Saudi Wahhabi Preacher Issues Fatwa Allowing Jihadis to Rape Syrian Women, plus latest news from Syr

I also disagree with this...but..as usual the hypocrites unite.

When it comes to American issues...American people tell other people from other countries "if your not from here...stay out of our business", but when it comes to other country issues..American people are the first people to instill their POV on how their countries and religions should act..

Is this not HYPOCRISY at it's best...

reply to post by FlySolo

What will a horny mindless zombie do whom is controlled by a preacher. What will be his interpretation of the fatwa?

There is nno stopping a man inclined to nasty things... doesn't have to be a mindless zombie or controlled by anybody.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Whether he said "short term marriage" or "rape" it doesnt matter......... again you are making excuses for him......

Lets go by what he said...
not whether or not you think the word matters.

Secondly, I made my stance on what he said abundantly clear.

This response is in responce to Scorpion.

After reading through your posts, I am assuming that you don't want those who are not Muslim to lump this "Preacher" in with all Muslims, and I fully understand that. Personally, I don't.

Here is what people are troubled by, I believe. I've debated Muslims before, I think, good Muslims and I say this because I thought they were good people, so I am assuming they would be true to their faith. Again, assuming because I can't verify this. Each Muslim most likely has a different idea of what a good Muslim is, kind of like each Christian has an idea of what makes a good Christian. The problem I encounter is when they don't rush to condemn people of their faith such as this preacher. They kind of do a slippery word thing, you seem to have done this a little as well. They won't outright condemn their behaviour, instead they deflect a little and throw up bad examples of Christianity to change the arguement.

I can understand wanting to defend your faith, whatever it is. What I don't understand, is why you are not condemning this man? I know part of being a good Muslim woman is being pure, meaning you can't have a few four-hour marriages in one day and still maintain purity, right? What I also know about, is double standards. In America, women are still judged if they sleep around, people can talk about sexual liberation all they want, but there is still a bit of a stigma attached. This holds true in the middle east even more than America. So what I want clarification on is this; why would any Muslim woman consent to a four-hour marriage? Why on earth would any woman (even so-called promiscuous American women) consent to this? Exactly what benefit does this provide for a Muslim woman? None, except a damaged reputation, and in a part of the country where women are forced to depend on men, this is not good. To me, this "preacher" is an blatant example of a very bad Muslim, yet he will affect how many?

Before you defend by citing examples of bad behaviour by Christians, know this. I won't defend those who exhibit bad behaviour in the Christian world, I have seen it myself first hand, Westboro Bible Church comes to mind immediately. But I will call out their bad behaviour in a heartbeat, they are awful. It is important to note, that every American I know can not stand this type of ill will, and will say so. We just want Muslims to do the same thing. This four-hour marriage is really horrible, and up to interpretation when you have a gun shoved in your face, right?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by FlySolo

 

What will a horny mindless zombie do whom is controlled by a preacher. What will be his interpretation of the fatwa?

There is nno stopping a man inclined to nasty things... doesn't have to be a mindless zombie or controlled by anybody.

Then how would a nasty zombie interpret the fatwa?

reply to post by artnut

What I don't understand, is why you are not condemning this man?

I think my posts in this thread clearly convey that I don't think too highly of this guy.

To me, this "preacher" is an blatant example of a very bad Muslim, yet he will affect how many?

To put things in perspective... a certain religious leader made some outrageous claims

G******** were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of ******."

Basically stating that some people exist only to serve his people.

Does it mean we start scrutinizing his entire religion based on the ravings of a religious leader?

So why is it that each time some Islamic preacher says something, all of Islam is demonized?

reply to post by artnut

This four-hour marriage is really horrible, and up to interpretation when you have a gun shoved in your face, right?

Except, the guy didn't call for using guns shoved in faces.

I am not defending the guy, but thats NOT what he said.

Lets stick to his words exactly. No point adding your own spin on as to what he said.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by artnut

 

What I don't understand, is why you are not condemning this man?

I think my posts in this thread convey what I don't think too highly of this guy.

To me, this "preacher" is an blatant example of a very bad Muslim, yet he will affect how many?

To put things in perspective... a certain religious leader made some outrageous claims

G******** were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of ******."

Basically stating that some people exist only to serve his people.

Does it mean we start scrutinizing his entire religion based on the ravings of a religious leader?

So why is it that each time some Islamic preacher says something, all of Islam is demonized

I think people are disputing what you said because you did not start out by saying that you considered this raving. It sounded a bit like defending in the beginning. As I tried to illustrate in my reply, most Muslims to not come out immediately condemning their radical clerics and preachers.

I do wish you would address some of the things in my response, if you could, please. Especially the issues of purity.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by artnut

 

This four-hour marriage is really horrible, and up to interpretation when you have a gun shoved in your face, right?

Except, the guy didn't call for using guns shoved in faces.

I am not defending the guy, but thats NOT what he said.

Lets stick to his words exactly. No point adding your own spin on as to what he said.

So what you are saying, is that any good Muslim woman would happily consent to a four-hour marriage by someone she had never met before in her life? Again, how would this benefit them?

reply to post by artnut

I think people are disputing what you said because you did not start out by saying that you considered this raving. It sounded a bit like defending in the beginning.

In the beginning, I was only pointing out how the guy did not use the word "rape" but instead said "short lived marriage"... whatever he meant by that. And that has been my stance on this thread despite all the distractions. Its a waste of time basing a discussion on misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

As I tried to illustrate in my reply, most Muslims to not come out immediately condemning their radical clerics and preachers.

Trust me, I'd be condemning him if he actually issued a fatwa to rape, as the thread title suggests.
So lets give truth a chance, shall we?

So what I want clarification on is this; why would any Muslim woman consent to a four-hour marriage? Why on earth would any woman (even so-called promiscuous American women) consent to this?

I have no idea why people across cultures do the things they do. Its the way they live their lives.
However, four hour marriages are NOT the norm in Islamic cultures.

reply to post by artnut

o what you are saying, is that any good Muslim woman would happily consent to a four-hour marriage by someone she had never met before in her life? Again, how would this benefit them?

Thats not what I said at all.

I said "four hour marriages are NOT the norm in Islamic cultures "....

reply to post by artnut

however there is a little difference about temporary marriage between sects but temporary marriage is a way to recognize sex need and a way to fulfill that.

1-a non married maiden can not marry temporarily. so if a maiden wants to marry this way she should have permission of his family mostly father or anyone who is taking care of her.
but a woman that has married already and she has divorced or anything, she is free to marry temporarily.
2-a woman can not have more than one partner at a time.
3-woman must wait 2 to 4 months after her divorce or end of her temporary marriage, then she is allowed to marry again.
4-in case of any children. the children have a right of inheritance and father should finance them.

despite all of these. temporary marriage is always a second choice among muslims and it is not widespread.
permanent marriage is always preferable. but there always some people that can not afford a full scale marriage.
because of their job, or economical problem or education in a foreign country or in a war ! so they are allowed to marry temporarily. this can prevent rape and illegal sex.

if you think that I am supporting that corrupted cleric no not at all. but sometimes enemies of Islam (eg. that corrupted cleric) help that other people get familiar with it !!!

I know that boyfriend and girlfriend is common in the west. but the classical Christianity consider that a fornication.
is not it better that a law exists for such relationships. a law that allow temporary relationships but limits the partners and can prevent aids and sexual diseases and then there would be no children without known father and .....
this law is called temporary marriage in Islam. I think west needs that far more than muslims

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by artnut

 

o what you are saying, is that any good Muslim woman would happily consent to a four-hour marriage by someone she had never met before in her life? Again, how would this benefit them?

Thats not what I said at all.

I said "four hour marriages are NOT the norm in Islamic cultures "....

You sure are being evasive. If it's not the norm, then what's the point? Admit it. You're pigeonholed in a corner with this You can't have any debate on the subject if you admit the fatwa is there for those to interpret it as rape. Which is exactly what mindless nasty zombies will do with it and you know it. What is even more astounding is you are clever enough to realize this but yet stand by your convictions that the subtlety of the fatwa should not be interpreted as anything other than a literal sense.

It's approval of rape to those who wish to interpret it as such. It comes after the horrible gang rape that happened in India (where you're from) and its only purpose is to create a loop hole permitting acts of such violence. It's sick and you know it. It's wrong and you know that as well.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by artnut

 

I think people are disputing what you said because you did not start out by saying that you considered this raving. It sounded a bit like defending in the beginning.

In the beginning, I was only pointing out how the guy did not use the word "rape" but instead said "short lived marriage"... whatever he meant by that. And that has been my stance on this thread despite all the distractions. Its a waste of time basing a discussion on misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

As I tried to illustrate in my reply, most Muslims to not come out immediately condemning their radical clerics and preachers.

Trust me, I'd be condemning him if he actually issued a fatwa to rape, as the thread title suggests.
So lets give truth a chance, shall we?

So what I want clarification on is this; why would any Muslim woman consent to a four-hour marriage? Why on earth would any woman (even so-called promiscuous American women) consent to this?

I have no idea why people across cultures do the things they do. Its the way they live their lives.
However, four hour marriages are NOT the norm in Islamic cultures.

This feels a bit slippery too. I think you are right, that it is not the norm, which is why I question the need for it in the first place?

I also got the impression that the fatwa was for the sexual pleasure of men, and nothing else. I am just asking for an opinion, based on the teachings of the faith of Islam, as to what a Muslim woman could possibly gain from this fatwa, I think you have an opinion, but won't share. That's fine, because it only confirms what I have experienced in the past debating Muslim men. You will skirt around a subject, but will not outwardly condone in a meaningful way, or explain the reasons why so many women are treated so poorly in middle eastern countries. I am not basing this opinion entirely on the media reports, by the way. I have had plenty of female friends that are from the middle east, and one in particular who defected from Iran years ago. The current state of misogyny has not always exsisted as it does now. I have heard the stories first-hand. I would like to hear from just one Muslim man that he does not agree with the poor treatment of women in these countries, but I fear I will be waiting for a long time.

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by artnut

 

however there is a little difference about temporary marriage between sects but temporary marriage is a way to recognize sex need and a way to fulfill that.

1-a non married maiden can not marry temporarily. so if a maiden wants to marry this way she should have permission of his family mostly father or anyone who is taking care of her.
but a woman that has married already and she has divorced or anything, she is free to marry temporarily.
2-a woman can not have more than one partner at a time.
3-woman must wait 2 to 4 months after her divorce or end of her temporary marriage, then she is allowed to marry again.
4-in case of any children. the children have a right of inheritance and father should finance them.

despite all of these. temporary marriage is always a second choice among muslims and it is not widespread.
permanent marriage is always preferable. but there always some people that can not afford a full scale marriage.
because of their job, or economical problem or education in a foreign country or in a war ! so they are allowed to marry temporarily. this can prevent rape and illegal sex.

if you think that I am supporting that corrupted cleric no not at all. but sometimes enemies of Islam (eg. that corrupted cleric) help that other people get familiar with it !!!

I know that boyfriend and girlfriend is common in the west. but the classical Christianity consider that a fornication.
is not it better that a law exists for such relationships. a law that allow temporary relationships but limits the partners and can prevent aids and sexual diseases and then there would be no children without known father and .....
this law is called temporary marriage in Islam. I think west needs that far more than muslims

Thanks for the explanation, I do appreciate it.

Do you think these men will stop to ask the woman if she is married, or has been?

Originally posted by artnut
Thanks for the explanation, I do appreciate it.

you're welcome.

Originally posted by artnut
Do you think these men will stop to ask the woman if she is married, or has been?

oh, they would not even stop to identify me before beheading me as an apostate infidel

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by artnut
Thanks for the explanation, I do appreciate it.

you're welcome.

Originally posted by artnut
Do you think these men will stop to ask the woman if she is married, or has been?

oh, they would not even stop to identify me before beheading me as an apostate infidel

A sense of humor, I like it!

What is your viewpoint on this?

reply to post by FlySolo

You sure are being evasive. If it's not the norm, then what's the point? Admit it. You're pigeonholed in a corner with this You can't have any debate on the subject if you admit the fatwa is there for those to interpret it as rape. Which is exactly what mindless nasty zombies will do with it and you know it. What is even more astounding is you are clever enough to realize this but yet stand by your convictions that the subtlety of the fatwa should not be interpreted as anything other than a literal sense.

I'm not pigeonholed... I have stated my views on this clearly.
You are all taking this fundamentalists "fatwa" wayyy too seriously...as if it were a decree for all muslims to follow. Its NOT. Just because he issued a "fatwa" doesn't mean it would automatically come true. Syrian women DON'T need to start complying with this fatwa.

Only someone with a serious bias would think Syrian fathers would hand their daughters over to militiamen for a "short lived" marriages.

It's approval of rape to those who wish to interpret it as such. It comes after the horrible gang rape that happened in India (where you're from) and its only purpose is to create a loop hole permitting acts of such violence. It's sick and you know it. It's wrong and you know that as well.

Since you think its "approval of rape"... are you telling me you actually believe some Saudi nutbag is issuing fatwas allowing Muslims to rape Muslim women, through "loopholes"?
Yes or no?

That's how ridiculous it sounds.

reply to post by artnut

I also got the impression that the fatwa was for the sexual pleasure of men, and nothing else. I am just asking for an opinion, based on the teachings of the faith of Islam, as to what a Muslim woman could possibly gain from this fatwa, I think you have an opinion, but won't share.

Read my reply to flysolo.

Also, yes. The fatwa was for the "sexual pleasures of men".
But it does not automatically mean that Syrian women are to start complying with this fatwa. They DON'T. They still have the right to make their choices.

See, every religion has nutcases talking nonsense. But for some strange reason only Islam gets scrutinized and it becomes a free for all to bash Islam. I guess, thats one way to collect stars and flags. Pathetic.

reply to post by maes2


All good points.

The problem I believe is that there has been a lack of understanding on as to what a 'fatwa' really is.
The common perception here seems to be that it is a decree set in stones for all muslims to comply with. Some have foolishly taught it means that Syrian fathers will randomly hire their daughters out to militants. Ridiculous.

Some believe that this preacher is basically allowing muslims to rape muslim women in a war. Makes zero sense.

is not it better that a law exists for such relationships. a law that allow temporary relationships but limits the partners and can prevent aids and sexual diseases and then there would be no children without known father and ..... this law is called temporary marriage in Islam. I think west needs that far more than muslims

Whats puzzling is that the west is generally absolutely ok with random flings and one night stands. Yet, they believe a "short lived marriage" is barbaric. I have no idea what to make of it. I think its a cultural difference or maybe, its just the old "mooslims = bad" mentality at work.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

See, every religion has nutcases talking nonsense. But for some strange reason only Islam gets scrutinized and it becomes a free for all to bash Islam. I guess, thats one way to collect stars and flags. Pathetic

I will say I was defending Islam during the subway advertisement fiasco in those threads a while back. I don't believe all negative propaganda and I won't jump on that bandwagon for the record. Just so you know.

And please, forgive my western ignorance regarding fatwas. Once I used one for a rebuttal in defense regarding nuclear weapons against USA in another thread that was on an Islam rant. I considered it worthy enough to hold integrity in my argument. Hence, my concern about this particular fatwa. If what you're saying is true, then in retrospect, my previous argument about nukes is worthless.

Whats puzzling is that the west is generally absolutely ok with random flings and one night stands. Yet, they believe a "short lived marriage" is barbaric. I have no idea what to make of it. I think its a cultural difference or maybe, its just the old "mooslims = bad" mentality at work.

Good point from your perspective. However, you have to keep in mind from our perspective. We believe fatwas are enforced. If they are not, then it's a completely different ball game. The short-lived marriage itself would not be barbaric either if women were ok with it. That's all. As long as everyone is on the up'n up. Slang for Kosher.