Secular Leaders and Their Sex Scandals

[emkhan]

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]

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.

[Alchemist]

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]

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]

Sex, Zionists & The Secular World

The Chosen Criminal Elite - YouTube

[R3SISTANC3]

Do Zionists Control Wall Street? The Shocking Facts! - YouTube

[R3SISTANC3]

Zionist Strauss-Kahn Evades Justice Again - YouTube

[thegood]

[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)

[Zmarak]

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]

[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)

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]

[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)

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.