Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law

Expand Messages
  • mikeeusa
    Also Jewish-talmudic (not mosaic/torah/old-testament) law: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/marriage.htm I wonder who cribbed off who? Did the 7th to 8th
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 1, 2011
      Also Jewish-talmudic (not mosaic/torah/old-testament) law:
      http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/marriage.htm

      I wonder who cribbed off who? Did the 7th to 8th century Islamics take from the rabbis, or did the rabbis (being under the domination of Islam) take from the Islamics.

      Either way, it's no good and ass-kissing to the woman.
      The way the ancient-Israelites (and some peeps in central asia (Afghanistan-Pakistan (but not the troooooooo muslims, no only the uneducated "idiots" in the rural areas)) got their young brides.

      Every time I talk to a muslim on the net, who knows english (I trace the IP to make sure they're actually in the country they claim to be from) they are all always pro-women's rights, deeeeeeeeeply respectful of wives, sisters etc (infact one educated city-dwelling pashtun told me brothers would murder any man who merely looked at their sister... all this he tells me while we have reports from the rural areas that when a man rapes a young virgin girl the elder councils just have him marry the girl and send over a girl from his family (who is then married to someone: the father of the raped girl, or one of his sons etc)

      [ASIDE] (this is similar to the OT law which says the man marrys the girl, pays the father some silver (with which he could subsequently buy a girl he wanted) and can't divorce her (nor her him but that SHOULD go without saying for anyone who knows these laws even a little bit (ie: anyone who isn't a modern christian and has studied ancient history in the least bit or has actually read the OT stuff (modern christians KNOW that these are all gender-neutral! LOL! Idiots.)))))
      [/ASIDE]

      but no, all lies, muslims ddeeeeeeeeepllllllyyyyyy respectful... and indeed muslims who care and KNOW about their religion are, it's the muslims in the rurual areas who don't know about their religion that seem to follow the Old Testament rules ... which are good for men.

      Now, can anyone tell me when this came about in Judiasm (and how it spread within Judiasm):

      http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
      """"""
      Women have the right to be consulted with regard to their marriage. Marital sex is regarded as the woman's right, and not the man's. Men do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a right that was recognized by law in many Western countries until a few hundred years ago. In cases of rape, a woman is generally presumed not to have consented to the intercourse, even if she enjoyed it, even if she consented after the sexual act began and declined a rescue! This is in sharp contrast to American society, where even today rape victims often have to overcome public suspicion that they "asked for it" or "wanted it." Traditional Judaism recognizes that forced sexual relations within the context of marriage are rape and are not permitted; in many states in America today, rape within marriage is still not a crime.
      """"""

      I've heard that the ancient scholars of Judiasm like Moses Momodies were women's rights supporters, similar to how our own modern scholar-run societies are. Scholars often seem to be faggots (closeted), or just have a lower desire for girls etc than other men, thus they see no reason NOT to give women's rights... because they themselves don't want much from girls (they don't want girls at all: a Matron or a old prostitute is good enough for them (and should be for everyone else!!!!)). This true. And what are your thoughts?

      Yes, I know, I'll be banned in a few seconds and here you men aren't about opressing women or marrying girls young or any of that sort of thing, you're good men yada yada yada and respect women 20x harder than random muslims I talk to and ??x harder than jewish men (because we have no idea how much they do or do not respect women, all I know is that they really like the first 5 books of the OT, that the only place you find a talmud (misna, gomeria, other writings) and other exegis writings are in a synogog library, and ... don't know which way that goes, if everyone likes the OT laws then women don't have rights, if everyone listens to later scholars than women are dddeeeeeeeeee...(forever)...eeeeeply respected even _harder_ than the educated schoarly muslim city dweller respects women (but not by much)... just want to get some answers or thoughts on this.

      To clear things up I myself believe that girls should certainly be married once they are able to have children (ie: at puberty), and that they should obey their husbands in all things.

      It goes without saying that I oppose all women's rights against her husband (divorce, complaining to police, taking legal action against husband, leaving husband at all, failing to be a prisoner of her husband etc, etc, etc, fill in your own details.)



      --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Ghobangieno <mikeeusa@...> wrote:
      >
      > I noticed some similarities between English Common law and Islamic Law, in
      > conflict with Biblical Law. One example is when marrying a girl: in Biblical Law
      > the man pays the father money and buys the girl. In both Islamic and English
      > Common Law the money goes not to the father but to the woman(the wife), and she keeps this money and in the event of a seperation has it for herself. Surely
      > this emboldens the woman where the Biblical Law does not. I also noticed that in the case where a man rapes an unmarried/unbetrothed virgin girl in Biblical law he simply marries her, doesn't divorce her, and pays her father. In Islamic law it appears (atleast among the sunnis, according to hadiths of theirs) that the man is executed. In English Common law the woman had a choice: the man is executed, or he marries her. She decided. Somewhat similar to Islam: the decision is in the hands of the woman and the man can be murdered for the rape of an unmarried young female if the female desires this. Also both
      > Islamic law and (eventually) English Common Law (and American) allowed a woman to petition a court for a divorce from her husband for cause (abandonment, bigamy, the man having relations with another woman)... something that a wife in the Law under the God of Israel (Not under Arabia's) could never do (only the _Man_ could initiate a divorce, and to do so he himself sent her away (no petitioning a court), if she displeased him by committing some immoral act (public lewdness? dishonoring him? intentionally disrespecting him in front of others? (IE: not only adultery: for having relations with someone not her husband she is executed, not merely divorced))).
      >
      > Biblical Law seems to be of the opinion that women/girls were created FOR man and in the case of rape it is concerned with the rights of the girls husband IF he exists, if he does not exist (girl not yet married off) then there's no harm
      > done: just have her be married to the man that chose her. Islamic law is
      > concerned about protecting women, not the rights of men, and Conservative
      > American Law, which was derived from English Common Law, I remember has always predicated itself on protecting the "angelic" woman... I suspect common law is the same.
      >
      > Anyway here is some article suggesting that Islam had it's effect English Common law, a body of law that has never been unabashedly on the side of Men (unlike biblical law which seems geared to just funneling female virgins (one way or another (conquest, theft of them, purchase, agreement between families) into the hands of men.)):
      >
      > http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art283.htm
      >
      > I hope no one misunderstands me: I'm just talking about something I noticed, I'm not disparaging the Bible or it's Law: I think it's good law and it's unabashedly on the side of men. I think the standard-conservative Islamic and English Common Law is what is no good. Bible says woman was made for man. Islamic jurisprudence says that woman and men were made for each-other (equally), they both reach the obvious conclusions (and solutions (or "solutions" in the case of Islamic and English common law (since it really is no solution, it's just murdering a man for the sake of a woman's loss of her ability to sell her virginity to the highest bidder)) that one would expect them to reach in the cases discussed above.
      >
      > --MikeeUSA--
      > PS: Hi divverent, I know you have a google-alert on my name. How about working on those nice features for xonotic, eh?
      >
    • spencer@spencermewha.plus.com
      Hi Miguel I didn t read all in the previous email but I m cool with what I ve read. And it s good to discus things. Plus I love philosophical debate...... The
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 2, 2011
        Hi Miguel
         
        I didn't read all in the previous email but I'm cool with what I've read. And it's good to discus things. Plus I love philosophical debate...... The great thing about a philosophical exploration is that no-one's ever wrong and no-one's ever right- there are only the findings of the discussion.
         
        So I'm happy for you to philosiphy all you please.

        With kind regards,
         
        Spence
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:04 PM
        Subject: [AUM] English common law reminds me of Islamic law

         

        I noticed some similarities between English Common law and Islamic Law, in
        conflict with Biblical Law. One example is when marrying a girl: in Biblical Law
        the man pays the father money and buys the girl. In both Islamic and English
        Common Law the money goes not to the father but to the woman(the wife), and she keeps this money and in the event of a seperation has it for herself. Surely
        this emboldens the woman where the Biblical Law does not. I also noticed that in the case where a man rapes an unmarried/unbetrothed virgin girl in Biblical law he simply marries her, doesn't divorce her, and pays her father. In Islamic law it appears (atleast among the sunnis, according to hadiths of theirs) that the man is executed. In English Common law the woman had a choice: the man is executed, or he marries her. She decided. Somewhat similar to Islam: the decision is in the hands of the woman and the man can be murdered for the rape of an unmarried young female if the female desires this. Also both
        Islamic law and (eventually) English Common Law (and American) allowed a woman to petition a court for a divorce from her husband for cause (abandonment, bigamy, the man having relations with another woman)... something that a wife in the Law under the God of Israel (Not under Arabia's) could never do (only the _Man_ could initiate a divorce, and to do so he himself sent her away (no petitioning a court), if she displeased him by committing some immoral act (public lewdness? dishonoring him? intentionally disrespecting him in front of others? (IE: not only adultery: for having relations with someone not her husband she is executed, not merely divorced))).

        Biblical Law seems to be of the opinion that women/girls were created FOR man and in the case of rape it is concerned with the rights of the girls husband IF he exists, if he does not exist (girl not yet married off) then there's no harm
        done: just have her be married to the man that chose her. Islamic law is
        concerned about protecting women, not the rights of men, and Conservative
        American Law, which was derived from English Common Law, I remember has always predicated itself on protecting the "angelic" woman... I suspect common law is the same.

        Anyway here is some article suggesting that Islam had it's effect English Common law, a body of law that has never been unabashedly on the side of Men (unlike biblical law which seems geared to just funneling female virgins (one way or another (conquest, theft of them, purchase, agreement between families) into the hands of men.)):

        http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art283.htm

        I hope no one misunderstands me: I'm just talking about something I noticed, I'm not disparaging the Bible or it's Law: I think it's good law and it's unabashedly on the side of men. I think the standard-conservative Islamic and English Common Law is what is no good. Bible says woman was made for man. Islamic jurisprudence says that woman and men were made for each-other (equally), they both reach the obvious conclusions (and solutions (or "solutions" in the case of Islamic and English common law (since it really is no solution, it's just murdering a man for the sake of a woman's loss of her ability to sell her virginity to the highest bidder)) that one would expect them to reach in the cases discussed above.

        --MikeeUSA--
        PS: Hi divverent, I know you have a google-alert on my name. How about working on those nice features for xonotic, eh?



      • spencer@spencermewha.plus.com
        Yea, apparently the reason the women wear the butkah is because men are, preditors and so women have to be sheilded...... And if a man walked into a hareem,
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 9, 2011
          Yea, apparently the reason the women wear the butkah is because men are, 'preditors' and so women have to be sheilded...... And if a man walked into a hareem, even by accident, then the poor guy was put to death........ They definately have a weird way of, 'punishing' men and 'protecting' women.
           
          The funny thing is that their women are REAL Dogs.... But, one supposes it's true: 'the hand that rocks the cradle'.

          With kind regards,

          Spence


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: mikeeusa
          To: aum@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:08 PM
          Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law

          'Every time I talk to a muslim on the net, who knows english (I trace the IP to make sure they're actually in the country they claim to be from) they are all always pro-women's rights, deeeeeeeeeply respectful of wives, sisters etc (infact one educated city-dwelling pashtun told me brothers would murder any man who merely looked at their sister... '
        • brother_turin
          I know you guys mean. And, then, you get these kinds of attitudes, too: http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/m edia/1.mpg
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 10, 2011
            I know you guys mean. 

            And, then, you get these kinds of attitudes, too:

            http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/media/1.mpg 


            Unbelievable.  Just look at what this heathen moon worshipper says during the :05-:10 time segment. 



            If your browser has trouble loading the direct link, then, go here, and, load the first clip:

            http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/index.html?nats=NDk6MzoyMA,0 


            I also uploaded it, here, to make sure anyone can see this:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/files/disrespect.mpg 



            Brother Turin



            --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, <spencer@...> wrote:
            >
            > Yea, apparently the reason the women wear the butkah is because men are, 'preditors' and so women have to be sheilded...... And if a man walked into a hareem, even by accident, then the poor guy was put to death........ They definately have a weird way of, 'punishing' men and 'protecting' women.
            >
            > The funny thing is that their women are REAL Dogs.... But, one supposes it's true: 'the hand that rocks the cradle'.
            >
            > With kind regards,
            >
            > Spence
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: mikeeusa
            > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:08 PM
            > Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
            >
            > 'Every time I talk to a muslim on the net, who knows english (I trace the IP to make sure they're actually in the country they claim to be from) they are all always pro-women's rights, deeeeeeeeeply respectful of wives, sisters etc (infact one educated city-dwelling pashtun told me brothers would murder any man who merely looked at their sister... '
            >
          • Miguel Ghobangieno
            Looks like a filipinia or a south-sea islander. Not an arab. So I m guessing this post is a mocking joke as if to say lol you fools are idiots, their women
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 10, 2011
              Looks like a filipinia or a south-sea islander. Not an arab. So I'm guessing this post is a mocking joke as if to say "lol you fools are idiots, their women are wonderful, it's you women who are garbage". But, you know, it IS possible that both our women and their women are garbage, maybe the only good girls over there are the undeducated girls in the provinces, not the females in the cities with all the good muslims who's main goal in life is to protect women (stab eachother in the back so no one can get the girls?).

              A sister and a daughter is of NO use to her own family unless those people are incestious. She's only useful to another man. If you're all protecting your sister or daughter then the girls are of no use to anyone. It's pointless.

              The Bible, Old Testament, seems to understand this so it has no problem with men taking the girls (and actually, it does say specifically.. girl in the hebrew, and it does say specifically seize (as in the capture of a city, or dragging someone before a council to be stoned to death etc, same word used in those cases (taphas)), and it says she becomes the mans wife, he pays the father, and shall not send her away as he has humbled her (the girl, yes, girl). When you really see the hebrew, and you read it, it's like "damn this is crazy" "crazy good". Then you study and you see that the law on kidnapping... it's talking about kidnapping men specifically, so doesn't apply here, and then you study more and you see that if a thief breaks into a house in daylight... he is not to be killed. And then you study a little bit more and it seems ... seems ... that betrothal, or being pledged to be married... is more than just a promise, it seems the girl lives in the man's house he just hasn't had sexual intercourse with her yet (might have done other things?). Marraige is the act of having sexual intercourse with the girl for the first time it seems, not the act of placing her in the custody of the man (betrothal?) or him playing with her.... it seems, I don't know fully.

              So any law that good people try to come up with to stop the deuteronomy 22 idea.. has allready been thought of and the possibility removed.

              Anyway here is a post I made to some muslim forum when they were angry about the bible condoning such things:
              www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80225-raped-women-are-forced-to-marry-their-rapists-in-the-bible/

              Looks to me like what has been followed in the west are the ideas of islam (protecting women from eeevil men, having worse penalties for the rape of an unmarried virgin girl because she is extra pure, etc) rather than those of the old testament laws by themselves.

              Ofcourse there are very few men it seems that want acendancy over girls, most men are good and want to protect the wimmen from eeevilll men, just like the holy pious muslim who's just trying to prottecct the harem of women he has from eeeeevvvviiiilllllll other men in the entire world, and protect the extra girls of society from eeeevvvilllll men not quite as rich as him. And indeed, since he is rich, women would prefer to be with him rather than with the poor men, mature women.

              The ancient Isrealites went after girls though, not mature women. They wanted virgins untouched in mind body or spirit: sweet obedient slaves/servants rather than someone calculating and out for themselves.

              But that's not likely coming back. Men hate eachother and want to worship the goddess the world over.



              --- On Thu, 2/10/11, brother_turin <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

              From: brother_turin <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:36 PM

               



              I know you guys mean. 

              And, then, you get these kinds of attitudes, too:

              http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/media/1.mpg 


              Unbelievable.  Just look at what this heathen moon worshipper says during the :05-:10 time segment. 



              If your browser has trouble loading the direct link, then, go here, and, load the first clip:

              http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/index.html?nats=NDk6MzoyMA,0 


              I also uploaded it, here, to make sure anyone can see this:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/files/disrespect.mpg 



              Brother Turin



              --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, <spencer@...> wrote:
              >
              > Yea, apparently the reason the women wear the butkah is because men are, 'preditors' and so women have to be sheilded...... And if a man walked into a hareem, even by accident, then the poor guy was put to death........ They definately have a weird way of, 'punishing' men and 'protecting' women.
              >
              > The funny thing is that their women are REAL Dogs.... But, one supposes it's true: 'the hand that rocks the cradle'.
              >
              > With kind regards,
              >
              > Spence
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: mikeeusa
              > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:08 PM
              > Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
              >
              > 'Every time I talk to a muslim on the net, who knows english (I trace the IP to make sure they're actually in the country they claim to be from) they are all always pro-women's rights, deeeeeeeeeply respectful of wives, sisters etc (infact one educated city-dwelling pashtun told me brothers would murder any man who merely looked at their sister... '
              >



              Looking for earth-friendly autos?
              Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
            • Tom Smith
              ... But that s not likely coming back. Men hate eachother and want to worship the goddess the world over. True but that could change.  Good post. Tom From:
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 10, 2011


                --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Miguel Ghobangieno <mikeeusa@...> wrote:

                "But that's not likely coming back. Men hate eachother and want to worship the goddess the world over."

                True but that could change.  Good post.

                Tom

                From: Miguel Ghobangieno <mikeeusa@...>
                Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 9:59 AM

                 

                Looks like a filipinia or a south-sea islander. Not an arab. So I'm guessing this post is a mocking joke as if to say "lol you fools are idiots, their women are wonderful, it's you women who are garbage". But, you know, it IS possible that both our women and their women are garbage, maybe the only good girls over there are the undeducated girls in the provinces, not the females in the cities with all the good muslims who's main goal in life is to protect women (stab eachother in the back so no one can get the girls?).

                A sister and a daughter is of NO use to her own family unless those people are incestious. She's only useful to another man. If you're all protecting your sister or daughter then the girls are of no use to anyone. It's pointless.

                The Bible, Old Testament, seems to understand this so it has no problem with men taking the girls (and actually, it does say specifically.. girl in the hebrew, and it does say specifically seize (as in the capture of a city, or dragging someone before a council to be stoned to death etc, same word used in those cases (taphas)), and it says she becomes the mans wife, he pays the father, and shall not send her away as he has humbled her (the girl, yes, girl). When you really see the hebrew, and you read it, it's like "damn this is crazy" "crazy good". Then you study and you see that the law on kidnapping... it's talking about kidnapping men specifically, so doesn't apply here, and then you study more and you see that if a thief breaks into a house in daylight... he is not to be killed. And then you study a little bit more and it seems ... seems ... that betrothal, or being pledged to be married... is more than just a promise, it seems the girl lives in the man's house he just hasn't had sexual intercourse with her yet (might have done other things?). Marraige is the act of having sexual intercourse with the girl for the first time it seems, not the act of placing her in the custody of the man (betrothal?) or him playing with her.... it seems, I don't know fully.

                So any law that good people try to come up with to stop the deuteronomy 22 idea.. has allready been thought of and the possibility removed.

                Anyway here is a post I made to some muslim forum when they were angry about the bible condoning such things:
                www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80225-raped-women-are-forced-to-marry-their-rapists-in-the-bible/

                Looks to me like what has been followed in the west are the ideas of islam (protecting women from eeevil men, having worse penalties for the rape of an unmarried virgin girl because she is extra pure, etc) rather than those of the old testament laws by themselves.

                Ofcourse there are very few men it seems that want acendancy over girls, most men are good and want to protect the wimmen from eeevilll men, just like the holy pious muslim who's just trying to prottecct the harem of women he has from eeeeevvvviiiilllllll other men in the entire world, and protect the extra girls of society from eeeevvvilllll men not quite as rich as him. And indeed, since he is rich, women would prefer to be with him rather than with the poor men, mature women.

                The ancient Isrealites went after girls though, not mature women. They wanted virgins untouched in mind body or spirit: sweet obedient slaves/servants rather than someone calculating and out for themselves.

                But that's not likely coming back. Men hate eachother and want to worship the goddess the world over.



                --- On Thu, 2/10/11, brother_turin <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                From: brother_turin <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:36 PM

                 



                I know you guys mean. 

                And, then, you get these kinds of attitudes, too:

                http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/media/1.mpg 


                Unbelievable.  Just look at what this heathen moon worshipper says during the :05-:10 time segment. 



                If your browser has trouble loading the direct link, then, go here, and, load the first clip:

                http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/index.html?nats=NDk6MzoyMA,0 


                I also uploaded it, here, to make sure anyone can see this:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/files/disrespect.mpg 



                Brother Turin



                --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, <spencer@...> wrote:
                >
                > Yea, apparently the reason the women wear the butkah is because men are, 'preditors' and so women have to be sheilded...... And if a man walked into a hareem, even by accident, then the poor guy was put to death........ They definately have a weird way of, 'punishing' men and 'protecting' women.
                >
                > The funny thing is that their women are REAL Dogs.... But, one supposes it's true: 'the hand that rocks the cradle'.
                >
                > With kind regards,
                >
                > Spence
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: mikeeusa
                > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:08 PM
                > Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
                >
                > 'Every time I talk to a muslim on the net, who knows english (I trace the IP to make sure they're actually in the country they claim to be from) they are all always pro-women's rights, deeeeeeeeeply respectful of wives, sisters etc (infact one educated city-dwelling pashtun told me brothers would murder any man who merely looked at their sister... '
                >



                Looking for earth-friendly autos?
                Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.


              • Miguel Ghobangieno
                But then again the Bible says any man having sex with a menstrating woman, they both are to be cut off from amongst their people , which either means
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 10, 2011
                  But then again the Bible says any man having sex with a menstrating woman, they both are to be "cut off from amongst their people", which either means banishment or death: which is fucking rediculious, stupid, and serves no purpose other than to murder "dirty" people and prance around pretending one is "clean" in a time before effective soap.

                  Guess why everyone rejected the Bible? Those kinds of retarded laws which nullify anything advantagious to men in there... all this because the ancient Jews couldn't stand the sight of blood (why? because most of their history theirs was being spilled? Because they only got maybe a few decades of conquring backwater decrepit no-mans land between the greater empires of Egypt Assyria and Phonecia (greek merchants... lol couldn't take on MERCHANTS) and only for a SHORT period of time even held the coastline of Palestine?)

                  "Hey you can take what young girls you want"
                  'Oh cool!'
                  "But if you EVER fuck her when she's bleeding, You're both going to be exiled or murdered by frothing pious idiots"
                  'Ah, so this is just a trap, I see, you lure men in with some pro-them laws, and then murder them for nothing'
                  "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"

                  Perhaps someone could invent some reason why this is not so, but allow us to keep the opress-girls parts, but untill then, sorry that biblical law is pretty much worthless with the retarded baggage it carrys with it. Imagine ninnies dancing around afraid of blood because they don't know anything about it.

                  --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Miguel Ghobangieno <mikeeusa@...> wrote:

                  From: Miguel Ghobangieno <mikeeusa@...>
                  Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
                  To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:59 PM

                   

                  Looks like a filipinia or a south-sea islander. Not an arab. So I'm guessing this post is a mocking joke as if to say "lol you fools are idiots, their women are wonderful, it's you women who are garbage". But, you know, it IS possible that both our women and their women are garbage, maybe the only good girls over there are the undeducated girls in the provinces, not the females in the cities with all the good muslims who's main goal in life is to protect women (stab eachother in the back so no one can get the girls?).

                  A sister and a daughter is of NO use to her own family unless those people are incestious. She's only useful to another man. If you're all protecting your sister or daughter then the girls are of no use to anyone. It's pointless.

                  The Bible, Old Testament, seems to understand this so it has no problem with men taking the girls (and actually, it does say specifically.. girl in the hebrew, and it does say specifically seize (as in the capture of a city, or dragging someone before a council to be stoned to death etc, same word used in those cases (taphas)), and it says she becomes the mans wife, he pays the father, and shall not send her away as he has humbled her (the girl, yes, girl). When you really see the hebrew, and you read it, it's like "damn this is crazy" "crazy good". Then you study and you see that the law on kidnapping... it's talking about kidnapping men specifically, so doesn't apply here, and then you study more and you see that if a thief breaks into a house in daylight... he is not to be killed. And then you study a little bit more and it seems ... seems ... that betrothal, or being pledged to be married... is more than just a promise, it seems the girl lives in the man's house he just hasn't had sexual intercourse with her yet (might have done other things?). Marraige is the act of having sexual intercourse with the girl for the first time it seems, not the act of placing her in the custody of the man (betrothal?) or him playing with her.... it seems, I don't know fully.

                  So any law that good people try to come up with to stop the deuteronomy 22 idea.. has allready been thought of and the possibility removed.

                  Anyway here is a post I made to some muslim forum when they were angry about the bible condoning such things:
                  www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80225-raped-women-are-forced-to-marry-their-rapists-in-the-bible/

                  Looks to me like what has been followed in the west are the ideas of islam (protecting women from eeevil men, having worse penalties for the rape of an unmarried virgin girl because she is extra pure, etc) rather than those of the old testament laws by themselves.

                  Ofcourse there are very few men it seems that want acendancy over girls, most men are good and want to protect the wimmen from eeevilll men, just like the holy pious muslim who's just trying to prottecct the harem of women he has from eeeeevvvviiiilllllll other men in the entire world, and protect the extra girls of society from eeeevvvilllll men not quite as rich as him. And indeed, since he is rich, women would prefer to be with him rather than with the poor men, mature women.

                  The ancient Isrealites went after girls though, not mature women. They wanted virgins untouched in mind body or spirit: sweet obedient slaves/servants rather than someone calculating and out for themselves.

                  But that's not likely coming back. Men hate eachother and want to worship the goddess the world over.



                  --- On Thu, 2/10/11, brother_turin <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                  From: brother_turin <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
                  To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:36 PM

                   



                  I know you guys mean. 

                  And, then, you get these kinds of attitudes, too:

                  http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/media/1.mpg 


                  Unbelievable.  Just look at what this heathen moon worshipper says during the :05-:10 time segment. 



                  If your browser has trouble loading the direct link, then, go here, and, load the first clip:

                  http://www.incrediblecontent.com/tgpgalleries/9.8.08/mgp/arab/brittney/index.html?nats=NDk6MzoyMA,0 


                  I also uploaded it, here, to make sure anyone can see this:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/files/disrespect.mpg 



                  Brother Turin



                  --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, <spencer@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Yea, apparently the reason the women wear the butkah is because men are, 'preditors' and so women have to be sheilded...... And if a man walked into a hareem, even by accident, then the poor guy was put to death........ They definately have a weird way of, 'punishing' men and 'protecting' women.
                  >
                  > The funny thing is that their women are REAL Dogs.... But, one supposes it's true: 'the hand that rocks the cradle'.
                  >
                  > With kind regards,
                  >
                  > Spence
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: mikeeusa
                  > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:08 PM
                  > Subject: [AUM] Re: English common law reminds me of Islamic law
                  >
                  > 'Every time I talk to a muslim on the net, who knows english (I trace the IP to make sure they're actually in the country they claim to be from) they are all always pro-women's rights, deeeeeeeeeply respectful of wives, sisters etc (infact one educated city-dwelling pashtun told me brothers would murder any man who merely looked at their sister... '
                  >



                  Looking for earth-friendly autos?
                  Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.


                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.