ORAN, Algeria — AFTER Tahrir came Cologne. After the square came sex. The Arab revolutions of 2011 aroused enthusiasm at first, but passions have since waned. Those movements have come to look imperfect, even ugly: For one thing, they have failed to touch ideas, culture, religion or social norms, especially the norms relating to sex. Revolution doesn’t mean modernity.

The attacks on Western women by Arab migrants in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve evoked the harassment of women in Tahrir Square itself during the heady days of the Egyptian revolution. The reminder has led people in the West to realize that one of the great miseries plaguing much of the so-called Arab world, and the Muslim world more generally, is its sick relationship with women. In some places, women are veiled, stoned and killed; at a minimum, they are blamed for sowing disorder in the ideal society. In response, some European countries have taken to producing guides of good conduct to refugees and migrants.

Sex is a complex taboo, arising, in places like Algeria, Tunisia, Syria or Yemen, out of the ambient conservatism’s patriarchal culture, the Islamists’ new, rigorist codes and the discreet puritanism of the region’s various socialisms. That makes a good combination for obstructing desire or guilt-tripping and marginalizing those who feel any. And it’s a far cry from the delicious licentiousness of the writings of the Muslim golden age, like Sheikh Nafzawi’s “The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delight,” which tackled eroticism and the Kama Sutra without any hang-ups.

Today sex is a great paradox in many countries of the Arab world: One acts as though it doesn’t exist, and yet it determines everything that’s unspoken. Denied, it weighs on the mind by its very concealment. Although women are veiled, they are at the center of our connections, exchanges and concerns.


Women are a recurrent theme in daily discourse, because the stakes they personify — for manliness, honor, family values — are great. In some countries, they are allowed access to the public sphere only if they renounce their bodies: To let them go uncovered would be to uncover the desire that the Islamist, the conservative and the idle youth feel and want to deny. Women are seen as a source of destabilization — short skirts trigger earthquakes, some say — and are respected only when defined by a property relationship, as the wife of X or the daughter of Y.

These contradictions create unbearable tensions. Desire has no outlet, no outcome; the couple is no longer a space of intimacy, but a concern of the whole group. The sexual misery that results can descend into absurdity and hysteria. Here, too, one hopes to experience love, but the mechanisms of love — encounters, seduction, flirting — are prevented: Women are watched, we obsess over their virginity, the morality police patrols. Some even pay surgeons to repair broken hymens.

In some of Allah’s lands, the war on women and on couples has the air of an inquisition. During the summer in Algeria, brigades of Salafists and local youths worked up by the speeches of radical imams and Islamist TV preachers go out to monitor female bodies, especially those of women bathers at the beach. The police hound couples, even married ones, in public spaces. Gardens are off-limits to strolling lovers. Benches are sawed in half to prevent people from sitting close together.

By

Kamel Daod
Contributing Op-ed writer.
New York Times
Feb 16, 2016

It is actually misleading to label Islam's attitude towards sex as conservative. It is better described as hypocritical.

MuhamMAD the prophet of Islam was a very promiscuous man and he gathered a harem of 9 wives and many concubines for himself.

And yet many of muhamMAD's followers pretend that their religion places a premium on modesty, whereas what it really does is to cater for the sexual appetites of muslim men.

Kings 11:3
1.But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, [and] Hittites;
2.Of the nations [concerning] which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: [for] surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3.And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Islam and sexual hypocrisy is like 5 and 6.

the way people especially women are being monitored in the arab world is just over the top, even men don't have privacy as the next person to you who is a zealot might just get you reported. There's some iota of bondage and slavery that comes with the overzealous practice of islam.

TruthHurts1:
It is actually misleading to label Islam's attitude towards sex as conservative. It is better described as hypocritical.

MuhamMAD the prophet of Islam was a very promiscuous man and he gathered a harem of 9 wives and many concubines for himself.

And yet many of muhamMAD's followers pretend that their religion places a premium on modesty, whereas what it really does is to cater for the sexual appetites of muslim men.

u r such an idiot.u beta dont invite curse upon urself fool.is it a must u comment on wat u knw nofin abt

Frostty:

u r such an idiot.u beta dont invite curse upon urself fool.is it a must u comment on wat u knw nofin abt

it's not that deep bro. He aired his opinion. Counter it and don't insult him. Air yours too. You don't need to fight for the prophet, he sure can fight for himself. Cheers.

... and the men go about banging the "bangables" in good numbers. *sigh. The life of an average woman is hard enough with anti-women rules,tradition, cultures and religion everywhere ; now add that to being an Arab woman. *sigh. Thank God i'm not one. I cherish freedom more than all the gold is Saudi Arabia.

what we ladies fail to realise is that we are at the receiving end of every relationship including marriage. ..but marriage is a safety net for us...
outside marriage you face abortion ,multiple sexual partners (it's not often one ends up getting married to her first sexual partner), stds heartbreak. ..
with marriage you are protected to some extent, the law has also come to our rescue...gone are the days when men divorce ladies without repercussions, at the very least there are monetary compensations....
what law protects a girlfriend? ??...it's time we recognised authorities and laws for what they truly are...for our ultimate good

Frostty:

u r such an idiot.u beta dont invite curse upon urself fool.is it a must u comment on wat u knw nofin abt

MuhamMAD was a paedophile and rapist. A very promiscuous man who even slept with his son's wife.

MuhamMAD was a disgrace and a shame.

TruthHurts1:
It is actually misleading to label Islam's attitude towards sex as conservative. It is better described as hypocritical.

MuhamMAD the prophet of Islam was a very promiscuous man and he gathered a harem of 9 wives and many concubines for himself.

And yet many of muhamMAD's followers pretend that their religion places a premium on modesty, whereas what it really does is to cater for the sexual appetites of muslim men.

So true.

Hypocritical not Conservative.

omarithmetics:
Kings 11:3
1.But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, [and] Hittites;
2.Of the nations [concerning] which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: [for] surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3.And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Fortunately, what he did was contrary to what God wanted. You just cited a poor example.

Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, was a Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty.  Muhammad ordered Kinana, the young husband of Safia to be tortured to death to make him reveal the whereabouts of the treasure of the town. On the very night of that murder, after he killed her husband, muhammad took Safia to his bed and claimed that young girl as his trophy.

Muhammed was also in the habit of sneaking into his female slave's room at night to have sex with her. The female slave was an Egyptian Christian called Mary.

Muhammed married a six year old child (Aisha) and had sex with her at age 9. Muhammed was already in his fifties when he did this. In spite of her young age, Muhammed preferred sleeping with her to his other wives.

So Muhammed lacked discipline and principle. He was an irresponsible man who was ruled by his genitals,

[/quote]Women are watched, we obsess over their virginity, the morality police patrols. Some even pay surgeons to repair broken hymens.[quote]

Imagine what this ladies go through. Wetin deh pain me pass be say na their women fine pass. How some people go just pledge to deh hoard women like fuel, hiding under the umbrella of being a watch dog against immorality. Extremely hypocritical! Sometimes I wonder how the late Saudi King take last reach 90yrs with all those excess 1st class, state- of-the-art cuuntts weh him parade. "More than 30 wives" outright greed and hoarding! Na only you waka com? ........btw.....

What does marriage have to do with the topic?

queentessense:
what we ladies fail to realise is that we are at the receiving end of every relationship including marriage. ..but marriage is a safety net for us...
outside marriage you face abortion ,multiple sexual partners (it's not often one ends up getting married to her first sexual partner), stds heartbreak. ..
with marriage you are protected to some extent, the law has also come to our rescue...gone are the days when men divorce ladies without repercussions, at the very least there are monetary compensations....
what law protects a girlfriend? ??...it's time we recognised authorities and laws for what they truly are...for our ultimate good

really? visit gimmehear.com to read female pastor now uses nipple as a weapon for church growth

It is also imperative to understand without any
qualms or hesitation, that the Prophet (sall
Allāhualayhi wasallam) married ‘Ā’isha
(radiAllāhu anha) when she was 6 years old, and
they consummated the marriage when she
reached puberty at the age of 9. [2] This is the
only explicit piece of evidence that has directly
identified the age of ‘Ā’isha (radiAllāhu anha)
when she married the Prophet (sall Allāhualayhi
wasallam). On the other hand, the reports that
suggest she was older are implicit, and derived
from very tenuous assumptions based on events that occurred during her life. [3]
With this in mind, many academics have
successfully refuted the allegation of paedophilia against the Prophet (sall Allāhualayhi wasallam) using evidences that clearly disassociate him from such a label . However, this has led to a further onslaught of similar claims against him that have repeatedly been refuted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike , illustrating that a clear agenda exists to defame the Prophet even though his accusers are well aware that the slanderous claims they attribute to him are false. This is supported by the primitive nature of these allegations because their single objective is not to prove that he is guilty, but rather to tar his name with these iniquitous ideas, thus attempting to create
hatred in the hearts and minds of society
towards the religion he founded. Therefore, it is
felt that disproving this false charge using evidence will produce nothing but a never-
ending cycle of accusations that will only end
once the antagonists have achieved their
objectives. Thus, to prove that the Prophet is
free from the allegations he is accused of, the
claims brought forward by Western polemics will be refuted based on the very same standards that the Western world have used to measure their own moral behaviour, and thus prove that their opposition to the Prophet is steeped in hypocrisy.
Firstly, Islamaphobes judge the actions of the
Prophet using a moral compass that is only
applicable to modern society. In order to justify
their Islamophobic sentiments, they seek to
impose moral judgments that are only relevant
in the present, on practices that occurred 1400
years ago, where rules and cultural norms were
different to the norms and customs of today.
This is something that anthropologists who
study cultural phenomena warn against,
because it is unacceptable to judge previous
cultures and civilisations based on modern
standards of living. Instead, a society and people must be judged by the rules and cultural norms that existed in their era. Therefore, if marriage to a 9 year old was a normative practice throughout various civilisations over 14
centuries ago, then it is just as valid as current
legislation in the UK, which states that people
cannot be married until they reach the age of 16.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that these
accusations against the Prophet were only
brought forward during the last century. Before
1905, no such claims against the Prophet existed and were only introduced and popularised by David Margoliouth, a British historian who was affiliated with the Zionist movement. This was because 100 years ago in many countries around the world (including the USA), the general age of consent for marriage was 10 years old, and in one state it was even lower at 7 years old. Thus, by using the moral index of the West, it appears that the Prophet is free from the accusations that are levelled against him because the very nations that accuse him of despicable crimes 1400 years ago, allowed the same acts to take place within their own societies only 100 years ago. This has clearly exposed the double standards that exist in Western society and shown how certain
individuals have purposely tried to damage the
reputation of the Prophet for the sole reason of
achieving their aims and objectives.
So the question remains, why have certain
individuals in the West remained silent about
non-Muslims who married prepubescent girls
between the ages of 7 and 10, but have chosen
to single out the Prophet (sall Allāhualayhi
wasallam) in their attacks? It is because these
attacks have been used to push public opinion
against Islām and thus given certain figures in
the West the opportunity to achieve their
political objectives.
To further prove their hypocrisy, Islamaphobes
fail to mention that in the US, the current
minimum legal age for marriage in New
Hampshire is 13. Where is the grievance
there? The same modern rules by which
Islamaphobes seek to judge the practices of
seventh century Arabia dictate that children
should be a lot older and mature before they can be given the choice to marry. So why does the
charge of paedophilia not enter the discussion
when individuals marry children at the age of 13
today in the state of New Hampshire? In fact,
why is the state law system not put under the
same scrutiny for not stipulating—as Islām does
—that puberty is a condition for consummation
of marriage? This is another example of the
hypocrisy that exists in individuals who attack
Islām because they pick and choose what they
publicise. Will accusations of paedophilia be
leveled at individuals who openly practice
marriage with 13-year-old children, who may not have reached puberty yet, or are these attacks only limited to Islām and the Prophet?
To further outline the hypocrisy of individuals
who accuse the Prophet of paedophilia, they
conveniently choose to ignore cases where
central figures of other religions married
children under the age of 12. For example, those who contest the Prophet’s marriage to ‘Ā’isha have never mentioned that the last of the ten saints in Sikhism, Guru Gobind Singh, married a 12-year-old girl called Mata Sundari. Now unlike with ‘Ā’isha, it was never established
whether Mata Sundari reached puberty before
she consummated her marriage with Guru
Gobind Singh. Also, it is well known that from
the Christian understanding, Mary married
Joseph when she was between the age of 12-14
and Joseph was 90. Why is this fact left out
during debates about underage marriage in
religions? Furthermore, according to Judaic
traditions, 3-year-old prepubescent girls were
forced to have sex with men under the guise of
Mosaic Law. However, under Islamic
traditions, such claims against Prophet Mūsa
(alayhi salām) are completely rejected and are
falsely attributed to him by the corruption of
other faiths. Additionally, Jewish law states that
the age of consent for girls to marry is 12,
regardless of whether they have reached
puberty or not. Yet we find that Islām and
the Prophet have been slandered for a practice
that carefully considered the rights of females
when it was undertaken. The fact that these
individuals conveniently overlook the above-
mentioned issues proves that their accusations
are fuelled not by a moral opposition to the
Prophet’s (sall Allāhualayhi wasallam) marriage
to ‘Ā’isha, but by a dislike for Islām and its
Prophet, as well as the need to achieve their
political objectives.
These facts have clearly exposed the hypocrisy
of those who attack the Prophet for marrying
‘Ā’isha because while they have opted to vilify a
man who married a young girl in accordance
with the biological and social framework of his
time, they have voiced no concerns or
disagreements regarding practices that existed
in other major traditions. Additionally, the height
of their hypocrisy is palpable in their silence on
clear-cut examples of paedophilia that are being
practiced around the world and in Western
countries today. Therefore, before such people
make false accusations against the Prophet, it
would be far more appropriate for them to
address the problems that exist in their own
cultures first. They may benefit from pondering
over the clearly more sensible conditions of
biological and psychological maturity that Islām
requires for marital relations to occur, compared
to the plucking of an arbitrary minimum age out
of the air for many societies today. In doing so,
Islām—uniquely—prevents harm to pre-
pubescent children as well as the plethora of
societal ills that result when human beings are
prevented from fulfilling their biological needs in
a safe and honourable way, when the minimum
age is too high for an individual.
Thus, it is not difficult to see that the basic
premise of the attack against the Prophet is a
flawed one, as it is illogical to apply the
incidental tastes and moral standards of today
to seventh century Arabia. It has clearly been
proven that the disparaging claims directed at
the Prophet are false because they are built on
unconvincing and dubious foundations, in order
to suppress the increasing support and growth
of Islām that the world has witnessed during the
last century. The aspersions cast against the
Prophet are borne out of hypocrisy and double
standards because the very nations that first
created and spread the accusations allowed the
same practices to take place in their own
societies just over a century ago. Moreover, the
paedophilic crimes that have taken place within
other religions are not criticised but are met with
silence, which not only forces one to question
the intentions behind the attacks against the
Prophet, but also frees him from the accusations
that are levelled against him for his marriage to
‘Ā’isha. Therefore, since these accusations only
surfaced a century ago, it is no exaggeration to
say that they were and still are, fuelled by a
desire to tarnish the name of the Prophet (sall
Allāhualayhi wasallam), and to promote the
personal and political agendas of those who
fabricated them.
source: www.islam21c.com

MsGlobalwonder:
it's not that deep bro. He aired his opinion. Counter it and don't insult him. Air yours too. You don't need to fight for the prophet, he sure can fight for himself. Cheers.

i swear,i fit climb everest for you. Beautiful answer there.

Hmm...

Following

dis one na real bondage.

He who Allah has guided no one guide and he who Allah misguides no one can guide :

Work from home with the ipas2 system. Earn $5000- $10000/mth legitimately online .
No computer or Internet skills required. Your breakthrough starts here : www.totalshortcut.com/cp1?id=7731355

TruthHurts1:
It is actually misleading to label Islam's attitude towards sex as conservative. It is better described as hypocritical.

MuhamMAD the prophet of Islam was a very promiscuous man and he gathered a harem of 9 wives and many concubines for himself.

And yet many of muhamMAD's followers pretend that their religion places a premium on modesty, whereas what it really does is to cater for the sexual appetites of muslim men.

well. you are not to judge visit gimmehear. com to read why u should not date a choleric

Mofos who don't know shii about Islam running their stinking guts they call mouth.
Islam understands a man's desire is generally greater than that of women and that is why a man is allowed to take up to 4 wives, it is not as if it is compulsory. if you are OK with one, fine, if u are not marry up to a maximum of four.
The real hypocrisy here is the society condemning polygamy but celebrating infidelity.
Islam doesn't ban male female relationships but strictly prohibits anything that'll lead to infidelity, is that too much? I understand even Christianity frowns at it too but just not as much as Islam.
Also, Islam understands sexuality well and that is why early marriage is encouraged, it is not like you are being forced to marry early, but if you feel you can't handle your desires, it is better to get married than commit fornication.
The hatred for Islam is just so annoying these days, it is not like you are being begged to accept the religion, why not just practice your believe and leave others to theirs.

Don't quote me if you are not .......

TruthHurts1:
Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, was a Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty.  Muhammad ordered Kinana, the young husband of Safia to be tortured to death to make him reveal the whereabouts of the treasure of the town. On the very night of that murder, after he killed her husband, muhammad took Safia to his bed and claimed that young girl as his trophy.

Muhammed was also in the habit of sneaking into his female slave's room at night to have sex with her. The female slave was an Egyptian Christian called Mary.

Muhammed married a six year old child (Aisha) and had sex with her at age 9. Muhammed was already in his fifties when he did this. In spite of her young age, Muhammed preferred sleeping with her to his other wives.

So Muhammed lacked discipline and principle. He was an irresponsible man who was ruled by his genitals,

So so true.

Where did you get your information that a ninety-year old Joseph married a 12-year old Mary?

omarithmetics:
It is also imperative to understand without any
qualms or hesitation, that the Prophet (sall
Allāhualayhi wasallam) married ‘Ā’isha
(radiAllāhu anha) when she was 6 years old, and
they consummated the marriage when she
reached puberty at the age of 9. [2] This is the
only explicit piece of evidence that has directly
identified the age of ‘Ā’isha (radiAllāhu anha)
when she married the Prophet (sall Allāhualayhi
wasallam). On the other hand, the reports that
suggest she was older are implicit, and derived
from very tenuous assumptions based on events that occurred during her life. [3]
With this in mind, many academics have
successfully refuted the allegation of paedophilia against the Prophet (sall Allāhualayhi wasallam) using evidences that clearly disassociate him from such a label . However, this has led to a further onslaught of similar claims against him that have repeatedly been refuted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike , illustrating that a clear agenda exists to defame the Prophet even though his accusers are well aware that the slanderous claims they attribute to him are false. This is supported by the primitive nature of these allegations because their single objective is not to prove that he is guilty, but rather to tar his name with these iniquitous ideas, thus attempting to create
hatred in the hearts and minds of society
towards the religion he founded. Therefore, it is
felt that disproving this false charge using evidence will produce nothing but a never-
ending cycle of accusations that will only end
once the antagonists have achieved their
objectives. Thus, to prove that the Prophet is
free from the allegations he is accused of, the
claims brought forward by Western polemics will be refuted based on the very same standards that the Western world have used to measure their own moral behaviour, and thus prove that their opposition to the Prophet is steeped in hypocrisy.
Firstly, Islamaphobes judge the actions of the
Prophet using a moral compass that is only
applicable to modern society. In order to justify
their Islamophobic sentiments, they seek to
impose moral judgments that are only relevant
in the present, on practices that occurred 1400
years ago, where rules and cultural norms were
different to the norms and customs of today.
This is something that anthropologists who
study cultural phenomena warn against,
because it is unacceptable to judge previous
cultures and civilisations based on modern
standards of living. Instead, a society and people must be judged by the rules and cultural norms that existed in their era. Therefore, if marriage to a 9 year old was a normative practice throughout various civilisations over 14
centuries ago, then it is just as valid as current
legislation in the UK, which states that people
cannot be married until they reach the age of 16.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that these
accusations against the Prophet were only
brought forward during the last century. Before
1905, no such claims against the Prophet existed and were only introduced and popularised by David Margoliouth, a British historian who was affiliated with the Zionist movement. This was because 100 years ago in many countries around the world (including the USA), the general age of consent for marriage was 10 years old, and in one state it was even lower at 7 years old. Thus, by using the moral index of the West, it appears that the Prophet is free from the accusations that are levelled against him because the very nations that accuse him of despicable crimes 1400 years ago, allowed the same acts to take place within their own societies only 100 years ago. This has clearly exposed the double standards that exist in Western society and shown how certain
individuals have purposely tried to damage the
reputation of the Prophet for the sole reason of
achieving their aims and objectives.
So the question remains, why have certain
individuals in the West remained silent about
non-Muslims who married prepubescent girls
between the ages of 7 and 10, but have chosen
to single out the Prophet (sall Allāhualayhi
wasallam) in their attacks? It is because these
attacks have been used to push public opinion
against Islām and thus given certain figures in
the West the opportunity to achieve their
political objectives.
To further prove their hypocrisy, Islamaphobes
fail to mention that in the US, the current
minimum legal age for marriage in New
Hampshire is 13. Where is the grievance
there? The same modern rules by which
Islamaphobes seek to judge the practices of
seventh century Arabia dictate that children
should be a lot older and mature before they can be given the choice to marry. So why does the
charge of paedophilia not enter the discussion
when individuals marry children at the age of 13
today in the state of New Hampshire? In fact,
why is the state law system not put under the
same scrutiny for not stipulating—as Islām does
—that puberty is a condition for consummation
of marriage? This is another example of the
hypocrisy that exists in individuals who attack
Islām because they pick and choose what they
publicise. Will accusations of paedophilia be
leveled at individuals who openly practice
marriage with 13-year-old children, who may not have reached puberty yet, or are these attacks only limited to Islām and the Prophet?
To further outline the hypocrisy of individuals
who accuse the Prophet of paedophilia, they
conveniently choose to ignore cases where
central figures of other religions married
children under the age of 12. For example, those who contest the Prophet’s marriage to ‘Ā’isha have never mentioned that the last of the ten saints in Sikhism, Guru Gobind Singh, married a 12-year-old girl called Mata Sundari. Now unlike with ‘Ā’isha, it was never established
whether Mata Sundari reached puberty before
she consummated her marriage with Guru
Gobind Singh. Also, it is well known that from
the Christian understanding, Mary married
Joseph when she was between the age of 12-14
and Joseph was 90. Why is this fact left out
during debates about underage marriage in
religions? Furthermore, according to Judaic
traditions, 3-year-old prepubescent girls were
forced to have sex with men under the guise of
Mosaic Law. However, under Islamic
traditions, such claims against Prophet Mūsa
(alayhi salām) are completely rejected and are
falsely attributed to him by the corruption of
other faiths. Additionally, Jewish law states that
the age of consent for girls to marry is 12,
regardless of whether they have reached
puberty or not. Yet we find that Islām and
the Prophet have been slandered for a practice
that carefully considered the rights of females
when it was undertaken. The fact that these
individuals conveniently overlook the above-
mentioned issues proves that their accusations
are fuelled not by a moral opposition to the
Prophet’s (sall Allāhualayhi wasallam) marriage
to ‘Ā’isha, but by a dislike for Islām and its
Prophet, as well as the need to achieve their
political objectives.
These facts have clearly exposed the hypocrisy
of those who attack the Prophet for marrying
‘Ā’isha because while they have opted to vilify a
man who married a young girl in accordance
with the biological and social framework of his
time, they have voiced no concerns or
disagreements regarding practices that existed
in other major traditions. Additionally, the height
of their hypocrisy is palpable in their silence on
clear-cut examples of paedophilia that are being
practiced around the world and in Western
countries today. Therefore, before such people
make false accusations against the Prophet, it
would be far more appropriate for them to
address the problems that exist in their own
cultures first. They may benefit from pondering
over the clearly more sensible conditions of
biological and psychological maturity that Islām
requires for marital relations to occur, compared
to the plucking of an arbitrary minimum age out
of the air for many societies today. In doing so,
Islām—uniquely—prevents harm to pre-
pubescent children as well as the plethora of
societal ills that result when human beings are
prevented from fulfilling their biological needs in
a safe and honourable way, when the minimum
age is too high for an individual.
Thus, it is not difficult to see that the basic
premise of the attack against the Prophet is a
flawed one, as it is illogical to apply the
incidental tastes and moral standards of today
to seventh century Arabia. It has clearly been
proven that the disparaging claims directed at
the Prophet are false because they are built on
unconvincing and dubious foundations, in order
to suppress the increasing support and growth
of Islām that the world has witnessed during the
last century. The aspersions cast against the
Prophet are borne out of hypocrisy and double
standards because the very nations that first
created and spread the accusations allowed the
same practices to take place in their own
societies just over a century ago. Moreover, the
paedophilic crimes that have taken place within
other religions are not criticised but are met with
silence, which not only forces one to question
the intentions behind the attacks against the
Prophet, but also frees him from the accusations
that are levelled against him for his marriage to
‘Ā’isha. Therefore, since these accusations only
surfaced a century ago, it is no exaggeration to
say that they were and still are, fuelled by a
desire to tarnish the name of the Prophet (sall
Allāhualayhi wasallam), and to promote the
personal and political agendas of those who
fabricated them.
source: www.islam21c.com

Exactly.
It places the desires of the man above that of the woman.
Did anyone say otherwise?

vanguard90:
Mofos who don't know shii about Islam running their stinking guts they call mouth.
Islam understands a man's desire is generally greater than that of women and that is why a man is allowed to take up to 4 wives, it is not as if it is compulsory. if you are OK with one, fine, if u are not marry up to a maximum of four.
The real hypocrisy here is the society condemning polygamy but celebrating infidelity.
Islam doesn't ban male female relationships but strictly prohibits anything that'll lead to infidelity, is that too much? I understand even Christianity frowns at it too but just not as much as Islam.
Also, Islam understands sexuality well and that is why early marriage is encouraged, it is not like you are being forced to marry early, but if you feel you can't handle your desires, it is better to get married than commit fornication.
The hatred for Islam is just so annoying these days, it is not like you are being begged to accept the religion, why not just practice your believe and leave others to theirs.

Don't quote me if you are not .......

cococandy:
Exactly. It places the desires of the man above that of the woman. Did anyone say otherwise?

So, your own desires are above that of your boyfriends? U, ma'am are a dog

vanguard90:

So, your own desires are above that of your boyfriends? U, ma'am are a dog

Well so are you for considering your desires above that of your woman.
Isn't that nice?