View Full Version : Secular Leaders and Their Sex Scandals


R3SISTANC3
12-11-2011, 06:09 AM
Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, Moshe Katsav, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards.....the list is just too long to mention every Western secular President, Governor, Mayor ever accused of cheating on their wives with other women, men, or minors.

What could be the root cause of it all? Can we blame democracy, secularism, modernity, their skin color, or the language they speak..for their shenanigans? What sort of society, mentality, thinking, encourages this? If Islam can be blamed, held responsible, for everything that a Muslim does, then why not return the favor.

Tjanaparh
12-11-2011, 06:22 AM
I would blame education , that is missing, that doesn't educate men as real men and women as real women.

JAMALUDEEN
12-11-2011, 06:54 AM
resistance, the title of the thread is very offensive...its going to be changed

emkhan
12-11-2011, 07:07 AM
The main reason for this is the freedom of women with no limits and empower her to the extent. The more you give women freedom the more she lose dignity and respect.
This is natural. The more you free her and empower her the more she misuse it and is misused by men. she thinks she has got something but actually it is other way round.
Arevapasht, education will not work. We have seen, women is being exploited the most in the educated and advanced societies. In those societies woman has become a commercial and marketing tool for the companies.
Only following the God's word will protect men and women for such shar.

Levanaye Zalmaye
12-11-2011, 07:19 AM
Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, Moshe Katsav, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards

Bill Clinton - Christian
Silvio Berlusconi - Catholic
John Edwards - Christian
Herman Cain - Christian
(don't know about the other guys)



This is, by the way, a poem written by the Amir-ul-Momineen of the Ummah for a Russian slave-girl:

"Throne of my lonely niche, my wealth, my love, my moonlight.
My most sincere friend, my confidant, my very existence, my Sultan, my one and only love.
The most beautiful among the beautiful...
My springtime, my merry faced love, my daytime, my sweetheart, laughing leaf...
My plants, my sweet, my rose, the one only who does not distress me in this world...
My Constantinople, my Caraman, the earth of my Anatolia
My Badakhshan, my Baghdad and Khorasan
My woman of the beautiful hair, my love of the slanted brow, my love of eyes full of mischief...
I'll sing your praises always
I, lover of the tormented heart, Muhibbi of the eyes full of tears, I am happy."


The shadow of God on earth was so infatuated with her, he even named her inept son as his successor instead of more able candidates.

The other shadows of God on earth, the Mughals, need not be mentioned here as their scandals are too pornographic for our sensitive members.

But what's the deal with Islamic kings and fratricide? Why were the Ottomans and Mughals so hell-bent on killing all their brothers?

Edit: The point of my post is to ridicule the premise of this thread and its childish attempt to connect a political philosophy to individual failings that are, incidentally, common amongst people of all political philosophies.

unknownprince
12-11-2011, 07:28 AM
LZ

A poem is all you got, it's a poem. Nothing outlandish. Now instead of derailing this thread why don't you either post your own thread about this poem or discuss the topic of secularism here.

Levanaye Zalmaye
12-11-2011, 07:32 AM
LZ

A poem is all you got, it's a poem. Nothing outlandish. Now instead of derailing this thread why don't you either post your own thread or discuss the topic of secularism here

Just a poem? It was a scandal. What about fratricide? Would it be fair to associate Islam with fratricide because many Muslims kings were fratricidal?

The point of my post was to ridicule the premise of this thread and its childish attempt to connect a political philosophy to individual failings that are, incidentally, common amongst people of all political philosophies.

unknownprince
12-11-2011, 07:35 AM
Oh so now all political philosophies have flaws

Ok

Levanaye Zalmaye
12-11-2011, 07:37 AM
Oh so now all political philosophies have flaws

Ok

That's subjective and I didn't suggest that.

But all individuals have flaws and weaknesses, no matter what religion or philosophy they subscribe to... That's what I'm saying.

Tjanaparh
12-11-2011, 07:45 AM
The main reason for this is the freedom of women with no limits and empower her to the extent. The more you give women freedom the more she lose dignity and respect.
This is natural. The more you free her and empower her the more she misuse it and is misused by men. she thinks she has got something but actually it is other way round.
Arevapasht, education will not work. We have seen, women is being exploited the most in the educated and advanced societies. In those societies woman has become a commercial and marketing tool for the companies.
Only following the God's word will protect men and women for such shar.


Dear brother Emkhan - you answered Yourself on the question I would ask You- the societies You mentioned aren'T Advanced and Educated, but You are right, they are commercial.
I do not have a good view on Pashtun society, from Your description it is quiet similar how society was here, and somewhere still is.
We have also the european system now.
Both I do not consider as good brother(I talk about my country - so do not feel Yourself in any way attacked) - many of our women lived a life that was very bad, as they were/are not free to decide whom to mary while their husbands were/are chosen on qualities of economic stats in the society.
Many things are done hidden and are seen as normal among the male society so everything turned into a kind of "liar society".
On the other hand the new generation of the city is perhaps worse than in Europe - where woman are free to do what they "want", but their education doesn't make them free, they are slaves of a material education where women are a kind of product of lust, so our girls are now so easy to cheat and to use.
Both statuses are bad - a girl should have the right education - to become a woman , to become a mother, to develop feminine qualities, tecnical knowledge isn't education its only tecnical knowledge - so that a completely other way is needed.
Also the mixed school is a big problem for men and women.
Men should also be educated differently, it is wrong to see that only women have educational problems in my eyes, men became perhaps even worse, they destroyed our women.
Having more freedom they became slaves of(excuse me much to state that) sex.
They think a man shows being man secretly cheating women - but if you meet him as father who gives his daughter in marriage he wil tell you the most moral words and so on.

That is also lach of any education.

To say from my view, the man generaly in a family was a spiritual leader while the woman a metrial leader.
Mens nature is generaly more of a thinker and spirital person, womans nature is more material(care for the family) and of a person giving love trough feelings.
One without the other do not exist well - and the changing of these roles is a ruin of society.
But that has not to do with tecnical knowledge acquisting - in the west for example there is no education for girls and boys specifically - they are only learned tecnically - that is why I would see the problem you describe more result of a lack of education, than the existance of education.

If you disagree with me - please write me more on your point of view.
It is a very important theme for me personally, so I am very glad to see others opinions.

Tjanaparh
12-11-2011, 07:48 AM
LZ

A poem is all you got, it's a poem. Nothing outlandish. Now instead of derailing this thread why don't you either post your own thread about this poem or discuss the topic of secularism here.
Dear Unknownprince, we still do not know much eachother, do not get angry of this posting, but isn't it better to unite all in one theme, as it is all arround one theme, so all different views can be considered and their problems discussed?
It is a mostly serious theme I think.

R3SISTANC3
12-11-2011, 08:17 AM
Bill Clinton - Christian
Silvio Berlusconi - Catholic
John Edwards - Christian
Herman Cain - Christian
(don't know about the other guys)

And your point is? These people didn't run for offices at the Vatican, but in secular nations for secular offices. Even if they are true adherents of their stated faiths, the people of those faiths are no different in their hypocrisy, as atheists are, when maligning Islam for the shortcomings of Muslims.

Edit: The point of my post is to ridicule the premise of this thread and its childish attempt to connect a political philosophy to individual failings that are, incidentally, common amongst people of all political philosophies.

Yet you failed to realize the point behind this thread.

Why are the failings of Muslim individuals always connected to their faith, or their Prophet SAW? You acknowledge the human condition and it's flaws when it comes to ideologies you personally subscribe to but fail to do so in respect to Muslims or Islam. I'm not saying you personally have done so, but that was the premise of this thread and you took offense to it.

R3SISTANC3
12-11-2011, 08:21 AM
I would blame education , that is missing, that doesn't educate men as real men and women as real women.

Education? These people are very highly educated. They have to be in order to qualify for these positions.

Tjanaparh
12-11-2011, 08:59 AM
Education? These people are very highly educated. They have to be in order to qualify for these positions.

I wouldn't call such peolpe even a bit educated, even if they know the whole geography, technology....
Learning to use a knife without learning what for to use it - what kind of education is that?
these are ignorant people with a sick ego

graveyardofempires
12-11-2011, 09:02 AM
I wouldn't call such peolpe even a bit educated, even if they know the whole geography, technology....
Learning to use a knife without learning what for to use it - what kind of education is that?
these are ignorant people with a sick ego
ignorance is not a crime

but this is a crime.

so calling them ignorant is the least you can do,we should call them sickos.

Soldat_Amir
12-11-2011, 09:56 AM
This is too easy man. I have been forced to give a comment to this thread.

All one needs to do is google Harems, sex slaves, kuwaiti cleric, Indonesian maid, Saudi Arabia and we will soon come to the conclusion about how randy some leaders truely are.

Deera Manan

I could post a video here but the babies will start to cry.

emkhan
12-11-2011, 10:00 AM
Its not about who does what. We are not talking about individual, we are talking about the secular lot who support such things and striving hard to defend it and spread it and legalise it. This is ironic.

tor_khan
12-11-2011, 11:02 AM
This is too easy man. I have been forced to give a comment to this thread.

All one needs to do is google Harems, sex slaves, kuwaiti cleric, Indonesian maid, Saudi Arabia and we will soon come to the conclusion about how randy some leaders truely are.

Deera Manan

I could post a video here but the babies will start to cry.

Thank you for NOT posting a Youtube video to make a point.

The power that men wish to exert over women has not changed since the time of the cavemen and education and social mores only go some way towards controlling 'nature'. Male conquest is not something that is unique to our species either.

That said, we have our Quranic guidance. Different Islamic societies approach Islamic teachings differently. It is not all it seems and even the examples from Turkish, Mughal and Arab history of harems and seraglios is both bitter and sweet. Sure there are exceptions, but with all the other things that we are accused of, most Pashtun men secular or spiritual actually can only 'afford' to marry one woman. It's about as regular as you can get, in my opinion.

Tjanaparh
12-11-2011, 12:11 PM
ignorance is not a crime

but this is a crime.

so calling them ignorant is the least you can do,we should call them sickos.

Ignorance is a secure guide to different types of crimes.

Badlun
12-11-2011, 12:24 PM
The sex greed that I have seen in Arab and other Muslims, their sex slave girls, their harems, their multiple wives I have not seen any where else. Sodomy is very common in religious institutions.

The only difference is that in developed countries these scandals are reported while in Muslim religious countries these are concealed under the heavy seal of dictatorships and monarchies.

Even in Church which is again a religious institution and not secular there are so many sex scandals. Secularism has nothing to with sex or sex scandals. This is an individual act which cant be controlled neither by religion nor by its absence.

Alchemist
12-11-2011, 01:18 PM
I wouldn't call such peolpe even a bit educated, even if they know the whole geography, technology....
Learning to use a knife without learning what for to use it - what kind of education is that?
these are ignorant people with a sick ego

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)


And what makes you think education can cure "sick egos"?

Are you a psychologist? Did you figure out how to fix the problems of Prison systems now?

Maybe it's religion ...or tougher Punishments to deter them. Punishment that would bring them PAIN.


Do you have children?

Tjanaparh
12-11-2011, 02:03 PM
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)


And what makes you think education can cure "sick egos"?

Are you a psychologist? Did you figure out how to fix the problems of Prison systems now?

Maybe it's religion ...or tougher Punishments to deter them. Punishment that would bring them PAIN.


Do you have children?


I am not a psychologist, and I do not want to be one.
I do not think figuring out prisoners problems is easy- it is close to impossible.
Education starts in young age - and more time passes more it is difficult.
I have no children, but I worked in an Orphanage, I worked with many children .
Deter can belief - but that is part of education and knowledge.

thegood
12-11-2011, 02:47 PM
There was one grand-son Imam Hassan of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) who married and divorced 70 women in a row. It earned him the title of "THE GREAT DIVORCER". The institutions of slaves, slave or sex girls, cancubanage, etc. unfortunately is associated with medeival history of Muslim period to the extent that sometimes it sounds as if all this has been religiously sanctioned.

thegood
12-11-2011, 03:07 PM
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]

The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.

Al-Umm, 5/43.

The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.

And Allaah knows best.

unknownprince
12-11-2011, 03:27 PM
Secular/atheist societies appear to be terming pedophilia as a mental sickness to be treated, not as a crime. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm)

This is one of the major reasons it is so widespread throughout the US and the West. Child porn is increasingly seen as art. Dakota Fanning ( a once child actress at the time) was made to star in a sex scene despite her young age, and this was a Hollywood movie. This is an example of child porn marketed to the Hollywood audience, It appears that athiest secular societies encourage and condone this. Is Dakota Fanning in kiddie porn? - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/01/is_dakota_fanning_in_kiddie_porn.html)

So the facts speak more than the thoughts

JAMALUDEEN
12-11-2011, 03:35 PM
Secular/atheist societies appear to be terming pedophilia as a mental sickness to be treated, not as a crime. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm)

This is one of the major reasons it is so widespread throughout the US and the West. Child porn is increasingly seen as art. Dakota Fanning ( a once child actress at the time) was made to star in a sex scene despite her young age, and this was a Hollywood movie. This is an example of child porn marketed to the Hollywood audience, It appears that athiest secular societies encourage and condone this. Is Dakota Fanning in kiddie porn? - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/01/is_dakota_fanning_in_kiddie_porn.html)

So the facts speak more than the thoughts

The rise and fall of Tasmanian MP Terry Martin (http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/power-fail/tasmanian-mp-terry-martin-guilty-of-sex-crimes/20111130787)

thegood
12-12-2011, 05:33 AM
Islamic haters bring these kind of comments. refer to this hadith of the Rasul of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam): "There shall be no harm nor the causing of harm" [Musnad Ahmad, authenticated by Shaykh al-Bani - rahimahullah]. From this the 'ulama have concluded that it is forbidden to harm anyone by any means - given that they are not enemies of Islam and are in state of war with Muslims.

Now, the female slaves are properties of their master; hence, it is not allowed for the master to harm them by any mean, whether it is hitting them lightly, without any legitimate shari'ah reason, or forcing them to answer their call to bed. As far as I know, just like a wife, a slave woman will be sinning if she doesn't answer her master's call to bed without any legitimate shari'ah excuse: menstruating, sick, or she will be harmed physically or physiologically. However, it doesn't mean that her master can force her to answer his call to bed.

Slaves (men and women) may be taken in the wars that take place between Muslims and kaafirs, not in wars that are fought amongst the Muslims at times of tribulation.
Islam limited the sources of slaves which existed before the mission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to just one source, namely slavery resulting from capturing prisoners from among the kuffaar, including women and children.

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The reason why a person may be taken as a slave is his being a kaafir and waging war against Allah and His Messenger. If Allah enables the Muslims who are striving and sacrificing their lives and their wealth and all that Allah has given them to make the word of Allah supreme over the kaafirs, then He allows them to enslave the kuffaar when they capture them, unless the ruler chooses to free them or to ransom them, if that serves the interests of the Muslims.


First of all it is very hard to find slave woman in sharia sense in todays time because muslim are on defence rather on offence. And if u know u can only have non-muslim slave if they accept islam than they should be freed. Muslim cant own a muslim slave if that slave is taken from booty of war. And woman can be only slave if she participated in war, in some rare cases where the punishment is on whole tribe it happend once in time of prophet. But thats the maximum punishment. And Islam encourages to free slave and there is lot of reward for that.


The nobler and more human thing would be giving the daughters, sisters, wives, etc. of the fallen enemy the choice to be free or captivity of the conqueror. Was such option provided to the poor infidel women that later became slave-girls?

There is a saying that what you sow so shall you reap. Imagine had the Westerners that conquered all Muslim lands in 18th and 19th centuries meted out the same treatment to Muslim women, how would have that sounded?

That is why there should be rules of the game fair to all irrespective of religion or sects.

The problem is, when you point out such things, some extremists become violent and try to eliminate you. Rational thinking is past is past and let us move ahead.

faye
12-12-2011, 05:56 AM
Its not about who does what. We are not talking about individual, we are talking about the secular lot who support such things and striving hard to defend it and spread it and legalise it. This is ironic.
well the good and the bad news guys, is that the latest fad in the west is polyamory. apparently, according to news reports. this is the next immoral disgusting blasphemy, to be put on the 'must legalise' list. more than one marraige partner!!! men having more than one wife...the good news lol/ women having more than one husband...hahaha.. the bad news:tongue: (for you guys)

graveyardofempires
12-12-2011, 06:10 AM
well the good and the bad news guys, is that the latest fad in the west is polyamory. apparently, according to news reports. this is the next immoral disgusting blasphemy, to be put on the 'must legalise' list. more than one marraige partner!!! men having more than one wife...the good news lol/ women having more than one husband...hahaha.. the bad news:tongue: (for you guys)
so is faye gonna marry a gang of bikers?

MohannaD
12-12-2011, 06:10 AM
The ... greed that I have seen in .......

Why do you generalize ??? How many Arabs or Muslims have you seen ? And I mean face to face not through youtube or online .

graveyardofempires
12-12-2011, 06:12 AM
Why do you generalize ??? How many Arabs or Muslims have you seen ? And I mean face to face not through youtube or online .
bro dont worry about it.
these types of people dont represent pashtuns,we love our fellow muslim brethern.

these guys are making things up to justify their hatred and because they are desperate cuz pashtuns wont take them serious.

faye
12-12-2011, 06:16 AM
so is faye gonna marry a gang of bikers?
i divorced that lot, ages ago.:smile1: no, i am going to marry you and unknown and emkhan. you lucky little devils, you :grouphug:

graveyardofempires
12-12-2011, 06:18 AM
i divorced that lot, ages ago.:smile1: no, i am going to marry you and unknown and emkhan. you lucky little devils, you :grouphug:
hell no
we think of you as a friendly aunt who bakes cookies.

faye
12-12-2011, 06:24 AM
:devilish:hyuck, hyuck hyuck....yeah, yeah, that's me. another ganja cookie, rasta? just one more, lol, it won't hurt.:angel1:

graveyardofempires
12-12-2011, 06:40 AM
^
i wan no ganja cookie
me wanna bomba glock ya no.

faye
12-12-2011, 06:50 AM
stop being pretentious. i know you are clacking around in clogs, eating tulip salads, lol.

graveyardofempires
12-12-2011, 07:01 AM
^
i dooo

Soldat_Amir
12-12-2011, 07:15 AM
Thank you for NOT posting a Youtube video to make a point.

The power that men wish to exert over women has not changed since the time of the cavemen and education and social mores only go some way towards controlling 'nature'. Male conquest is not something that is unique to our species either.

That said, we have our Quranic guidance. Different Islamic societies approach Islamic teachings differently. It is not all it seems and even the examples from Turkish, Mughal and Arab history of harems and seraglios is both bitter and sweet. Sure there are exceptions, but with all the other things that we are accused of, most Pashtun men secular or spiritual actually can only 'afford' to marry one woman. It's about as regular as you can get, in my opinion.

Tor Khan roara

How can one logically accuse a whole ideology of being Sexual fanatics over the actions of a few under a secular state, its like me saying hey every Muslim leader has a homosexual son(Saudi nephew arrested in Uk for killing his boyfriend).

Generalisation sucks man!

emkhan
12-12-2011, 06:37 PM
Dear brother Emkhan - you answered Yourself on the question I would ask You- the societies You mentioned aren'T Advanced and Educated, but You are right, they are commercial.
I do not have a good view on Pashtun society, from Your description it is quiet similar how society was here, and somewhere still is.
We have also the european system now.
Both I do not consider as good brother(I talk about my country - so do not feel Yourself in any way attacked) - many of our women lived a life that was very bad, as they were/are not free to decide whom to mary while their husbands were/are chosen on qualities of economic stats in the society.
Many things are done hidden and are seen as normal among the male society so everything turned into a kind of "liar society".
On the other hand the new generation of the city is perhaps worse than in Europe - where woman are free to do what they "want", but their education doesn't make them free, they are slaves of a material education where women are a kind of product of lust, so our girls are now so easy to cheat and to use.
Both statuses are bad - a girl should have the right education - to become a woman , to become a mother, to develop feminine qualities, tecnical knowledge isn't education its only tecnical knowledge - so that a completely other way is needed.
Also the mixed school is a big problem for men and women.
Men should also be educated differently, it is wrong to see that only women have educational problems in my eyes, men became perhaps even worse, they destroyed our women.
Having more freedom they became slaves of(excuse me much to state that) sex.
They think a man shows being man secretly cheating women - but if you meet him as father who gives his daughter in marriage he wil tell you the most moral words and so on.

That is also lach of any education.

To say from my view, the man generaly in a family was a spiritual leader while the woman a metrial leader.
Mens nature is generaly more of a thinker and spirital person, womans nature is more material(care for the family) and of a person giving love trough feelings.
One without the other do not exist well - and the changing of these roles is a ruin of society.
But that has not to do with tecnical knowledge acquisting - in the west for example there is no education for girls and boys specifically - they are only learned tecnically - that is why I would see the problem you describe more result of a lack of education, than the existance of education.

If you disagree with me - please write me more on your point of view.
It is a very important theme for me personally, so I am very glad to see others opinions.

Brother, I don't take your words as any attack. I respect your words. There are some other guys who always have devil in their mind.
I agree with you in some points. People now a days look for the the solution of their problems in education which is totally wrong. Education will can't do anything unless you have a complete system otherwise it will go even against you.
Brother I don't have problem with education for girls if it is Islamic and contemporary both protected by an Islamic system as a whole.
Only contemporary education pushes you only to a world of materialism which has no end. This is a world of unending wishes and demands where one forget about his own purpose of life, values, ethics.
Only modern education has done nothing but destruction to nature, to humanity, to values, to ethics, it has only created terrorists, it has created weapon of mass destruction, it has created modern ways of doing corruption. Now a days people don't education to become a good person but his first main aim is to how to cheat the other person and get some benefit, how do dodge the system to get some benefit.
This could be long argument but at the end I would just say again that we need an Islamic and contemporary education both at the same time.

faye
12-12-2011, 06:46 PM
very nicely said emkhan, but modern education also has given benefits of fairness to many also. in some countries, for example, mentally ill people are chained to trees or treated as possessed. women have more rights now, and not every woman makes the negative decisions that you tend to project upon them. for (basically) 50% of the worlds population, to have equal rights, is their right.

emkhan
12-12-2011, 06:57 PM
Faye, the rights that you are boasting about I know better than anybody else...
I have observed very closely the lives of these westerners where they have given more and more rights to women. Now they have reached to a point where men have less rights than women, now men are becoming innocent. I see on daily basis here in the west that men follows his wife like a cat follows her master.
I don't want to go into the details but the fact is, here in such free societies the life is so disturbed because of the high rate of divorce, family disputes, women going with men shoulder to shoulder in many cases ahead of them. When you apportion a right duty to the wrong person then the whole life gets disturbed. Men have their own duties to do and women have their own. But this can be understood by those who are not affected with the devil of materialism and secularism where there are no values but only lust and freedom without limits.

faye
12-12-2011, 07:04 PM
well i have had a little experience myself of these rights of women, dear. like 63 years of it. i will stand up for it till i die.
i agree that we still have a long way to go to progress to a fairer and more balanced way of being. for you it is with the combination of the muslim religion and for muslims, i don't dispute that but what some people don't seem to recognise here, is that, people who have had such freedoms and don't follow a particular relgion, can still be possesed with morals and heart.

Zmarak
12-12-2011, 07:33 PM
in some countries, for example, mentally ill people are chained to trees or treated as possessed.
Yes I'm familiar with a village where such people are chained to trees. But by stating ONLY this, you limit the readers knowledge of what is actually occurring there. The village is Diwan Sahib and the people who are taken there are people who have been treated by various doctors for their conditions and in spite of this, continue to suffer from whatever condition it may be. Some of these people may have genuine mental defects and others may be possessed. Either way, those who have no other options available are brought to this place, usually by family members and chained to a tree, given adequate bedding, food and are visited frequently. They are provided with all things necessary for life. The hope is that the spirit of local saint Haji Sher will come and heal them of whatever may be wrong with them. It is my understanding that most of these people have tried many doctors with no success. It is also my understanding that there has been great success with many of the people who are sent there for this experience. I can't explain it.

emkhan
12-12-2011, 07:34 PM
Those who don't believe in religion feel shame talking about morals and ethics so no chance of expecting morals and ethics and modesty from the materialists and atheists.
They have lost their soul

faye
12-12-2011, 07:42 PM
personally zmarak, i don't believe in evil spirits and possession and a lot of the cases are not treated by medication, that i have read about, re india.
stop with the ridiculous generalisations emkhan. your experience in life is obviously limited and your mind is only turned to the negativity channel.
i know thousands upon thousands, throughout my life, who are not religious but who are of good character and want to see peace on the planet and all people treated fairly.

emkhan
12-12-2011, 07:47 PM
personally zmarak, i don't believe in evil spirits and possession and a lot of the cases are not treated by medication, that i have read about, re india.
stop with the ridiculous generalisations emkhan. your experience in life is obviously limited and your mind is only turned to the negativity channel.
i know thousands upon thousands, throughout my life, who are not religious but who are of good character and want to see peace on the planet and all people treated fairly.

Again, Faye I don't pick individuals or I don't talk about hundreds or thousands... Whenever I talk I talk about as a whole... I never says he did this and he did that... Whenever you talk or give your opinion about a nation, a country so talk about majority...

faye
12-12-2011, 08:00 PM
Again, Faye I don't pick individuals or I don't talk about hundreds or thousands... Whenever I talk I talk about as a whole... I never says he did this and he did that... Whenever you talk or give your opinion about a nation, a country so talk about majority...
stop the fibbing emkhan. 'secularists this and secularists that'...generalisations, my dear. stay aware of yourself.:tongue:

Alchemist
12-12-2011, 08:00 PM
Tor Khan roara

How can one logically accuse a whole ideology of being Sexual fanatics over the actions of a few under a secular state, its like me saying hey every Muslim leader has a homosexual son(Saudi nephew arrested in Uk for killing his boyfriend).

Generalisation sucks man!

Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, Moshe Katsav, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards

Bill Clinton - Christian
Silvio Berlusconi - Catholic
John Edwards - Christian
Herman Cain - Christian
(don't know about the other guys)



This is, by the way, a poem written by the Amir-ul-Momineen of the Ummah for a Russian slave-girl:

"Throne of my lonely niche, my wealth, my love, my moonlight.
My most sincere friend, my confidant, my very existence, my Sultan, my one and only love.
The most beautiful among the beautiful...
My springtime, my merry faced love, my daytime, my sweetheart, laughing leaf...
My plants, my sweet, my rose, the one only who does not distress me in this world...
My Constantinople, my Caraman, the earth of my Anatolia
My Badakhshan, my Baghdad and Khorasan
My woman of the beautiful hair, my love of the slanted brow, my love of eyes full of mischief...
I'll sing your praises always
I, lover of the tormented heart, Muhibbi of the eyes full of tears, I am happy."


The shadow of God on earth was so infatuated with her, he even named her inept son as his successor instead of more able candidates.

The other shadows of God on earth, the Mughals, need not be mentioned here as their scandals are too pornographic for our sensitive members.

But what's the deal with Islamic kings and fratricide? Why were the Ottomans and Mughals so hell-bent on killing all their brothers?

Edit: The point of my post is to ridicule the premise of this thread and its childish attempt to connect a political philosophy to individual failings that are, incidentally, common amongst people of all political philosophies.


The differences is that these are ELECTED officials.

The Saudi prince, the Mughals etc are Monarchies.

Isn't the whole reason why democracies became popular was because of the hedonism of Kings and Queens...the Royals?

Now the elected leaders who are suppose to represent the common have turned elitest themselves. They are two faced courtesans with no integrity...
It is safe to say that such institutions only attract these types of men...

Tjanaparh
12-14-2011, 02:42 PM
Brother, I don't take your words as any attack. I respect your words. There are some other guys who always have devil in their mind.
I agree with you in some points. People now a days look for the the solution of their problems in education which is totally wrong. Education will can't do anything unless you have a complete system otherwise it will go even against you. Brother I don't have problem with education for girls if it is Islamic and contemporary both protected by an Islamic system as a whole.
Only contemporary education pushes you only to a world of materialism which has no end. This is a world of unending wishes and demands where one forget about his own purpose of life, values, ethics.
Only modern education has done nothing but destruction to nature, to humanity, to values, to ethics, it has only created terrorists, it has created weapon of mass destruction, it has created modern ways of doing corruption. Now a days people don't education to become a good person but his first main aim is to how to cheat the other person and get some benefit, how do dodge the system to get some benefit.
This could be long argument but at the end I would just say again that we need an Islamic and contemporary education both at the same time.

I will make it short this time as I am a bit busy brother Emkhan - I agree mostly with You. And I am against the education model applied in many countries. For instance my best friend didn't send his daughters to school but educates them himself and I would do the same in this situation, as the modern school doesn't educate, it ruins the childrens mind a lot.
By the way many modern teachers shouldn't be teachers at all.
Excuse me for the short answer, but my lack of time and the agreeing with your previous posting at the moment lead only to such a short answer! :)

R3SISTANC3
12-15-2011, 02:58 AM
The Chosen Criminal Elite - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcsCp319xq0)

R3SISTANC3
12-15-2011, 03:00 AM
Do Zionists Control Wall Street? The Shocking Facts! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUY7o7pX6vk)

R3SISTANC3
12-15-2011, 03:01 AM
Zionist Strauss-Kahn Evades Justice Again - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1PYwP_YCD0)

thegood
12-15-2011, 05:08 AM
[Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

Maududi writes:
Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus) (Bukhari 870).

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.637))

Zmarak
12-15-2011, 06:22 PM
Resistence, Jazakallahu khairan for posting these! Lots of information here to contemplate.
"thegood" are you an alternate persona of another member? Is this all you do? Make hit and run subversive comments or posts intended to incite conflict amongst members and spread confusion? I'm familiar with this behavior and mode of operation... Are you a jew yourself?

R3SISTANC3
12-16-2011, 12:06 AM
[Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul AíLa Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

Maududi writes:
Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in oneís possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with oneís slave-girl as with oneís wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus) (Bukhari 870).

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Donít hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.637))


You are comparing 7th century world with 21st century. Even then those men of the 7th century did what they believed to be morally right unlike your 21st century custodians who say and preach one thing but for themselves have carved out a total different sets of values.

BarakzaiAbdali
12-16-2011, 12:14 AM
[Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

Maududi writes:
Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus) (Bukhari 870).

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.637))

Talk to Thomas Jefferson's black descendents... I dont think he deviated that far from this.

If your response is that the West has one upped this mindset with moral evolution of thought then you are non evidence based and deluded.

One might say slaves as a war booty is wrong, and that the Western society has advanced so much and so far as to abandon this trait within their nations.

Yet their foreign policy has actually done worse. Their energy dependency and propping up of tyrannies across the world shows more barbarism than these two maududi quotes you cite.

Or for that matter, does Mr. Petreus arming Ethiopans to invade Somalia, which he did again recently, with the knowledge that the christian ethiopains and the Somalis are mortal enemies constitute rape of a nation? After all, you would have to be dumb to not expect all sorts of rapes and killings will happen the minute an ethiopian contingent enters Mogadishu.

So your attempt here is to do the typical bait and switch. Its to say: Hey look, if you the Muslims free their countries from the yolk... this is what is going to happen... so we gotta keep killing them and we gotta keep propping up tyrannies world wide over them to ensure they dont do this to others.

Any one with a brain cell and with any knowledge of basic history thinks this is a ridiculous line of reasoning.

So basically, the bill of rights is applicable within the Northern American continent... but the constitution is not allowed to march after where the flag goes.

That sort of hypocrasy is as morally bankrupt as what you are trying to allege.

For that matter, the general prescriptions in the hadith literatuer and the Quranic text make freeing slaves a virtuous act.

If a Caliph were to ban slavery, there is really no prescription that forces it into the dictums of shariah law.