There is a great deal of misinformation circulating with regard to shariah and the threat it poses to America and western civilization.
See on www.newsmax.com
- Victory Against Sharia in America: Offensive Foreign Law Legislation Passes Florida House 92 – 24 (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
Originally posted on News You May Have Missed:
As Islamic Jihad, including its “stealth” variety, is rapidly succeeding in destroying our civilization, the Left continues its shameless and bizarre denial — not only about the threat of Islamic Jihad, but also about its own complicity with our enemy and its war on our society.The latest example of the Left’s Jihad-Denial concerns me personally: it involves an intriguing post, written by Brian Tashman in RightWingWatch.org, titled: Beware: Human-Hating Liberals and Islamic Extremists Seek to Build Shariommunism. The post ridicules my recent appearance on CBN’s “Stackelbeck on Terror” in which I discuss the Unholy Alliance between the radical Left and radical Islam, which happens to be the main field of my life’s work and which I crystallized in my book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.
After years of collaboration with the Muslim Students Association, UChicago Dining Services has created permanent halal stations in two dining halls and expanded food options for students with dietary restrictions.
Beginning this quarter, both Bartlett and Cathey Dining Commons now permanently offer daily halal offerings for students. Until last year, halal options rotated between dining halls each week. Last fall, dining halls began dedicating an entire station to halal food for the first time during the week, but had no halal offerings on weekends.
The expansion of the halal program has largely grown out of a collaboration between UChicago Dining and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) over the last five years.
Fourth-year Saalika Mela, one of several MSA students who helped UChicago Dining gauge the dietary needs of Muslim students on campus, said that students wanted more variety in halal offerings.
“We wanted healthy food options for Muslims, such that we could have grilled chicken and greens and not always have to resort to fries or cheese pizza,” she said.
Halal food must be prepared according to tenets of Islamic law, including specific guidelines for slaughter. Halal meat also cannot come into contact with other foods restricted by the Qur’an, such as pork.
According to Richard Mason, executive director of UChicago Dining, figuring out how to provide halal foods in the dining halls was mainly a case of finding places to procure halal meat and ensuring that it did not come into contact with foods that would contaminate it according to the halal laws. Since the dining halls already adhere to kosher, vegetarian, and vegan dietary requirements, which are also concerned with contamination, offering halal food was not an entirely new concept, Mason said.
The collaboration between dining officials and MSA that produced more halal offerings began around Ramadan five years ago. Mason said that at the time, the dining halls offered no halal options.
“During the course of that work, it became clear that there were additional needs that they had for halal offerings. At that particular time, we didn’t have any halal program, so we worked with the MSA to figure out what we could do and what they were looking for,” Mason said.
According to a University statement announcing the improvements last week, Mason also took UChicago Dining chefs to different neighborhoods to sample different recipes to increase the diversity of halal offerings.
As halal offerings increased, Mela and other MSA students served as an intermediary between Muslim students and dining administrators.
“The MSA spearheaded the initiative on campus,” Mela said. “We conducted surveys on Muslim students’ satisfaction with dining hall foods and their needs, and we met with the Dining committee frequently and made certain proposals.”
Mason said that working with the students was an “enlightening and rewarding experience.”
“The students have been educators and great to cooperate with. They have kept feedback very frequent and let us know when we are going in the right direction. They’ve given us recipes and been real problem-solvers,” he said.
Too bad they can’t solve the problem of jihad. Oh, right. That’s because jihad is not a problem for Muslims, it is obligatory. Courtesy of the Muslim Student Association’s own website quoting the Koran:
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
PICKTHAL: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
SHAKIR: Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
This puff piece on sharia concludes with:
“I think the addition of halal foods to the dining halls has greatly contributed to an easier and more comfortable experience,” Kodaimati said through e-mail. “It represents a considerable amount of accommodation for Muslim students on campus as well as a phenomenal job done by dining.”
And that sums up how sharia is so rapidly infiltrating all areas of American life: It represents a considerable amount of accommodation [read submission] for Muslims – at the expense of non-Muslims.
Obummer’s stolen election now requires more Sharia compliance. Obummer will never be MY President and shame on all those who just flushed the USA down the toilet. Anyone who doesn’t have a job or loses their home in the next year better look in the mirror and say “its my own fault for voting for Obummer”. You will NOT get sympathy from me. As a Good Christian, I will help you, but the coming disaster of the loss of the America I know and love IS your fault. And that makes me angry! You personally ruined MY country.
See on creepingsharia.wordpress.com
Shariah the Threat to America, The Team B II Report.
See on shariahinamericancourts.com
In 2011, death row inmate Abdul Awkal sued an Ohio prison because he was receiving non-halal food while in prison. As a consequence, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction banned all pork products in prison.
This year, prisoner James Rivers filed a lawsuit arguing that pork should not be outright banned. He reasoned that, should Muslims not want to eat pork, they had the right to, but that it was discriminatory to ban pork for everyone. Additionally, the prison did offer meals without pork products in them before the ban. continue reading
Fatwa On Islam
See on www.punditpress.com
- | Pundit Press | Federal Judge Enforces Sharia-Compliance in Ohio Prisons (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Judge: Forcing all inmates to eat same (halal) diet not discrimination (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
- Ohio Muslim Death Row Inmate Settles Halal Meal Lawsuit (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
Authorities are concerned how Hizballah might react in case Israel or other countries get into a conflict with Iran, which sponsors the terrorist group, said FBI Assistant Special Agent Todd Mayberry, who oversees counter-terrorism in Michigan.
One challenge is being able to keep track of so many potentially radical websites and differentiating what might be a legitimate threat from harmless talk. Estimating there are thousands websites that could have extremist activity, he said:
“If I gave you the number of Michigan IP addresses that are on some of these sites, it’s staggering,” Mayberry said. continue reading
Fatwa On Islam
See on creepingsharia.wordpress.com
I’m sure everyone has heard the famous and WILDLY incorrect quote: “The only thing to fear is fear itself”.
The reality most people choose not to acknowledge is there is much to fear in the world, unspeakable evils, but to fight these evils, one needs to know they are there.
Glenn Beck may dramatize these things (after all, that IS why he gets paid to tell us what is going on), but he hits the nail on the head with the reality most choose to ignore. How he hasn’t been silenced for revealing the numerous truths is still a mystery .
THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BACK IN MARCH, before Pastor Jones decided to demonstrate in Dearborn, Michigan, yet the contents apply directly to the complete trampling of his Constitutional Rights of Free Speech and Free Assembly. He only said he was going to exercise these rights and he was arrested, went to court and ultimately put into jail WITHOUT EVER HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME! And the whole system KNEW he had committed no crime! This is the USA, not Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, any Islamic Government country. Here, we are SUPPOSE to be guaranteed the GOD GIVEN rights of Freedom. There is no footnote that says, “Except in Dearborn, Michigan”.
In one of the more memorable passages in Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith contemplates the inevitable doom that will follow from the first entry which he is preparing to make in his diary. The act was not illegal, he reflected — there were no laws in Oceania — but its discovery would nevertheless result in ten years in a forced labor camp.
If your tastes tend more to the lowbrow, there’s that great line from National Lampoon’s “Vacation”: “It ain’t illegal. Hell, I oughta know — I’m the sheriff!”
We see an increasing number of instances in the United States and the “Free World” in which citizens can be punished without any specific legal pretext.
To take one example which has been around for a while, there is no written law against carrying large amounts of cash on one’s person, nor any specific statutory definition of the threshold at which the amount of money one carries becomes a criminal offense. Nevertheless, anyone stopped by a police officer and found to be carrying thousands of dollars in cash will be presumed a drug trafficker of some sort, and their money seized according to the usual procedure of “civil forfeiture.”
When ballot measures to decriminalize or liberalize marijuana laws clear all the hurdles and are voted into law, as often or not the cops just quietly ignore them. For example, last October Los Angeles County, California Sheriff Lee Baca baldly stated that he would continue to arrest pot users even if Proposition 19 (which would have legalized it) passed. Baca’s “argument” was that it is still criminalized by federal statute, and that federal law supersedes state law.
Even as explained by the state’s own pet jurists, of course, this was utter nonsense. The functionaries of a state are not bound to enforce federal law. The practical effect of a measure legalizing pot, had it passed, would simply have been to tell the feds to enforce their own law. It would have withdrawn California’s state and local cops from the enforcement effort and dismantled the whole apparatus of interjurisdictional drug task forces. But none of that matters. Because if a cop wants to enforce a “law” badly enough, he’ll make one up.
Just about every week, Radley Balko reports on someone being arrested for filming cops, on the pretext that they’re “hindering apprehension,” “interfering with police business,” or “violating the wiretap laws,” or some such bull-hockey. Never mind that there’s no actual law criminalizing the act of recording public functionaries performing public duties in a public place, or that there’s even a law on the books specifically exempting such activity from the wiretap statutes.
If you’re willing to fight it out before judges or police commissioners, for weeks or months, you may or may not get a decision overruling the cop’s actions. But in the meantime you’ve had your camera (and maybe your nose) smashed, spent time in a holding cell, had your name dragged through the dirt, and maybe lost your job. And meanwhile, the cops just keep on doing it anyway. I mean, seriously, they can kill innocent people and wind up on paid administrative leave pending a wrist-slap, so how worried do you think they are about breaking a camera and roughing up some dirty effing hippie?
As I write, functionaries within the US national security apparatus are busily looking for any pretext on which Julian Assange — an Australian citizen — can be extradited from the United Kingdom. All three are ostensibly countries which share the common law tradition’s procedural protections of the accused, and which pay a great deal of lip service to the “rule of law.”
Yet nobody can state, in anything resembling clear terms, a plausible explanation of just what law Assange is supposed to have violated. Treason? He’s not a U.S. citizen. Espionage? If publishing classified documents leaked by someone else is a crime, please explain the difference between Wikileaks’ publication of the leaked diplomatic cables and the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. So far they’ve failed to torture Bradley Manning into testifying that Assange suborned the leaked documents from him.
But if one expedient doesn’t work, they’ll try something else. The law doesn’t really matter. If the spooks, cops and prosecutors want to get somebody bad enough, they’ll come up with a bespoke “law” tailored to their needs. The custom manufacture of pretexts is a cottage industry for them.
In practice, the law is whatever they say it is.
Why are Muslims Afraid of the Congressional Radicalization Hearings?
Having read the article below, I am at a loss as to why Muslims are in such opposition to these hearings. My only thought is they are in opposition because the TRUTH regarding their religion’s tenets, the true nature of Islam’s founder, will be revealed. In that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, that it is in fact a religion of hate, violence, subjegation, oppression, and death is most likely what they are afraid to be revealed. They may lie to America, which Islam’s founder taught them to do to deceive the infidels (all non-Muslims), but the truth is out there and it is coming to the light.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
The one true God and His Son Jesus Christ, not the false god of Islam.
A number of activities taking place next week are setting the stage for a confrontation between the Muslim American community and those who have reservations about its presence in the U.S. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has scheduled a congressional hearing on the “radicalization” of Muslim Americans on March 10. In response, Muslims and Arab Americans in New York and Washington D.C. will be demonstrating about what they see as an attack on their civil rights. Meanwhile, opponents of Park51 are rolling out a “documentary” nationwide about the proposed project to build an Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan.
From the outset, many Muslims and Arab Americans have opposed Rep. King’s plan to hold hearings on, “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” Over 80 people of different faiths from his district on Long Island, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and interfaith leaders sent a letter to King urging him to cancel the hearings.
“These diverse faith leaders believe the singling out of the Muslim community undermines fundamental American values and is counterproductive to improving national security,” the letter said.
After Rep. King turned rebuffed their calls, Muslim and Arab American communities decided to raise their voices on the streets of New York, Washington D.C. and other cities across the country.
On Sunday March 6, a broad coalition of over 75 interfaith, nonprofit, governmental, and civil liberties groups are scheduled to rally “in support of equitable civil rights for all Americans” in New York’s Times Square.
The Muslim Peace Coalition has also announced a rally and march scheduled for April 9 at Union Square in New York. The slogan of this demonstration will be “Standing Up Against Islamophobia, War and Terrorism.”
According to the House Homeland Security Committee’s chairman the hearing is needed to explore terror threats posed by radical American Muslims.
“[Due to] The measures taken after 9/11, al Qaeda has realized the difficulty it faces in launching attacks against our homeland from overseas. Thus it has adjusted its tactics and is now attempting to radicalize and recruit from within our country. In the last two years alone more than 50 Americans have been charged with terror related crimes,” Rep. King said in a letter responding to Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Minority Member of the committee on Homeland Security.
In its email to members of the Muslim American community, the Muslim Peace Coalition wrote, “Democracy is not a spectator sport and Muslims are not a football to be thrown around. We are people with rights and responsibility to speak up.”
Regarding homegrown terrorism, the Muslim Peace Coalition asked Rep. King to hold a hearing on the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. They also suggested he ask the FBI for statistics on the profiles of the two million first time gun owners in the USA. “Who are these people and why are they buying guns. What is their faith?”
“The hearings will send the wrong message and alienate American Muslims instead of partnering with them, potentially putting their lives at risk by inciting fear and enmity against them,” the coalition stated in its statement about the Times Square rally. “Organizers of this rally believe one can be a loyal Muslim as well as a loyal American without conflict, and a great number of our fellow Americans support this view.”
Amidst the background of a growing controversy between the Muslim American community and the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, a new documentary produced by the leading opponents of the Park51 Islamic Cultural Center, often dubbed the “Ground Zero Mosque,” is being shown around the country. At a recent screening in a church near the proposed site in downtown Manhattan, Pamela Geller, one of the producers of the documentary, vowed to continue her efforts to stop the project.
The ideology of Islam fully implemented under Sharia Law, consistent with the koran, sira and hadith, condemns freedom (speech, conscience, religion association, press, petition of government), forbids equality (between men and women, muslims and non-muslims) and denies traditional sovereignty (national boundaries, secular law, native culture). Any form of sharia, implicit (in mosques and ‘at home’) or explicit (as practiced in UK civil courts, as promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations), denies human rights to women, children and non-muslims. Therefore, allowing sharia in this Constitutional Republic or any non-islamic nation violates our basic laws of freedom, including freedom of choice. The tenets of islam as codified in sharia are supremacist, discriminatory and misogynist; they invite or encourage deception toward non-muslims and mandate perpetual hostility to that which is not islamic. Sharia must be banned as being unConstitutional and its promotion labeled seditious, as it calls for the replacement of man-made law with “divine” sharia.
Whatever in islam that may be spiritual and promote the salvation of the soul is of little interest to me, unless and until it affects non-muslims, at which point it becomes political doctrine. And if this political doctrine calls for harm, subjugation, taxation, terrorizing and death, it is a free-people’s right and obligation to resist.
Speak about islam and sharia in this way. Challenge your listeners not to believe anything about islam that is not consistent with the foundational texts of islam and its body of law, for to do so is to be deceived and ignorant.
ORIGINAL POSTING Website:
PYEM Ministry Inc.
Muhammad allowed his men to rape the women captured in raids. However, after capturing the women, Muslims faced a dilemma. They wanted to have sex with them but also wanted to return them for ransom and therefore did not want to make them …pregnant. Some of these women were already married. Their husbands had managed to escape when taken by surprise and were still alive. The raiders considered the possibility of coitus interruptus (withdrawing from intercourse prior to ejaculation). Unsure of the best course of action, they went to Muhammad for counsel.
Abu Saeed said: “We went out with Allâh’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allâh’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”
Notice that Muhammad does not forbid raping women captured in war. Instead, he indicates that when Allâh intends to create anything, nothing can prevent it. In other words, not even the absence of semen can prevent it. So Muhammad is telling his men that coitus interruptus would be futile and ill-advised because it would be an attempt to thwart the irresistible will of Allâh. Muhammad does not say a word against the forced insemination of these captive females. In fact, by criticizing coitus interruptus, in effect he supported forced insemination.
In the Qur’an, Muhammad’s god made it legal to have intercourse with slave women, the so-called “right hand possessions,” even if they were married before their capture.
Ibn Aun has narrated:
“I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. T…heir fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.” Bukhari 3.46.717 (see also Muslim 019. 4292)
Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.
Juwairiya was one of the captives during the raid of Banu Mustaliq. When all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers, Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of Haris, the leader of the clan.
The Islamic site muslims.ws writes: “She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him “0′ Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation”. The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet paid the amount of ransom and married her.”
First he raids a population without warning because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. The narrator says, “According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.” Prevailing practice? Didn’t Muhammad come to show people the right way? Why should he follow the evil prevailing practices of a people whom he called ignorant? By doing so, he set the example and those evil practices became standard practices of the Muslims for ever.
The narrator says that upon seeing Juwairiyah the Prophet was “moved”. Methinks that movement must have happened in his male organ because his heart seems to have remained cold and unmoved. Although Muslims call this marriage, I call it rape.
Safiyah was a beautiful 17 years old Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops raided Kheibar. She was the daughter or Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Banu Nadir, a Jewish tribe of Medina , whom Muhammad had beheaded two year…s earlier along with the men of Banu Quriaza. The tribe of Banu Nadir had been already banished from Medina and their properties were confiscated.
Safiyah had married to her cousin Kinana, who was a young Jewish leader of Kheibar. When Muhammad raided that fortress, he killed its unarmed men and captured the rest. A Jewish traitor, (reminds me of Noam Chomsky) to gain Muhammad’s favor and be spared from death, told him that Kinana was the treasurer of the town and that he used to hide the money in some ruins. Muhammad ordered Kinana to be tortured to reveal the whereabouts of the treasures and killed him.
Then he asked the prettiest woman from amongst that captives to be brought to him. Ibn Ishaq writes: “The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went. Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaibar chief, and two female cousins: [sisters of Kinana] the apostle chose Safiya for himself. The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims. Bilal brought Safiya to the apostle, and they passed the bodies of several Jews on the way. Safiya’s female companions lamented and strewed dust on their heads. When the apostle of Allâh observed this scene, he said, ‘Remove these she devils from me.’ But he ordered Safiya to remain, and threw his reda [cloak] over her. So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own. The apostle reprimanded Bilal, saying, ‘Hast thou lost all feelings of mercy, to make women pass by the corpses of their husbands?’”
Safiyah was taken to Muhammad’s tent. Muhammad wanted to have sex with her on that very night, only hours after torturing to death her husband. She resisted his advances. That night Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of Muhammad. When, in the early dawn, Muhammad saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: “I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, I was really afraid for you on her account”. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 766)
The next day Muhammad covered Safiyah with his mantle, an act signifying that she is now his. Safiyah was groomed and made-up for Muhammad by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik and was taken to Muhammad who married her in a mock marriage ceremony and raped her that night. Muslims call this marriage. I call that rape. I am certain not many young women would like to jump into bed with an old man who happens to be the murderer of their father and husband and many other relatives. That poor woman had no choice; therefore that marriage was nothing but a mockery of this sacred institution. At that time Muhammad was close to sixty years old.
Another victim of Muhammad was Rayhana, a 15 year old girl from the tribe of Banu Quraiza. Muhammad massacred all the men of that tribe. Then women were brought to him to pick and he chose Rayhana. Rayhana never married Muhammad and unlike Juwairiyah and Safiyah never feigned being a Muslim to have an easier life. She preferred to remain a sex slave rather the wife of the murderer of her father, brothers and uncles. .
 Bukhari, Volume 5, Book59, Number 459. Many other canonical hadiths recount how Muhammad approved intercourse with slave women, but said coitus interruptus was unnecessary because if Allâh willed someone to be born, that soul would be… born regardless of coitus interruptus.
See the following:
Bukhari 3.34.432: “Narrated Abu Saeed Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allâh’s Apostle he said, “O Allâh’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allâh has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”
Sahih Muslim is another source considered factual and accurate by virtually all Muslims. Here is Sahih Muslim 8.3381: “Allâh’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, (coitus interruptus) whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allâh intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).”
Muslims also consider Abu Dawood highly accurate and factual. Here is Abu Dawood, 188.8.131.52: “Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, ‘Tell them.’ She was embarrassed. He said, ‘It is alright, and I do it myself.’ Malik said, ‘A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practicing coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else’s slave-girl as a wife does not practice coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.’”
See also Bukhari 3.46.718, 5.59.459, 7.62.135, 7.62.136, 7.62.137, 8.77.600, 9.93.506 Sahih Muslim 8.3383, 8.3388, 8.3376, 8.3377, and several more.
 Qur’an, 4:24: “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allâh ordained (Prohibitions) against you.”
Qur’an, 33:50): “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allâh has assigned to thee.”
Qur’an, 4:3: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.”
- Admonish One Another
- Comment on Son’s Facebook regarding ObamaCare
- Can We Stop This Creeping Jihad?
- Terrorism in Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood is being rejected
- Baby Jihad or Jihad by birth rate
- Our Wives Are In Charge HVAC Service
- The Arab World Fears the ‘Safavid’ | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- Report: EU Backing Away from Blacklisting Hezbollah | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- The not defendable borders of lesser Israel
- Allah and Muhammad quote Babylonian Talmud instead of Hebrew Scriptures
- Prominent U.S. Imam: New Caliphate Should Wage Jihad
- Yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a Muslim Terrorist
- Business Services – Temporary Posts
- Christianity / God
- Daily Gospel
- Just Because :-)
- Pending Classification
- Societal / Cultural Issues
- Understanding Islam