true jews whorship god....and true (old) christians were jews who believed jesus was the messiah (anointed king of israel...not some demi-god-man/lizard/super-hero/tax attorney)

so when it says true believing it doesnt mean whose who worship jesus more than others...and look at the order of the surahs and the circumstances youll know that your theory is slso wrong......he married a jew, the emperor of ethiopia was an ally 9so much so that he told his companions to "respect the blood of the abasynians because thier blood courses through our veins").....look up the ad and the thamud...and youll see that they believe that their decendents are african (in our complexes we still dont concider egypt & ethiopia part of africa) and semitic......even after that, lets name some countries where under muslim rule others were given freedom to practice their religion (including the case umar made when he entered jerusalem (who was under roman rule, and they went to jerusalem to weaken the romans (byzintines actually..the the arabic word for "europeans" was "rum" or rome) and avoid attack, egypt was the same case because the classical dynasties were all but gone..with the exception of some of sopdets peoples in the south....cairo was gone....

india (who's name comes from hindus, or "people from the indus river valey, not a religion...its like saying african is a religion) the moguls allowed them to worship snakes, rats, saddata, whatever...

xian china.....kubli khan made no mass conversions...bhuddists also flurished under the khans (a popular pakistani and afghani name to this day)...so much so they made no efforts (nonwithhstanding the actions of some guy named bob, i cant account for every individual...i am not their keeper)

andalousia (spain)...700 years of islam, 400 of xtianity (xtian from "x"mas...true christians were devout jews who believed in the messiah...others who can be up for concideration were the coptics...though now there is almost no difference with them and rome......almost...remember this is the islamic world view...some people believe they age god and stuff like that...and in theiir world if this is functional...then this life for them is successfull (depending on their yardstick)..the muslims were invited in by alfonso x (not x like in malcom x but the tenth)..he was having some fueds and needed the mercenary skills of the ummayads (from the banu ummayah, a clan of the quaresh, who were the keepers of the black stone of abraham....before islam, remember the arabs didnt like muhammad (saw) either...they told him they would let hum rule arabia if he would shutup about the whole allah 1 god thing (although the quaresh worshipped allah (not alat..that was the moon-god of the tamimi...who was destroyed when muhammad (saw)entered mecca)...they didnt want allah to to be the sole god because the other tribes payed good money to have their hajj (which was a curruption of how the meccans believed their city was formed..the whole ishmael thing, and the muslims tell the other side of the story about when haagar (abrahams mate..the egyptian, not the arab egyptian either..and no she wasnt greek like cleo)...was left and had to find water for her son, then she was helped by a tribe who lived there..and found water...the well of zam zam...and the black stone was passed from ishmael to the native tribe via his children...eventually (because last names in the arab tradition was done via the fathers first name..osama's father's name is laden.....or it may be a famous member of his family when they europeanized the method..they also use towns, and trade now...like abu hamid al ghazzali is "father of the praised/praiser, the weaver)...just letting you know this so you dont feel that muslims were some rabid group of dummiez who sprang up out the dessert to undermine xtianity....(remember when it says in your bible that ishmael would be given a covenant also, and his progeny would be more that the foam of the sea....i dont need that to believe, but it is you "holy" book)

i am tired, so i am not going to mention how the turks choose islam because they were a weaker tribe..and they convered on their own....or the hausa who faced a similar sitation..or how umar chose not to pray in the church in jerusalem because he was afraid the muslims in later generations would turn it into a mosque (masjid...ma (place) sajid (prostration))..funny enough today this masjid shares a wall with the same church cause umar and his men prayed outside...or how andalousia was one of the only places in europe to not have the plague, because of cleaner practices (strategic gardens, running water, sewers etc)....or how the direct like of scholors who uised the sankore institute (setup from the riches of a FEMALE west african merchant) in the ciity of timbuktu mali....or how the murabitun (moors) stopped the ummayads in spain when they became corrupt.....but i think this post is way off topic...the point was that women are abused..and WE DO OURSELVES TO BELIEVE THAT ISLAM IS THE PROJECTOOR OF ABUSE DIRECTED TOWARDS WOMEN...

YOU ASKED IF AN AYAT ABOUT HITTING WOMEN MEANT TO BEAT THHEM IIF YOU FELT LIKE IT, AND YOU WERE TOLD NO...from muslims...who live their religion....you dont.

you asked if islam is a proponent of beating women, you were told no..its a provision made to insure that if and when a woman commits a crime that the punishment is to be whipped, strangers dont carry out the punishment...weather you agree that males or females should be hit for crimes in any society is your problem.....i have a problem with locking up people for stealing food...but they do it here..and that that....

beatiing in islam is not restricted to women...if women were all spared for crimes that required beating....imagine what i would do...i would send my wife out on crime sprees...and because 1400 years the technology wasnt available to make medium security prisons the wnd result would be women rampaginig around commiting crimes.....the other end of it is if a stranger was allowed to whip your wife, that would lead to perversions in the law, and society.....every tiime soomeone felt they wanted to look at some womans butt...they would do theiir dardest to get them in trouble.....

there is law, and then there is execution of the law......women arent beaten every day enmasse...ask them, say does you husband hit you? the answer ranged from 'dat nuggah wouldnt dare"..to "no, that is the extreme limit"..you tend to forget that men that are muslim that beat women, would be men that arent muslim that beat women...spousal abuse like child abuse, or substance abuse has less to do with "you know hindus smoke ganja religously so they have a higher incidence of coke snorting"...ga-bige....women in islam are forgiven moreover than men are...check the statistics for the hadud in arab countries annd you would find that more men are executed that women, even for crimes such infidelity......or rather OPEN SLUTTY (MEN AND WOMEN) INFILELITY..

when you find a gem, you just roll with it......it confirms you prejudice....so therefore you like it...when you hear the good...you blank it out.......so using the same method proposed above, if you were white, you would have been one of those who say "niggers get most of the handouts and they are the worst people ever" and the like statements.........if you are happy being christian, or like yet setshengo (whateva, no disrespect...i just cant spell your name) or kola boof...i feel kola boofs struggle..and i understand her vision (sorta)..but being a "revolutionary" with shock appeal iisnt going to make you but a supernova....you can enjoy your limited fame till the scene gets tired of you and changes to the new generation of what they feel like hearing......you voice needs to be heard...true..cause i would be lying if i said muslim men never abuse their wives, drink fernandez vat 19 rum, smoke oppium, blow up buildings..and everything else under the sun that is part of the HUMAN CONDITION.....remember japanese kamakazes were bhuddists and shinto(ists?)...religion has nothing to doo with terror.....america dropped a bomb on the japanese in the claim that by killing civilians they would save the lives of their soilders.....like soilders arent in it to kill and die (or get a gi build and buy a car..you choose)....too address abuse it needs to be addressed in the scale that it is...a human problem..cause if we scapgoat accoording to our biases..we are just riding the wave..and the REAL PROBLEM OF SPOUSAL ABUSE NEVER GETS SOLVED.........