposta.......oooo si inca cat....asa ca cel mai bine orienteaza-te spre altceva ...te lupti cu morile de vant Dar ce te faci cu cele care s-au nascut crestine si pe urma s-au convertit? Oricum, mie mi-e clar ca Islamul are mult de evoluat, la urma urmei este cea mai tanara religie. Problema e ca daca nu iti judeci si analizezi propria religie (ceva fundamental tie ca om), nu prea poti evolua.
Kathara Postat pe 16 Martie 2009 22:19
fiecare tara se deosebeste prin cultura ei si religia pe care o adopta,nu putem sa fim de acord cu ideile si principiile lor dar putem sa le respectam;dar lucru cel mai trist este ca vedem cum femeile occidentale incearca sa isi fixeze singure aceste idei chiar daca ele au fost crescute si educate in alta cultura.mi se pare sincer cea mai mare aberatie sa pretinzi ca esti fericita si iti place ceea ce esti acum,stiind ca tu de fapt erai altfel. si te comportai altfel....si asta pentru ce....? nu sunt aici sa judec pe nimeni dar din moment ce aveai o religie si o credinta a ta nu cred ca se merita sa te schimbi la 180 de grade pentru ca mi-am gasit ''my soul mate'' si vreau sa-i demonstrez cat de mult il respect...de ce nu te-ai intrebat daca el ar face acelasi lucru pentru tine. Am avut oportunitatea sa ajung in Arabia Saudita,nu va puteti imagina cum este privita femeia acolo,chiar si europeanca,am intampinat mari probleme care m-au facut sa vad adevarata fata a statutului femeii in tara araba,pentru ajunsesem sa-mi educ constiinta ca este un lucru bun pentru mine si urma, sa accept castoria cu un barbat arab care refuza total sa-si parasesca tara. ceea ce ma intristeaza este faptul ca vedem femei fara personalitate care accepta cu usurinta orice....doar pentru ca este altceva...dar oare se merita pretul?
blueangel30 Postat pe 19 Martie 2009 11:27
nu vor recunoate niciodata adevarul
wdy Postat pe 20 Martie 2009 18:05
De la: cleopatra86, la data 2008-04-13 19:48:54pu ca e o rusine sa traiesti in concubinaj,e pacat sa faci copii,cand nu esti cununata,e gresit fata de dumnezeu,intai faci copii apoi ti-aduci aminte ca nu e bine sa traiesti in pacat....dumnezeu a dat cununia cu un scop,de ce noi oamenii,uitam de asta...? Cleopatra ti-am citit mesajele si sincer ma sperii.Este evident ca islamul dauneaza grav psihicului. Faci atata caz ca este pacat sa scoti macar o virgula din Coran dar nu este pacat ca sotul sa-si mai altoiasca din cand in cand sotia...Spui ca aceste versete au fost scrise pentru vremea aceea.Serios?Pai atunci Coranul este un capitol incheiat ca "vremea aceea" a trecut. Oare cum a putut Biblia care este si mai veche sa ne dea niste principii universal valabile? Referitor la cununia religioasa facuta dupa ce femeia a ramas gravida,draga mea,religia noastra crestina se bazeaza pe iertare,noi suntem invatati sa iertam pacatosul,nu sa-l omoram cu pietre si nici sa-l biciuim de 100 de ori asa cum facea profetul tau Mohammed in Hadith.
lovefreedom Postat pe 24 Martie 2009 16:39
De la: ocgiogi, la data 2009-03-09 16:38:14 De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-09 06:28:33 De la: ocgiogi, la data 2009-03-08 15:10:50salimgandapur Ai vazut asta ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98DBGCubVvE Te rog...si poate aduci si argumente ??! Ma mir ca femeile acelea nu se ridica impotriva voastra sa vedem ce le-ati face? doar nu le omorati pe toate...ca ramaneti fara mult "iubita" pza.... I didn't have the oppertunity to watch the FLV yet, already mentioned by two of you (wdy & your good self). I promise to watch and only then i will be in a position to give my comments about it. ---------------(ca ramaneti fara mult "iubita" pza...)------------------- CE POT SA CRED DESPRE TINE SI CE INTELEGERE SA ASTEPT DIN PARTEA TA?. ASTA E FELUL TAU SA ADRESEZI UN NECUNOSCUT DE LA BUN INCEPUT?. SE POATE EXPRIMA SI ALTFEL. CE VREI SA CRED CA TOTI ROMANII AU DEVENIT--------------, SI NU STIU SA VORBESC ALTFEL DECAT IN LIMAJUL "P'L'A SI P'Z'A". PLEASE MIND YOUR LANGUAGE. I STILL BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A DECENT LADY. Dragul meu, nu scoate pza din context...ca era vorba despre altceva... nu ma refeream la o parte anatomica pur si simplu...si sunt sigura ca ai inteles...daca nu te-au ajutat altii cu explicatii...(d_ora) REINCEPERE(RESUMPTION)-PARTEA A DOUA DIN 09.03.2009, WAFA SULTAN AM INTARZIAT CU RASPUNSUL COMPLET LA ACUZATIILE LUI WAFA SULTAN PT CA N AM VRUT SA TREC PESTE ELE CONTRAZICANDU LE SUPERFICIAL. AVEAM NEVOIE DE INFORMATII SERIOASE PT CA DEOBICEI CINE VINE CU ASTFEL DE MATERIALE VIRULENTE FARA SA CITEZE SURSE, SE COMPORTA CA UN TERORIST CARE ISI EXTERMINA OPONENTII SI FUGE CREZAND CA A FACUT TREABA PT CARE A FOST PLATIT. ALTFEL CUM SE POATE EXPLICA CA WAFA SULTAN CARE TRAISE MIZER DIN OPT SUTE DE DOLARI PE LUNA CARE NU I AJUNGEAU NICI PT CHIRIE (US $ 1000 ) A AJUNS PESTE NOAPTE CELEBRITATEA BINE PLATITA DE TOATE CANALELE TV AMERICANE SI ISRAELEANE CARE SE INTRECEAU S O PREZINTE. TREBUIE SA VA INFORMEZ CA WAFA SULTAN CARE INTRASE IN U.S.A CU ACTE FALSE SI LUCRA LA UN PIZA HUT, ACUM ARE TREI CASE SCUMPE. EVREI SUNT FOARTE DARNICI CU ASA ZISI FOSTI MUSULMANI. KATHARA DE PE FORUMUL NOSTRU ARE SANSE SA FIE O ASTFEL DE CANDIDATA DAR EA CA SA FACA IMPRESIE NECESARA, INTAI TREBUIE SA INVETE LIMBA ARABA. AM GASIT DESTUL MATERIAL SI CEI INTERESATI O SA AIBA OCAZIE MAI PRECIS LUNI (MARTIE 30) SA VADA PE FORUM. DEOCAMDATA ITI TRIMIT TRANSCRIPT DE LA DEZBATEREA DINTRE WAFA SULTAN SI Dr. IBRAHIM AL KHOULY PE CARE TI L RECOMANDASEM. DIALOGURILE AU AVUT LOC LA AL JAZEERA DAR MEMRI TV ( SPONSORED DE EVREI) TAIASE PARTEA DIN DISCUTIE APARTINAND DR LUI IBRAHIM. DACA AI PROBLEME CU ENGLEZA, POT SA L TRADUC. AICI EA VRAND NEVRAND RECUNOASTE CA E ATEISTA SI NU FOSTA MUSULMANA. DECI NICI O AUTORITATE IN MATERIE DE ISLAM CI NUMAI O OPORTUNISTA AMATOARE DE BARFE DIN CARE DUCE O VIATA �CIVILIZATA� Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction (26/02/2006) Host: Faisal al Qassem (FQ) Panelists: Wafa Sultan (WS), Ibrahim al-Khouly (IK) FQ: Greetings to our esteemed viewers. What is this blatant official Western hypocrisy? How come they imprisoned historian David Irving yesterday for three years merely for doubting the number killed during the Holocaust while they consider the actions of the Danish newspaper desecrating the holiest of Islamic sanctities [as things done] in the name of freedom of expression? One person asks: can there remain the slightest bit of doubt we are facing a clash of civilizations forced on us by the arrogant ruling regimes of the West? Haven�t Western newspapers published the Danish outrages and confirmed the West's official position vis-a-vis Muslims and Islam? Another person adds: who coined the term �Clash of Civilizations�? Was it Muslims originally or the American thinker Samuel Huntington, theorist, of neo-imperialism, which is now termed globalization? Isn�t the one who initiates the aggressor? Are the calls for dialogue with the West made on behalf of Arab leaders not a form of deceit? Isn�t this a new Crusade by which the Western world leaders aim to involve the followers of the Abrahamic religions in religious conflicts in order to take over and rule? Was Huntington's theory nothing except a marketing tool manufactured to eliminate the Eastern heritage? Didn�t France at one point object to Turkey joining the European Union on the grounds that it was a Christian club? On the other hand, why should Western thinkers be accused of creating the Clash of Civilizations? Wasn�t Moroccan thinker Al-Mahdi al-Manjra the first to speak of a Clash of Civilizations, preceding Huntington by three years? Why has the conflict been limited to the West and Islam? Didn�t Huntington speak of a conflict even with Chinese civilization? Wasn�t the term �Clash of Civilizations� itself limited to exchanges between intellectuals in newspaper pages until Bin Laden decided to destroy the Twin Towers and transform the term into reality? Isn�t it a conflict between the contemporary understanding of religion as existing within the context of a democratic system and the totalitarian understanding of religion as represented by political Islam? Another person adds: who, besides Al-Qaida, has been inflaming the issue? All of these questions I will address to our guests today, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly, lecturer at Al-Azhar University, and via-satellite link, the writer and researcher Dr. Wafa Sultan. We begin the discussion after the break. (Commercial break) The Clash of Civilizations and the Clash of Religions FQ: Welcome once again, we are live on Opposite Direction. Dr. Wafa Sultan in Los Angeles. To start, in the light of recent events, in the light of the commotion being made in Europe today regarding Islam, it is the Clash of Civilizations that Huntington predicted, it is the Crusade that was declared by George Bush Jr. following September 11 and in which several countries are participating in various ways, dividing roles between them, with some invading countries destroying, killing and looting Afghanistan and Iraq for example, while others are suppressing the freedoms of Muslim minorities in the West and preventing them from practicing religious rites and beliefs; others destabilize our countries and create justifications for intervention in our affairs in preparation for our destruction and fragmentation; others like Denmark mock Islam and its prophet and so on. I have a poll that confirms this state of affairs, in which 81 % state that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations while 19% disagree. How do you respond? WS: Greetings, Dr. Faisal. FQ: Welcome. WS: I thank you, and thank the Al-Jazeera staff and all those viewing us. I hope that we all listen with care and benefit from this encounter. Before I answer I would like to ask a question: what is religion? What is civilization? And can they intersect? Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 Religion is a collection of values, principles and ideals that govern the relationship between man and a higher power in which a man believes, and the boundaries of this relationship should not be crossed. Civilization, on the other hand, is a superior level of social refinement which results from dynamic interaction between free thought and honest accomplishment in work or effort. When one reaches this level of development one lives in peace, respect and is in turn more able to create and accomplish. Islam is not a civilization, Christianity is not a civilization, Judaism is not a civilization. In short, religion is not civilization. Civilization is much more comprehensive and all encompassing than religion; civilization includes religion existing under the umbrella of civilization, it is a part of a whole. What we see unfolding on the international scene is not a clash of religions or civilizations. It is a clash of two contradicting opposites; it is a clash of eras, between a mentality that belongs in the Middle Ages and that which belongs in the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, chaos and rationality, a conflict between freedom and oppression, democracy and dictatorship, human rights on the one hand and the violation of these rights on the other, between those who treat women like animals and those who treat them like human beings. What we are witnessing is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, they compete. Competition sheds light on points of reference for comparison better than conflict. The more human beings develop the more they find commonality, while the more they drift apart in terms of their refinement the more they clash. The difference between levels of development is the reason for the conflict. FQ: Can your message be summarized in one sentence? Do we understand from your words that what is happening now is a clash between civilization in the form of the West, and backwardness and ignorance in the form of the Muslims? WS: Yes that is what I mean. IK: In the name of God the most Beneficent the most Merciful. At the start, I state that no one has the right to define or delineate concepts that no individual can determine or apply. What is your understanding of civilization? What {is the} definition of civilization? We must begin by defining terms and concepts. What is civilization? What is progress? What are the criteria? All progress can be considered to be human progress and all progress can with the backwardness of humanity in every meaning of the word? We begin first by determining: what is civilization? You seem to conflate civilization with culture. Civilization is the physical aspect, what you are speaking of now is urbanized society {{word??} based on science and the application of science through advanced technology, the combating and controlling of nature for the service of man, the animal, and not man, the human being. This must be very clear from the start and civilizations within this narrow definition are the fruit of the cumulative outcome of science and technological effort. Civilizations, when defined thus, are neutral. Indian civilization does not oppose Chinese civilization; Japanese civilization does not oppose American civilization. The situation is transformed into conflict by culture. Civilization�s production is utilized in this war and conflict, and this is what America is doing today. Which concept should be laid out first? Native Americans are more advanced than the white Americans who exterminated them. Native Americans had a culture [level] that still has not been reached by advanced (according to you) white Americans. They exterminated an entire people, humiliated the Africans, and enslaved them. Is that what you call civilization? Is that the human criterion for development? Civilization, including its cultural dimension, is ultimately progress in mankind�s humanity, in mankind�s values, in mankind�s conscience, in mankind's manner of dealing with others. Here we must ask a question: who facilitated the conflict and indeed initiated it, is it the Muslims? He lies who claims that Muslims started it, as Muslims now are in a defensive position fighting off an aggressor. Our dialogue with the West is now, unfortunately because we do not have comparable physical power for expulsion, the dialogue of a lamb and a wolf, but we Muslims will never be lambs however powerful our enemy because we are armed with spiritual power great enough to disarm, defeat and render impotent our adversary. We are not backward, who�s said to you that that the nation, that Muslims, are backward? They are backward when it comes to the materialistic and technological human condition but Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 who said that such are the criteria for humanity? Muslims are more advanced on a human level in terms of the values and principles they endorse. I say this because the issue in question is not one that involves the West and Islam but one that involves all mankind. We have to put things in perspective and identify concepts in the way they should be identified without resorting to rhetoric, claims based on generalizations, and unfounded talk, this parrot-like repetition. FQ: Right. Doctor, you�ve been listening, please proceed. WS: I understood from what was said that civilization according to the Professor is man IK: (Interrupting) Not true. WS: (Continuing) A simple comparison between... IK: I did not say that� WS: Islamic societies� IK: That is not what I said� WS: He said... FQ: One minute, proceed (to WS). WS: Then... IK: No no, do not put words in my mouth... FQ: OK, he did not say that... WS: Then what is civilization... FQ: Proceed. IK: So that my ideas my ideas are not sabotaged. FQ: Yes. IK: When others listen... FQ: Proceed (to WS). WS: The first thing that you said was that Muslims are not backward on a human level. If that is the case, how do you want me to understand your definition of civilization when you say that Muslims are not backward on a human level? What do you mean by that phrase? IK: I said that Muslims are backward in the fields of material advancement and in material terms but civilization and humanity have different yardsticks. FQ: Fine. Doctor, go ahead it is your turn, please move along so we do not spend too much time defining civilization, let's delve into the subject... IK: No this is important, a starting point from which to depart... FQ: Good, we departed from it. Doctor, now let�s get started: what the world is witnessing these days is a clash of civilizations and the simple question is who let this idea loose? Wasn�t it Samuel Huntington and not Bin Laden, as is said? I would like to begin if you please. Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 WS: Muslims are the ones who started with this concept. The Muslims, they began the clash of civilizations when Islam's prophet said "I was commanded to fight until they believe in God and his prophet". When Muslims divided people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called for fighting others until those others believed in what they believed in, they sparked off this conflict, this war. And they must cease this war. They must revise their Islamic books and academic curricula, filled as they are with calls to denounce others as infidels, and to fight infidels. That is what I wanted to say. FQ: Doctor? (To IK) IK: From whence does this conflict arise? From socialization, upbringing and culture, and what I say here is specific and clear. The Islam that you speak about now, and falsely,and unfoundedly blame, is that which taught mankind humaneness, the principles of co-existence, tolerance, and the acceptance of others. "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another". Islam is the agent that removed all reason for conflict or racism, supremacism, prejudice and all which divides man, as a result of "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female". May peace be upon the Prophet... FQ: May peace be upon him. IK: About whom you (Dr. Sultan) are speaking while having no idea what you are talking about. Peace be upon him, he said at his last pilgrimage, "O people, your father is one, your God is one, you are of Adam and Adam was of dust. No Arab is better than a non-Arab except through piety." The ones whom the prophet was talking about when he said "I was commanded to fight" were those unbelievers of the Arabian Peninsula, because it is not acceptable that Islam should have allied with, or made peace with, polytheism. He wanted to purify the Arabian Peninsula so that it would be safe for Islam. Muslims did not attack those outside the Arabian Peninsula, indeed the governing principle was "no compulsion in religion". There is no compulsion in religion, whoever wishes to believe he may do so and who wishes to apostatize may do so. That is the position of Islam. Islam taught the world respect for other people's doctrines and acknowledging their rights that their doctrines be respected without offering offense or ostracism. The Lord said, "And do not curse those who call on other than God, lest they blaspheme and curse God, out of ignorance. We have adorned the works of every group in their eyes �". That is how the Qur'an describes the governing principle: respect the idolatry of idol worshippers, even those who worship trees, cows, donkeys. I don�t transgress on any creed. FQ: Good. Doctor, you heard what�s been said. IK: Can there be any superior form of tolerance? FQ: Very good. Doctor (to WS) you�ve listened, please proceed. WS: He claims he doesn�t insult others' doctrines. What civilized values in this world allow him to give people names and appellations they have not chosen for themselves? In one place calling them People of the Book, in another non-Muslims under the protection of Muslims (ahl al-dhimma), in another comparing them to monkeys and pigs, in another calling them Nazarenes or those who have incurred God's wrath or those who have lost the path. Now you come here to claim that your doctrine has commanded you not to insult other people's religions? What do you explain to your child when you tell him to go "fight those who do not believe in God or his prophet", through to the verse�s completion: "until they pay jizya (a poll tax for non-Muslims) in state of subjection." IK: If you don�t know the verse, don�t recite it... WS: How do you explain this verse to your child or grandchild? IK: Produce a copy of the Qur'an, and read the verse so that you may understand it... Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 WS: Read me this verse and explain it and tell me how to explain it? IK: You read it... WS: Explain this... IK: You bear responsibility for what you say, or you are an ignorant person speaking out of ignorance... WS: Why? It isn�t necessary. IK: Take out your copy of the Qur'an and read it so that you may understand it... WS: It�s not necessary... IK: "Fight those who do not believe"� WS: I read more than you read, and understand more than you understand. IK: "Nor do they prohibit what God and his Apostle have. Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the latter day, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." ... understand first before you speak WS: If you have... FS: One minute. Please proceed (to WS). WS: If you have any justification for going to war with them, do you have any justification for them to pay a tax (jizya) in a state of subjection? IK: Do you now understand? You mentioned ... you conflated issues, when Islam and Muslims call their non-Muslim brothers living amongst them protected non-Muslims... WS: You, sir, claim that you� IK: What is your understanding of the concept of protection of non-Muslims (dhimma)? It means that they are under the protection and guardianship of God and his Prophet. Muslims honor contracts with them and honor the things they reverence, safeguard their dignity, blood and wealth with along with all their objects of reverence, and their rights to freely express and practice their religion. WS: Why do you want them to pay a tax in a state of subjection and submission? IK: And to practice their rites, sharing the rights and duties of Muslims. WS: Fine, you are correct (to IK). IK: On the issue of the Books and other books, you confuse books of [Karl] Marx with the Torah and the Bible and the Qur'an. How many books came down to Moses? A thousand. How many came down to Jesus? A thousand books. WS: You, sir, should not call others by names they haven�t chosen... IK: I assume that when you wrote a book you listed it with these books. What goal is this for humanity? WS: You are the People of the Book. Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 IK: In all its heritage and values. WS: You have become a captive of the Book; you are the ones who have failed to rise with your humanity beyond the mentality of the Middle Ages, are they People of the Book? They are not People of the Book, all the books that are now in your hands are their books with the exception of Abu Hurayrah [`Abd al-Rahman ibn Sakhr Al-Azdi (d. 678), also Abu Hurayrah, is the narrator of Hadith most quoted by Sunni Muslims.] IK: Like what? WS: What remains of your books? IK: Like what? Which books of theirs are... WS: What remains in... IK: That is not the heritage of Muslims? What are their books? We educated them and extracted them from the Dark Ages, and you should become aware that it was during the Middle Ages and during one era in particular that the Pope pronounced a curse upon Ibn Rushd and cursed all who read his philosophies and made it incumbent on all priests and Christians to curse him. That is the Western civilization that you and others boast of as the civilization of freedom and freedom of speech and so forth. The curse on Ibn Rushd and all who read him became part of religious worship. What happened ultimately was that Ibn Rushd, the Muslim philosopher, became the pioneer of the European renaissance and academic positions dedicated to studying his philosophy were established in European universities. If you have heard anything of the history of philosophy or read it -- are you familiar with Latin Rushdism? Have you heard of it? That is what enlightened Europe; a Europe that was to drown in darkness had it not been for the Muslims in Andalusia [Spain] and you know very well who was the bigoted party that exterminated the other when it was able to. Was there even one Muslim left in Andalusia [Spain] after Ferdinand and Isabella imposed their control? What did they do? At first, they gave them [Muslims] a choice between conversion to Christianity and lifting the protection of the state (tahdeer) and [then] between conversion to Christianity or death; so Muslims in Andalusia [Spain] were totally exterminated, suffering the same fate as the Native Americans at the hands of white Americans. Extremism and the Struggle to Dominate FQ: Fine. So that we do not stray off topic, in regard to the Clash of Civilizations do you believe that history is repeating itself? And in one sentence please so that I may move on to Doctor Sultan. IK: First of all, the clash of religious doctrine across the ages has never ceased and will never do so and it is not a question of who initiated it. Our God says "And had God not repelled some people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted" and the purpose of that conflict is to struggle healthily against all corruption on earth and its prevention... FQ: And of those who initiate this corruption? IK: Those that initiate this corruption are the aggressors, and the one aggressed upon has the right to defend with all their capabilities. FQ: Very good. Doctor (to WS) please proceed. WS: Extremism is a social illness that has plagued all mankind in every time and place, but when extremism becomes an epidemic all humanity must come together in an effort to obliterate it. Extremism consumes the societies that embrace it more than it damages other societies. A simple examination and comparison of Islamic societies and other societies allows one to see the extent of extremism in these [Islamic] societies. The deterioration on a human level that we see in Muslim societies is a clear indication that extremism is leading Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 those societies to a precipice. The state of affairs in Western societies yields the impression that extremism has failed to play a significant role in those societies. IK: Don�t you think...? FQ: One minute. WS: Doctor Ibrahim reads what he wants to read, and turns a blind eye to what he does not want to see. How was his religion spread? By the sword and by the invasion of countries, yet he claims it was propagated through justice and respect of the rights of others? When Doctor Ibrahim al-Khouly raises his megaphone at the door of a church and bellows, liars are those who say that "God is Jesus the son of Mary", is he respecting others' beliefs? Does denouncing people following their own creed as liars mean respect for those creeds? I want an answer to that question... IK: First of all, one must not project the actions of one Muslim upon Islam nor those of one Christian upon Christianity. There are TV channels in America that you are familiar with that do not have any mission apart from targeting Islam, insulting Islam and offending all Islam's sanctities. This to you is not aggression against religion or the freedoms and sanctities of others? Besides, what else can extremism mean when you have Bush, the biggest extremist and terrorist in history? A terrorist that does not hesitate to use a stick or a rifle or even the planes that struck the two towers. He used everything at his disposal within the American nuclear arsenal in the Gulf War and exterminated an entire nation and removed it from history. What fault did Afghanistan commit to justify its destruction? Aren�t you conscious of any duplicity or hypocrisy? Islam, during the Cold War when Afghans were in a war with the Soviet Union, Islam was the West's ally, Islam was a magnificent humanitarian religion of values. When the game was over and the Soviet Union had fallen, Islam exited the conflict. What had been happening between the West and the Soviet Union? An ideological, cultural, doctrinal confrontation. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the ugly face of the West was exposed in its stark reality. Thatcher and others have said in their forums, the historical enemy of the West, Communism, has ended and the eternal enemy of the West, Islam, has risen. Did we impose this conflict? Did we initiate it? Who said we are responsible for this incendiary game? The West and Bush are now using the War on Terror as a cover; it is a war on Islam and he himself has said so clearly, there is no need for speculation. Let it be a Crusade, and he is leading a Crusade and you know that behind all of this stands extremist Western Zionist Christianity, which controls America's resources and the decision-making powers which formulate American policies and control everything. You know this very well, so who set off the conflict and who started it? Who is the aggressor and who is the victim? Are you asking us to allow ourselves to be attacked in our homes? Afghanistan is under occupation, Iraq is under occupation, the Gulf is under occupation, Muslim wealth is in a firm American grip. In addition, the raging Zionist state: who created it? Who has extended the resources necessary for its survival? Who guarantees its superiority over all Arabs combined? Who protects it from international law and prevents the application of that law where it is concerned? Who allows it to be the sole owner of nuclear weapons in the entire region? When Iran attempts to initiate a peaceful nuclear program there is implacable outrage. I want to inform you that there are three prohibitions Muslims cannot breach. The first is the rise of a potent power in Muslim lands, this is forbidden and the strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 is evidence of this. The attack against the Iranian nuclear program and the prevention of Iran and Arabs and Muslims from constructing a defensive force equal to that of the Jews in Palestine, this is all part of the same principle. FQ: Fine. IK: [The above prohibition is] in addition to the barring of any regime governing in the name of Islam in any Islamic country and the marketing of the secularism that so many are peddling --and I do not know if you are one of them or not -- a secularism that aims to banish Islam from life as Islam is not a relationship between man and God as you hold. If you are Christian then Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 that is your understanding of religion, but if you are Muslim then your understanding is mistaken. FQ: Fine. IK: The third goal is to prevent the unity of Muslims under any umbrella. In this day and age when the world is heading towards unity and integration, Europe is uniting, the states of America are united, South America is uniting, South Asia is uniting, Muslims and Arabs are forbidden from integrating with the aim of continuing global divisions which turn us into scattered pieces that are easy to chew and swallow, as is happening in our day and age. FQ: Doctor (to W.S) You heard what was said, I don�t suppose you have a reply to this when it comes to the clash of civilization. He presented you with all these past and present examples, who is who is wrestling with whom? Who is imposing this conflict? This struggle to dominate and control? Please respond if you have a response. WS: I said, and I repeat, that Muslims are the ones who initiated this conflict. IK: Not true. WS: And they must stop this conflict and review those teachings that call for the rejection of the other, the murder of the other. He wants to read from his teachings what suits his opinion while turning a blind eye to other teachings that divide the world into two. They began this conflict and they must change their teachings in order to end it. I am not a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor a Jew; I am a secular human being and I do not believe in the supernatural. IK: An atheist? WS: But I respect the right of others to believe. IK: You mean an atheist? WS: You can say what you wish. IK: I am asking you. WS: I am a secular individual and do not believe in the supernatural. IK: I am asking you in order to deal with you using your own system of logic, if you are an atheist then there is no censuring you if you curse Islam, Islam's prophet and Islam's Qur'an. WS: This is a personal matter that does not concern you. IK: One minute. Please proceed (to WS). WS: I am not defending my opinion from a Christian perspective; I want to make this very clear: I am not Christian, I do not believe in any religion. I am a secular human being and do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect the right of all to believe in it. My brother, believe, if you wish, in a stone but do not dare strike me with it. You are free to worship what you wish but others beliefs do not concern you, whether they believe that Jesus is God the son of Mary or that the devil is God the son of Mary, leave people to their creeds. Muslims must be made aware of this truth and must take another look at this truth, people respect your creed when you respect theirs. To stigmatize them and insult them as deceived and lost, as you do, you don�t have that right; you should know your boundaries and not overstep them. FQ: Fine, but I mean let's return. IK: You are the one who should not be overstepping your boundaries... Global Conflict and Western Designs Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 FQ: One moment. [Back to] the question on the table. Doctor [to IK], there is a point to be made: it is true that there exists a conflict or the term clash of civilizations that Huntington coined, but the term had remained confined to intellectual exchanges among intellectuals in the pages of newspapers and magazines until Bin Ladin targeted the Twin Towers, then the clash became a reality; that is what is said: how do you respond? IK: In the beginning so that we do not stray... FQ: What the West is doing now -- just a moment -- they say that what the West is doing now, all its actions against Islam is the natural result from that starting point. IK: Were the towers destroyed in 1980? FQ: No. IK: Was there an attack launched on the United States? FQ: No. IK: Good. Pope John Paul II visited Africa three times in less than five years between 1980 and 1985 and mobilized with him nine thousand missionaries whom he unleashed on Africa. American newspapers declared before any others that the purpose of the Pope's visits and this heightened activity in Africa was to stem the Islamic tide in Africa. We said at the time that the call to religion is somehow part of... FQ: In brief, yes. IK: The heavens. His proper field, if it were not an undercover struggle between one religion and the other, his proper work is with pagans and those who have no religion. Here the struggle particularly targetted Islam, and there is also another issue that should not be ignored FQ: In brief, yes. IK: Being very brief, when I see a church or a university, the Biblical university in America specializes in conversion to Christianity, I have statistics in front of me detailing its budgets and its institutions, statistics that are hard to believe, missionary schools where millions of students enroll, armies of trained missionaries, unlimited funds, all of this for what purpose? Converting Muslims to Christianity first and foremost. Who has been behind the war in southern Sudan for more than twenty years? The World Council of Churches, it is financing Garang [Leader of the southern Sudandese SPLA] and this is well known. And after all of this it is claimed that there is no war on Islam and no new Crusade? The man said it in all honesty even as nothing else he says is to be believed, Bush said: let it be a Crusade. FQ: Good. Doctor (to W.S) you heard what�s been said. IK: We should raise our hands and cheer? FQ: Doctor (to WS). I mean, it seems that, what can you say, I just� WS: Doctor Ibrahim... FQ: Please just allow me to ask you a simple question. IK: Reply to my words and not to me. FQ: One moment. There are those who say that what is happening is in fact not in any way shape or form a clash of civilizations, that it is not Islam versus Christianity but the West's war Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 or a war for dominance or control. They say that Islam would not have been the enemy necessarily, were it not for the riches, raw materials, specifically oil, the markets available in Muslim countries. Meaning that it should become clear that Muslims and Christians in the West are the victims. The appetite of those hungry for power, dominance and control, the manipulation of those that impose globalization and so forth, and what we have witnessed in recent times are an integral part of this campaign against the region. How do you reply to this so we can simplify matters? WS: What we see is not a conflict between the West and Islam, it is a conflict between Islam on the one hand and the rest of the world on the other, since Islam has divided the world into two parts, a Muslim one and a non-Muslim one. Dr. Ibrahim speaks of Christian missionary campaigns in Arab and African countries, why doesn�t he tell us what happens if a Bible is found in the pocket of a Christian man in Saudi Arabia? What happens to him? Don�t Muslims practice their own beliefs in Western countries? Don�t they spread their religion in Western countries freely? What will you do to a Western man preaching his religion in your country? Why don�t you treat people in the same way you would like them to treat you? IK: Are you finished? WS: I want an answer. IK: First of all Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic model that should be followed in its orientations and general practices. It is the first country that I condemn by Islamic standards. FQ: How so? Its flag raises the slogan God is Great. IK: Yes, it can raise whatever it wants... FQ: How? IK: These practices have nothing to do with Islam, as we are talking about Islam, Islam... FQ: You mean Islam is unconnected with Saudi Arabia or that Saudi Arabia is unconnected with Islam? IK: I am not saying that Saudi Arabia is unconnected with Islam, there is a perversion in the application of Islam, a great perversion and we have said so a million times and others have said it: Islam cannot be judged based on the behavior of Muslims just as Christianity cannot be judged based on the behavior of Christians. You say that Islam divided people into Muslims and non-Muslims, do Christians claim that the world is all Christian in its entirety, or are there Christians and non-Christians? It is the same thing and this is natural and how things are differentiated, do you want man to be woman and woman man and the earth the sky and the sky the earth; do we return ancient sophistry where we do not know what we are saying? Confusing concepts and facts and blurring all matters? This is not logic, this is not logic nor is it scientific, this is nonsense ... this is nonsense. Freedom of Expression and Violation of Sanctities FQ: So Doctor [to WS], so we can put things in perspective, you know, I mean you talk of freedom and democracy and human rights, do you know that yesterday English historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison merely for expressing doubts over the number of those killed in the Holocaust? How do you support this while people in the West boast that a violation of the most sacred Islamic principles is a form of freedom of expression? I ask you, is there any hypocrisy greater than that hypocrisy? This is a question that I have been hearing on many occasions, how do you respond? Do you accept this as a secularist and an advocate of a freedom that unifies all civilizations? WS: Doctor Faisal... Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 FQ: Please proceed, yes. WS: Respect from others... FQ: Proceed. WS: Respect from others is a right you earn through your own efforts, it is not something that is bestowed upon you. The Jews emerged from a tragedy and forced the world to respect them not through terrorism, but through their science and not their screams. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th century to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million scattered in the Diaspora managed to regroup and attained their rights through work and science. We have not seen one Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant, we have not seen one Jew destroy a church, we have not seen one Jew object to anything by murdering people. Muslims reduced three statues of Buddha to dust; we did not see one Buddhist burn a mosque or kill a Muslim or burn a church or an embassy. Muslims alone defend their religion by burning churches, murdering people, and tearing down embassies. Such a method will not yield any results. Muslims must ask themselves: what can they offer mankind before they ask mankind to respect them? What the Danish artist did may have been unacceptable because transgressing sanctities is unacceptable, but freedom of expression and criticism are the holiest of sanctities. The Danish artist did not express any religious authority or political authority but merely expressed his own thoughts. A Muslim finds it hard to grasp this fact because Islam as a state and a religion does not allow him to overstep the boundaries of the religion, and in this state of things, an individual's opinion is the majority's opinion and thus he cannot soar in his thoughts beyond the limits circumscribed by the majority. In the West, the situation is entirely different. An individual has the right to express his own opinion completely apart from the opinions of religious and political authorities. This is a point that Muslims find difficult to understand. When they burn an embassy, they are not taking revenge on an artist but on a state that the artist does not represent; still they are unable to catch on to this fact because they do not enjoy that freedom. FQ: Doctor (to IK) the last word in brief, half a minute. IK: Those you are speaking about do not have the correct grasp of Islam. When a non-Muslim insults Islam and Islam's prophet this doesn�t disturb a hair on our heads, we excuse him if he is ignorant, and we accept the situation if he is a resentful extremist because he is not to be judged by our standards or our criteria. You demand that all Muslims become secularists in order to become progressive like you. We say that Islam is not for sale at auction. What you are saying is clarified by the logic of the Qur'an: "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Our religion is a religion of truth and when it discusses the beliefs of non-Muslims in all respect followers of the Book come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but God and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah. Exceed not the limits in your religion (by believing in something) other than the truth" That is the logic of the Qur'an when it discusses other religions and judges them in wisdom and lack of transgression in language or style or phrase, no feelings are hurt, no emotions are hurt. FQ: Who is civilized and who is not civilized, in brief? IK: The civilized party is the one that commits itself to human values and develops within that context... FQ: And in the West they are not committed to them? IK: There is no ... What civilized man [allows] homosexuality, homosexual marriage, loss of bloodline? Most of those who rule the West are bastards and illegitimate children, does she want that fate for us? Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction 26/02/2006 Translator: Meph [www.aqoul.com] Date: March 22, 2006 FQ: Thank you very much. IK: That is unacceptable. FQ: Do you believe that the world is heading for a Clash of Civilizations? More than three � time is up... IK: Muslims will protect the world from the Clash of Civilizations, they are the ones who will protect the world now. Their religion commands them to do so. FQ: Do you believe that the world is heading for a Clash of Civilizations, [Our poll:] 81.5% Yes, 18.5% No. More than three thousand voters, 3235. Dear viewers, we can now only thank our guests Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly and via satellite link from Los Angeles Doctor Wafa Sultan, we meet next Tuesday and until then, Faisal al-Qassem sends his best wishes. Goodbye. NU SIMT NEVOIE SA COMENTEZ AICI. POTI SA TI DAI SEAMA CE SI CAT STIE Dr.WAFA SULTAN DESPRE ISLAM SI ISTORIA LUMII.
salimgandapur Postat pe 26 Martie 2009 06:01
De la: lovefreedom, la data 2009-03-24 16:39:58 De la: cleopatra86, la data 2008-04-13 19:48:54pu ca e o rusine sa traiesti in concubinaj,e pacat sa faci copii,cand nu esti cununata,e gresit fata de dumnezeu,intai faci copii apoi ti-aduci aminte ca nu e bine sa traiesti in pacat....dumnezeu a dat cununia cu un scop,de ce noi oamenii,uitam de asta...? Cleopatra ti-am citit mesajele si sincer ma sperii.Este evident ca islamul dauneaza grav psihicului. Faci atata caz ca este pacat sa scoti macar o virgula din Coran dar nu este pacat ca sotul sa-si mai altoiasca din cand in cand sotia...Spui ca aceste versete au fost scrise pentru vremea aceea.Serios?Pai atunci Coranul este un capitol incheiat ca "vremea aceea" a trecut. Oare cum a putut Biblia care este si mai veche sa ne dea niste principii universal valabile? Referitor la cununia religioasa facuta dupa ce femeia a ramas gravida,draga mea,religia noastra crestina se bazeaza pe iertare,noi suntem invatati sa iertam pacatosul,nu sa-l omoram cu pietre si nici sa-l biciuim de 100 de ori asa cum facea profetul tau Mohammed in Hadith. NU STIU DE CE NU INTELEGETI UN LUCRU FOARTE SIMPLU CARE A FOST MEREU DISCUTAT SI EXPLICAT AICI PE FORUM. ISLAM NU OBLIGA PE NICI UN BARBAT SA SI IA PATRU NEVESTE (REPET : Islam nu obliga pe nici un barbat sa si ia patru neveste). NUMAI IN SITUATII SPECIALE PERMITE DREPTUL (MAXIM) LA PATRU NEVESTE DAR CU CONDITII FOARTE GRELE. QUR'AN E FOARTE CLAR DESPRE CEI CARE VOR SA AIBA MAI MULTE DECAT O SINGURA NEVASTA. MAI TREBUIE TINUT CONT DE FAPTUL CA INJUNCTIA RESPECTIVA SE TERMINA NU INCURAJATOR PT BARBATUL CARE S AR FI BUCURAT TOTUSI DE PATRU FEMEI CUM AR FI VRUT. I SE PUNE IN VEDERE CA E OBLIGAT PERFECT EGAL FATA DE FIECARE DIN ELE, MORAL, MATERIAL, EMOTINAL. INCHIEREA VERSETULUI NEECHIVOC PREVEDE CA BARBATII NU VOR PUTEA RESPECTA INTOCMAI LEGEA ACEASTA A EGALITATII SI DE ACEEA MAI BINE SA SE LIMITEZE LA O SINGURA SOTIE. NU SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86, DUPA CUM O CITEZI. QUR�AN A FOST ULTIMA CARTE DIN SIRUL CARTIILOR DEVINE, PSALM, TORAH, GOSPEL(BIBLIE), QURAN. DACA NE GANDIM RATIONAL, CE AR FI CONVENABIL PT O NEVASTA CA SOTUL EI CARE ARE O NEVOIE SEXUALA NECONTROLATA (EXISTA CAZURI REF: MASTERS & JOHNSON RESEARCH ON �HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONS�) LA CARE EA NU POATE SA FACA FATsA ATUNCI SA ACCEPTE O ALTA FEMEIE LEGAL CASATORITA CU SOTUL EI SAU SUTE DE FEMEI CARE MEREU O SA FIE SCHIMBATE SI CU CARE SOTUL EI O SA AIBA DE A FACE ZINIC. NU MAI VORBIM DE ALTE RISCURI, SANATE, MATERIAL, MORALA ETC. ASA CA QUR�AN NU TREBUIE INTELES GRESIT. QUR�AN PUR SI SIMPLU DA O SOLUTIE PT ANUMITE SITUATII CI NU CA SA SE SIMTA BARBATUL FERICIT INCONJURAT DE DOUA, TREI SAU PATRU NEVESTE, CUM AR CREDE UNII. CASATORIILE PROFETULUI N AU FOST CU SCOPUL CUM VOR SA SE CONVINGA UNII. DACA TE INTERESEAZA SUBIECTUL, TE ROG SA VIZITEZI FORUM LUNI,(30.03.09) O SA DISCUT SI EXPLIC ACEST SUBIECT IN AMANUNTE. ACUM 1400 DE ANI INAINTE, SPRE DEOSEBIRE DE ALTE RELIGII INCLUSIV CRESTINISMUL, ISLAMUL PT PRIMA DATA ADUCE LEGI PT ORGANIZAREA FAMILIEI PANA ATUNCI PUSA IN PERICOL DE POLIGAMIE NECONSTRANSA DE NUMERE SI REGULI. BARBATII ERAU STAPANI PT CA ERAU FIZIC SUPERIORI, IAR FEMEILE NU CONTAU PANA ATUNCI CA CETATENI DE CARE SA SE OCUPE CINEVA DIN AFARA. ERAU SOCIETATI CA ACEEA A AMAZOANELOR SAU IN ALBION, ANGLIA DE AZI, UNDE FEMEILE ERAU FOLOSITE DE TOTI MEMBRII FAMILIEI IAR COPIII AVEAU PATERNITATEA CELUI CARE O AVEA PRIMUL. IN BABILONIA ASTA GENETICA ISLAMUL A ADUS ORDINE FARA SA INCALCE OBICEIURI TINAND DE NATURA SEXELOR.
salimgandapur Postat pe 26 Martie 2009 08:55
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-26 08:55:10 De la: lovefreedom, la data 2009-03-24 16:39:58 De la: cleopatra86, la data 2008-04-13 19:48:54pu ca e o rusine sa traiesti in concubinaj,e pacat sa faci copii,cand nu esti cununata,e gresit fata de dumnezeu,intai faci copii apoi ti-aduci aminte ca nu e bine sa traiesti in pacat....dumnezeu a dat cununia cu un scop,de ce noi oamenii,uitam de asta...? Cleopatra ti-am citit mesajele si sincer ma sperii.Este evident ca islamul dauneaza grav psihicului. Faci atata caz ca este pacat sa scoti macar o virgula din Coran dar nu este pacat ca sotul sa-si mai altoiasca din cand in cand sotia...Spui ca aceste versete au fost scrise pentru vremea aceea.Serios?Pai atunci Coranul este un capitol incheiat ca "vremea aceea" a trecut. Oare cum a putut Biblia care este si mai veche sa ne dea niste principii universal valabile? Referitor la cununia religioasa facuta dupa ce femeia a ramas gravida,draga mea,religia noastra crestina se bazeaza pe iertare,noi suntem invatati sa iertam pacatosul,nu sa-l omoram cu pietre si nici sa-l biciuim de 100 de ori asa cum facea profetul tau Mohammed in Hadith. NU STIU DE CE NU INTELEGETI UN LUCRU FOARTE SIMPLU CARE A FOST MEREU DISCUTAT SI EXPLICAT AICI PE FORUM. ISLAM NU OBLIGA PE NICI UN BARBAT SA SI IA PATRU NEVESTE (REPET : Islam nu obliga pe nici un barbat sa si ia patru neveste). NUMAI IN SITUATII SPECIALE PERMITE DREPTUL (MAXIM) LA PATRU NEVESTE DAR CU CONDITII FOARTE GRELE. QUR'AN E FOARTE CLAR DESPRE CEI CARE VOR SA AIBA MAI MULTE DECAT O SINGURA NEVASTA. MAI TREBUIE TINUT CONT DE FAPTUL CA INJUNCTIA RESPECTIVA SE TERMINA NU INCURAJATOR PT BARBATUL CARE S AR FI BUCURAT TOTUSI DE PATRU FEMEI CUM AR FI VRUT. I SE PUNE IN VEDERE CA E OBLIGAT PERFECT EGAL FATA DE FIECARE DIN ELE, MORAL, MATERIAL, EMOTINAL. INCHIEREA VERSETULUI NEECHIVOC PREVEDE CA BARBATII NU VOR PUTEA RESPECTA INTOCMAI LEGEA ACEASTA A EGALITATII SI DE ACEEA MAI BINE SA SE LIMITEZE LA O SINGURA SOTIE. SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86, DUPA CUM O CITEZI. QUR�AN A FOST ULTIMA CARTE DIN SIRUL CARTIILOR DEVINE, PSALM, TORAH, GOSPEL(BIBLIE), QURAN. DACA NE GANDIM RATIONAL, CE AR FI CONVENABIL PT O NEVASTA CA SOTUL EI CARE ARE O NEVOIE SEXUALA NECONTROLATA (EXISTA CAZURI REF: MASTERS & JOHNSON RESEARCH ON �HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONS�) LA CARE EA NU POATE SA FACA FATsA ATUNCI SA ACCEPTE O ALTA FEMEIE LEGAL CASATORITA CU SOTUL EI SAU SUTE DE FEMEI CARE MEREU O SA FIE SCHIMBATE SI CU CARE SOTUL EI O SA AIBA DE A FACE ZINIC. NU MAI VORBIM DE ALTE RISCURI, SANATE, MATERIAL, MORALA ETC. ASA CA QUR�AN NU TREBUIE INTELES GRESIT. QUR�AN PUR SI SIMPLU DA O SOLUTIE PT ANUMITE SITUATII CI NU CA SA SE SIMTA BARBATUL FERICIT INCONJURAT DE DOUA, TREI SAU PATRU NEVESTE, CUM AR CREDE UNII. CASATORIILE PROFETULUI N AU FOST CU SCOPUL CUM VOR SA SE CONVINGA UNII. DACA TE INTERESEAZA SUBIECTUL, TE ROG SA VIZITEZI FORUM LUNI,(30.03.09) O SA DISCUT SI EXPLIC ACEST SUBIECT IN AMANUNTE. ACUM 1400 DE ANI INAINTE, SPRE DEOSEBIRE DE ALTE RELIGII INCLUSIV CRESTINISMUL, ISLAMUL PT PRIMA DATA ADUCE LEGI PT ORGANIZAREA FAMILIEI PANA ATUNCI PUSA IN PERICOL DE POLIGAMIE NECONSTRANSA DE NUMERE SI REGULI. BARBATII ERAU STAPANI PT CA ERAU FIZIC SUPERIORI, IAR FEMEILE NU CONTAU PANA ATUNCI CA CETATENI DE CARE SA SE OCUPE CINEVA DIN AFARA. ERAU SOCIETATI CA ACEEA A AMAZOANELOR SAU IN ALBION, ANGLIA DE AZI, UNDE FEMEILE ERAU FOLOSITE DE TOTI MEMBRII FAMILIEI IAR COPIII AVEAU PATERNITATEA CELUI CARE O AVEA PRIMUL. IN BABILONIA ASTA GENETICA ISLAMUL A ADUS ORDINE FARA SA INCALCE OBICEIURI TINAND DE NATURA SEXELOR. TREBUIA SA RETRIMIT MESAJUL PENNRU CA UNDE AM VRUT SA SCRIU "SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86" SI CU GANDUL CU TOTUL IN ALTA PARTE, DIN GRESEALA, AM PUS UN "NU" INAINTE. CORECT E SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA. BINE CA AM OBSERVAT O GRESRALA FOARTE GRAVA SI AM REUSIT S O CORECTEZ LA TIMP. SCUZE CLEOPATRA. PS. LOVEFREEDOM: ASA TE AU CONVINSI OAMENII CARE AU MANIPULAT BIBLIEDUPA CUM AU VRUT. UNDE E DREPTATE ACOLO PT ORICE CRIMA EXISTA O PEDEAPSA SI PT ORICE BINE EXISTA O RASPLATA. ASTA E SI REGULA LUI DUMNEZEU. NUMAI EL POATE SA TE IERTE DACA TE POT OBTINE DE LA RAUL, SINCER ITI REGRETI GRESELI SI NU LE MAI REPETI. SA NU L PUI PE NIMENI IN EGALITATE CU EL. VOI CRESTINII ATI FACUT ONE IN THREE SI THREE IN ONE. STII CARE E PEDEAPSA IN BIBLIE PT O PERSOANE CARE COMIT UN ACT SEXUAL NELEGAL ADICA INAINTE DE CASATORIE. BIBLIA ORDINA CA ASTFEL DE PERSOANE SA FIE OMORATE CU PIETRE. TE ROG SA CITESTI BIBLIE.
salimgandapur Postat pe 26 Martie 2009 13:45
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-26 08:55:10 De la: lovefreedom, la data 2009-03-24 16:39:58 De la: cleopatra86, la data 2008-04-13 19:48:54pu ca e o rusine sa traiesti in concubinaj,e pacat sa faci copii,cand nu esti cununata,e gresit fata de dumnezeu,intai faci copii apoi ti-aduci aminte ca nu e bine sa traiesti in pacat....dumnezeu a dat cununia cu un scop,de ce noi oamenii,uitam de asta...? Cleopatra ti-am citit mesajele si sincer ma sperii.Este evident ca islamul dauneaza grav psihicului. Faci atata caz ca este pacat sa scoti macar o virgula din Coran dar nu este pacat ca sotul sa-si mai altoiasca din cand in cand sotia...Spui ca aceste versete au fost scrise pentru vremea aceea.Serios?Pai atunci Coranul este un capitol incheiat ca "vremea aceea" a trecut. Oare cum a putut Biblia care este si mai veche sa ne dea niste principii universal valabile? Referitor la cununia religioasa facuta dupa ce femeia a ramas gravida,draga mea,religia noastra crestina se bazeaza pe iertare,noi suntem invatati sa iertam pacatosul,nu sa-l omoram cu pietre si nici sa-l biciuim de 100 de ori asa cum facea profetul tau Mohammed in Hadith. NU STIU DE CE NU INTELEGETI UN LUCRU FOARTE SIMPLU CARE A FOST MEREU DISCUTAT SI EXPLICAT AICI PE FORUM. ISLAM NU OBLIGA PE NICI UN BARBAT SA SI IA PATRU NEVESTE (REPET : Islam nu obliga pe nici un barbat sa si ia patru neveste). NUMAI IN SITUATII SPECIALE PERMITE DREPTUL (MAXIM) LA PATRU NEVESTE DAR CU CONDITII FOARTE GRELE. QUR'AN E FOARTE CLAR DESPRE CEI CARE VOR SA AIBA MAI MULTE DECAT O SINGURA NEVASTA. MAI TREBUIE TINUT CONT DE FAPTUL CA INJUNCTIA RESPECTIVA SE TERMINA NU INCURAJATOR PT BARBATUL CARE S AR FI BUCURAT TOTUSI DE PATRU FEMEI CUM AR FI VRUT. I SE PUNE IN VEDERE CA E OBLIGAT PERFECT EGAL FATA DE FIECARE DIN ELE, MORAL, MATERIAL, EMOTINAL. INCHIEREA VERSETULUI NEECHIVOC PREVEDE CA BARBATII NU VOR PUTEA RESPECTA INTOCMAI LEGEA ACEASTA A EGALITATII SI DE ACEEA MAI BINE SA SE LIMITEZE LA O SINGURA SOTIE. NU SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86, DUPA CUM O CITEZI. QUR�AN A FOST ULTIMA CARTE DIN SIRUL CARTIILOR DEVINE, PSALM, TORAH, GOSPEL(BIBLIE), QURAN. DACA NE GANDIM RATIONAL, CE AR FI CONVENABIL PT O NEVASTA CA SOTUL EI CARE ARE O NEVOIE SEXUALA NECONTROLATA (EXISTA CAZURI REF: MASTERS & JOHNSON RESEARCH ON �HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONS�) LA CARE EA NU POATE SA FACA FATsA ATUNCI SA ACCEPTE O ALTA FEMEIE LEGAL CASATORITA CU SOTUL EI SAU SUTE DE FEMEI CARE MEREU O SA FIE SCHIMBATE SI CU CARE SOTUL EI O SA AIBA DE A FACE ZINIC. NU MAI VORBIM DE ALTE RISCURI, SANATE, MATERIAL, MORALA ETC. ASA CA QUR�AN NU TREBUIE INTELES GRESIT. QUR�AN PUR SI SIMPLU DA O SOLUTIE PT ANUMITE SITUATII CI NU CA SA SE SIMTA BARBATUL FERICIT INCONJURAT DE DOUA, TREI SAU PATRU NEVESTE, CUM AR CREDE UNII. CASATORIILE PROFETULUI N AU FOST CU SCOPUL CUM VOR SA SE CONVINGA UNII. DACA TE INTERESEAZA SUBIECTUL, TE ROG SA VIZITEZI FORUM LUNI,(30.03.09) O SA DISCUT SI EXPLIC ACEST SUBIECT IN AMANUNTE. ACUM 1400 DE ANI INAINTE, SPRE DEOSEBIRE DE ALTE RELIGII INCLUSIV CRESTINISMUL, ISLAMUL PT PRIMA DATA ADUCE LEGI PT ORGANIZAREA FAMILIEI PANA ATUNCI PUSA IN PERICOL DE POLIGAMIE NECONSTRANSA DE NUMERE SI REGULI. BARBATII ERAU STAPANI PT CA ERAU FIZIC SUPERIORI, IAR FEMEILE NU CONTAU PANA ATUNCI CA CETATENI DE CARE SA SE OCUPE CINEVA DIN AFARA. ERAU SOCIETATI CA ACEEA A AMAZOANELOR SAU IN ALBION, ANGLIA DE AZI, UNDE FEMEILE ERAU FOLOSITE DE TOTI MEMBRII FAMILIEI IAR COPIII AVEAU PATERNITATEA CELUI CARE O AVEA PRIMUL. IN BABILONIA ASTA GENETICA ISLAMUL A ADUS ORDINE FARA SA INCALCE OBICEIURI TINAND DE NATURA SEXELOR.
salimgandapur Postat pe 26 Martie 2009 13:47
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-26 08:55:10 De la: lovefreedom, la data 2009-03-24 16:39:58 De la: cleopatra86, la data 2008-04-13 19:48:54pu ca e o rusine sa traiesti in concubinaj,e pacat sa faci copii,cand nu esti cununata,e gresit fata de dumnezeu,intai faci copii apoi ti-aduci aminte ca nu e bine sa traiesti in pacat....dumnezeu a dat cununia cu un scop,de ce noi oamenii,uitam de asta...? Cleopatra ti-am citit mesajele si sincer ma sperii.Este evident ca islamul dauneaza grav psihicului. Faci atata caz ca este pacat sa scoti macar o virgula din Coran dar nu este pacat ca sotul sa-si mai altoiasca din cand in cand sotia...Spui ca aceste versete au fost scrise pentru vremea aceea.Serios?Pai atunci Coranul este un capitol incheiat ca "vremea aceea" a trecut. Oare cum a putut Biblia care este si mai veche sa ne dea niste principii universal valabile? Referitor la cununia religioasa facuta dupa ce femeia a ramas gravida,draga mea,religia noastra crestina se bazeaza pe iertare,noi suntem invatati sa iertam pacatosul,nu sa-l omoram cu pietre si nici sa-l biciuim de 100 de ori asa cum facea profetul tau Mohammed in Hadith. TREBUIA SA RETRIMIT MESAJUL PENNRU CA UNDE AM VRUT SA SCRIU "SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86" SI CU GANDUL CU TOTUL IN ALTA PARTE, DIN GRESEALA, AM PUS UN "NU" INAINTE. CORECT E SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA. BINE CA AM OBSERVAT O GRESRALA FOARTE GRAVA SI AM REUSIT S O CORECTEZ LA TIMP. SCUZE CLEOPATRA. PS. LOVEFREEDOM: ASA TE AU CONVINSI OAMENII CARE AU MANIPULAT BIBLIEDUPA CUM AU VRUT. UNDE E DREPTATE ACOLO PT ORICE CRIMA EXISTA O PEDEAPSA SI PT ORICE BINE EXISTA O RASPLATA. ASTA E SI REGULA LUI DUMNEZEU. NUMAI EL POATE SA TE IERTE DACA TE POT OBTINE DE LA RAUL, SINCER ITI REGRETI GRESELI SI NU LE MAI REPETI. SA NU L PUI PE NIMENI IN EGALITATE CU EL. VOI CRESTINII ATI FACUT ONE IN THREE SI THREE IN ONE. STII CARE E PEDEAPSA IN BIBLIE PT O PERSOANE CARE COMIT UN ACT SEXUAL NELEGAL ADICA INAINTE DE CASATORIE. BIBLIA ORDINA CA ASTFEL DE PERSOANE SA FIE OMORATE CU PIETRE. TE ROG SA CITESTI BIBLIE. NU STIU DE CE NU INTELEGETI UN LUCRU FOARTE SIMPLU CARE A FOST MEREU DISCUTAT SI EXPLICAT AICI PE FORUM ISLAM NU OBLIGA PE NICI UN BARBAT SA SI IA PATRU NEVESTE (REPET : Islam nu obliga pe nici un barbat sa si ia patru neveste). NUMAI IN SITUATII SPECIALE PERMITE DREPTUL (MAXIM) LA PATRU NEVESTE DAR CU CONDITII FOARTE GRELE. QUR'AN E FOARTE CLAR DESPRE CEI CARE VOR SA AIBA MAI MULTE DECAT O SINGURA NEVASTA. MAI TREBUIE TINUT CONT DE FAPTUL CA INJUNCTIA RESPECTIVA SE TERMINA NU INCURAJATOR PT BARBATUL CARE S AR FI BUCURAT TOTUSI DE PATRU FEMEI CUM AR FI VRUT. I SE PUNE IN VEDERE CA E OBLIGAT PERFECT EGAL FATA DE FIECARE DIN ELE, MORAL, MATERIAL, EMOTINAL. INCHIEREA VERSETULUI NEECHIVOC PREVEDE CA BARBATII NU VOR PUTEA RESPECTA INTOCMAI LEGEA ACEASTA A EGALITATII SI DE ACEEA MAI BINE SA SE LIMITEZE LA O SINGURA SOTIE. SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86, DUPA CUM O CITEZI. QUR�AN A FOST ULTIMA CARTE DIN SIRUL CARTIILOR DEVINE, PSALM, TORAH, GOSPEL(BIBLIE), QURAN. DACA NE GANDIM RATIONAL, CE AR FI CONVENABIL PT O NEVASTA CA SOTUL EI CARE ARE O NEVOIE SEXUALA NECONTROLATA (EXISTA CAZURI REF: MASTERS & JOHNSON RESEARCH ON �HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONS�) LA CARE EA NU POATE SA FACA FATsA ATUNCI SA ACCEPTE O ALTA FEMEIE LEGAL CASATORITA CU SOTUL EI SAU SUTE DE FEMEI CARE MEREU O SA FIE SCHIMBATE SI CU CARE SOTUL EI O SA AIBA DE A FACE ZINIC. NU MAI VORBIM DE ALTE RISCURI, SANATE, MATERIAL, MORALA ETC. ASA CA QUR�AN NU TREBUIE INTELES GRESIT. QUR�AN PUR SI SIMPLU DA O SOLUTIE PT ANUMITE SITUATII CI NU CA SA SE SIMTA BARBATUL FERICIT INCONJURAT DE DOUA, TREI SAU PATRU NEVESTE, CUM AR CREDE UNII. CASATORIILE PROFETULUI N AU FOST CU SCOPUL CUM VOR SA SE CONVINGA UNII. DACA TE INTERESEAZA SUBIECTUL, TE ROG SA VIZITEZI FORUM LUNI,(30.03.09) O SA DISCUT SI EXPLIC ACEST SUBIECT IN AMANUNTE. ACUM 1400 DE ANI INAINTE, SPRE DEOSEBIRE DE ALTE RELIGII INCLUSIV CRESTINISMUL, ISLAMUL PT PRIMA DATA ADUCE LEGI PT ORGANIZAREA FAMILIEI PANA ATUNCI PUSA IN PERICOL DE POLIGAMIE NECONSTRANSA DE NUMERE SI REGULI. BARBATII ERAU STAPANI PT CA ERAU FIZIC SUPERIORI, IAR FEMEILE NU CONTAU PANA ATUNCI CA CETATENI DE CARE SA SE OCUPE CINEVA DIN AFARA. ERAU SOCIETATI CA ACEEA A AMAZOANELOR SAU IN ALBION, ANGLIA DE AZI, UNDE FEMEILE ERAU FOLOSITE DE TOTI MEMBRII FAMILIEI IAR COPIII AVEAU PATERNITATEA CELUI CARE O AVEA PRIMUL. IN BABILONIA ASTA GENETICA ISLAMUL A ADUS ORDINE FARA SA INCALCE OBICEIURI TINAND DE NATURA SEXELOR.
salimgandapur Postat pe 26 Martie 2009 13:48
nu stiu ce sa zic am ramas putin uimita de ce se discuta aici. Vreu sa va spun ca mama mea este crestina iar tatal meu este musulman. sau casatorit din dragoste tatal meu nu a ridicat un deget la ea se respecta si se iubesc .este adevarat ca exista ca si in toata lumea barbati care bat sau nu repecta femeia. eu pana la 17 ani nu am purtat hijad si tatal meu nu mia spus nici odata de ce nu porti sau sa-mi impuna sa port. eu am hotarat singura ca trebuie sa il port. Dar si in biblie se specifica de purtare baticului de ce oamnei de la sate poarta batic? si ince ceva vreau sa va spun un barbat din religia islama nu bea si nici nu umbla prin baruri s discoteci sa agate femei sau eu mai stiu ce.... nu stiu ce e asa greu sa intelegeti asta ..... nu vreti sa va schimbati religia nu va obligat nimneni sa va schimbati religia...si barbatul isi ia mai multe neveste sunt foarte rare cazurile in care un barbat isi ia mai multe neveste dar insemana ca are motive bine intemeiate de isi ia a doua nevasta... noi nu suntem diferite de voi, voi sunteti cele care sunteti diferite de noi. noi nu fumam pe strada, noi nu iesim prin cluburi la agatat barbati, noi nu ne imbracam pe strada cu fuste de o palma ca sa atragem priviri...viitorul barbat ce o sa mai descopere la voi daca voi le aratati totul?? si eu traiesc in romania si sunt studenta si am prietene care sunt non-musulmane si vrau sa va spun ca 3 dintre prietenele mele au trecut la islam pentru ca sau documentat ce inseamna ...voi vorbiti in necunsotiinta de cauza imi place foarte mult de argumentele cleopatrei tot ce spune sa stiti ca este adevarat
Postat pe 28 Martie 2009 22:05
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-26 13:48:28 De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-26 08:55:10 De la: lovefreedom, la data 2009-03-24 16:39:58 De la: cleopatra86, la data 2008-04-13 19:48:54pu ca e o rusine sa traiesti in concubinaj,e pacat sa faci copii,cand nu esti cununata,e gresit fata de dumnezeu,intai faci copii apoi ti-aduci aminte ca nu e bine sa traiesti in pacat....dumnezeu a dat cununia cu un scop,de ce noi oamenii,uitam de asta...? Cleopatra ti-am citit mesajele si sincer ma sperii.Este evident ca islamul dauneaza grav psihicului. Faci atata caz ca este pacat sa scoti macar o virgula din Coran dar nu este pacat ca sotul sa-si mai altoiasca din cand in cand sotia...Spui ca aceste versete au fost scrise pentru vremea aceea.Serios?Pai atunci Coranul este un capitol incheiat ca "vremea aceea" a trecut. Oare cum a putut Biblia care este si mai veche sa ne dea niste principii universal valabile? Referitor la cununia religioasa facuta dupa ce femeia a ramas gravida,draga mea,religia noastra crestina se bazeaza pe iertare,noi suntem invatati sa iertam pacatosul,nu sa-l omoram cu pietre si nici sa-l biciuim de 100 de ori asa cum facea profetul tau Mohammed in Hadith. TREBUIA SA RETRIMIT MESAJUL PENNRU CA UNDE AM VRUT SA SCRIU "SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86" SI CU GANDUL CU TOTUL IN ALTA PARTE, DIN GRESEALA, AM PUS UN "NU" INAINTE. CORECT E SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA. BINE CA AM OBSERVAT O GRESRALA FOARTE GRAVA SI AM REUSIT S O CORECTEZ LA TIMP. SCUZE CLEOPATRA. PS. LOVEFREEDOM: ASA TE AU CONVINSI OAMENII CARE AU MANIPULAT BIBLIEDUPA CUM AU VRUT. UNDE E DREPTATE ACOLO PT ORICE CRIMA EXISTA O PEDEAPSA SI PT ORICE BINE EXISTA O RASPLATA. ASTA E SI REGULA LUI DUMNEZEU. NUMAI EL POATE SA TE IERTE DACA TE POT OBTINE DE LA RAUL, SINCER ITI REGRETI GRESELI SI NU LE MAI REPETI. SA NU L PUI PE NIMENI IN EGALITATE CU EL. VOI CRESTINII ATI FACUT ONE IN THREE SI THREE IN ONE. STII CARE E PEDEAPSA IN BIBLIE PT O PERSOANE CARE COMIT UN ACT SEXUAL NELEGAL ADICA INAINTE DE CASATORIE. BIBLIA ORDINA CA ASTFEL DE PERSOANE SA FIE OMORATE CU PIETRE. TE ROG SA CITESTI BIBLIE. NU STIU DE CE NU INTELEGETI UN LUCRU FOARTE SIMPLU CARE A FOST MEREU DISCUTAT SI EXPLICAT AICI PE FORUM ISLAM NU OBLIGA PE NICI UN BARBAT SA SI IA PATRU NEVESTE (REPET : Islam nu obliga pe nici un barbat sa si ia patru neveste). NUMAI IN SITUATII SPECIALE PERMITE DREPTUL (MAXIM) LA PATRU NEVESTE DAR CU CONDITII FOARTE GRELE. QUR'AN E FOARTE CLAR DESPRE CEI CARE VOR SA AIBA MAI MULTE DECAT O SINGURA NEVASTA. MAI TREBUIE TINUT CONT DE FAPTUL CA INJUNCTIA RESPECTIVA SE TERMINA NU INCURAJATOR PT BARBATUL CARE S AR FI BUCURAT TOTUSI DE PATRU FEMEI CUM AR FI VRUT. I SE PUNE IN VEDERE CA E OBLIGAT PERFECT EGAL FATA DE FIECARE DIN ELE, MORAL, MATERIAL, EMOTINAL. INCHIEREA VERSETULUI NEECHIVOC PREVEDE CA BARBATII NU VOR PUTEA RESPECTA INTOCMAI LEGEA ACEASTA A EGALITATII SI DE ACEEA MAI BINE SA SE LIMITEZE LA O SINGURA SOTIE. SUNT DE ACORD CU CLEOPATRA 86, DUPA CUM O CITEZI. QUR�AN A FOST ULTIMA CARTE DIN SIRUL CARTIILOR DEVINE, PSALM, TORAH, GOSPEL(BIBLIE), QURAN. DACA NE GANDIM RATIONAL, CE AR FI CONVENABIL PT O NEVASTA CA SOTUL EI CARE ARE O NEVOIE SEXUALA NECONTROLATA (EXISTA CAZURI REF: MASTERS & JOHNSON RESEARCH ON �HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONS�) LA CARE EA NU POATE SA FACA FATsA ATUNCI SA ACCEPTE O ALTA FEMEIE LEGAL CASATORITA CU SOTUL EI SAU SUTE DE FEMEI CARE MEREU O SA FIE SCHIMBATE SI CU CARE SOTUL EI O SA AIBA DE A FACE ZINIC. NU MAI VORBIM DE ALTE RISCURI, SANATE, MATERIAL, MORALA ETC. ASA CA QUR�AN NU TREBUIE INTELES GRESIT. QUR�AN PUR SI SIMPLU DA O SOLUTIE PT ANUMITE SITUATII CI NU CA SA SE SIMTA BARBATUL FERICIT INCONJURAT DE DOUA, TREI SAU PATRU NEVESTE, CUM AR CREDE UNII. CASATORIILE PROFETULUI N AU FOST CU SCOPUL CUM VOR SA SE CONVINGA UNII. DACA TE INTERESEAZA SUBIECTUL, TE ROG SA VIZITEZI FORUM LUNI,(30.03.09) O SA DISCUT SI EXPLIC ACEST SUBIECT IN AMANUNTE. ACUM 1400 DE ANI INAINTE, SPRE DEOSEBIRE DE ALTE RELIGII INCLUSIV CRESTINISMUL, ISLAMUL PT PRIMA DATA ADUCE LEGI PT ORGANIZAREA FAMILIEI PANA ATUNCI PUSA IN PERICOL DE POLIGAMIE NECONSTRANSA DE NUMERE SI REGULI. BARBATII ERAU STAPANI PT CA ERAU FIZIC SUPERIORI, IAR FEMEILE NU CONTAU PANA ATUNCI CA CETATENI DE CARE SA SE OCUPE CINEVA DIN AFARA. ERAU SOCIETATI CA ACEEA A AMAZOANELOR SAU IN ALBION, ANGLIA DE AZI, UNDE FEMEILE ERAU FOLOSITE DE TOTI MEMBRII FAMILIEI IAR COPIII AVEAU PATERNITATEA CELUI CARE O AVEA PRIMUL. IN BABILONIA ASTA GENETICA ISLAMUL A ADUS ORDINE FARA SA INCALCE OBICEIURI TINAND DE NATURA SEXELOR. da dar tot odata mai si spuna " cel care nu a gresit nici odata sa arunce prima piatra" asta inseamna ca nici u om nu e fara de pacat si nu trebuie sa judecam noi pe altii ... doar Dumnezeu poate ....
petitange Postat pe 29 Martie 2009 11:47
Dumnezeu e numai unul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! indiferent ce nume are..........e acelasi pt toti!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
myeyes Postat pe 29 Martie 2009 12:29
Este cea mai simpla si sigura afacere online, automatizata, in parteneriat cu firma americana. Ai acces 7 zile gratis sa te poti decidei, fara nici o obligatie. Materialele si instruirea asigurat gratuit !!!. Primesti ajutor profesionist, gratuit. Trebuie sa stii putin word si sa ai net.Eventuala cunoastere a limbii engleze constituie un avantaj major. Muncesti cand doresti 1sau 2 ore la domiciliu. Castigul se achita lunar prin fila de cec bancar sau PayPal. Detalii pe : www.solutiidecriza.com.
silviu_m74 Postat pe 29 Martie 2009 17:54
moda la noi si traditie la ei.....
everything_for_you Postat pe 30 Martie 2009 17:53
mda.am stat atatea ore sa citesc totul de pe acest topic.si avand in vedere ca eu sunt crestina si viitorul meu sot e musulman(turc) vreau sa va spun ceva.oameni buni nu sunt toti la fel.depinde de persoana.de exemplu al meu nu e foarte religios dar nu m-ar bate niciodata(credeti-ma ).bea vin,injura ca si romanii de altfel,se uita dupa fete(ca de aia i-a dat dumnezeu sau allah ochi)dar e dragastos,romantic,tandru,vorbeste frumos.si desi e pacat m-am culcat cu el.stiti ce mi-a spus?ca la ei in turcia sunt fete care fac sex anal si oral sa ramana domnisoare.si la ei difera cum difera la noi.ce l-a noi dumnezeu a zis ca e voie sa traiesti in concubinaj sau sa bei sau sa fumezi?asa si la ei.eu le admir pe femeile musulmance.si dupa cum zicea muslim si cleopatra fiecare decide daca poarta batic sau nu.mi-e nu mi-a cerut sa trec la religia lui sau sa port batic sau fusta lunga dar daca mi-ar cere as purta.dar nu sa trec la religia lui.ce la noi de ce fetele credincioase poarta batic?vedeti ca si la noi asa si la ei sunt oameni si femei mai credincioase si unii mai necredinciosi.nu trebuie sa ii criticam sau sa-i respingem.trebuie respectati ca toti oamenii chiar daca au val sau nu.in legatura cu titlul topicului la musulmani e traditie iar la restul moda.nu va mai certati inutil.sa incercam sa ne intelegem unii pe altii.eu nu am citit tot coranul dar din cat am citit am dedus ca e aproape ca biblia noastra decat ca il loc de dumnezeu la ei zicea allah.si acel profet mohammed difera.dar dumnezeu e acelasi chiar daca e allah sau dumnezeu sau iehova sau altcineva.
roscatika23 Postat pe 31 Martie 2009 20:01
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-26 08:55:10 NU STIU DE CE NU INTELEGETI UN LUCRU FOARTE SIMPLU CARE A FOST MEREU DISCUTAT SI EXPLICAT AICI PE FORUM. ISLAM NU OBLIGA PE NICI UN BARBAT SA SI IA PATRU NEVESTE (REPET : Islam nu obliga pe nici un barbat sa si ia patru neveste). NUMAI IN SITUATII SPECIALE PERMITE DREPTUL (MAXIM) LA PATRU NEVESTE DAR CU CONDITII FOARTE GRELE. QUR'AN E FOARTE CLAR DESPRE CEI CARE VOR SA AIBA MAI MULTE DECAT O SINGURA NEVASTA. MAI TREBUIE TINUT CONT DE FAPTUL CA INJUNCTIA RESPECTIVA SE TERMINA NU INCURAJATOR PT BARBATUL CARE S AR FI BUCURAT TOTUSI DE PATRU FEMEI CUM AR FI VRUT. I SE PUNE IN VEDERE CA E OBLIGAT PERFECT EGAL FATA DE FIECARE DIN ELE, MORAL, MATERIAL, EMOTINAL. Nimeni nu poate iubi patru femei la fel. Inevitabil, pe una o iubesti mai mult. Si de ce nu pot si femeile avea patru soti? Eu una am destul de multi bani incat sa-i sustin finaciar doi barbati. Eu de ce nu pot sa iar doi, aud? De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-03-26 08:55:10 DACA NE GANDIM RATIONAL, CE AR FI CONVENABIL PT O NEVASTA CA SOTUL EI CARE ARE O NEVOIE SEXUALA NECONTROLATA (EXISTA CAZURI REF: MASTERS & JOHNSON RESEARCH ON �HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONS�) LA CARE EA NU POATE SA FACA FATsA ATUNCI SA ACCEPTE O ALTA FEMEIE LEGAL CASATORITA CU SOTUL EI SAU SUTE DE FEMEI CARE MEREU O SA FIE SCHIMBATE SI CU CARE SOTUL EI O SA AIBA DE A FACE ZINIC. NU MAI VORBIM DE ALTE RISCURI, SANATE, MATERIAL, MORALA ETC. Si ce se intampla cand femeia are o nevoie sexuala incontrolabila pe care barbatul nu o poate satisface? Ii zice nimfomanie? Isi ia si ea un alt sot? Impotenta e oricum mai frecventa decat priapismul. Raspund la restul de aberatii maine.
Kathara Postat pe 1 Aprilie 2009 01:57
kathara cu tot respectul aici cam ai dreptate.
roscatika23 Postat pe 1 Aprilie 2009 16:26
Am vazut �i eu saitul acesta din ıntımplare.am �i eu doua vorbe penrtu voi.Fetele care apara islamismul.nu ıncercati sa pacaliti pe nimeni .........mi_am schimbat religia �i sunt forte fericita.........minciuni..... spunetii lui mutu nu mie......a� vrea sa va vad peste 5 ani.sotul daca va iubea �i avea ....RESPECT............ ptr.voi va accepta a�a cre�tine �i pacatoase cum ne cred . islamismul nu eczista chiar unii muslumani zic despre ortodoxi ca sınt mai buni la sufet ca ei.FETELOR PESTE CITİVA ANİ O SA VA DATİ CU CAPUL DE PERETİ DAR O SA FİE CAM TIRZİU.........MAİ ERA CİNEVA PE SAİT SCRİA CA PRİN İSLAMİSM �İA GASİT LİNİ�TEAAAAAAA.................LANET OLSUN
duygu34 Postat pe 1 Aprilie 2009 23:24
frate mi-ai zgariat retina!!!!
myeyes Postat pe 2 Aprilie 2009 13:29
Pentru cei intersati in acte barbarice inscenate in numele Islamului impotriva femeilor si a omenirii normale, in general, trimit un video clip dintre VIDEOCLIPURILE MELE, cu o situatie intamplata azi in Swat, Elvetia Pakistanului, nu mult timp inainte, unde pana aproximativ doi ani inainte lumea prospera de pe urma turismului si a industriilor legate de turism si acum un iad terestru unde spionii marilor puteri si cei locali se intrec in cruzimi pe seama populatiei locale punand evilul pe seama talibanilor si a Islamului desi intre musulmani nimeni n a vazut asemenea orori cel putin in subaontinent Indo-Pak. Asa zisii Talebani, Al-Qaeda despre care Obama nu inceteaza sa alerteze lumea ce pericol reprezinta, NU STIE NIMENI DE UNDE AU VENIT, CINE SUNT SI CINE II PLATESTE. Regiunea mai nou numita AF-PAK a fost cea mai pasnica si sigura zona pt oricine vizita din Europa, America sau de oriunde pana a inceput asa zisul �Big Game� intre puterile din vest si Rusia. De atunci treizeci de ani inainte, zona s a transformat incredibil si a adus incalculabile pierderi populatiilor locale si tarii in general. Genocide-ul care are loc desi nerecunoscut ca atare international, e bine inteles de localnici ca o incercare de a I elimina pe PASHTUNI, singurele triburi din Nord Westul Pakistanului care au tinut piept invadatorilor de oriunde ar fi venit. Acelasi lucru a provocat genocide-ul Iraqienilor care rezistasera colonialismului englez si Americano Israelian. Razbunare rasista si religioasa la suprafata in realitate tendinta de a aservi tari si popoare, considerate slabe, incapabile si tinute departe de progress inadins pt a fi incapacitate total de a se ridica si de a si cere drepturile. Dictatorii din aceste tari sunt platiti de Vest iar altii ca cei din asa zisele tari bogate musulmane platesc ei pt a fi aparati si asigurati impotriva propriilor lor popoare.
salimgandapur Postat pe 3 Aprilie 2009 15:16
De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-04-03 15:16:37Pentru cei intersati in acte barbarice inscenate in numele Islamului impotriva femeilor si a omenirii normale, in general, trimit un video clip dintre VIDEOCLIPURILE MELE, cu o situatie intamplata azi in Swat, Elvetia Pakistanului, nu mult timp inainte, unde pana aproximativ doi ani inainte lumea prospera de pe urma turismului si a industriilor legate de turism si acum un iad terestru unde spionii marilor puteri si cei locali se intrec in cruzimi pe seama populatiei locale punand evilul pe seama talibanilor si a Islamului desi intre musulmani nimeni n a vazut asemenea orori cel putin in subaontinent Indo-Pak. Asa zisii Talebani, Al-Qaeda despre care Obama nu inceteaza sa alerteze lumea ce pericol reprezinta, NU STIE NIMENI DE UNDE AU VENIT, CINE SUNT SI CINE II PLATESTE. Regiunea mai nou numita AF-PAK a fost cea mai pasnica si sigura zona pt oricine vizita din Europa, America sau de oriunde pana a inceput asa zisul �Big Game� intre puterile din vest si Rusia. De atunci treizeci de ani inainte, zona s a transformat incredibil si a adus incalculabile pierderi populatiilor locale si tarii in general. Genocide-ul care are loc desi nerecunoscut ca atare international, e bine inteles de localnici ca o incercare de a I elimina pe PASHTUNI, singurele triburi din Nord Westul Pakistanului care au tinut piept invadatorilor de oriunde ar fi venit. Acelasi lucru a provocat genocide-ul Iraqienilor care rezistasera colonialismului englez si Americano Israelian. Razbunare rasista si religioasa la suprafata in realitate tendinta de a aservi tari si popoare, considerate slabe, incapabile si tinute departe de progress inadins pt a fi incapacitate total de a se ridica si de a si cere drepturile. Dictatorii din aceste tari sunt platiti de Vest iar altii ca cei din asa zisele tari bogate musulmane platesc ei pt a fi aparati si asigurati impotriva propriilor lor popoare.
roscatika23 Postat pe 3 Aprilie 2009 18:03
In Afganistan tocmai s-a dat o lege care nu recunoaste violul marital si permite femilor accesul la educatie sau la DOCTOR numai cu acordul sotului. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5080797/Hamid-Karzai-signs-law-legalising-rape-in-marriage.html Hamid Karzai signs law 'legalising rape in marriage' President Hamid Karzai has signed a law the UN says legalises rape in marriage and prevents women from leaving the house without permission. By Ben Farmer in Kabul Last Updated: 7:57AM BST 31 Mar 2009 Hamid Karzai: Hamid Karzai signs law 'legalising rape in marriage' Mr Karzai has been accused of electioneering at the expense of women's rights by signing the law to appeal to crucial Shia swing voters in this year's presidential poll Photo: AFP/GETTY The law, which has not been publicly released, is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with their husband's permission. Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women. Opponents of the legislation governing the personal lives of Afghanistan's Shia minority have said it is "worse than during the Taliban". Mr Karzai has been accused of electioneering at the expense of women's rights by signing the law to appeal to crucial Shia swing voters in this year's presidential poll. While the Afghan constitution guarantees equal rights for women, it also allows the Shia community, thought to represent 10 per cent of the population, the right to settle family law cases according to Shia law. The Shiite Personal Status Law contains provisions on marriage, divorce, inheritance, rights of movement and bankruptcy. The bill passed both houses of the Afghan parliament, but was so contentious that the United Nations and women's rights campaigners have so far been unable to see a copy of the approved bill. Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, a female MP, said the law had been rushed through with little debate. She told the Guardian newspaper: "They wanted to pass it almost like a secret negotiation, "There were lots of things that we wanted to change, but they didn't want to discuss it because Karzai wants to please the Shia before the election." The Afghan justice ministry confirmed the law had been signed, but said it would not be published until technical difficulties had been overcome. A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai would not comment.
Kathara Postat pe 4 Aprilie 2009 00:51
De la: roscatika23, la data 2009-04-03 18:03:45 De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-04-03 15:16:37Pentru cei intersati in acte barbarice inscenate in numele Islamului impotriva femeilor si a omenirii normale, in general, trimit un video clip dintre VIDEOCLIPURILE MELE, cu o situatie intamplata azi in Swat, Elvetia Pakistanului, nu mult timp inainte, unde pana aproximativ doi ani inainte lumea prospera de pe urma turismului si a industriilor legate de turism si acum un iad terestru unde spionii marilor puteri si cei locali se intrec in cruzimi pe seama populatiei locale punand evilul pe seama talibanilor si a Islamului desi intre musulmani nimeni n a vazut asemenea orori cel putin in subaontinent Indo-Pak. Asa zisii Talebani, Al-Qaeda despre care Obama nu inceteaza sa alerteze lumea ce pericol reprezinta, NU STIE NIMENI DE UNDE AU VENIT, CINE SUNT SI CINE II PLATESTE. Regiunea mai nou numita AF-PAK a fost cea mai pasnica si sigura zona pt oricine vizita din Europa, America sau de oriunde pana a inceput asa zisul �Big Game� intre puterile din vest si Rusia. De atunci treizeci de ani inainte, zona s a transformat incredibil si a adus incalculabile pierderi populatiilor locale si tarii in general. Genocide-ul care are loc desi nerecunoscut ca atare international, e bine inteles de localnici ca o incercare de a I elimina pe PASHTUNI, singurele triburi din Nord Westul Pakistanului care au tinut piept invadatorilor de oriunde ar fi venit. Acelasi lucru a provocat genocide-ul Iraqienilor care rezistasera colonialismului englez si Americano Israelian. Razbunare rasista si religioasa la suprafata in realitate tendinta de a aservi tari si popoare, considerate slabe, incapabile si tinute departe de progress inadins pt a fi incapacitate total de a se ridica si de a si cere drepturile. Dictatorii din aceste tari sunt platiti de Vest iar altii ca cei din asa zisele tari bogate musulmane platesc ei pt a fi aparati si asigurati impotriva propriilor lor popoare. nu mai rade ca e grava situatia
myeyes Postat pe 4 Aprilie 2009 09:30
O fi, dar ce legatura are asta cu citatele din Coran? Aici se discuta religie, nu altceva. Sa fie o lipsa de contraargumente, ce zici Alinuto?
Kathara Postat pe 4 Aprilie 2009 13:41
De la: breaking_dawn, la data 2009-04-04 09:30:12 De la: roscatika23, la data 2009-04-03 18:03:45 De la: salimgandapur, la data 2009-04-03 15:16:37Pentru cei intersati in acte barbarice inscenate in numele Islamului impotriva femeilor si a omenirii normale, in general, trimit un video clip dintre VIDEOCLIPURILE MELE, cu o situatie intamplata azi in Swat, Elvetia Pakistanului, nu mult timp inainte, unde pana aproximativ doi ani inainte lumea prospera de pe urma turismului si a industriilor legate de turism si acum un iad terestru unde spionii marilor puteri si cei locali se intrec in cruzimi pe seama populatiei locale punand evilul pe seama talibanilor si a Islamului desi intre musulmani nimeni n a vazut asemenea orori cel putin in subaontinent Indo-Pak. Asa zisii Talebani, Al-Qaeda despre care Obama nu inceteaza sa alerteze lumea ce pericol reprezinta, NU STIE NIMENI DE UNDE AU VENIT, CINE SUNT SI CINE II PLATESTE. Regiunea mai nou numita AF-PAK a fost cea mai pasnica si sigura zona pt oricine vizita din Europa, America sau de oriunde pana a inceput asa zisul �Big Game� intre puterile din vest si Rusia. De atunci treizeci de ani inainte, zona s a transformat incredibil si a adus incalculabile pierderi populatiilor locale si tarii in general. Genocide-ul care are loc desi nerecunoscut ca atare international, e bine inteles de localnici ca o incercare de a I elimina pe PASHTUNI, singurele triburi din Nord Westul Pakistanului care au tinut piept invadatorilor de oriunde ar fi venit. Acelasi lucru a provocat genocide-ul Iraqienilor care rezistasera colonialismului englez si Americano Israelian. Razbunare rasista si religioasa la suprafata in realitate tendinta de a aservi tari si popoare, considerate slabe, incapabile si tinute departe de progress inadins pt a fi incapacitate total de a se ridica si de a si cere drepturile. Dictatorii din aceste tari sunt platiti de Vest iar altii ca cei din asa zisele tari bogate musulmane platesc ei pt a fi aparati si asigurati impotriva propriilor lor popoare. nu mai rade ca e grava situatia uita-te mai bine ca nu radeam. eram ingrozita.pupici breaking_down.
roscatika23 Postat pe 4 Aprilie 2009 21:01
Nu se poate....si acum continuati cearta cu religia si valul islamic...?
liza24_84 Postat pe 5 Aprilie 2009 16:54

Recomandari

Subiect	Mesaje	Ultimul Mesaj
sunt fericita in familie cu sotul dar familia ma obsedeaza ce sa fac????	7	De la: kudika098645 23 Februarie 2010 17:12
Blogurile de moda din Romania	3	De la: anastasia_m 9 Mai 2010 12:51
orgoliul...........greu de invins!!!!	7	De la: concordia 5 Noiembrie 2009 10:00

adoptie	1	De la: brun3ta2010 3 Februarie 2011 01:34
un vot te rog returnez la orice concurs	1	De la: printzessita 31 Mai 2010 12:18