He doesn't accept any of the overwhelming data and stats, says they're not credible for xyz reasons then pivots to "well the host nation's people probably rape more and get away with it because it's not reported as much".
Drew, these poor innocent muzlims are victims of bigoted racist reporting and data collecting and whites do it more and it's not reported as much.......... Here is a link to a George Soros funded website to explain why you're wrong .. he did this on a similar thread I made when the muzies started their raping. The bigger issue is that >> THEY'RE RAPING THE WOMEN OF THE HOST NATION THAT TAKES THEM IN.
So ZERO is the acceptable amount of muzlim rapes and shut the fuck up about the host nations domestic problems you parasite. Basically.
Remember, folks: This is not their fault. British society wouldn't let them integrate. So they had no choice but to lash out at white supremacy and act like this. The new feminism is intertwined with multiculturalism at all costs. The safety of women and girls can be negotiated when it comes to foreign men. White rape is bad. Muslim/Sikh rape is acceptable. - Drew J
Huddersfield grooming: Twenty guilty of campaign of rape and abuse
Twenty men have been found guilty of being part of a grooming gang that raped and abused girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.
The men were convicted of more than 120 offences against 15 girls.
Victims were plied with drink and drugs and then "used and abused at will" in a seven-year "campaign of rape and abuse" between 2004 and 2011.
At Leeds Crown Court, the ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life with a minimum of 18 years.
Other members of the gang were jailed for between five and 18 years but the court heard many perpetrators have never been identified.
Details of the men's convictions and sentences can only now be published after reporting restrictions on a series of trials were partially lifted.
During the three trials, jurors heard how the men - who are all British Asians mainly of Pakistani heritage - preyed on young, vulnerable girls, one of whom was described as having the mental age of a seven-year-old.
The men, all from Yorkshire, went by nicknames including "Dracula" - which Nahman Mohammed was known as.
Mohammed Imran Ibrar was known as "Bully", Abdul Rehman was nicknamed "Beastie", while Nasarat Hussain was known as "Nurse".
Jailing 16 of the men earlier this year, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC said: "The way you treated these girls defies understanding; this abuse was vile and wicked.
"As cases of sexual abuse with which the courts have to deal, this case comes top of the scale."
As married father-of-two Dhaliwal was sentenced, the judge told him: "The extent and gravity of your offending far exceeds anything which I have previously encountered.
"Children's lives have been ruined and families profoundly affected by seeing their children, over months and years, out of control, having been groomed by you and other members of your gang."
In May, the former leader of the English Defence League Tommy Robinson was arrested for reporting on the case live on Facebook during the second of the trials.
He was jailed for contempt of court but his conviction was quashed because of a number of procedural errors. He faces a fresh hearing in relation to the alleged breach.
Such was the men's hold over the girls, one mother said her child cracked her head jumping from a first-floor balcony at their home in order to get out after they ordered her to meet them.
The girl later told police: "Every time I went out something bad happened. I risked my life every time. I was a mess."
Another victim, who only escaped the abuse when her family had to move following a house fire, said: "It was the best thing I ever did, and that's bad saying that burning your house down is the best thing you ever did."
Analysis
By BBC Home Editor Mark Easton
Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale, Derby, Banbury, Telford, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Halifax, Keighley, Newcastle... now Huddersfield. The list seems endless… and there will almost certainly be more.
The sexual abuse of vulnerable children in English towns by groups of men, often from immigrant communities, is an incarnation of a wider scandal that is dominating our news and overwhelming our police and our courts.
It is a crime that until recently was rarely discussed in public. Child sexual abuse was often ignored or covered up: the protection of institutional reputation or community cohesion put before the protection of children.
The grooming gangs of provincial England tend to operate where the disinfectant of public scrutiny struggles to reach - poorer neighbourhoods on the edge of town, around the mini-cab ranks and fast food joints, the twilight zones of urban life.
Child abuse thrives in such dark corners, where people look the other way, not asking questions or following concerns because the subject matter is uncomfortable and scrutiny is potentially damaging. But when we look, we find.
During the trials, the court heard girls would be driven up to remote moorland late at night and abandoned if they refused the men's sexual demands.
A sheep farmer told the BBC how he found distressed girls on the doorstep of his isolated home on a number of occasions.
One victim said her relationship with some of the gang became "one of those things that you couldn't get out of".
At house parties, girls would be plied with alcohol and drugs before being sexually abused "one by one" by the men, sometimes without contraception.
The court heard they were abused in cars, car parks, houses, a snooker centre and a takeaway, often with other defendants and fellow victims watching on.
Victims and their families said they repeatedly told West Yorkshire Police what was happening but no arrests were made until years later.
Speaking outside court, Det Ch Insp Ian Mottershaw, from the force, said: "The investigation into this case has been extremely complex and the investigative team have worked tirelessly for the past five years to ensure that no stone has been left unturned.
"We welcome the convictions and sentences which have been passed down throughout the year to these depraved individuals, who subjected vulnerable young children to unthinkable sexual and physical abuse."
Barry Sheerman, Labour MP for Huddersfield, said: "Let's be honest: no-one, local authority leadership, police, many of the people that should have been taking this more seriously earlier did not.
"But also, what happened in Rotherham and the publicity of Rotherham galvanised the action."
Steve Walker, director of children's services at Kirklees Council, said it had asked independent expert Dr Mark Peel to undertake a review of "these non-recent cases to identify whether there are any lessons we can learn".
"These crimes took place a number of years ago at a time when, as we know from cases in other towns and cities, the issue of CSE was not well understood," he added.
The convicted men:
Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, of Holly Road, Huddersfield, guilty of 54 counts, including 22 counts of rape, sentenced to life with a minimum term of 18 years
Irfan Ahmed, 34, of Yews Hill Road, Huddersfield, guilty of one count of sexual assault and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to eight years
Zahid Hassan, 29, of Bland Street Huddersfield, guilty of six counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, one count of sexual assault, one count of trafficking for sexual exploitation, two counts of child abduction, two counts of supplying class A drugs sentenced to 18 years
Mohammed Kammer, 34, of West View, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape, sentenced to 16 years
Mohammed Rizwan Aslam, 31, of Huddersfield Road, Dewsbury, guilty of two counts of rape, sentenced to 15 years
Abdul Rehman, 31, of Darnely Drive, Sheffield, guilty of supplying a class C drug, one count of rape, one count of assault and one count of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to 16 years
Raj Singh Barsran, 34, of Caldercliffe Road, Huddersfield, guilty of rape and two counts of sexual assault, sentenced to 17 years
Nahman Mohammed, 32, of West View, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape and one count of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to 15 years
Mansoor Akhtar, 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to eight years
Wiqas Mahmud, 38, of Banks Crescent, Huddersfield, guilty of three counts of rape, sentenced to 15 years
Nasarat Hussain, 30, of Upper Mount Street, Huddersfield, guilty of three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, sentenced to 17 years
Sajid Hussain, of 33, of Grasmere Road, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape, sentenced to 17 years
Mohammed Irfraz, 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, guilty of child abduction and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to six years
Faisal Nadeem, 32, of Carr Green, Huddersfield, guilty of rape and supplying class A drugs, sentenced to 12 years
Mohammed Azeem, 33, of Wrose Road, Bradford, guilty of five counts of rape, sentenced to 18 years
Manzoor Hassan, 38, of Bland Street, Huddersfield, guilty of administering a noxious substance, inciting child prostitution and supplying a class A drug, sentenced to five years
Mohammed Akram, 33, of Springdale Street, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation and awaiting sentencing
Niaz Ahmed, 54, of Woodthorpe Terrace, Huddersfield, guilty of sexual assault and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and awaiting sentencing
Asif Bashir, 33, of Thornton Lodge Road, Huddersfield, guilty of, rape and attempted rape and awaiting sentencing
Mohammed Imran Ibrar, 34, of Manchester Road, Huddersfield, guilty of trafficking for sexual exploitation and assault and awaiting sentencing
Actually, it just means that there is too much unemployment.
Yep. And it's the immigrants largely that are causing this problem because very little have marketable language skills and job skills. Liberals will destroy economies and socialist systems just to prove they're "not racist." But by ignoring economics and science and only looking at skin colour, THEY are the real race baiters.
Actually, the unemployment rate among immigrants is because the government doesn’t let them work, which inevitably leaves them disenfranchised and isolated. Language skills and job skills are 2-way streets that require efforts going both ways. Disenfranchisement and isolationism are roadblocks preventing both from being achieved. That is how actual integration works. Sweden already has 5 officially-recognized minority languages, so it wouldn’t hurt to have 1 or 2 more, at least in those areas.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmAnd what did I just prove about the majority of immigrants sucking off the welfare tit and contributing nothing back?
Austrian Interior Minister: 90 Percent Of Migrants On Welfare, System Is “Overwhelmed”
by IWB · September 27, 2017 http://investmentwatchblog.com/austrian ... erwhelmed/
1 in 7 Germans 32 & Younger Are Muslim—80% Are On Welfare http://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.c ... migration/
The number of migrants claiming German welfare benefits soared by 169 percent last year...Around 975,000 migrants were receiving benefits in accordance with the Act on Benefits for Asylum Seekers at the end of 2015, the Federal Statistics Office said. That marked the sixth consecutive yearly rise and compared with 363,000 in 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-number ... ent-2016-9
Asylum seekers in Germany received nearly €5.3 billion ($5.91 billion) in welfare benefits last year, more than double the cost in 2014, statistics showed Monday, highlighting the scale of the country's refugee challenge. Some 957,000 asylum seekers received benefits last year, more than double the number in 2014, the Federal Statistics Office said. In total, Germany paid asylum seekers €5.27 billion in support... https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-w ... 1473077920
Which cities have the most crime in Germany? The ones with the most immigrants. https://www.infowars.com/the-future-of- ... ost-crime/
So basically, Germany thinks that throwing a little bit of money at asylum seekers is sufficient enough for them, without actually enfranchising and integrating them into its economy, while leaving them to accumulate in poverty-ridden enclaves where crime is the only outlet. It sounds like Germany is responsible for its own MISMANAGEMENT of the situation.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmAs I said, you are splitting hairs and playing language games. The truth is the truth.
The truth is indeed the truth. You run and hide from it, while I accept it. If there is any “splitting hairs” it’s how you choose to differentiate between criminals who commit the same crimes based on what pile of dirt they were born on top of. At the end of the day, they’re all the same. Rapists, rape victims and their motives for not reporting it most of the time all fall into the same paradigms. The stats show no variation in that regard.
Reported rape stats showing large numbers of bogeyman rapes are not sufficient evidence against the fact that most rapes are committed by a perpetrator who the victim already knows.
Sweden doesn’t even let refugees seek work to begin with unless they know the language first.
THEN MAYBE NGO BOATS SHOULDN'T BE RAMMING MORE IMMIGRANTS INTO EUROPE WHEREBY THEY WILL BEING A TREK TO A COUNTRY THAT CAN'T EVEN EMPLOY THEM.
Sweden can also enfranchise them and integrate them into its economy, so they can actually contribute to it, rather than encouraging them to settle with welfare in poverty-ridden enclaves.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmDue to the high rate of Muslim rapes, we have to not only think of the children, but also think of the economy.
The “high rate of Muslim rapes” is an exaggeration of the reality, based entirely on reported rape stats, which, alone, are not enough to assess the reality of the situation, while completely ignoring the unreported rapes, when there are an estimated 5x as many of them. The fact that a rapist may also happen to be a Muslim is inconsequential to being one, because both are unrelated to each other. Out of all the commonalities they can be collectively identified with, their nominal Muslim identity is easily the least relevant among them. By all means, “think of the children” and “the economy”, just without conflating them with issues that have nothing to do with either of them, like rape.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmI'm not dealing with the rest of your crap since you can't even have a successful first premise that pretends there is no strain on the economy.
This is another convenient cop-out, given that I don’t agree with your economic arguments, and you have no sensible counter-arguments for mine.
nuances are important, because they have an impact on any solutions that are proposed.
Anything to dodge the evidence I linked up of them sucking the welfare system dry and contributing nothing back. No surprise. You're on team Islam. You should be on team economy.
This has nothing to do with Islam or which team you want to cheerlead for – this has to do with reality. If the welfare system is the only option available to them, then it is inevitable that it is the only one that is going to be opted for. Therefore, saying that immigrants are non-contributing welfare-recipients is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If immigrants are enfranchised, allowing them to work, accumulate wealth and contribute to the economy, then it’s, “they stole our jobs”.
If immigrants are disenfranchised, preventing them from working, accumulating wealth and contributing to the economy, leaving them with nothing but government handouts, then it’s, “they’re a drain on the economy”.
While in both cases, they are seen as “eroding our culture” (whatever “culture” means). So ultimately, if immigrants do anything besides leave, then they’re seen as causing some problem. At which point, the problem clearly isn’t with the immigrants; it’s with the government and with nationalists.
THE UNCERTAINTY ITSELF is the phenomenon that Drew is looking for. UNREPORTED MEANS “UNREPORTED” = NO HARD DATA TO PROVE/DISPROVE ANYTHING. The only way anyone can get a glimpse of what those stats of the UNREPORTED cases MIGHT look like is through surveys, which can give different results depending on who takes them, and which were already summarized earlier:
IMOM just admitted he is uncertain which of the two following criteria is true that LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from his belief that the majority of rapes go unreported.
Roughly translated, the overall population of European women are getting raped by white men at a percentage of population rate equal or greater. Which can LOGICALLY MEAN ONLY TWO POSSIBLE THINGS:
1. White women are not reporting white rape for whatever reason
or
2. police are covering up white rape that is equal in proportion to Muslims raping white women.
This is what the rules of logic and language dictates. What does he do when confronted with facts? Complain that I pointed out that he has to make a choice.
However (1) does not factor in the potential relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, conflating rape by knowns with rape by unknowns, implying that the only difference is in race/ethnicity in regards to the likelihood of being reported or not, while (2) is inconsistent with Sweden’s transparency of police reporting and methodology. Also, the falsehood that rape is only being perpetrated against white, Swedish women in Sweden is still being promoted.
Then we have:
3. Women in Sweden (white and non-white) are not reporting rape committed by knowns (white and non-white).
4. Women in Sweden are over-reporting rape by non-white, non-Swedish men.
Drew wants to restrict the possibility to just 1 of 2 options, when in fact there are 4 options, where a combination of any of them is also a possibility.
It is Drew, however, making the assertion the most of the rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by Middle Eastern men of the Muslim variety against white Swedish women.
This leaves us with an option 0, which Drew has avoided directly endorsing, but which has to be his premise for this argument to be true, preceding the 2 alternatives he has suggested:
0 – The reported rape stats accurately reflect the proportions of unreported rape, where white Swedish women allegedly constitute the majority of the victims.
Of these 5 options, the only one that is provable is (4), by simply contrasting the reported rapes with how many of them result in actual convictions vs. how many of them are dismissed. The rest of the options (including Drew’s 0 option) are based on probability:
Probability - the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
All 5 of these options are certainly possibilities, but the probability varies between them.
While Drew’s (0) option is certainly a possibility, it fails to address WHY an estimated 5x as many rapes go unreported in Sweden in the first place. Drew wishes to dismiss this as inconsequential to his assertions. However, the 80% undefined variability is very much consequential to them. Also, given that the number of rapes in Sweden has remained relatively the same since 2005, before the European refugee crisis of the 2010s and the large influx of Muslim refugees, the thesis of immigrants coming in and raping Swedish women and creating an unsafe environment for them is unsupportable.
Given the proven presence of racism and xenophobia in Sweden, Drew’s suggested (1) option is also a possibility, and at least offers some kind of explanation for why most rape goes unreported in Sweden in the first place. The problem, however, is the lack of evidence that white, Swedish women, even racist/xenophobic ones, are less likely to report rape when done by a native, than done by a foreigner. There’s also no evidence that all of the rape victims are white, Swedish women to begin with, since no stats have been provided about the victims. Therefore, there may very well be cases of foreigner on foreigner rape in those stats.
Drew’s other suggested (2) option is a possibility as well. However, given the transparency in Sweden’s record keeping, it seems somewhat improbable, although still a possibility.
The (3) option is also a possibility, especially given the fact that the vast majority of rape in virtually every continent in the world (including Europe) is perpetrated by knowns, and that fact is indeed one of the many reasons why rape goes unreported in the first place in them. Therefore, (3) is highly probable. Also, given the socio-economic isolation of non-white, non-Swedes in Sweden, they are unlikely to number too highly among the knowns of white, Swedish women. The only variable, is the rape of non-white, non-Swedish women, and how much of those factor into the stats.
Drew wants to dismiss the (3) option because it isn’t Sweden-specific enough, despite the fact that the only thing differentiating Sweden’s rape from the rest of Europe’s and the world’s is how broad its definition has become, which now includes groping, as well as how much more willing Swedish women are to report it. This means that the unreported rapes in other countries is actually higher than 80%.
The (4) option is the opposite of the (1) option, where white, Swedish women, rather than underreporting rape by white, Swedish men (known and unknown), are over-reporting rape by non-white, non-Swedish men (known and unknown). It too is a possibility, and more of a probability than (1), given how much more Swedish women are willing to report rape. By definition, this implies that rape by non-white, non-Swedes would have disproportionately lower numbers among the unreported rapes. The problem, again, just like with (1) is a lack of available evidence. While more than 50% of rape convictions are of non-Europeans, most of the reported rapes didn’t make it to trial, for which no stats are available for and no explanation given for why. If they are over-reporting, then it only stands to reason that there would be less convictions than reports/accusations. However, the % of convictions of non-European rapists should also not be over-represented, which they are. Therefore, (4) is improbable.
Hence, of all of these options, (3) is the most probable.
It is odd though, that inebriated men are regarded as more sexually accountable than inebriated women.
His response to the prospect of the unreported rapes being different than the reported rapes, is that white Swedish women are somehow not reporting rapes by white Swedish men.
That is one of the possible implications YOU HAVE TO LIVE with when you use LANGUAGE AND LOGIC to say that the stats that DO show Muslim disproportionate rapes are not telling the whole picture. So fill it in for us like you are pretending you can or STFU.
But it assumes that most, if not all, of the rape victims in Sweden are white, Swedish women, who all choose to report rape less on the basis of race/nationality rather than familiarity, and fails to account for immigrant on immigrant rapes.
Option (3), as already stated, is the most probable.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmHe continues...
However, on the flipside, that is just as logical and rational as concluding from his assertion - where non-white, non-Swedish men commit rape at a disproportionate rate to their population size - that white Swedish women are overly-eager to report the slightest infractions (real or perceived) against them as “rape” when committed by non-white, non-Swedish men,
Good boy. That is the second choice I gave you considering the choice of words you used. Now that you understand you ONLY HAVE TWO CHOICES to make, what do you do?
Actually, that is the fifth option available, and it is improbable due to non-Europeans also being the majority of convicted rapists.
Apparently he thinks these notions are absurd. No, they logically flow because there has to be an EXPLANATION about the non reported stats. IMOM brings them up because he wants to insinuate that the stats showing Muslims rape disproportionately don't represent actual reality. THAT is why he brings up non reported ones. Well then given that he OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES that whites are raping more, he has to explain why it's not getting reported. So far I found TWO OPTIONS. He must give a third, or pick one of the first do. HE HAS REFUSED FOR TWO PAGES! He knows he has no evidence that whites are in actuality raping more in proportion to their population. He just wants us to believe him because I'm a racist. LOL.
In reality, I have already picked a third option, which is actually the most probable of the 5, which includes yours.
unless Drew has any stats showing large numbers of non-white, non-Swedish men among the friends, family members, acquaintances, lovers or exes of white Swedish women, his argument - that non-white, non-Swedish men rape white Swedish women at a disproportionate rate – is an exaggeration of reality that has no merit.
Sorry, but it's what the stats show. Unless you can prove the cops are lying and fudging stats because they are racist. You're the one who lacks evidence you so badly wants your position that whites actually rape more to be the default. The fact that you brought up unreported rapes MEANS YOU ADMIT THAT MUSLIMS ARE DOING MORE RAPING IN TERMS OF WHAT IS BEING REPORTED. Otherwise, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT UP NON REPORTED RAPES. So that refutes your bullshit globe and mail article.
It is in fact you who lacks evidence, as you have not provided any stats on the unreported rapes to show that they are the same as the reported rapes, and no explanation for why they are unreported in the first place. The Globe and Mail article doesn’t address the unreported rapes either. I only referenced it because it puts your reported rape stats into its proper perspective, thus debunking your conclusions about them.
Accepting the stats doesn’t translate into accepting your conclusions about them.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmIMOM and the GLOBE AND MAIL are in the same ranks as saying that all the police and crime stat collectors are lying or missing a big part of the picture. The Norway police are lying. Got it!
In fact, it is the ‘Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention’ that says that the majority of rape goes unreported in Sweden… just like it does virtually everywhere else in the world, and just like virtually everywhere else in the world, familiarity is a highly probable reason for not reporting it. Drew demands proof regarding the unreported rapes, yet he provides none of his own. To assert that the unreported rapes have the same percentages as the reported rapes requires just as much (if not more) proof as asserting that they do not. Those who choose to report rape and those who choose to not report rape are 2 different population groups, so the stats from one do not necessarily reflect the stats of the other.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmWhen STATISTICAL EVIDENCE shows the following:
1. Muslims are a strain on the economy and social welfare programs
2. Muslims are a strain on female safety in proportion to their population,
he demand we look at nuances (blames poverty instead of personal responsibility because not all poor people rape, and rich people commit rape too), and ignore the evidence of Muslim disproportionate rape saying well it may not be true overall, but he really has no evidence. LOL.
The burden of proof is on Drew for making an assertion about Muslim crime in Sweden, not on anyone else for denying it. He has yet to present proof that the stats of reported rape reflect the unreported rape. He has also failed to provide proof that Muslim crime in Sweden has to do with anything else besides class. Pointing out that the same crime is committed those in a different class, while others in the same class don’t, isn’t proof. The proof is in the proportions, not in the fact that it occurs.
Do rich people rape? They certainly do, but at what rate compared to people in a lower class? Not nearly as much.
Are there poor people who don’t commit crimes? Certainly. There are Muslims in Sweden who don’t commit crimes as well, despite being poor, isolated and disenfranchised. But what is the rate that they commit crimes compared to others? Higher.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pmHe has been philosophically throwing in the towel for the last two pages on these issues and he still pretends he is not. You can have the last word on this bullshit. The few readers that are in this topic will see your trickery and lies. Don't worry, I'm still working on a piece to expose your clit chopping religion and all of your bullshit apologetics, "Oh that's a weak hadith so it doesn't count as Islam."
At this point, it is quite obvious whose arguments have been responded to and whose have not been. If cop-outs, straw men arguments, argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad lapidem are Drew’s only responses, then clearly he has none. It truly is odd to see someone troll their own thread, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
As I said before, if you aren’t going to reference one credible or authentic Islamic source that clearly and unambiguously sanctions the removal of the clitoris itself and not just its prepuce, then don’t bother. You have no argument otherwise.
Yet unsurprisingly, you’ve decided to anyway and with previously-debunked material too, which has already been responded to here, where the ahadith mentioned have been proven to either be lacking in authenticity and/or too ambiguous to be definitive. Try again.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:46 pmI noticed your shifting of the goal posts. First it was denying that female circumcision has any place in Islam. Now it has changed to, Okay it's allowed but it's only the prepuce. That is to admit that at least SOME FORM of cutting is done and prescribed and is not disallowed. But that is what you previously denied.
It hasn’t actually changed. You’re just trying too hard to find an angle where none exist. This matter was addressed quite clearly on page 20 of this thread. Try reading it again carefully (if you even read it at all in the first place). You might learn something for a change:
Int'l man of mystery wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:29 am There is no hadith where Prophet Muhammad sanctions FGM. All the ahadith that mention it, as I have already mentioned, do not sanction it, and the ones that encourage it are not authentic to begin with. In almost everywhere FGM is practiced today, by both Muslims and non-Muslims, it was practiced in those same places before Islam. By all accounts, it was customary among some people at the time – a custom that Prophet Muhammad, at most, only tolerated, without any noted divine revelation with regards to it. Furthermore, the “FGM” that he, at most, only tolerated, was a clitoral hoodectomy and a limited labiaplasty and not a clitoridectomy, which is against Islam, and was never tolerated, permitted or “sanctioned” in anyway. The fact that there are non-Muslim women today in Western European-based countries who choose to have labiaplasty or a hoodectomy for cosmetic and/or sensual reasons, further demonstrates just how farcical and hypocritical this argument against Islam is.
If you think defining what female circumcision actually entails within the confines of what Islam tolerates in regards to it = somehow conceding that it is a part of Islam then you are mistaken. ‘Tolerated’ and ‘sanctioned’ mean different things. Since what is tolerated in Islam is only a hoodectomy, which isn’t even defined as FGM in the first place, then FGM in Islam is a nothing issue.
In fact those links claim that “taqiyya” isn’t simply confined to protection against an aggressor, but is used as a war tactic as well. However, both links failed to provide any evidence that demonstrates its wartime applicability as anything more than a military affair, as well as failing to provide evidence showing where it is permissible to lie about Islam itself. This issue has also already been addressed here:
The claim that the Qur’an teaches Muslims to “exploit the situation”, “deceive non-believers” and then, over time, slowly take “religious political power” is nothing more than a libelous crackpot conspiracy theory that only exists in the minds of Islamophobes and xenophobes in general, which they use to justify their own irrationality and bigotry as an intellectual cop-out routine – accusing Muslims of lying when all-else fails. For this, they use the “taqiyya” argument.
“Taqiyya” refers to the Shi’i Muslim doctrine of concealing one’s faith under acute duress. For Sunni Muslims, concealing one’s faith is only permitted in mortal danger (with martyrdom still being the preferred alternative), and is never really obligatory or even encouraged. Contrary to what some may believe or advocate, “taqiyya” is not about concealing the truth about Islam, but about concealing the fact that one is a Muslim and only for self-preservation.
What the Qur’an actually says:
Qur’an (English translation) 16:105-106: Falsehood is fabricated only by those who do not believe in God’s revelation: they are the liars. With the exception of those who are forced to say they do not believe, although their hearts remain firm in faith, those who reject God after believing in Him and open their hearts to disbelief will have the wrath of God upon them and a grievous punishment awaiting them.
This was revealed in the aftermath of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir being forced to verbally recant his faith and denounce Prophet Muhammad while under physical duress and torture by the Meccan polytheists around 615-616 CE. Lying to escape mortal danger is about as self-defensive as it gets. There is, however, nothing in Islam that permits lying about the religion itself.
Some may point out that Prophet Muhammad is narrated to have said, “war is deception”, or that “lying at times of war” is permissible, but that generally pertains to fighting enemy combatants on the battlefield, which is entirely a military affair, not a civilian one. There is nothing in physical fighting where deception is not used and if you aren’t using it against your opponent in combat then you are helping your opponent against you.
Actual lying, however, is sinful in Islam, as it is obvious in verse (16:105), with (16:106) being a necessary exception. God also says in the Qur’an, as part of encouraging the children of Israel to embrace Islam:
Qur’an (English translation) 2:40-43: Children of Israel, remember how I blessed you. Honor your pledge to Me and I will honor My pledge to you: I am the One you should fear. Believe in the message I have sent down confirming what you already possess. Do not be the first to disbelieve in it, and do not sell My messages for a small price: I am the One of whom you should be mindful. Do not mix truth with falsehood, or hide the truth when you know it. Keep up the prayer, pay the prescribed alms, and bow your heads [in worship] with those who bow theirs.
It is obvious that telling the truth is part of Islam in these verses, and furthermore in the ahadith, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported that Prophet Muhammad said:
“It is obligatory for you to tell the truth, for truth leads to virtue and virtue leads to Paradise, and the man who continues to speak the truth and endeavors to tell the truth is eventually recorded as truthful with Allah, and beware of telling of a lie for telling of a lie leads to obscenity and obscenity leads to Hell-Fire, and the person who keeps telling lies and endeavors to tell a lie is recorded as a liar with Allah.”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 32, No. 6309)
Thus, telling the truth is obligatory for Muslims in Islam, especially about matters of religion, and while it may not be obligatory for a Muslim to disclose his true faith if it puts him in mortal danger, it is still preferable to do so. Deceiving an enemy combatant in war, however, is something different. It is a lawful and necessary part of war and fighting in general, and is used in virtually every instance of it, even in martial arts. Concealing your plans and intentions against your opponent, for example, is deception, just as luring them into a trap or a false sense of security so you can catch them off-guard is as well. All of these "deceptions" are utilized in every tactic and strategy in warfare. However, in Islam, warfare strategies and tactics have nothing to do with individual conduct in society.
Of course, the “lying for Jesus” strategy – a form of “pious fraud” – that some Christians utilize to win converts with the “ends justify the means” excuse, seems to get more of a free pass for some than God, in the Qur’an, allowing people to conceal their faith when they are in mortal danger from their persecutors on account of it.
Thus, dissimulation is another peripheral matter with regards to Islam; a highly-restricted, optional exception to a very general, obligatory rule and which has no proper application today in the vast majority of the world, while military deception is a farcical and hypocritical argument against Islam. There is no such thing in Islam where it is permitted to lie about Islam at all, much less to win a petty argument.
Everything else those links reference are the opinions classical scholars and jurists, from an age when war was the de facto between ALL nations unless there were some treaty or peace agreement in place. That SOME (not all) of the classical opinions may have sanctioned aggressive wars of conquest and total subjugation of conquered peoples with different religions are arguably symptomatic of the classical world, and are therefore a historical matter, not a universally-binding religious one. That includes their opinions of abrogation, of which there is no consensus on, and which most from the classical and modern periods, do not believe that the war verses abrogated the peaceful verses in the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself doesn’t say so, nor do the ahadith, and the verses themselves don’t even contradict each other to warrant the concept in the first place. No Contradiction = No Abrogation. It’s matter revolving around wartime vs. peacetime, and military affairs vs. civilian ones.
As for Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, he did not simply “insult Islam” with his derogatory poetry, but he also conspired with the Arab polytheists in Mecca against the Muslims, and on his return to Medina had planned to kill Prophet Muhammad:
(The Prophet said): “He (Ka’b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting”
(Zurqani, Vol. 2, p. 11)
“And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.”
(Zurqani, Vol. 2, p. 12)
Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf was a poet who always resented Islam and Muslims, and the Muslim victory in the “Battle of Badr” only exacerbated this resentment to the point where he started writing poems satirizing Prophet Muhammad as well as eulogizing the Quraysh and enticing them against him. Upon his return from Mecca, Ka’b began to defame Muslim women among other things with his derogatory poetry. However, Ka’b was still bound by the Medina treaty, and by conspiring with the enemies of the Muslims against Prophet Muhammad and his followers, he violated that treaty and became a traitor.
Thus, Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf conspiring with the Arab polytheists in Mecca against the Muslims and trying to assassinate Prophet Muhammad, in addition to outing himself as an enemy combatant, was also an open breach of the treaty that he was bound by and justified the order for him to be killed. Treason was – and still is in some cases – a capital offense warranting the death penalty. The deception used to lure him into a false sense of security, therefore, still only qualifies as a military affair.
Clitoridectomies, excisions and infibulations are practices that go against Islam. They are mostly African problems that predate Islam, which have erroneously become conflated with the Islamically permitted procedures of hoodectomies and limited labiaplasties via the term “female circumcision” and the Shafi’i madhhab’s mandate for it. However, despite the Shafi’i school’s sanctioning of it as obligatory, all the valid Islamic references to it only prove it be tolerated in Islam.
Also, the correct translation of “Reliance of the Traveller” is the prepuce of the clitoris, not the clitoris itself.
In discussions about this topic, Muslims usually insist that this practice is a cultural issue, and it is not religiously mandated by Islam.
The following quotation is taken from Reliance of the Traveller, Revised edition, amana publications, Beltsville, 1997. The title page informs us that this book is
The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik
by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with
Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices
Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
In this book, in the section titled "THE BODY", we find on page 59 the following entry:
Nuh Hah Mim Keller's Translation
e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"
Arabic Original
The above used abbreviations mean:
A: ... comment by Sheikh 'Abd al-Wakil Durubi
Ar. Arabic
n: ... remark by the translator
O: ... excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh 'Umar Barakat
However what the Arabic actually says is:
Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female)
by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male,
but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris
(this is called HufaaD). {bold emphasis ours}
The Arabic word bazr does not mean "prepuce of the clitoris", it means the clitoris itself (cf. the entry in the Arabic-English Dictionary). The deceptive translation by Nuh Hah Mim Keller, made for Western consumption, obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik, that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory. This particular form of female circumcision is widely practiced in Egypt, where the Shafi’i school of Sunni law is followed.
This was also debunked here and here in this thread and even more thoroughly here:
Islamophobes and anti-Islam people typically quote a passage from the translation of the Reliance of the Traveller then cite articles charging its translator with dishonestly translating the Arabic term bazr so as to argue that Islam permits female genital mutilation. The passage is as follows:
e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)
Source: Reliance of the Traveller e4.3 pg. 59
"O:" stands for:
excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh 'Umar Barakat [d. 1307/1890 see x352 pg. 1105]
"n:" stands for:
remark by the translator
"A:" stands for:
comment by Sheikh 'Abd al-Wakil Durubi
Source: Reliance of the Traveller pg. xxii (Abbreviations)
Now, the argument is that the Arabic term bazr refers to the entire clitoris and not just the prepuce. So, detractors say the translation should be as follows:
Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris
they then accuse the translator of lying. However, this accusation and understanding of the text does not stand up to scrutiny. Imam Afroz Ali writes regarding female circumcision in Islamic law:
Firstly, the very definition of the Arabic term used for female circumcision – khafđ al-mar-āt – is defined by Classical Lexicons as follows:
“Removal of the uppermost skin at the top of her glans.”[14]
The academic misconception (or dishonesty) in many Papers and government documents incorrectly refers to khafđ al-mar-āt (female circumcision) as Clitoridectomy in relation to the removing of part or the whole of the clitoris!
This is totally false.
Secondly, the Umm ‘Attiyah Narration is key to the rejection of all forms of genital mutilation, including the excising of the clitoral glans, as it explicitly states that:
“Umm ‘Attiyah, when you do circumcise, restrict yourself to cut a minute part and do not excise the glans. That will be far more pleasant for the wife and satisfying for the husband.”[15]
Thirdly, the most authoritative analyst of Hadīth, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, has this to say to define circumcision for the male and the female (in relation to the Hadīth quoted earlierregarding the “two circumcised parts meeting and necessitating purificatory bath”):
“What is meant by the dual form in the phrase “the two circumcised parts” is the circumcised genitals of the man and the woman respectively. Male circumcision (khatn) is the removal of the skin of the head or glans of the penis. Female circumcision (khafđ) is the removal of a tiny piece of skin above her glans which resembles the crest of a rooster [referring to the skin forming a clitoral hood]…”[16]
One of the Principles for deriving Legal Rulings is the principle of limitation where the particular ruling cannot be applied beyond the stated limitation itself. Female circumcision (and indeed male circumcision) is limited by definition explicitly to avoid all harmful actions and procedures. In other words, Islamic Law manages its Laws not by exhaustive lists of do’s and don’ts, but by prescribing limits, everything beyond which is not permitted. In the case of female circumcision - by definition, by Prophetic statement and by practice - the limits are set to include nothing but the extra clitoral prepuce and any associated labia, (which we will discuss more on in the next section of this Paper).
The quotation from the classical lexicon demonstrates that this term was translated correctly and as such the translator was most certainly not lying. Therefore, this baseless accusation has been demonstrated to be false. He writes the following after quoting the relevant portion from the translation of the Reliance of the Traveller:
It is not obligatory for women either in the Maliki school or in the Hanbali school. Both schools consider it merely recommended. See Al-Qayrawani’s “Risala” p. 161, 305; and “al- Mughni” 1:85. Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki says in “Tuhfat al- ahwadhi” (1:167): Khafđ for the woman is like khitan for the man and consists in removing a piece of skin the size of a rooster’s crest in the uppermost region of the genitals...
Another important fact that must be highlighted is that there is no evidence at all that female circumcision can be performed upon an infant girl. In fact, evidence and inferences clearly point to the permissibility (or conditional obligation) of female circumcision upon puberty, as explained below. This highlights another important fact completely ignored in the discourse regarding female circumcision: that it is the female herself who would elect to take up the permitted procedure by her own consent. It is quite obvious to realise that it is only at the post-pubescent stage that the female would become fully cognisant of any arousal conditions. It may be that she does not become aware of it until she is legally married and when she enters into sexual intimacy with her husband. The female in question, due to certain anatomical factors affecting her sexual arousal, may decide to take up the voluntary procedure of female circumcision through a legal and professional service. With such an understanding, it would be unthinkable and preposterous to justify the practice of female circumcision on a pre-pubescent female child.
Imam Nawawi states regarding female circumcision and age:
The sound view in our school (Shafi`i), which is shared by the large majority of our companions, is that circumcision is allowed in a youthful age but not obligatory.[19]
This demonstrates that the notion of circumcision as being obligatory which is mentioned in the Reliance of the Traveller is itself in question, as it is known that Imam Nawawi's opinions are authoritative in the Shafi'i school. The translation of the Reliance of the Traveller itself mentions this:
THE STRONGEST POSITION IN THE SHAFI'I SCHOOL
w12.3 Jalal Bulqini relates from his father (A: Siraj al-Din) that "the soundest position in the [A: Shafi'i] school for court rulings and formal legal opinions (fatwa) [n: in order of which must be accepted first when available] is what Nawawi and Rafi'i agree upon; then Nawawi's position; then Rafi'i's; then by the most knowledgable; then by the most godfearing." Our sheikh (A: Ibn Hajar Haytami) states that this is what has been agreed upon by the most exacting of the later scholars, and is the position our sheikhs have enjoined us to rely on (Kitab fath al-Mu'in bi sharh Qurra al-'ayn bi muhimmat al-din (y85), 348).
Source: Reliance of the Traveller w12.3 pgs. 870-871
Even if Imam Rafi'i's opinion was that it was obligatory, it would be in conflict with Imam Nawawi's and so Imam Nawawi's opinion would take precedence and, as such, it would be the official opinion of the Shafi'i school. However, it is important to note that in Imam Nawawi's other books, such as his Majmu and Raudah (cf. IslamQA.org), he mentions that it is obligatory which conflicts with what is written elsewhere, therefore, his opinion might have changed later on to be more in line with Imam al-Shafi'i and other scholars in his school who did maintain that it was obligatory. Nevertheless, no matter what the opinion is, neither allows for a removal of the clitoris as there are clear texts preventing such an action.
Imam Ali continues:
Imam Shawkani states:
Nothing has been transmitted with regard to its timing nor its obligatory nature.[20]
Furthermore, one may want to return to the previous quotes stated above; they refer to post-pubescent women, as ‘woman’ and ‘wife’. It is absurd to suggest that female circumcision refers to its practice on female children.
Once the reasons for female circumcision are understood it becomes evidently clear that the decision is solely in the hands of the female adult herself. The question then arises as to why female circumcision would be allowed in the first place. And that is when the laws of nations like Australia and USA help shed some light on this; countries that rightfully ban female genital mutilation but that refuse to make an attempt to understand female circumcision (as defined and explained above), although their laws already permit it!
[14] One may refer to lexicons like Lisān al-‘Arab, as well as Lanes Arabic-English Lexicon. A modern collection of the classical definitions is also a good reference, titled Muj’am al-Lughāt al-Fuqara, Rawwas and Sadiq (Dar al-Nafa’is, 1985).
[15]Majma al-Zawa’id, al-Haythami (Dar ul-Kutb al-‘Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1999); also in al-Mu’jam al-Awsāt, al-Tabarani (Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, unknown date of publication); and numerous others with verified chains of narration.
[16] Fath al-Bari, ibn Hajr al-Asqalani- this is a well-known work and is available from numerous current-day publishers.
That said, one must keep in mind that this an abridged legal manual when referring to it:
The style of translating the basic text is an explanative one with interlinear commentary. The reason for commentary, briefly, is that this book, like others in Islamic law, is less the achievement of a particular author than the shared effort of a whole school of research and interpretation in explaining rules of divine origin. The cooperative nature of this effort may be seen in the multilayered character of its texts, whose primary authors often merely state the ruling of an act, lawful or unlawful, leaving matters of definition, conditions, and scriptural evidence for the commentator to supply, who in turn leaves important details for both writers of marginal notes and for living sheikhs to definitively interpret when teaching the work to their students. The sheikhs form a second key resource of textual commentary, a spoken one parallel to the written, and in previous centuries of traditional Islamic learning it was well known that no student could dispense with it. Living teachers were and are needed to explain terminological difficulties, eliminate ambiguities, and correct copyists' mistakes….'Umar Barakat (d. after 1307/1890) wrote the text's, commentary, Fayd alIlah ai-Malik fi hall alfaz 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat ai-nasik [The outpouring of the Sovereign Divinity: an interpretation of the words of "The reliance of the traveler and tools of the worshipper"] from which excerpts have been selected and introduced into the basic text by the translator.”
Source: Reliance of the Traveller pgs. viii – ix
Asadullah Ali wrote the following after this quotation from the text regarding another passage:
In other words, the Reliance of the Traveler is only meant to serve as an outline and the legal scholars are the ones that give the conditions, reasons, evidences, etc. behind the abridged rulings. In contrast, Islamophobes assume the text is comprehensive in scope, cherry picking obscure passages from a work meant for people who teach law – not laymen looking to justify their preconceived notions. In conclusion, all that Islamophobes have proven is that much like the criminals who perform honor killings, they will find anything they can get their hands on to justify their own stupidity. #PleaseReflect
The rigorous analyses of Dutch ethnographer G.A. Wilken (1847-1891), and Dutch historian B.J.O. Schrieke (writing in 1921/1922), concluded a century (or more) ago that female circumcision was introduced by Islam to the vast Indonesian archipelago, because the practice was present only in Islamized regions. They further noted female circumcision was absent in the regions not yet (i.e., as of the late 19th and early 20th centuries) penetrated by Islam or, at that time, only superficially Islamized.
Wilken’s article entitled : “De besnijdenis bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel,” (“Circumcision in the nations of the Indonesian Archipelago”) was first published in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch- Indie, (Contributions to Lingusitics, Lands, and Ethnology of the Dutch East Indies), 34 (1885), pp. 165-206. B. Schrieke, published a two-part essay on the subject, nearly four decades later, whose findings concurred: “Allerlei over de besnijdenis in den Indischen Archipel,” (“Miscellaneous circumcision in the Indonesian Archipelago,” in Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, (Journal of East Indian Linguistics, Lands, and Ethnology), 60 (1921), 373-578 ; 61 (1922), 1-94.)
Schrieke (1921, pp. 549-551). reported that when queried about the meaning of this circumcision, the Indonesian Muslim parents replied that it’s purpose was for their daughters to become Muslims (eerst Mohammedanen worden).
Int'l man of mystery wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:29 amSo as far as the status of FGM in Islam is concerned:
- The removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) is against Islam
- Female circumcision (hoodectomy and a limited labiaplasty) is only tolerated in Islam, and it is the only form of FGM that is.
- There is no mention of female circumcision in the Qur’an
- There is no evidence to indicate that any of the wives or daughters of Prophet Muhammad practiced it when they would have been the first ones to do so if it were religiously prescribed in any way.
- All of the ahadith that say that female circumcision is “good”, “noble”, “recommended”, etc. – despite being used to justify female circumcision Islamically – are unreliable, and therefore have no basis in Islamic law.
- The only madhab to require female circumcision was the Shafi’i madhab, and today, even its scholars are opting for the dispensations of the Hanafi and Hanbali madhabs in this regard, which do not require it.
Illiteracy, ignorance, culture and a lack of education has caused its practice among some Muslims to have become conflated with other forms of FGM - which go against Islam - such as clitoridectomies, excisions, and infibulations. This is why many contemporary Shafi’i scholars opt for the dispensations of those other madhabs that do not require it, as they consider its correct practice as having become lost.
When talking about FGM, most people think of the removal of all or part of the clitoris, whereas female circumcision only refers to “unhooding” and/or a limited labiaplasty. It is still technically considered “FGM”, but the difference is significant; removal of the clitoris inhibits sexual pleasure, while unhooding and labiaplasty enhances it. Christians are the only ones who have ever regarded sexual pleasure for a woman as sinful, which is one of the reasons why removing the clitoris is practiced by African Christians. In fact, the practice has even reached Christians in the Midwestern US. So Reza Aslan and Linda Sansour are therefore correct about FGM being an African problem and not being a part of Islam, albeit without getting into the details of it.
It’s practice among Muslims is therefore:
- Mostly in Africa, where it is practiced by Christians and animists as well
- Is only regarded as obligatory by Muslims who follow the Shafi’i madhab and only as a hoodectomy.
The prominence of the Shafi’i madhab across the world along with the others:
This also explains its prevalence among Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia, where its practice has no pre-Islamic history, and therefore, where it is more likely to be practiced correctly according to the Shafi'i jurisprudence, without any pre-Islamic cultural influences, since that would be their primary source of exposure to it.
But again, the traditionally mandated practice of the Shafi’i madhab in this regard, is not necessarily what is actually practiced, particularly in Africa, which is, again, why even some Shafi’i scholars today are no longer advocating it as obligatory. It has no basis in the Qur’an, and it has no basis in any ahadith. As I have said before, the only ahadith that mention it specifically are unreliable, and even in those unreliable ahadith - which the Shafi’i madhab use as its basis – only, at most, say it is “honorable”, without any mention of it being obligatory.
This is why it is a good idea to actually read and understand what is being said before responding to it.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:46 pmMohammad himself in the Koran said NOT TO REMOVE THE CLITORIS. So why do other scholars who show up in the hadith, and also others who study the hadith SAY OTHERWISE? Because Islam is like Judaism, which is like Catholicism. They only uphold SOME of the teachings of Moses (Jews) and Jesus (Christians) but then like the Jews with their rabbis debating in the Talmud about what the original book "really" meant, you have the traditions of men and saints with Catholicism that have no biblical basis. You have extra-religious literature and doctrines that have been ELEVATED by believers TO THE STATUS of the very book of the simple basics that STARTED their religion in the first place so long ago. Judaism is a hodge podge of Karaites and Talmudists. Islam is a mix of non clit choppers AND clit choppers.
Drew again fails to differentiate between the prepuce of the clitoris and the clitoris itself; not presenting a single scholar or hadith that sanctions the removal of the clitoris itself. The Qur’an says nothing about the clitoris or circumcision itself at all. It is all derived from ahadith. The same people transmitted both the Qur’an and the authentic ahadith, so it only makes sense to assume that if faithfulness and care was taken in regards to transmitting Qur’an, that the same would be mostly true of the authentic ahadith as well.
Last edited by Int'l man of mystery on Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Actually, it just means that there is too much unemployment.
Yep. And it's the immigrants largely that are causing this problem because very little have marketable language skills and job skills. Liberals will destroy economies and socialist systems just to prove they're "not racist." But by ignoring economics and science and only looking at skin colour, THEY are the real race baiters.
Actually, the unemployment rate among immigrants is because the government doesn’t let them work, which inevitably leaves them disenfranchised and isolated. Language skills and job skills are 2-way streets that require efforts going both ways.
If the government has to pony up the money to train these people and go further into debt, MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT! Like I said, LIBERALS WILL DESTROY ECONOMIES AND SOCIALIST SYSTEMS TO PROVE THEY'RE NOT RACIST...BY IGNORING ECONOMICS AND SCIENCE...THEY ARE THE REAL RACE BAITHERS.
IMOM has nothing. LOL.
So basically, Germany thinks that throwing a little bit of money at asylum seekers is sufficient enough for them, without actually enfranchising and integrating them into its economy, while leaving them to accumulate in poverty-ridden enclaves where crime is the only outlet. It sounds like Germany is responsible for its own MISMANAGEMENT of the situation.
I agree Germany doesn't have the means to integrate these people properly. WHICH MAKES THE CASE FOR CLOSING THE BORDERS AND SENDING MOST OF THEM BACK. Do you realize you are making my argument for me? That's how we know you have nothing. Another clue is that you repeat your conspiracy theory FOR THE SIXTH TIME NOW>
the fact that most rapes are committed by a perpetrator who the victim already knows.
YES WE KNOW YOU ARE SAYING THE STATS DON'T REFLECT REALITY. WE KNOW YOU ARE SAYING WHITES RAPE EQUAL OR MORE PER CAPITA. SO PROVE IT!!! OH WAIT, YOU CAN'T!!!
Sweden can also enfranchise them and integrate them into its economy, so they can actually contribute to it, rather than encouraging them to settle with welfare in poverty-ridden enclaves.
No matter how bad it gets and how unskilled and how untrained they are in the native language, it's always the fault of the government and white people.
If the welfare system is the only option available to them, then it is inevitable that it is the only one that is going to be opted for.
Then instead of Sweden further wrecking it's socialist economy, send them back since it can't handle them. Sweden doesn't need anymore Muslim rape or no go zones.
the falsehood that rape is only being perpetrated against white, Swedish women in Sweden is still being promoted.
Nobody is arguing that so stop wrecking the debate with bullshit. I'm saying that Muslims are raping at a disproportionate rate to their population. And given that whites are still A MAJORITY, that means that the MAJORITY of victims will be white. Do you get basic logic? Does math and population numbers confuse you? Have you forgotten that 1+1=2?
3. Women in Sweden (white and non-white) are not reporting rape committed by knowns (white and non-white).
That is a re-phrasing of one of the options I gave you idiot: 1. White women are not reporting white rape for whatever reason
4. Women in Sweden are over-reporting rape by non-white, non-Swedish men.
The burden of proof is on Drew for making an assertion about Muslim crime in Sweden, not on anyone else for denying it. He has yet to present proof that the stats of reported rape reflect the unreported rape.
Stats don't reflect unreported rape you dumbass. Only reported rape. That's my whole point. If you want to prove Muslims actually rape less to their population GO AND DO IT. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
Circumcision is a Sunnah (obligation) for men, honour for women
This hadith is not reported in the more reliable books of hadith of Bukhari and Muslim and is not even included in Mu’atta of Imam Malik. It is narrated in less reliable books like Musnad of Ahmad (no. 20719), Mu’jam al-Kabir (no. 7112-3, 11590, 12009, 12828), Sunan al-Kubra (17565-8) and Musnaf of ibn Abi Shaybah (no. 26468). None of these and other sources that I looked at has narrated this hadith with a trustable chain of narrators:
Obviously the majority of religious law comes from the hadith. I do not deny it. What I object to is the talmudic-jew style apologetics. "Oh that passage doesn't mean anything." Or "this passage was overruled." Okay, prove it. And yet when we look at what Mohammad said, it is very clear. Female circumcision is acceptable, but you just can't cut out the clitoris. See 11:30 in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9RmAo6XVAA
So Muslims don't get to ignore Mohammad.
The fact that you have Muslims doing it at all and citing Islam as their justification should tell you enough what is really going on.
IMOM cites this as a 'refutation'
"A:" stands for:
comment by Sheikh 'Abd al-Wakil Durubi
Source: Reliance of the Traveller pg. xxii (Abbreviations)
Now, the argument is that the Arabic term bazr refers to the entire clitoris and not just the prepuce. So, detractors say the translation should be as follows:
Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris
they then accuse the translator of lying. However, this accusation and understanding of the text does not stand up to scrutiny. Imam Afroz Ali writes regarding female circumcision in Islamic law:
Firstly, the very definition of the Arabic term used for female circumcision – khafđ al-mar-āt – is defined by Classical Lexicons as follows:
“Removal of the uppermost skin at the top of her glans.”[14]
The academic misconception (or dishonesty) in many Papers and government documents incorrectly refers to khafđ al-mar-āt (female circumcision) as Clitoridectomy in relation to the removing of part or the whole of the clitoris!
This is totally false.
Secondly, the Umm ‘Attiyah Narration is key to the rejection of all forms of genital mutilation, including the excising of the clitoral glans, as it explicitly states that:
“Umm ‘Attiyah, when you do circumcise, restrict yourself to cut a minute part and do not excise the glans. That will be far more pleasant for the wife and satisfying for the husband.”[15]
Thirdly, the most authoritative analyst of Hadīth, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, has this to say to define circumcision for the male and the female (in relation to the Hadīth quoted earlierregarding the “two circumcised parts meeting and necessitating purificatory bath”):
“What is meant by the dual form in the phrase “the two circumcised parts” is the circumcised genitals of the man and the woman respectively. Male circumcision (khatn) is the removal of the skin of the head or glans of the penis. Female circumcision (khafđ) is the removal of a tiny piece of skin above her glans which resembles the crest of a rooster [referring to the skin forming a clitoral hood]…”[16]
Sorry but an argument from authority is not evidence. You have to contest the translation and back it up. Why do none of these sources deal with the quote found in "The History of Al-Tabi"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qle_4qiH4tU#t=8m50s
In fact those links claim that “taqiyya” isn’t simply confined to protection against an aggressor, but is used as a war tactic as well. However, both links failed to provide any evidence that demonstrates its wartime applicability as anything more than a military affair, as well as failing to provide evidence showing where it is permissible to lie about Islam itself.
So let's just see how full of crap he is.
1st link:
None of the academics quoted by Kessler bothered to acknowledge that the Koran is not the only textual source to inform Muslim action. They ignore the Hadith, the collected words and deeds of Muhammad. Koran 33:2, for instance, commands Muslims to follow Muhammad's example, and his example—also known as the prophet's Sunna—is derived from the many volumes of Hadith.
The importance of Muhammad's example is seen in that the Sunnis, approximately 90% of the world's Muslim population, are named after his Sunna. As one Muslim cleric puts it, "Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith [whence the Sunna is derived]. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith..."
It is therefore careless or disingenuous for Kessler and his "experts" to ignore Muhammad's example as recorded in the Hadith in their discussion of taqiyya.
As usual, for the complete truth, one must turn to scholarly books written in Arabic. According to Dr. Sami Mukaram, an Islamic studies professor specializing in taqiyya, and author of the only academic book exclusively devoted to it, "Taqiyya in order to deceive the enemy is permissible."
This sounds similar to Carson's assertion that taqiyya allows Muslims "to lie to achieve your goals."
As proof, Mukaram documents two canonical anecdotes from Muhammad's Sunna—his example to Muslims—that make clear that the prophet allowed his followers to lie and deceive non-Muslims above and beyond the issue of self-preservation.
The Assassination of Ka'b ibn Ashraf
An elderly Jewish leader, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, mocked Muhammad, prompting the prophet to exclaim, "Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?" A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to Ka'b to murder him, he needed permission to lie to the Jew.
Allah's messenger agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka'b and began to complain about Muhammad until his disaffection from Islam became so convincing that Ka'b eventually dropped his guard and befriended him.
After behaving as his friend for some time, Ibn Maslama eventually appeared with another Muslim also pretending to have apostatized. Then, while a trusting Ka'b's guard was done, they attacked and slaughtered him, bringing his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of "Allahu Akbar!"
Mock Islam? You deserve death. Now we understand why so many Muslims hate free speech and want to assassinate cartoonists. Deception and murder are okay even when you are not threatened existentially.
The rigorous analyses of Dutch ethnographer G.A. Wilken (1847-1891), and Dutch historian B.J.O. Schrieke (writing in 1921/1922), concluded a century (or more) ago that female circumcision was introduced by Islam to the vast Indonesian archipelago, because the practice was present only in Islamized regions. They further noted female circumcision was absent in the regions not yet (i.e., as of the late 19th and early 20th centuries) penetrated by Islam or, at that time, only superficially Islamized.
Wilken’s article entitled : “De besnijdenis bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel,” (“Circumcision in the nations of the Indonesian Archipelago”) was first published in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch- Indie, (Contributions to Lingusitics, Lands, and Ethnology of the Dutch East Indies), 34 (1885), pp. 165-206. B. Schrieke, published a two-part essay on the subject, nearly four decades later, whose findings concurred: “Allerlei over de besnijdenis in den Indischen Archipel,” (“Miscellaneous circumcision in the Indonesian Archipelago,” in Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, (Journal of East Indian Linguistics, Lands, and Ethnology), 60 (1921), 373-578 ; 61 (1922), 1-94.)
Schrieke (1921, pp. 549-551). reported that when queried about the meaning of this circumcision, the Indonesian Muslim parents replied that it’s purpose was for their daughters to become Muslims (eerst Mohammedanen worden).
its prevalence among Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia, where its practice has no pre-Islamic history, and therefore, where it is more likely to be practiced correctly according to the Shafi'i jurisprudence, without any pre-Islamic cultural influences, since that would be their primary source of exposure to it.
So it doesn't really address the strange coincidence that Dutch historian B.J.O. Schrieke found. If it's not Islamic, why did the Muslims in Indonesia spread it?
Remember how I said that IMOM's argument of "most rapes are committed by an attacker who knows the victim" is bullshit and projects American and UK things onto Scandanavia? WELL HERE IS THE PROOF.
Drew now reverts back to cherry-picking what he finds easier to address:
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmIf the government has to pony up the money to train these people and go further into debt, MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT! Like I said, LIBERALS WILL DESTROY ECONOMIES AND SOCIALIST SYSTEMS TO PROVE THEY'RE NOT RACIST...BY IGNORING ECONOMICS AND SCIENCE...THEY ARE THE REAL RACE BAITHERS.
IMOM has nothing. LOL.
In a Socialist system, the government is already going to “pony up” money to train its native residents and “go further into debt” as they reproduce and increase the country’s population with more people to train. “MAYBE THEY SHOULDN’T DO THAT!”? Then the only other practical alternatives are capitalism or communism.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmI agree Germany doesn't have the means to integrate these people properly. WHICH MAKES THE CASE FOR CLOSING THE BORDERS AND SENDING MOST OF THEM BACK. Do you realize you are making my argument for me? That's how we know you have nothing. Another clue is that you repeat your conspiracy theory FOR THE SIXTH TIME NOW>
Germany has the means; it just doesn’t have the will, while mass deportation is a humanitarian crisis on its own, which is only going to exacerbate the problem. You still haven’t shown where the “conspiracy” is. Simply calling something a “conspiracy theory” doesn’t make it so.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmYES WE KNOW YOU ARE SAYING THE STATS DON'T REFLECT REALITY. WE KNOW YOU ARE SAYING WHITES RAPE EQUAL OR MORE PER CAPITA. SO PROVE IT!!! OH WAIT, YOU CAN'T!!!
What I’m actually saying is that THE STATS NEED TO BE PROVEN THAT THEY REFLECT REALITY. You have NOT proven that to be the case, and until you do, there is no reason to accept your conclusions about them; much less your solutions in regards to them. Beyond your stats, you have nothing besides probability to utilize. I’ve already utilized probability, based on the reality of rape in Europe, the US and ultimately the rest of the world:
…
The narrative of a woman being sexually assaulted while walking down a dark alleyway may still play out on many TV screens. But in the real world, rape and serious sexual assault is far more likely to occur in the home and at the hands of someone familiar. In England, Wales and Australia, around one in five women have experienced sexual violence at least once during their lifetime; the US’s national sexual violence survey similarly estimated that one in five women, along with one in 71 men, have been raped.
But in the UK, for example, a separate report found that the perpetrator was a stranger in only 10% of rape and serious sexual assaults, while in 56% of cases it was the victim’s partner, and for the remaining 33% it was a friend, acquaintance, or other family member.
…
According to UK Home Office data, 46% of recorded rapes were reported on the day they took place – while 14% of people took more than six months to report that they’d been assaulted. If the victim was a child, they were even more likely to delay coming forward: just 28% of those aged under 16 reported the offence on the day it happened, while a third waited for longer than six months.
That is just for assaults that ultimately are reported. Many others are not. In the US, for example, studies have estimated that two out of three sexual assaults never are reported.
There are many reasons why some people either delay reporting or never do, as testified to by the “#WhyIDidn’tReport” hashtag on Twitter. “A lot of people don’t report because they don’t want the perpetrator to go to prison: maybe they’re in love with them, or it’s a family member, or it’s a partner and are reliant on their income,” says Nicole Westmarland, director of Durham Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse in the UK. “Another common reason I hear from students is that they don’t want to ruin the rest of the person’s life.”
Furthermore, rape and sexual assault in Sweden have not increased since 2005, while the influx of Muslim immigrants has:
Therefore, Muslim immigrants, despite compromising a disproportionate amount of rape convictions in Sweden, have had no significant impact on the numbers themselves over a 10-year period, before and after the “refugee crisis” began in the 2010s.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmNo matter how bad it gets and how unskilled and how untrained they are in the native language, it's always the fault of the government and white people.
No matter how practical the solution, it’s always blaming “the government and white people” if it doesn’t appease the “white victimhood” mentality.
“Don’t let them work and accumulate wealth from it otherwise you’re saying the government and white people are at fault for their situation”??? You’re so full of garbage, Drew.
Sweden, in addition to “Swedish” being their main language, has 5 other officially recognized minority languages: Finnish, Meänkieli, Sami, Romani and Yiddish. For such a small country, which such a diversity of languages, it can afford to add a sixth minority language to reflect its evolving demographics, in addition to actually allowing them to work and accumulate wealth from it so they can contribute to the economy. It can even conceivably cost less than welfare or deportation.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmThen instead of Sweden further wrecking it's socialist economy, send them back since it can't handle them.
Or, Sweden can potentially spend less money and avoid the humanitarian costs by allowing them to actually contribute to the socialist economy by working, accumulating wealth and spending it. It works wonderfully in the US; so wonderfully in fact that some of the natural-born citizens are actually saying that immigrants are ‘stealing their jobs’.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmSweden doesn't need anymore Muslim rape or no go zones.
Except the “no go zones” don’t actually exist, and most Muslims don’t commit rape.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmNobody is arguing that so stop wrecking the debate with bullshit.
By only mentioning white, Swedish women, that is exactly what you are implying.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmI'm saying that Muslims are raping at a disproportionate rate to their population. And given that whites are still A MAJORITY, that means that the MAJORITY of victims will be white. Do you get basic logic? Does math and population numbers confuse you? Have you forgotten that 1+1=2?
The majority of women in Sweden being white does not necessarily translate into the majority of rape victims in Sweden being white. You need actual stats to prove that. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of probability, in which case it can just as easily be said that the majority of men in Sweden being white translates into the majority of rapists in Sweden being white as well, using that same stupid logic.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmThat is a re-phrasing of one of the options I gave you idiot: 1. White women are not reporting white rape for whatever reason
Wrong, you goober; your option only mentions white women and white rape, while mine includes both white and non-white victims and rapists, while also excluding rape by unknowns (white and non-white).
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pmSee that guys? Some white women need to shut up if their perpetrator is brown.
Drew’s reading comprehension skills are abysmal. No wonder he can’t respond properly.
We know what the stats of reported rape say. We also know that they only account for 1/5 of the total rapes that are estimated to occur, and that all available data on the subject shows that most of the time, the rape victim knows the perpetrator. In addition, we also know that knowing the perpetrator is one of the many reasons that the victim chooses not to report it.
In 65 per cent of the cases, the perpetrator was completely unknown to the victim, in 24 per cent of the cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance, and in 11 per cent of the cases the perpetrator was a closely-related person. The breakdown in respect of the relationship to the perpetrator in conjunction with sex offences has varied somewhat over the years since the survey began, and it is not possible to discern any clear trend in the results. One should be aware that just as is the case with threat and assault offences, there is reason to believe that incidents where persons have been exposed to sex offences by a closely-related person, or in the home, are PARTICULARLY UNDERREPRESENTED in the survey. This type of exposure may be experienced as particularly sensitive and it thus may be difficult to gain information about it through a questionnaire.
So if sex offences by a closely-related person or at home are “particularly underrepresented” in the reported stats, then that can only mean that they would be MORE represented among the unreported rapes. By extension, this also means that rape by unknowns would be OVERREPRESENTED in the reported stats as well, and thus that the proportions of both are likely different in the unreported rapes. Then if the rest Europe and the world were seen as any indication (and there is every reason to believe that they are), then rape by knowns would probably account for at least 2/3rds of the unreported rapes, or around 66% (coincidently close to the 65% figure of the reported rapes by unknowns).
However, even though the stats on reported rapes likely don’t accurately reflect the real percentages of rape, they do reflect a willingness to report them. Thus, based on the graph and the underrepresented rapes in it, rape victims in Sweden, just like virtually everywhere else in the world, are more willing to report rapes by unknowns than rape by acquaintances, and they are more willing to report rape by acquaintances than rape by closely-related people. And it is obvious why when you understand the emotions involved. It isn’t a “conspiracy theory” for one person to NOT do something.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:03 pm
Stats don't reflect unreported rape you dumbass. Only reported rape. That's my whole point. If you want to prove Muslims actually rape less to their population GO AND DO IT. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
Actually, that’s MY whole point, you nitwit. If you want to prove that Muslims actually rape more to their population, and not just in the reported rape stats, then YOU need stats on the 4x as many unreported rapes to prove it. Since YOU don’t have any, then YOU can’t prove it. Since YOU cannot prove it then your conclusion that Muslims in Sweden rape disproportionately per their population size is UNSUPPORTABLE.
Since there are no hard stats available to actually prove anything about the proportions of unreported rape in Sweden (obviously), then it comes down to PROBABILITY, which I have utilized, and which even “The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention” admits that the proportions are different from the reported stats.
Of course, you do not actually care about any of that. You only care if the criminal is an immigrant, especially a Muslim immigrant. That is why you over-emphasize the stats that show the highest numbers of their criminal activity per their population size, and why you also over-emphasize their Muslim/immigrant identity, which is inconsequential. For the actual conviction stats (which are far more accurate), the lack of any real increase in rape in over 10 years (despite the Muslim influx), as well as the 4x as many unreported rapes you have nothing but argumentum ad lapidum. The same is the case with welfare, where you only care about welfare recipients if they’re immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants. Thus we come to your solution - which is the same as your premise, which you try to fit the facts into justifying - of mass-deportation of Muslim immigrants.
Following your logic WITHOUT utilizing your tribalistic double-standards and hypocrisy, means deporting ALL non-contributing welfare-recipients and ALL collectives that contribute a significant number of criminals. In which case, Sweden would become virtually empty, because every collective contributes criminals in Sweden, while non-contributing welfare-recipients comprise a wide range of people, including Swedes themselves. However, double standards are inherently illogical, and all the stats (or lack thereof) in the world won’t change that.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:35 am
IMOM gives a source that says this:
Circumcision is a Sunnah (obligation) for men, honour for women
This hadith is not reported in the more reliable books of hadith of Bukhari and Muslim and is not even included in Mu’atta of Imam Malik. It is narrated in less reliable books like Musnad of Ahmad (no. 20719), Mu’jam al-Kabir (no. 7112-3, 11590, 12009, 12828), Sunan al-Kubra (17565-8) and Musnaf of ibn Abi Shaybah (no. 26468). None of these and other sources that I looked at has narrated this hadith with a trustable chain of narrators:
Obviously the majority of religious law comes from the hadith. I do not deny it. What I object to is the talmudic-jew style apologetics. "Oh that passage doesn't mean anything." Or "this passage was overruled." Okay, prove it.
Actually, the claim is that this hadith is unreliable, as it is clear in that quote, and the proof is its lack of a trustable chain of narrators. The authenticity of a hadith, in addition to having to be consistent with the Qur’an, is also based on having a reliable chain of narrators. If it doesn’t have one, it is not authentic. Utilization does not prove reliability.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:35 amAnd yet when we look at what Mohammad said, it is very clear. Female circumcision is acceptable, but you just can't cut out the clitoris.
The issue isn’t whether female circumcision (clitoral hoodectomy and sometimes a limited labiaplasty as well) is acceptable in Islam or not (it is acceptable), but on whether it is a legitimate part of Islam or not. All of the ahadith that are used to support it as a part of Islam are unreliable and/or ambiguous, so therefore, it is not. Thus it is a pre-Islamic cultural practice that became Islamicized by some of the early Muslims, and has since become conflated with African FGM practices, such as clitoridectomies, excisions and infibulations; all of which are not acceptable in Islam.
11:30 cites the same hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud, which is not only said to be unreliable by Abu Dawud himself, but it also fails to establish it as a part of Islam, even if it were true.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:35 amThe fact that you have Muslims doing it at all and citing Islam as their justification should tell you enough what is really going on.
The only thing it tells is that some traditions take precedence over authenticity issues for some Muslims.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:35 amIMOM cites this as a 'refutation'
"A:" stands for:
comment by Sheikh 'Abd al-Wakil Durubi
Source: Reliance of the Traveller pg. xxii (Abbreviations)
Now, the argument is that the Arabic term bazr refers to the entire clitoris and not just the prepuce. So, detractors say the translation should be as follows:
Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris
they then accuse the translator of lying. However, this accusation and understanding of the text does not stand up to scrutiny. Imam Afroz Ali writes regarding female circumcision in Islamic law:
Firstly, the very definition of the Arabic term used for female circumcision – khafđ al-mar-āt – is defined by Classical Lexicons as follows:
“Removal of the uppermost skin at the top of her glans.”[14]
The academic misconception (or dishonesty) in many Papers and government documents incorrectly refers to khafđ al-mar-āt (female circumcision) as Clitoridectomy in relation to the removing of part or the whole of the clitoris!
This is totally false.
Secondly, the Umm ‘Attiyah Narration is key to the rejection of all forms of genital mutilation, including the excising of the clitoral glans, as it explicitly states that:
“Umm ‘Attiyah, when you do circumcise, restrict yourself to cut a minute part and do not excise the glans. That will be far more pleasant for the wife and satisfying for the husband.”[15]
Thirdly, the most authoritative analyst of Hadīth, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, has this to say to define circumcision for the male and the female (in relation to the Hadīth quoted earlierregarding the “two circumcised parts meeting and necessitating purificatory bath”):
“What is meant by the dual form in the phrase “the two circumcised parts” is the circumcised genitals of the man and the woman respectively. Male circumcision (khatn) is the removal of the skin of the head or glans of the penis. Female circumcision (khafđ) is the removal of a tiny piece of skin above her glans which resembles the crest of a rooster [referring to the skin forming a clitoral hood]…”[16]
Sorry but an argument from authority is not evidence. You have to contest the translation and back it up.
Drew’s entire argument about FGM being a part of Islam is quite literally an “argument from authority”. Now when challenged with the actual definitions, workings and principles that define the abridged legal manual in question (“Reliance of the Traveller”) regarding female circumcision in Islam, he remembers that the “argument from authority” has a logical fallacy version, and now resorts to it. However, the actual definition of “khafd al-mar’at” (female circumcision in Arabic) is the ultimate evidence, which “Reliance of the Traveller” is only referencing and which debunks Mark Durie’s adjusted google translation, and ultimately proving Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s translation to be correct.
The fact that the Arabic word “bazr” is shown to mean “clitoris” in that passage from “The History of Al-Tabari” is inconsequential because the term “clitoris” encompasses BOTH the prepuce AND the glans. They are 2 parts of the same organ, not 2 separate organs. Cutting the former and not the latter is called a hoodectomy and is sometimes done as part of a labiaplasty procedure. Removing both is called a “clitoridectomy”. The first procedure (labiaplasty), per the authentic ahadith, is only permitted in Islam (Muslims disagree to what extent), while the second procedure (clitoridectomy) is not permitted in Islam at all, and in fact goes against it.
Drew presents us with another “argument from authority”. Or is it “argumentum ad populum” this time?
If we are talking about hoodectomies and limited labiaplasties, then all reliable sources are unanimous that they are permissible in Islam, in which the term “khafd al-mar’at” (Ar. “female circumcision”) is used to describe them. There is, however, neither an authentic basis nor any consensus for saying that they are a part of Islam, with views ranging from it being mandatory, to being “recommended/encouraged”, with the rest seeing it as simply “good” or just permissible without being a part of Islam at all.
If we are talking about clitoridectomies (actual FGM), then it is a pre-Islamic cultural practice that goes against Islam and has erroneously become conflated with the Islamically-permitted practice of hoodectomies and limited labiaplasties via ignorance, local culture and the diffusion of the religion. Drew has yet to dispute any of this.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:35 amFinally, let's get recap:
In fact those links claim that “taqiyya” isn’t simply confined to protection against an aggressor, but is used as a war tactic as well. However, both links failed to provide any evidence that demonstrates its wartime applicability as anything more than a military affair, as well as failing to provide evidence showing where it is permissible to lie about Islam itself.
So let's just see how full of crap he is.
1st link:
None of the academics quoted by Kessler bothered to acknowledge that the Koran is not the only textual source to inform Muslim action. They ignore the Hadith, the collected words and deeds of Muhammad. Koran 33:2, for instance, commands Muslims to follow Muhammad's example, and his example—also known as the prophet's Sunna—is derived from the many volumes of Hadith.
The importance of Muhammad's example is seen in that the Sunnis, approximately 90% of the world's Muslim population, are named after his Sunna. As one Muslim cleric puts it, "Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith [whence the Sunna is derived]. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith..."
It is therefore careless or disingenuous for Kessler and his "experts" to ignore Muhammad's example as recorded in the Hadith in their discussion of taqiyya.
As usual, for the complete truth, one must turn to scholarly books written in Arabic. According to Dr. Sami Mukaram, an Islamic studies professor specializing in taqiyya, and author of the only academic book exclusively devoted to it, "Taqiyya in order to deceive the enemy is permissible."
This sounds similar to Carson's assertion that taqiyya allows Muslims "to lie to achieve your goals."
As proof, Mukaram documents two canonical anecdotes from Muhammad's Sunna—his example to Muslims—that make clear that the prophet allowed his followers to lie and deceive non-Muslims above and beyond the issue of self-preservation.
…
Where is it demonstrated that it is permissible to lie ABOUT Islam? Nowhere
Where is it demonstrated that lying and deceiving the enemy has any non-military applicability and outside of wartime? Nowhere.
Thus Drew fails again, demonstrating that the only one who is “full of crap” is himself.
An elderly Jewish leader, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, mocked Muhammad, prompting the prophet to exclaim, "Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?" A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to Ka'b to murder him, he needed permission to lie to the Jew.
Allah's messenger agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka'b and began to complain about Muhammad until his disaffection from Islam became so convincing that Ka'b eventually dropped his guard and befriended him.
After behaving as his friend for some time, Ibn Maslama eventually appeared with another Muslim also pretending to have apostatized. Then, while a trusting Ka'b's guard was done, they attacked and slaughtered him, bringing his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of "Allahu Akbar!"
Mock Islam? You deserve death. Now we understand why so many Muslims hate free speech and want to assassinate cartoonists. Deception and murder are okay even when you are not threatened existentially.
In regards to the assassination of Ka’b in Ashraf, this too was already addressed in the last post:
Int'l man of mystery wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 4:33 pmAs for Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, he did not simply “insult Islam” with his derogatory poetry, but he also conspired with the Arab polytheists in Mecca against the Muslims, and on his return to Medina had planned to kill Prophet Muhammad:
(The Prophet said): “He (Ka’b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting”
(Zurqani, Vol. 2, p. 11)
“And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.”
(Zurqani, Vol. 2, p. 12)
Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf was a poet who always resented Islam and Muslims, and the Muslim victory in the “Battle of Badr” only exacerbated this resentment to the point where he started writing poems satirizing Prophet Muhammad as well as eulogizing the Quraysh and enticing them against him. Upon his return from Mecca, Ka’b began to defame Muslim women among other things with his derogatory poetry. However, Ka’b was still bound by the Medina treaty, and by conspiring with the enemies of the Muslims against Prophet Muhammad and his followers, he violated that treaty and became a traitor.
Thus, Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf conspiring with the Arab polytheists in Mecca against the Muslims and trying to assassinate Prophet Muhammad, in addition to outing himself as an ENEMY COMBATANT, was also an open breach of the treaty that he was bound by and justified the order for him to be killed. Treason was – and still is in some cases – a capital offense warranting the death penalty. The deception used to lure him into a false sense of security, therefore, still ONLY QUALIFIES AS A MILITARY AFFAIR.
When talking about the execution of Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, polemicists only like talking about his derogatory poetry as the reason for it, while ignoring his treachery, which was the actual reason for it. The reason why they do this is obvious; the former suggests pettiness and thin-skinnedness (an image polemicists are ever-eager to portray), while the latter provides a legitimate, just cause (an image that undermines the polemicist argument). Drew’s primary references on Islam are polemicists, while they only reference Muslims when it is convenient for their argument; ignoring or rejecting what they say when it isn’t.
What Drew fails to realize is that such deceptive methods by his polemical sources only work when no one knows any better, which is no longer the case on this thread.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:35 amI also said this:
The rigorous analyses of Dutch ethnographer G.A. Wilken (1847-1891), and Dutch historian B.J.O. Schrieke (writing in 1921/1922), concluded a century (or more) ago that female circumcision was introduced by Islam to the vast Indonesian archipelago, because the practice was present only in Islamized regions. They further noted female circumcision was absent in the regions not yet (i.e., as of the late 19th and early 20th centuries) penetrated by Islam or, at that time, only superficially Islamized.
Wilken’s article entitled : “De besnijdenis bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel,” (“Circumcision in the nations of the Indonesian Archipelago”) was first published in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch- Indie, (Contributions to Lingusitics, Lands, and Ethnology of the Dutch East Indies), 34 (1885), pp. 165-206. B. Schrieke, published a two-part essay on the subject, nearly four decades later, whose findings concurred: “Allerlei over de besnijdenis in den Indischen Archipel,” (“Miscellaneous circumcision in the Indonesian Archipelago,” in Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, (Journal of East Indian Linguistics, Lands, and Ethnology), 60 (1921), 373-578 ; 61 (1922), 1-94.)
Schrieke (1921, pp. 549-551). reported that when queried about the meaning of this circumcision, the Indonesian Muslim parents replied that it’s purpose was for their daughters to become Muslims (eerst Mohammedanen worden).
its prevalence among Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia, where its practice has no pre-Islamic history, and therefore, where it is more likely to be practiced correctly according to the Shafi'i jurisprudence, without any pre-Islamic cultural influences, since that would be their primary source of exposure to it.
So it doesn't really address the strange coincidence that Dutch historian B.J.O. Schrieke found. If it's not Islamic, why did the Muslims in Indonesia spread it?
Int'l man of mystery wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:29 amSo as far as the status of FGM in Islam is concerned:
- The removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) is against Islam
- Female circumcision (hoodectomy and a limited labiaplasty) is only tolerated in Islam, and it is the only form of FGM that is.
- There is no mention of female circumcision in the Qur’an
- There is no evidence to indicate that any of the wives or daughters of Prophet Muhammad practiced it when they would have been the first ones to do so if it were religiously prescribed in any way.
- All of the ahadith that say that female circumcision is “good”, “noble”, “recommended”, etc. – despite being used to justify female circumcision Islamically – are unreliable, and therefore have no basis in Islamic law.
- THE ONLY MADHAB TO REQUIRE FEMALE CIRCUMCISION WAS THE SHAFI’I MADHAB, and today, even its scholars are opting for the dispensations of the Hanafi and Hanbali madhabs in this regard, which do not require it.
Illiteracy, ignorance, culture and a lack of education has caused its practice among some Muslims to have become conflated with other forms of FGM - which go against Islam - such as clitoridectomies, excisions, and infibulations. This is why many contemporary Shafi’i scholars opt for the dispensations of those other madhabs that do not require it, as they consider its correct practice as having become lost.
When talking about FGM, most people think of the removal of all or part of the clitoris, whereas female circumcision only refers to “unhooding” and/or a limited labiaplasty. It is still technically considered “FGM”, but the difference is significant; removal of the clitoris inhibits sexual pleasure, while unhooding and labiaplasty enhances it. Christians are the only ones who have ever regarded sexual pleasure for a woman as sinful, which is one of the reasons why removing the clitoris is practiced by African Christians. In fact, the practice has even reached Christians in the Midwestern US. So Reza Aslan and Linda Sansour are therefore correct about FGM being an African problem and not being a part of Islam, albeit without getting into the details of it.
It’s practice among Muslims is therefore:
- Mostly in Africa, where it is practiced by Christians and animists as well
- Is only regarded as obligatory by Muslims who follow the Shafi’i madhab and only as a hoodectomy.
The prominence of the Shafi’i madhab across the world along with the others:
This also explains its prevalence among Muslims in Indonesia AND MALAYSIA, where its practice has no pre-Islamic history, and therefore, where it is more likely to be practiced correctly according to the Shafi'i jurisprudence, without any pre-Islamic cultural influences, since that would be their primary source of exposure to it.
But again, the traditionally mandated practice of the Shafi’i madhab in this regard, is NOT NECESSARILY what is actually practiced, PARTICULARLY in Africa, which is, again, why even some Shafi’i scholars today are no longer advocating it as obligatory. It has no basis in the Qur’an, and it has no basis in any ahadith. As I have said before, the only ahadith that mention it specifically are unreliable, and even in those unreliable ahadith - which the Shafi’i madhab use as its basis – only, at most, say it is “honorable”, without any mention of it being obligatory.
This is why it is a good idea to actually read and understand what is being said before responding to it.
I’ve highlighted the most relevant parts, which only further demonstrates Drew’s abysmal reading comprehension skills. In addition, only 15% of Muslims follow the Shafi’i madhab, which is the only one that actually mandates hoodectomies and limited labiaplasties (i.e. female circumcision), and only for sexually mature women. That means that 85% of Muslims do not regard it as obligatory or mandatory. Of that 85%, only 15% regard it as a sunnah at all. That means that 70% of Muslims worldwide either see it as something good or noble, or simply permissible with no religious basis for it whatsoever. But Drew insists it is a part of Islam, because of the 30% of Muslims who believe that it is, despite the lack of authentic references to explicitly support such a belief. So even if Drew wanted to appeal to authority or utilize argumentum ad populum, it still wouldn’t work.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:36 pmMuslims rape because it's not their fault. It's the fault of Europeans and their culture of alcohol. Whitey is to blame for what brown people do. - Drew J
Because it is important for Drew to ignore the fact that drugs and alcohol can influence a person’s behavior more than whatever religion they happen to be a nominal adherent of when sober. Blame the religion, blame the nationality, blame the culture, blame the race/ethnicity, but whatever the case, don’t blame the drugs or the booze, and if the perpetrator is a foreigner, don’t just blame the individual.
What an amazing coincidence; places with high rates of unemployment and poverty, with a socially and economically isolated population comprised with lots of young men with drugs and alcohol being readily available to them, also happens to have a high crime rate. Drew thinks there isn’t an actual ‘cause and effect’ between the situation and the crime rate, because ‘some rich people commit crimes too’ and ‘some poor people don’t commit crimes’.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:36 pmRemember guys, sexual assault is not sexual assault if the perpetrator is a non-white. That is the current wisdom of the regressive left. Well let me tell you, it's not the left I grew up with in the 90's. I don't even recognize liberalism anymore. Where did my liberalism go? - Drew J
…While the current wisdom of the regressive Drew is that sexual assault is more of a crime if the perpetrator is non-white. To prove his point about migrants and immigrants, he resorts to “police blottering” – listing crimes committed in a particular locale – while limiting it to suspected migrant/immigrant/refugee crimes:
German father charged for protecting his daughter against sexual assault by migrant
By Voice of Europe 5 October 2018
…
In summation, a drunk guy gropes some other guy's daughter, and that other guy punches him in the face to get him to stop. Now they're both facing charges; the former for sexual assault and the latter for causing bodily harm to him. The only reason this is news to Drew, is because the drunken groper is African while the victim and her father are German. In Drew's mind, that is supposed to somehow make it more of a crime than if they belonged to the same collective, while in reality it doesn’t. Sexual assault is sexual assault, regardless of what face the perpetrator is wearing or what dirt he happens to have been born on top of.
Drew has more:
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:37 pmRemember guys, the liberals demand you turn a blind eye to all immigrant crime. If you hold immigrants to the same standard you do everyone else, that is not equality and being consistent and lacking double standards. That is still somehow racism. And if you object to an anti woman culture in your midst because you believe in women's rights, then YOU are the intolerant Nazi. Which therefore logically means you DON'T believe in women's rights. By believing in women's rights and safety, you don't believe in them. Strawman? No. Just a reductio ad absurdum that reveals how self contradictory the current regressive liberal belief system is when we push it to its logical end. - Drew J
Yet somehow, if you hold immigrant crime to the same level as non-immigrant crime, the alt-right thinks that you are somehow ‘turning a blind eye’ to it and being racist against white people. So in the end, the regressives on the right and the left believe the exact same thing – that immigrant culture is to blame for immigrant crime rather than immigrant circumstances, and that immigrant crime is therefore to be treated differently than non-immigrant crime – they just word it differently from each other and have completely different solutions for it. The concept of equality still eludes them, as they continue to rely on their ignorance and prejudices to define their worldview.
Europe has a plethora of ridiculous “hate speech” laws, which only demonstrates that, despite all of its posturing, it still doesn’t quite live up to its “free speech” ideals. That Christina in that article is going to prison for expressing her hate-ridden ignorance and prejudice against Muslims and Islam, is ultimately a refutation of the her pedestaling of Western Europe, right alongside its holocaust denial laws.
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:37 pmRemember, folks. Immigration is no longer supposed to be a means to a better end of some type. It has to be an end IN AND OF ITSELF, REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES TO THE SOCIAL FABRIC, OR THE SOCIALIST ECONOMY. All science, logic and economics are irrelevant and are patriarchal, racist, hetero male constructs. I'm serious. - Drew J.
Unfortunately, immigrants can’t contribute to an economy that they are not allowed to participate in.
Multicultural Swedish town becomes hell on earth: A girl and two women tell their stories
By Voice of Europe 24 May 2018
….
Multiculturalism and monoculturalism are not, by themselves, indicators of how peaceful or violent, or how successful or unsuccessful a particular locale is going to be, because both multiculturalism and monoculturalism have examples of all of these.
Drew continues with his police blottering:
Drew J wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:38 pmI bet that dog's a racist. LOL. - Drew J
Migrant cuts throat of Swedish student and stabs him 13 times – brags to friends about it
By Emma R. 5 October 2018
…
As it should be clear to anyone that can read, this is actually a drug-related crime, that according to EU standards, would be defined as an ‘economic-compulsive crime’. The fact that the perpetrator is a migrant has literally nothing to do with the crime itself. But for Drew, the identity of the perpetrator is all that matters.
Muslims become police officers and still haven't figured out western democracy, tolerance, and women's rights and equality. Oh I know why. It's because they come from poverty and don't feel well integrated. That's because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO INTEGRATE AND SHED THEIR BELIEFS. I guess many Muslim men simply can't help being neanderthals. Strange how when the women come over to the west, they are excited and can't wait to get away from the oppressive men and can't wait to embrace western style personal freedom. Leftists don't want to explain that. They'd rather ignore the plight of the brown woman who comes from the east. How racist of them!
Obviously, Muslim police officers in the UK HAVE “figured out western democracy, tolerance, and women's rights and equality” by referring Muslims to civil service organizations like the “Muslim Arbitration Tribunal” (MAT) and the “Islamic Sharia Council” (ISC) – organizations that offer civil services in regards to marriage, divorce, business and finance, and which operate LEGALLY in the UK within the framework of UK law – to resolve civil disputes, while also believing that legal UK medical procedures, such as labiaplasties – and hoodectomies in particular – are “good” and “honorable”. They simply prefer tradition, which only makes them “conservative”. The promotion of tradition is at the essence of conservatism, and it seems unlikely that Leftists are going to split hairs between conservatives over what brand of conservatism they subscribe to.
Also, the African, Middle Eastern and Asian Muslims who immigrate to Western countries, regardless if they are men or women, generally do so for economic reasons, not social reasons. The “plight of the brown woman”, like all of Drew’s sensationalist tropes, is nothing but an exaggeration of the reality.
