Jinns are not fiction

Tim the plumber wrote: Is the disscussion about Jinnis/fairies/sprits/ghosts over?

Sorry, got distracted. Perhaps that's what The Saint wanted. After all it is quite embarrassing to have to defend belief in a childish fantasy

To pretend that the conquest was in self defense is exactly the trick that Mr. Bush used. That's actually the trick all imperialist use.

Imperialists do not need ruses. They just invade and conquer.

Did Byzantine or Persia plan an attack on the Muslims at the time ?
Would you have any secular proof about this matter ?

No, I do not have proof. But I guess Muslims at that time must have been convinced that they were.

What makes you think that the christian Copts in Egypt were keen on a Muslim ruling ?

History tells us that Muslims won and were preferred to others because ...of the spirit of Islam... The generous terms that the invading armies usually offered made their faith accessible to the conquered populations. And if it was a new and upstart faith, its administration by simple and honest men was preferable to the corruption and persecution that were the norm in more civilized empires...
George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

And: the real victor in the conquests was not the Arab warlords, but Islam itself... Simply put, Islam may have sped the conquests, but it also showed much greater staying power. It is useful to realize that the power of Islam was separate from much and more permanent than that of the armies with which it rode.
George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Islam at War: A History, 2003

And: But the Arab military adventures do not seem to have been intended as a religious war of conversion.

In the wake of the Ridda wars, and of the Arabs' sudden conquest of most of the Near East, the new religion became identified more sharply as a monotheism for the Arab people.
As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs.
Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003

The trouble is, that (in a scientific sense) I can not find one single one worthy to be called (or discussed) as valid "theory".

What are you really talking about? Which 'theories' are you referring to? The fact of Monotheism? The Prophethood of Muhammad PBUH or the life in the hereafter? The Angels? What?

Scientific theories need evidence to back up their claims.
The Quran holds no evidence whatsoever (again in a scientific sense) to back up its "truth content".

The Quran does contain evidence of scientific facts which were unknown to mankind. There are dozens of instances of scientific phenomena mentioned in clear terms in the Quran which have now been confirmed by science. If you want samples, ask.

I am afraid...........

Don't be.

Edited by The Saint - 15 September 2015 at 2:57am

So 'The Saint', let me sum up your strategy when someone points out an inconvenient truth about Islam:

(1) call that person ignorant;
(2) site a source that you pretend counters the criticism, but actually reinforces it; and
(3) quote a bunch of entirely irrelevant stuff to sound clever.

I believe in calling a spade a spade.

Why pretend about something when there is plenty of appropriate material is available to refute an ignorant accusation?

I am not in a contest. I am here simply to thwart the propaganda of Islamophobes. And that is what I am doing. Allah knows best.

Point (1) needs no further comment... yet. Regarding point (2), I said:

"I don't think Islam cares very much about the sexual fulfilment of women, does it?" and "Islam (for example), which has plenty to say about the sexual fulfilment of men. You know, that sick, deeply disturbing stuff about polygamy and what you can do with slave girls."

The website you champion says "It [marriage] is also compulsory for a woman who has no other means of maintaining herself and who fears that her sexual urge may push her into fornication", but "[various Islamic schools] consider marriage as obligatory for a man if... [among other things]... he cannot get a slave-girl to marry."

The website that I champion, as you call it, carries a paper by an eminent Muslim scholar on the equality of men and women in Islam. I chose it to answer your allegation that men and women are not equal in Islam. Actually you know what your problem is? You use words Islam and Muslims interchangeably when they are most certainly not, today.

And the fact that you cherry-picked a couple of sentences from that site tells me, should tell anyone with an unbiased mind, that you were stumped by what you read at the site. So, you decided to try to save face by posting something.......anything that would make you look clever but you ended-up looking cunning.

For example: You could not see the content that revealed how women were exploited by the Romans, by Christians and by England till the last century.

In his essay The Subjection of Women, John Stuart Mill wrote:

We are continually told that civilization and Christianity have restored to the woman her just rights. Meanwhile the wife is the actual bondservant of her husband; no less so, as far as the legal obligation goes, than slaves commonly so called.

Before moving on to the Quranic decrees concerning the status of woman, a few Biblical decrees may shed more light on the subject, thus providing a better basis for an impartial evaluation. In the Mosaic Law, the wife was betrothed. Explaining this concept, the Encyclopedia Biblical states: "To betroth a wife to oneself meant simply to acquire possession of her by payment of the purchase money; the betrothed is a girl for whom the purchase money has been paid." From the legal point of view, the consent of the girl was not necessary for the validation of her marriage. "The girl's consent is unnecessary and the need for it is nowhere suggested in the Law."

So women cannot have sex outside marriage. Although men should not have sex outside marriage, they can marry and rape a slave girl. And, of course, women can only be in one sexual relationship at a time. Men can have as many as they can afford, or as many slave girls as they can rape.

Of course, women should not have sex outside marriage! It is called fornication. And it is condemned by all decent law systems in the world.

And, of course, women must be in one sex relationship at a time. It is a time-honoured rule.


As regards slave girls, I suggest you do not even talk about or you will be harming your cause heavily.

Greece and Rome were notorious for capturing people and making slaves out of them. In the height of the Roman Empire, one in every three persons was thought to have been a slave. Men were used as laborers, while women and girls were used for enjoyment purposes.

Not much changed in the next few centuries in the plight of the slaves. In the 19th century in the United States, rape was common on southern plantation by masters. By the start of the 20th century, a white slave trade had begun in Europe and North America, involving thousands of young women who were transported as sex slaves. In Europe at the time, governments had been part of sex slavery schemes for over a century.

In the 1990s, the problem of sex trade and sex tourism was increasing and caught international attention when nonprofit groups started making noise about the problem. A company called Big Apple Oriental Tours, out of New York, specialized in sex tours for men who wished to go to places Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, India and Sri Lanka, among other destinations, to engage in sex with prostitutes and later would share their experiences with other customers. In Japan, corporations began offering all expenses paid sex tourism excursions to Taiwan as a perk to their executive personnel. After the Soviet Union fell, the demand for sex slaves boomed. It was fueled by economic austerity. This was the first time since the white slave trade of the 19th century that huge numbers of Caucasian women were bought and sold for the purpose of sex. Israel took advantage of the demand for European women that brothels were big money makers. The New York Times and NBC�s Dateline both did stories on Israel�s sex trafficking business.

The majority of trafficking victims in Europe are young adult women and the most common reason for human trafficking is sexual exploitation. However, trafficking for forced labor makes up one third of all trafficking occurrences; victims go to the agriculture, construction, fishery, manufacturing, and textile industries. There are also women and men being trafficked for the purposes of domestic servitude. Children in this region are trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation, forced marriage and forced begging.

Let me know if you want more evidence of sex slavery in non-Muslim spheres.

With regard to polygamy the website says: "The reality is that 'lust' was involved in the marriage of the first wife. Why is it acceptable in the case of the first and not the second? As has already been pointed out, men are polygamous by nature. To try to curb it by such conditions will only lead to corruption in society...."

Which website? I could not find this content on http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/status_of_women_in_islam.php


So the reason men can have multiple sexual partners is because they want to. The same rule does not apply to women.

In Judaism and Christian there is no specific instruction about number of marriages. Quran is the only religious book on earth that limits marriages.

So, as you can see, the webite you sited simply confirms the points I made of Islam. Did you actually read it?

I did. It seems you are too much in a hurry to accuse Islam of evils it does not have.

With regard to (3), what relevance do Hindu scripture, ancient Athens and ancient Rome have to do with my statement regarding "the very many wonderful things about the modern world and secularism"????

Your statement is totally and entirely immoral. Your so called modern and secular world has degenerated into a depraved, sick and demoralized society. I was trying to tell you how similar you were to those earlier sick, uncivilized societies.

You also quoted 19th Century philosopher John Stuart Mill approvingly. Do I really need to point out Mill was a campaigning atheist and secularist who said: "God is a word to express, not our ideas, but the want of them."

I am not concerned with what he said or did elsewhere. I quoted him for what he said about women in Christianity. And it is most damning for your stand.

So, in summary, most of your post was completely irrelevant to the points I raised. When it did try to address my points, all it did was confirm them!

Not only did I answer all your oft-repeated accusations I also showed you where you were coming from in terms of your cultural and religious history.

You accused me of ignorance. Funny.

I did. And I am inclined to say that with more force now.

Edited by The Saint - 15 September 2015 at 6:43am