These are social crimes that do need to be confronted and those who commit it be held accountable, whatever the culture or the religion.

Go and get the education before you copy and paste Arafat! In a nut shell, you need to grow up!

Here is one more current article on how well women are treated under Sharia Law. Allah Akbar!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/afghanistan-women-beaten-by-husbands-then-flogged-for-running-away.html

It’s awfully nice of you to worry about my institutional situation. Most decent of you.

That said, just a little history for your dimwitted mind. Hitler did not do what he did for religious purposes. He was not a religious man at all.

Devout Muslims do force this dress on women. There is no choice other than torutre or death for the women other than to dress according to the religious men’s demands.

Religion, do you hear? Religion.

Islm and Nazism Do share a common bond thought. It is supremacism. Like Nazism, Islam is a doctrine that forces people to act, behave, dress, speak, pray in certain ways. Take Saudi Arabia for example. It is an Islamic country ruled by Sharia law. In it all women are forced to wear burkas or face punishment. All citizens are forced to be Muslims or they are kicked out. All Christians are forced not to carry bibles or to wear crosses, or selse. All Jews are forced not to step a foot in Saudi Arabia, or else. It is like Nazism. My way or the highway.

Here is another relevant article for you and our good friend Lyman illustrating once again how intrusive Islam in everything women are allowed to do. It has nothing to do with “modesty” and everything to do with repression and brute masculine force. Islam like Nazism is all about supremacism at the cost of any and all freedoms.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/bangladesh-women-detained-for-not-wearing-veil.html

Peace, not pieces @@ … eh? :-)

What you see in the picture you provided mare some men behaving badly! Convincing women to be subsevient in that way to suit their own ends! .. Then YOU might argue that those are Muslim men, aren’t they? … Much like Hitler can be discribed as a Christian , if you ask me!

.. and you do need to find other interests in your life Arafat, such discontentment with life brings real bad diseases that best be avoided .. love does wonders to the soul, you know :-)

Peace be upon you

I think we all need to do work on this topic to “really” understand what is going on here. Your supposition as to why Muslim women wear what they do rings hollow to me. If I were a Muslim woman and I saw a picture like I have linked below I would strip down to my undies in defiance of a religion that condones behavior like that shown in the picture. For me wearing a hajib would be nothing more than tacit approval of a religion that treats women like “the walking dead”.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/some-1500-years-ago-it-was-decided-for-an-individuals-personal-reasons-that-women-should-have-purdah.html

I found this article on the web today and I think it’s interesting in light of some of Ms. Suleiman’s comments about how women on campus dress.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/02/24/101355.html

I found this article on the web today and I think it’s interesting in light of some of Ms. Suleiman’s comments about how women on campus dress. http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/blame_the_victim_religious_leaflet_claims_ungodly_dressed_women_provoke_rap/42253/

Start learning with this piece of important history:

The Crusades

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,378th year).

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

The following story also contradicts what you wrote and leaves me wondering whether you are seeing Islam clearly or through very, very, very rose-colored glasses.

“I Should Have Read My Islamic Marriage Contract”
Islamic law deprives women of many rights, and that’s bad enough — and then in practice, marriage contracts sometimes deprive them of even more. “I Should Have Read My Islamic Marriage Contract: Why didn’t I? Why don’t a lot of Muslim women?,” by Ayesha Nasir for Slate, February 25:

[...] Marriages in Pakistan are physically and emotionally exhausting. The rituals are designed to remind the woman that there is no turning back. Drained by the festivities and eager for a smooth end to the 14-day-long wedding, I gave in.
And so, during the ceremony, I sat a mile away from my fiance, could barely hear the words being recited, and felt as removed from the proceedings as a guest. I heard the microphone being passed to my husband. I heard him say “yes” three times, as is the tradition in Islam. I heard a round of congratulations. When my mother engulfed me in a tight hug, I protested that I had no idea what was happening.

Other women I know walked into marriage wearing similar blinders. One friend, who works as a pediatrician at one of Pakistan’s largest private hospitals, described her nikah ceremony as “confusing and far too quick.” She said that her father had simply thrust a sheaf of papers toward her and instructed her to sign on the dotted line. “Much later I realized I had no idea what I had signed,” she said. Another friend–who is a lawyer!–said she never got to see the complete contract. “I was given this single sheet of paper and told to sign, while the rest of the contract was being vetted by my husband,” she said. “Now, looking back, I don’t know why I signed it at all.”

Women’s rights activist Rubina Sehgal has an answer. She thinks no more than 2 percent of Pakistani women are familiar with their marriage contracts, which even educated and progressive women don’t view as a binding legal document, even though that’s what it is. “It has to do with their upbringing,” she said. “Women are brought up to believe that marriage implies submission and obedience and so, when it comes to the marriage contract, they just sign it. They forget at that time that they have the right to read it, vet it, and even suggest changes. At the time of tying the knot, a lot of importance is given to trust–trust your soon-to-be-husband, trust your parents.”

The problem is that marriage contracts often take away rights women otherwise have under Islamic law. This includes the right to file for divorce: Almost all the men in my family and in my husband’s family cancel this provision before handing the contract over to the woman’s family. It’s considered impolite, and a breach of the trust that Sehgal talks about, for a woman or the relative representing her to insist otherwise.

Women also forfeit the right to other protections. For example, in Islam, a woman is promised a certain amount of money (in keeping with her husband’s income) usually given to her if she chooses to divorce. The money is meant to provide her with some degree of financial security, especially if she leaves her husband. Despite the excellent logic behind this right, most men frown upon it. They put into the contract measly amounts, such as $1 or $10, simply to fill in the blank. And women don’t ask questions. An elderly aunt of mine takes great pride in saying that she agreed to 1 cent when it was time to marry off her daughter. “I had faith in Allah, so 1 cent was all I asked them to put down,” she said.

But Allah is the one who gives women this right, I protested. My aunt dismissed me….

Does the following article make you feel all warm and fuzzy about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia?

“Saudi cleric says that those who oppose gender segregation should be killed
Feel the love. Just don’t get too close. “Saudi cleric backs gender segregation with fatwa,” from Reuters, February 23:

RIYADH (Reuters) – A prominent Saudi cleric has issued an edict calling for opponents of the kingdom’s strict segregation of men and women to be put to death if they refuse to abandon their ideas.
Shaikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak said in a fatwa the mixing of genders at the workplace or in education “as advocated by modernisers” is prohibited because it allows “sight of what is forbidden, and forbidden talk between men and women”.

“All of this leads to whatever ensues,” he said in the text of the fatwa published on his website (albarrak.islamlight.net).

“Whoever allows this mixing … allows forbidden things, and whoever allows them is an infidel and this means defection from Islam … Either he retracts or he must be killed … because he disavows and does not observe the Sharia,” Barrak said….

Mind you, I do have some friends from amongst your people – and they are such nice and peaceful people too …

Strive for that Arafat ..

Peace be upon you – I sincerely mean that :-)

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585.jpg

Here is something original: A women’s fashion show in the Muslim world.

Just to keep things consistent I had nothing to do with the creation of this production.

Click on the Bill Maher video for some LOL moments. It’s something I’m sure we will all get a great chuckle out of, even Heba.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4214

Got anything original to say, or are you just going to flood the comments with shit you didn’t come up with?

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad’s violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world – taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

65/27! Wow! name them Arafat! I am Muslim and I had no idea! But don’t make mistakes, please … ;-)

To Hannah,

Arafat is not a Christian Hannah, from how he writes, I think he’s a seikh or Indian or thereabouts. Please google Seikh, a religion that was formed 500 years ago by a leader of an indian group who suffered opression at the hands of the Muslims during the long rein of Islam in India, hence the understandable hatred. Regretable but it is real history, and Arafat dewells on that. However, whatever he does, Islamic heritage in Idia is what keeps Indian tourism alive today, because of it’s opulence and grandeur and the sheer amount and spread too, as well as the time line .. so, it’s not only the Taj Mahal .. maybe you should google to get an idea of the sheer scale in comparison to ‘other’ heritage. The Seikhs are also forbidden from dealing in anyway with Muslim women branding them as ‘dirty and impure’ .. again, that’s understandable, since their religion would not want to mix blood with Islam … :-)

But to Arafat I say, this was history .. you need to move on, or you will suffer, as I can see you are already. I wish you peace.

Rest assured, they’re not thinking for themselves. Neither, albeit to a significantly lesser degree of ignorance, is anyone who strictly adheres to the tenants of any man-made religion. (notice I said “religion” not “faith” or “universally understood moral code”) And this statement is, admittedly, completely relative.

Heba rocks. Keep doing your thing! ;) Proud of you sis!

May Allah reward you.

Let’s just set the record straight: Muslims are ordered not to transgress or attack anyone who hasn’t attacked them. There are very clear verses in the Quran that say tell the unbelievers, I will not believe in what you believe and you will not believe in what i believe, you have your religion and I have mine. I’m not sure how more explicitly you want it spelt out before accepting it. HOWEVER, muslims have also been ordered to Not turn the other cheek either: so you don’t attack but you also dont run away from defending yourself when you are attacked and the responsibility of this defence does fall on all the men.

As for the slaves, you can not possibly be talking about the christians who locked people in the lower decks of their ships in a state most similar to battery chicken (throwing half of them in the sea half-way through when they die) whilst they prayed to the lord on the upper deck, or could you? I’m not attacking christianity here as I’m sure it doesnt advocate that kind of treatment, but nontheless, some ppl who ‘thought’ of themselves as good christians did it. I also heard the KKK were quite keen on religion — they’re a dark point in christian history, bad interpretations of the bible? perhaps I guess

Plus You talk about Aisha as if she is heralded by muslims as angelic saint.. shes not. she’s a human being who makes mistakes and goes back on them. Even the prophet Muhammed himself was instructed clearly in the quran to tell his followers that he is Only human, just like them. and humans arent faultless. but their faults do not change the principles of the religion in any way. Political conflicts take place, they always have and they always will do for as long as humanity exists. As for Fatima, i’m not quite sure where you got the idea that 1) she died from stress, and 2) she was in any conflict. if she died 3months after as you say then surely that’s just about enough time to mourn the death of her father and thats it. Plus the first Caliph was aisha’s father, so I would suggest that you check your sources.

As for the CLEAR instructions muslims were left to kill everyone, I would be most grateful if you would direct me to the genuine source where you got this information from, as I’ve yet to see it.

And your final comment about the Quran being a contradictory text about violence is a clear indication that you havent even bothered to read the Quran before forming an opinion, and reading random verses doesnt mean you’ve read it either, so I would highly recommend you do that first.

If you are interested in what muslims (and not propagandists’ sites) believe about the prophet Muhammed and how he lived, then I would HIGHLY recommend a book called ‘The Sealed Nectar’ – it is widely used, highly regarded between muslims as a comprehensive account of the prophet’s life and actually quite insightful — (it covers every single battle in his lifetime too and its reasons)

Thanks for the article..though I disagreed with some bits, it was interesting to read :)

The real issue is a matter which has escaped you all since birth.
Especially you postmoderns who make it up as you go.
Say what?
Hold on now…..TRUTH.

I am really glad to see the Kernel cover our muslim student community, and am glad to see Islam represented in a positive light. I am not glad to see the president of the MSA suggesting that people deserve disrespect based on what they do or do not choose to wear. You’d think her experiences with ridicule for wearing the hijab would keep her from being so quick to judge and condemn people for what they wear. Maybe not.

In this same sense, the hijab can mean many thing to many people. If you were to ask a woman in a fundementalist Muslim country in honesty, they may declare that the hijab is a way to demean and devalue them. However, to engage in such academic dishonesty as to declare a headscarf as a universal symbol of oppression would be to ignore the facts.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, both through conversion and through immigration. Based on research done at the University of Kentucky, an average of 16 people convert per mosque per year in America, with the number of mosques nearly doubling in the past 10 years. A great number, if not the majority, of those converts are women. To those woman who become Muslim, it is in the hijab that they find a sense of security that allows them to escape a culture they view as sexually overpowering. They feel a greater sense of self, where they are no longer treated as an object to be enjoyed by the eyes that follow them in the streets.

I laud Heba for taking the opportunity to share her story. It is a shame that so many people are demeaning her for what she sees as a legitimate part of her religion.

I want to tread this ground lightly, as I believe that mannerisms are required both online and in person, even if you are not shown the same kind manners. However, I must point this out: for those who are criticising Heba for being a psychology major and attempting to teach her a lesson in her own field of study, it is perhaps most telling that you have both chosen highly propagandist websites, pulled Qur’anic verse out of its entire context, and then continued to show such insecurity as to hide your opinion behind a false name. I personally know Heba, and she reflects a sense of confidence and personal tranquility that is severely juxtaposed to the frustration I find amongst posts here.

Please, anybody who decides to read through these posts; I encourage you to look at both sides of this debate, rather than refer to propagandist websites. Try http://www.sunnipath.com . Read the varying views on Wikipedia; more often than not, the debate is far more scholarly than what is seen here. Whatever you do, make some consideration before you formulate your views.

Regards,

Matthew Longacre

This is simply not true. It is relativistic mumbo-jumbo.

Do the following facts about Islam sound anything like Christianity or Judaism?

The Myth:

Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense – and when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.

The Truth:

Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his. Three of these four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.

Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.

Muslim apologists who like to say that is impossible for today’s terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience. Muhammad’s favorite daughter and his favorite wife were both explicitly held up by him as model Muslim women before they engaged in violent battle following his death. Which one was the prophet of God so horribly wrong about?

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death – pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.

By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa.

Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.

There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.

The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur’anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

By any objective measure, the “Religion of Peace” has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.