News item on Saudi woman- Saudi woman beats up virtue cop

[KathleenGee]

Kadervi,

I read that it was militants who added the hadiths and sura of Medina to the Quran, giving it the perspective many of us witness today.

www.NewAgeIslam.com is very interesting and refers back to ancient times when Islam was going through its Golden Age. It stopped when there was an inability in context with the Aristotelian philosophers were challenging people of faith…cause and effect.

St. Thomas and another theologian before were able to prove the existence of God as the Primary Mover using the erudite tradition. Arab scholars were included among the Aristotelian, Plato and Neo-Plantinists. It was the more fundamentalist Muslim believers who were unable to stand up to the challenge by such philosophers, and thus took reign. They saw philosophy as replacing faith in God. The fundamentalists gained control of Islam and the immediate subjugation of women came about.

How do you see this? I like that Islamic web page and people there are for the use of reason, draw on ancient Arab philosophers, and restore the dignity of women. That is a place people could connect to, but I don’t enter onto any forums other than this one at CAF.

 

[Kadaveri]

That quote from Mawdudi is just Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory reworded. It has no basis in any Islamic text.

 

[KathleenGee]

Who is that person you mentioned…I just scanned and read some articles on New Age Islam…

Marxist Leninism has its own American shade as we are seeing now…and it is also doing good, bringing people to trust in the Lord alone.

 

[seraphime2008]

As usual you play the Arabic card once you’ve dug yourself into a hole. If the English translation was so faulty then why did you quote it in the first place?

I’m not here to speak on behalf of Sam, but I do see that what Sam did was just presenting his understanding on how some point of Sharia law to be implemented in SA that it must have the basis on that one verse. I don’t see that he’s supporting any view of the government of SA, he was just stating the obvious. Even part of Indonesia (province of Aceh, mostly popularly called as the veranda of Mecca for Indonesia) which apply the sharia, also have those sort of police which has the exact same duties as its counterpart in SA to perform.

It means that a party amongst the Muslims (this is communal command rather than an individual obligatory) should work together to invite others to the worship of God and to build an Islamic society, and that those who take part in this will be rewarded. A similar message is given in Sura 103. This verse is talking about how Muslims should interact with one another within a community, it has nothing to do with forcing things on others as there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). This verse isn’t even talking about jurisprudence at all, nevermind the state establishing extra-judicial police organisations to harass people (which would be totally meaningless in anything but a modern context).

How would it be applied then in a country which believe in adopting the Sharia law?
And btw, to have one verse of tolerant in some part, while having the exact opposite prescription like calling for people to fight the infidel, I thought there should be some contextual frame on seeing how those suras were “revealed”. As I read, the verse of no compulsion in religion was actually addressed on the cultural tradition of parents in the pre Islam time and even continued at the advent of Islam, who had failed to bear children, and when eventually were blessed with one, they usually have the tradition of having the children to be taken care or adopted by Jewish family in the opinion that the Jewish family were usually more hygienic, or prosperous that they usually have lower mortality rate in bringing up children. In the acceptance of Islam, these parents were to decide whether they have to take back their children to accept Islam or to let the children still be taken care by their adopted Jewish family, then it was told that there’s no compulsion in religion. This very verse in its historical context were not meant to be toleration towards pagan, or infidel or polytheist and so on…

 

[Zooey]

I think we should :byzsoc: for this brave woman’s safety from retaliation.

Golly, I have to :heart:her!! Can you imagine anything more humiliating for those guys than ::slapfight:!!

doanli:

Lord forgive me, but I was howling with laughter when I read this story this morning.

Got beat up by a GIRL!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Imagine a crowd of women… It’s easy if you try.
No Mullah standing over them,
Above them only sky

Imagine all the women, with very …high heels…

You may say that I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.

Someday, they will gather.

Virtue cops everywhere should be on notice now. Get some protective gear to prevent injury from the high heel weapon of mass destruction.

 

[KathleenGee]

We should include the Muslim women in our prayers, remember them…

 

[Kadaveri]

I’m not here to speak on behalf of Sam, but I do see that what Sam did was just presenting his understanding on how some point of Sharia law to be implemented in SA that it must have the basis on that one verse. I don’t see that he’s supporting any view of the government of SA, he was just stating the obvious. Even part of Indonesia (province of Aceh, mostly popularly called as the veranda of Mecca for Indonesia) which apply the sharia, also have those sort of police which has the exact same duties as its counterpart in SA to perform.

He’s not just ‘presenting his understanding’. He has a long record of telling Christians lies about Islam on this site, and whenever someone catches him out on this he falls to quoting Arabic texts and claims that if something is written in Arabic then it must be true, knowing that the vast majority of people here cannot even read Arabic. For example he once claimed that the Charter of Privileges sent by Muhammad to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery was an ‘early’ document when Muhammad had no political power and is irrelevant etc etc… when it was actually written when Muhammad was the ruler of most of Arabia yet he refused to accept that he had been spreading false information.

How would it be applied then in a country which believe in adopting the Sharia law?
And btw, to have one verse of tolerant in some part, while having the exact opposite prescription like calling for people to fight the infidel, I thought there should be some contextual frame on seeing how those suras were “revealed”. As I read, the verse of no compulsion in religion was actually addressed on the cultural tradition of parents in the pre Islam time and even continued at the advent of Islam, who had failed to bear children, and when eventually were blessed with one, they usually have the tradition of having the children to be taken care or adopted by Jewish family in the opinion that the Jewish family were usually more hygienic, or prosperous that they usually have lower mortality rate in bringing up children. In the acceptance of Islam, these parents were to decide whether they have to take back their children to accept Islam or to let the children still be taken care by their adopted Jewish family, then it was told that there’s no compulsion in religion. This very verse in its historical context were not meant to be toleration towards pagan, or infidel or polytheist and so on…

It has nothing to do with Shariah. As I said in my previous post 3:104 is addressing how Muslims should interact with each other in a community, it has nothing to do with jurisprudence.

There is no dispute that 2:256 means religion cannot be forced on anyone.

 

[benidict]

Imagine a crowd of women… It’s easy if you try.
No Mullah standing over them,
Above them only sky

Imagine all the women, with very …high heels…

You may say that I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.

Someday, they will gather.

Virtue cops everywhere should be on notice now. Get some protective gear to prevent injury from the high heel weapon of mass destruction.

 

[Sam_777]

I’m not here to speak on behalf of Sam, but I do see that what Sam did was just presenting his understanding on how some point of Sharia law to be implemented in SA that it must have the basis on that one verse. I don’t see that he’s supporting any view of the government of SA, he was just stating the obvious. Even part of Indonesia (province of Aceh, mostly popularly called as the veranda of Mecca for Indonesia) which apply the sharia, also have those sort of police which has the exact same duties as its counterpart in SA to perform.

.

FYI: all my Christian brothers and sisters can speak on my behalf… :hug1:

For example he once claimed that the Charter of Privileges sent by Muhammad to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery was an ‘early’ document when Muhammad had no political power and is irrelevant etc etc… when it was actually written when Muhammad was the ruler of most of Arabia yet he refused to accept that he had been spreading false information.

, when did I claim that, where is your link !!!
That only post I have about The Charter of Privileges is this one.

 

[Arismal]

As a member of Amnesty International I say well done that woman, I hope more follow her example

And the notion of one of those goons being chased down the street by a woman whacking him with her handbag or umbrella is just hilarious

 

[KathleenGee]

The Muslim fundamentalists that want to take over the world say they will do so through their women…they use them to have many children…and some of those characters, like the one on national tv, was telling the men at a mosque from a film clip to go out and have two wives, and then went on in detail explaining the sex pleasures they will have in heaven for becoming militant…

Then they complain how poor they are living polygamous lives…Their violence is carried on the back of their women.

Some day their women will finally get the courage to lay down their lives to oppose these beasts.

Once Islam reclaims the true dignity of woman, we will have peace.

 

[Kadaveri]

"Kadaveri:

For example he once claimed that the Charter of Privileges sent by Muhammad to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery was an ‘early’ document when Muhammad had no political power and is irrelevant etc etc… when it was actually written when Muhammad was the ruler of most of Arabia yet he refused to accept that he had been spreading false information.

, when did I claim that, where is your link !!!
That only post I have about The Charter of Privileges is this one

.

Try again.

 

[Sam_777]

Okay Kadaveri, thanks for the link, here what we have discussed at that time:

Sam_777;3804879:

That “Charter of Privileges” was written in the years of Mohammed’s hijra (migration) to Medina from Meca (some sources say in the 2nd year) (i.e., when he was weak in military power), he needed the sympathy of the Jews & Christians at that time, but when he got the full power, all those covenants & agreements supposedly being cancelled by the instructions of the Quran & Hadith.

Please don’t make things up. The Charter of Privileges was not written in the years of Muhammad’s Hijra when he was in a position of weakness, it was written in 628AD when he was the effective ruler of most of Arabia; men with little political power don’t usually grant treaties to monasteries as far away as Mount Sinai.

The Charter is not ‘cancelled’ by anything, no one of the Muslims is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day. Though you can legitimately criticise some Muslims for not following the Islamic laws on dealing with Christians if you want to.

You claim that in 628AD Muhammed was the effective ruler of most of Arabia…

How can Muhammed be strong in military power yet he didn’t conquer Makkah till year 630AD, also in year 628AD he did the “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah” with Quraysh (aka pagans), you don’t call that a weakness…!!!

“Mecca was conquered by the Muslims in January 630 AD (10th day of Ramadan, 8 AH).[1] It is called Fatah-e-Mubeen, The Glorious Victory." "In 628 the Meccan tribe of Quraysh and the Muslim community in Medina signed a 10 year truce called the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.”
Source.

And yes that Charter of Privileges is cancelled by the instructions of the Quran & Hadith with the concept of the abrogating and abrogated verses, you know that Surrah#9 is the last chapter of Quran which clearly states:

(Quran 9:1):
YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
PICKTHAL: Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
SHAKIR: (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

 

[Kadaveri]

You claim that in 628AD Muhammed was the effective ruler of most of Arabia…

How can Muhammed be strong in military power yet he didn’t conquer Makkah till year 630AD, also in year 628AD he did the “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah” with Quraysh (aka pagans), you don’t call that a weakness…!!!

“Mecca was conquered by the Muslims in January 630 AD (10th day of Ramadan, 8 AH).[1] It is called Fatah-e-Mubeen, The Glorious Victory." "In 628 the Meccan tribe of Quraysh and the Muslim community in Medina signed a 10 year truce called the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.”
Source.

That Muhammad hadn’t yet conquered Mecca hardly refutes that he was the effective ruler of most of Arabia, since Mecca was the second last city in Arabia to be conquered (the last was Ta’if).

Signing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was not an act of weakness. Had you done the slightest bit of research on the topic (or weren’t being deliberately disingenuous) you’d know that his doing so was very controversial among the Muslims because they were in a strong military position, and many thought they should have conquered Mecca (which they could have done, though with bloodshed) rather than sign such a treaty with a much weaker party. Muhammad told them that God had promised them victory and that accepting the Treaty would prove to have been correct in the end. Muhammad was proven to be right as less than two years afterwards the Meccans broke the treaty by killing some Muslims, and then the Muslims conquered the city by which time their forces were so overwhelming that the Meccans knew resistance was pointless and so Mecca was conquered without bloodshed.

And yes that Charter of Privileges is cancelled by the instructions of the Quran & Hadith with the concept of the abrogating and abrogated verses, you know that Surrah#9 is the last chapter of Quran which clearly states:

(Quran 9:1):
YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
PICKTHAL: Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
SHAKIR: (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

Really so Christians are Meccan Pagans are they? Don’t be so ridiculous, that verse has nothing to do with Christians.

 

[Sam_777]

That Muhammad hadn’t yet conquered Mecca hardly refutes that he was the effective ruler of most of Arabia, since Mecca was the second last city in Arabia to be conquered (the last was Ta’if).

Signing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was not an act of weakness. Had you done the slightest bit of research on the topic (or weren’t being deliberately disingenuous) you’d know that his doing so was very controversial among the Muslims because they were in a strong military position,

That is your opinion…
I consider that as an act of weakness…

Really so Christians are Meccan Pagans are they? Don’t be so ridiculous, that verse has nothing to do with Christians.

What Christians have to do with that!, I’m speaking about the “abrogating and abrogated” verses, particularly Quran 9:1 which revoke all treaties and agreements with everyone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)