Just your average day of "peaceful Islam"...

[Uncensored2008]

I think they're trying to say children who give birth .But I dont know how a child can get pregnant

That's because you're a Muslim and so much of Islam prohibits females from gaining an education.

 

[Sunni Man]

The divorce rate in America is over 50% and adultery is rampant and almost considered normal.

Whereas in Islam the rate of divorce is very low and adultery is a serious issue. ..

Yeah, adultery is serious. If you get caught cheating on one of your wives, you'll have to stone her to death....

In some countries that is the law........

 

[Roudy]

I really don't see any use in discussing the facts and evils of Shariah law, when it's difficult to even convince them that polygamy is wrong, and WHY it's wrong. That's like a non starter. LOL

 

[Roudy]

The divorce rate in America is over 50% and adultery is rampant and almost considered normal.

Whereas in Islam the rate of divorce is very low and adultery is a serious issue. ..

Yeah, adultery is serious. If you get caught cheating on one of your wives, you'll have to stone her to death....

In some countries that is the law........

And you'd like to see some form of that Shariah law implemented here in the US. To stop those American whores from seducing men, right? Perhaps while were at it, let's hang u some gays too. What do you think? It the Islamic thing to do. LOL

 

[Hollie]

Having more than 1 wife in Islam isn't about having more sex.

It's about helping widows and other unmarried women during difficult times.

And creating stability within the muslim community. ..

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, and having slaves is about keeping the poor fed and housed....

Funny thing is polygamists are the most notorious a abusers of women, often marrying adolescents. But hey, they are "consenting" aren't they?

This thread just demonstrates how insane you have to be, and the outrageous behavior you have to justify, to be an Islam defender. I truly feel sorry for them.

That's curious. Wasn't a 7th century Arab warlord and the inventor of a politico-religious ideology described as a child boinker?

 

[Coyote]

What's wrong with polygamy? Ha ha ha. Now you are trying to justify polygamy as a way of life. Have you totally flipped your lid? You actually want to now engage in defending polygamy?

No Roudy. Calm down and read.

What is actually wrong with polygamy (or polyandry)? Seriously. I could give a hoot what consenting adults want in the way of marriage. Why should you?

I'm not "justifying" anything. You keep insisting that asking questions or confirming an historical or irrational basis for something is "justifying" - it's not. Try to focus on the actual words, not your desperate interpretations.

If there wasn't anything wrong with it, it wouldn't have been made illegal a long time ago. Stop asking stupid questions.

It was made iillegal because of that era's puritan Christian culture that determined marriage was one man and one woman. It had NOTHING to do with women's rights or well being - in fact women were still regarded as possessions, not allowed to vote and subject to forceable measures if they weren't biddable.

I noticed that Islam defenders do a good job of "acting" like they are for women's rights. But in reality they are actually promoting the exact opposite.

I notice bigots do a good job pretending they are concerned about women when it's really just all about promoting their bigotry.

You should be ashamed of yourself for even asking that question. Especially as a woman. "What's wrong with polygamy". Yes, you've officially gone over the cliff, mentally.

I should? Really now?

Why should it matter to you what the marriage arrangements are between consenting adults who can choose for themselves what they want? Seriously? It's a matter of individual rights and choices unless coercion occurs and forced marriages are illegal no matter how many husbands and wives there are. We're talking modern societies and free choice here. What business is it of yours or mine?

 

[Coyote]

Having more than 1 wife in Islam isn't about having more sex.

It's about helping widows and other unmarried women during difficult times.

And creating stability within the muslim community. ..

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, and having slaves is about keeping the poor fed and housed....

Funny thing is polygamists are the most notorious a abusers of women, often marrying adolescents. But hey, they are "consenting" aren't they?

Underaged marriages are illegal - and occur in both plural and single marriages.

Forced marriages are illegal - and occur in both plural and single marriages.

Both of the above mean that they are not consenting.

Drop the strawman - no one is making a case on behalf of forced or underage marriage.

This thread just demonstrates how insane you have to be, and the outrageous behavior you have to justify, to be an Islam defender. I truly feel sorry for them.

No, it's just goes to show that you can't argue something rationally and address the actual points..

I could care less what kind of marriage consenting adults choose as long as no one is abused, forced or underage.

 

[Coyote]

I really don't see any use in discussing the facts and evils of Shariah law, when it's difficult to even convince them that polygamy is wrong, and WHY it's wrong. That's like a non starter. LOL

So address the points made Roudy - that would be a novel idea eh?

Every point you make applies to single marriages.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, adultery is serious. If you get caught cheating on one of your wives, you'll have to stone her to death....

In some countries that is the law........

And you'd like to see some form of that Shariah law implemented here in the US. To stop those American whores from seducing men, right? Perhaps while were at it, let's hang u some gays too. What do you think? It the Islamic thing to do. LOL

Biblical law insists they be stoned not hung. Since you support Biblical Law you should know that

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was made iillegal because of that era's puritan Christian culture that determined marriage was one man and one woman. It had NOTHING to do with women's rights or well being - in fact women were still regarded as possessions, not allowed to vote and subject to forceable measures if they weren't biddable.

Ah, now you're just lying.

Oh wait, you're a Muslim - you lie as a matter of course.

Of course what you claim has no relation at all with reality. Women were most assuredly not possessions. Unlike with you Muslims, a Puritan man had no right to murder his wife and would swing from a rope if he did. He could not sell or lend her for the pleasure of other men - another lovely tradition of Muslims.

And you're lying about voting as well. Abigail Adams is famous for the fact that she did indeed vote. What you're lying about is the structure of the nation. The absurd concept of "one man, one vote" had not corrupted the system of the time. PROPERTY owners voted their interest and stake in society. The HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD voted the interest of that household. Generally this was the "man of the house," but when a husband died, the wife assumed the responsibility, as Abigail did when John Adams died.

I notice bigots do a good job pretending they are concerned about women when it's really just all about promoting their bigotry.

So, opposing an ideology is "bigotry?" Those who oppose Nazism are "bigots."

I should? Really now?

Why should it matter to you what the marriage arrangements are between consenting adults who can choose for themselves what they want? Seriously? It's a matter of individual rights and choices unless coercion occurs and forced marriages are illegal no matter how many husbands and wives there are. We're talking modern societies and free choice here. What business is it of yours or mine?

Do you hold the same for Mormons, or should the infidels be denied that which is mean only for you Muslims?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Underaged marriages are illegal - and occur in both plural and single marriages.

Really?

You going to arrest the Warlord Muhammad? (MHBIH)

Forced marriages are illegal - and occur in both plural and single marriages.

Both of the above mean that they are not consenting.

Drop the strawman - no one is making a case on behalf of forced or underage marriage.

BWAHAHAHA

The lies you tell.

 

[Coyote]

Underaged marriages are illegal - and occur in both plural and single marriages.

Really?

You going to arrest the Warlord Muhammad? (MHBIH)

Is he an American citizen?

Oh wait....I think 1300 years might exceed any statute of limitions.

Forced marriages are illegal - and occur in both plural and single marriages.

Both of the above mean that they are not consenting.

Drop the strawman - no one is making a case on behalf of forced or underage marriage.

BWAHAHAHA

The lies you tell.

Are you suggesting forced marriages are legal in the US?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is he an American citizen?

What does that have to do with his claim?

Oh wait....I think 1300 years might exceed any statute of limitions.

What statute of limitations do you support on child molesting?

Are you suggesting forced marriages are legal in the US?

Are you suggesting that the USA is already under Islamic rule?

 

[Coyote]

It was made iillegal because of that era's puritan Christian culture that determined marriage was one man and one woman. It had NOTHING to do with women's rights or well being - in fact women were still regarded as possessions, not allowed to vote and subject to forceable measures if they weren't biddable.

Ah, now you're just lying.

Oh wait, you're a Muslim - you lie as a matter of course.

Of course what you claim has no relation at all with reality. Women were most assuredly not possessions. Unlike with you Muslims, a Puritan man had no right to murder his wife and would swing from a rope if he did. He could not sell or lend her for the pleasure of other men - another lovely tradition of Muslims.

You have me seriously concerned here Uncensored. Not only do you not read your own sources but you don't seem to have a clue about history -especially women's history.

We're talking about treating women as possessions yes?

Did you know that any male relative could have a woman confined to a mental institution for any reason? Adultry was a capital offense (for the woman). Married women could not own land or sign legal contracts.

And you're lying about voting as well. Abigail Adams is famous for the fact that she did indeed vote.

While early America allowed some women the right to vote in some districts - by 1807 all women were taken off the voters' roll and universally male suffrage was instated.

Who's lying here?

What you're lying about is the structure of the nation. The absurd concept of "one man, one vote" had not corrupted the system of the time. PROPERTY owners voted their interest and stake in society. The HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD voted the interest of that household. Generally this was the "man of the house," but when a husband died, the wife assumed the responsibility, as Abigail did when John Adams died.

See above. Single women were denied the vote as well as married women.

I notice bigots do a good job pretending they are concerned about women when it's really just all about promoting their bigotry.

So, opposing an ideology is "bigotry?" Those who oppose Nazism are "bigots."

Nope. Bigotry is bigotry. Look up the definition if you are unsure.

I should? Really now?

Why should it matter to you what the marriage arrangements are between consenting adults who can choose for themselves what they want? Seriously? It's a matter of individual rights and choices unless coercion occurs and forced marriages are illegal no matter how many husbands and wives there are. We're talking modern societies and free choice here. What business is it of yours or mine?

Do you hold the same for Mormons, or should the infidels be denied that which is mean only for you Muslims?

Everyone. Equally. I thought that was pretty clear. It's not my business how free and consenting adults arrange their marriages in this country. Funny thing is - I always assumed you to be a libertarian

 

[Coyote]

Is he an American citizen?

What does that have to do with his claim?

If we're talking about law, then presumably we're talking about American law. It's kind of retarded to try and apply modern law to a figure from a culture that existed 1300 years ago.

Oh wait....I think 1300 years might exceed any statute of limitions.

What statute of limitations do you support on child molesting?

You can't apply modern law to cultures that existed thousands of years ago. You realize, don't you, what a can of worms you are opening that is not just aimed at Islamic cultures?

Are you suggesting forced marriages are legal in the US?

Are you suggesting that the USA is already under Islamic rule?

Answer the question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have me seriously concerned here Uncensored. Not only do you not read your own sources but you don't seem to have a clue about history -especially women's history.

I know history well enough, the problem here is that you are just flat out lying.

We're talking about treating women as possessions yes?

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion.

Were women possessions? You made the claim, bring forth the citations of law?

No? You can't produce anything? Of course you can't - you are directly lying.

Did you know that any male relative could have a woman confined to a mental institution for any reason? Adultry was a capital offense (for the woman). Married women could not own land or sign legal contracts.

I didn't "know" these things because they simply are not true. Having someone committed was far easier, but gender was irrelevant. Plenty of men were put in asylums. And no, adultery was not a capital offense; you can provide not a single execution of woman in United States history for adultery.

SINCE you cannot defend your barbaric faith - you have been reduced to openly fabricating tales of other societies in a vain attempt to distract from the perversion that is Islam.

While early America allowed some women the right to vote in some districts - by 1807 all women were taken off the voters' roll and universally male suffrage was instated.

Who's lying here?

You are, as your own source states. There was action to repeal women voting - with the "one man one vote" idiocy. Notice also that Western States let women vote from the start,

See above. Single women were denied the vote as well as married women.



Nope. Bigotry is bigotry. Look up the definition if you are unsure.

Do you support Nazism?

If not, you're a bigot.

Everyone. Equally. I thought that was pretty clear. It's not my business how free and consenting adults arrange their marriages in this country. Funny thing is - I always assumed you to be a libertarian

Now see what you did there, you assigned a position I said nothing about to me. What is my position on polygamy? You have no idea - since I've said nothing.

 

[Coyote]

You have me seriously concerned here Uncensored. Not only do you not read your own sources but you don't seem to have a clue about history -especially women's history.

I know history well enough, the problem here is that you are just flat out lying.

I supported my points with facts

We're talking about treating women as possessions yes?

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion.

Were women possessions? You made the claim, bring forth the citations of law?

No? You can't produce anything? Of course you can't - you are directly lying.

Well, if you truly want to play games with semantics let's look at this, yeah?

Over gist of this small bit of thread is whether or not marriages encourage the persecution (Roudy's words) of and treatment of women as possessions.

My claim - our own history, and the culture that decided marriage was 1m/1f has an unsavory history in it's treatment of women. Correct?

Lets move to the next point: my statement. "We're talking about treating women as possessions"

Treating women as possessions.

That is not saying they WERE possessions. Big semantical difference. This is what happens when your reading comprehension isn't up to par.

No where have I made the claim they "were" possessions.

However - were they treated as possessions? In many cases, yes. Were they persecuted and treated unequally? Yes.

I didn't "know" these things because they simply are not true. Having someone committed was far easier, but gender was irrelevant. Plenty of men were put in asylums. And no, adultery was not a capital offense; you can provide not a single execution of woman in United States history for adultery.

Ever read the short story The Yellow Wall Paper and the biography of the woman who wrote it? Sure, men were forced into asylums, but not in the way and for the reason's women were. And women had no legal grounds to stand on in getting released. A father, a husband, a brother could decide that a woman was insane simply because she was unwilling to follow her cultural norms.

Laws Laws against adultery were based upon the idea that woman is a chattel (a possession) and the rationale was that to make love to a married woman is to deprive the husband of her services. The penalty was almost always harsher on the woman. Adultery carried the death penalty in the Massachussets colony.

SINCE you cannot defend your barbaric faith - you have been reduced to openly fabricating tales of other societies in a vain attempt to distract from the perversion that is Islam.

I've supported every claim I made with sources

You are, as your own source states. There was action to repeal women voting - with the "one man one vote" idiocy. Notice also that Western States let women vote from the start,

Yes. Women were denied the right to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

Do you support Nazism?

If not, you're a bigot.

Look up bigotry.

Everyone. Equally. I thought that was pretty clear. It's not my business how free and consenting adults arrange their marriages in this country. Funny thing is - I always assumed you to be a libertarian

Now see what you did there, you assigned a position I said nothing about to me. What is my position on polygamy? You have no idea - since I've said nothing.

[/QUOTE]

And yet you've assigned a religion to me and I've said nothing about my faith

 

[Hollie]

The divorce rate in America is over 50% and adultery is rampant and almost considered normal.

Whereas in Islam the rate of divorce is very low and adultery is a serious issue. ..

Yeah, adultery is serious. If you get caught cheating on one of your wives, you'll have to stone her to death....

In some countries that is the law........

In some islamist backwaters that is the law. Islam is decidedly 7th century in its treatment of women.

Convert wannabes such as you have never known the hardship, disappointment and despair that Islam imposes on women.

 

[Sunni Man]

Convert wannabes such as you have never known the hardship, disappointment and despair that Islam imposes on women.

........................................^^^

 

[Uncensored2008]

I supported my points with facts

You did? Must have been some other thread...

Well, if you truly want to play games with semantics let's look at this, yeah?

Over gist of this small bit of thread is whether or not marriages encourage the persecution (Roudy's words) of and treatment of women as possessions.

My claim - our own history, and the culture that decided marriage was 1m/1f has an unsavory history in it's treatment of women. Correct?

Roudy can support his own alleged contentions. I however, will again point out that neither the law, nor societal standards held women as property. You have created a straw man argument.

Lets move to the next point: my statement. "We're talking about treating women as possessions"

Treating women as possessions.

That is not saying they WERE possessions. Big semantical difference. This is what happens when your reading comprehension isn't up to par.

No where have I made the claim they "were" possessions.

However - were they treated as possessions? In many cases, yes. Were they persecuted and treated unequally? Yes.

So your claim was an absurd fabrication, and the best you can do to support it is talk about your feelings regarding time and culture you have zero grasp of.

Bravo.

Ever read the short story The Yellow Wall Paper and the biography of the woman who wrote it? Sure, men were forced into asylums, but not in the way and for the reason's women were. And women had no legal grounds to stand on in getting released.

Utter bullshit. Men were just as easily confined in the cities.

A father, a husband, a brother could decide that a woman was insane simply because she was unwilling to follow her cultural norms.

A father, a wife, a sister could decide that a man was insane simply because he displayed feminine mannerisms.

Gee, this is easy. I can see why you like being a leftist - it's a lot easier than dealing with facts and reality.

Laws Laws against adultery were based upon the idea that woman is a chattel (a possession) and the rationale was that to make love to a married woman is to deprive the husband of her services.

Yeah, bullshit - a complete fabrication based on your bigotry, rather than on fact, evidence, or reality.

The penalty was almost always harsher on the woman. Adultery carried the death penalty in the Massachussets colony.

So, you could not support your claim - can't find even one instance of capital punishment in the United States. You have to go WAY back to the English colonies, and then you burst the lie you just told about women facing a harsher penalty, by pulling up the only known case of execution for adultery, and both the man and woman were hung...

ROFL

You're not very good at this.

I've supported every claim I made with sources

ROFL

And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

Yes. Women were denied the right to vote. Is that so hard to understand?

You fail to grasp the point - when the nation was founded, votes were based on property rights. It was the introduction of the "one man, one vote" idiocy that removed the right from women.

Look up bigotry.

It says "Coyote."

And yet you've assigned a religion to me and I've said nothing about my faith

I didn't assign your religion, you chose it.