U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2015, 07:50 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,713 times
Reputation: 435

Advertisements

"If you read them in context, they are telling who a Muslim is permitted to Marry. Under all Shariah madhabs (Which are based upon Qur'an, Synnah Ahadith and Sira Sexual relations without marriage are a hadud crime, meaning a crime that requires punishment if s person is found guilty."

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, exactly. Are you claiming these captive women willingly wanted to be married and have sex with Muhammed and his gang right after seeing their husbands, sons and fathers slaughtered by said gang?

I read this stuff pretty carefully, with the context, and over and over. I just don't think that women, seeing their husbands and fathers and sons slaughtered by Muhammed and his gang, decide to marry that gang on the spot and have an orgy and then be enslaved or sold. Let's say a gang of men come into your house and slaughter you and your sons and your wife's father and some other men that are over visiting you with their wives. You are all slaughtered, beheaded, in front of your daughters and mothers and wives. Can you now think that the daughters, wives and mothers will willingly consent to a quickie marriage and mass orgy with the gang that just slaughtered their fathers, sons and husbands? I just can't.

Besides, this gives it away:

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

In this case, there were husbands that were alive and watching! And it was Allah himself, as documented in the Quran, that encouraged the rape of the captive women while the husbands looked on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2015, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,284,120 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
"If you read them in context, they are telling who a Muslim is permitted to Marry. Under all Shariah madhabs (Which are based upon Qur'an, Synnah Ahadith and Sira Sexual relations without marriage are a hadud crime, meaning a crime that requires punishment if s person is found guilty."

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, exactly. Are you claiming these captive women willingly wanted to be married and have sex with Muhammed and his gang right after seeing their husbands, sons and fathers slaughtered by said gang?

I read this stuff pretty carefully, with the context, and over and over. I just don't think that women, seeing their husbands and fathers and sons slaughtered by Muhammed and his gang, decide to marry that gang on the spot and have an orgy and then be enslaved or sold. Let's say a gang of men come into your house and slaughter you and your sons and your wife's father and some other men that are over visiting you with their wives. You are all slaughtered, beheaded, in front of your daughters and mothers and wives. Can you now think that the daughters, wives and mothers will willingly consent to a quickie marriage and mass orgy with the gang that just slaughtered their fathers, sons and husbands? I just can't.

Besides, this gives it away:

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

In this case, there were husbands that were alive and watching! And it was Allah himself, as documented in the Quran, that encouraged the rape of the captive women while the husbands looked on!
You make a very good point

Quote:
I read this stuff pretty carefully, with the context, and over and over. I just don't think that women, seeing their husbands and fathers and sons slaughtered by Muhammed and his gang, decide to marry that gang on the spot and have an orgy and then be enslaved or sold. Let's say a gang of men come into your house and slaughter you and your sons and your wife's father and some other men that are over visiting you with their wives. You are all slaughtered, beheaded, in front of your daughters and mothers and wives. Can you now think that the daughters, wives and mothers will willingly consent to a quickie marriage and mass orgy with the gang that just slaughtered their fathers, sons and husbands? I just can't.
Which means it is not likely the slaughter occured as some seem to think

Surah 4 ayyats 1-35 are a discourse dealing with marriage and harmonious family life. It needs to be read as a single chapter and the Surah read as a book dealing with morality in a multitude of situations

Ayyat 24 is quite clear in emphasizing marriage is required before sexual relations are permitted.

4:24 (Asad) And [forbidden to you are] all married women other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]: this is God's ordinance, binding upon you. But lawful to you are all [women] beyond these, for you to seek out, offering them of your possessions taking them in honest wedlock, and not in fornication. And unto those with whom you desire to enjoy marriage, you shall give the dowers due to them; but you will incur no sin if, after [having agreed upon] this lawful due, you freely agree with one another upon anything [else]: [28] behold, God is indeed all-knowing, wise.

4:24 (Y. Ali) Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

4:24 (Picktall) And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

4:24 (French) et parmi les femmes, les dames (qui ont un mari), sauf si elles sont vos esclaves en toute propriété. Prescription d'Allah sur vous! A part cela, il vous est permis de les rechercher, en vous servant de vos bien et en concluant mariage, non en débauchés. Puis, de même que vous jouissez d'elles, donnez-leur leur mahr, comme une chose due. Il n'y a aucun péché contre vous à ce que vous concluez un accord quelconque entre vous après la fixation du mahr. Car Allah est, certes,
Omniscient et Sage.

Yes the women were willing partners in marriage, which means the maniacal mass orgy you envisioned, did not occur for the reasons you noted in your observation.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,862 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth_teller View Post
...When Europe made contact with Black Africa, this contact led to human misery during which the black people of that continent were faced with a major calamity that lasted for five centuries.
The states of Europe came up with evil ways of kidnapping these people and...Islam and slavery - islamqa.info
What the Europeans did in Africa was bad. The prevalence of slavery all over the world [China, India, Middle East, Egypt, Russia, Incas, etc.] in ancient times is also evil and should be condemned.

However if you are to regard yourself as intellectually educated and a critical thinker, you should not bring in slavery in other contexts to deflect this particular issue, i.e. Islam and slavery. Hope you understand what is keeping to topic and off topic in forums.

The problem with 'Islam and slavery' is slavery is condoned in the Quran as the immutable word of God and thus made universal eternally. While the slavery in the secular world is now a taboo and banned by most government, the slavery condoned in the Quran cannot be changed because it is from the words of God.

I believe many Muslims will compromise [or ignore] the words of God on the keeping of slaves. However many Muslims who want to be as close to God as possible and follow the examples of Muhammad, they will continue to keep slaves for the reason because slavery is sanctioned by Allah.
If some Muslims were to insist on keeping slaves and quote the Quran [& Hadiths], which fallible human has the authority to say they are wrong?

From the philosophy of Morality and Ethics, slavery is one of the worst immoral acts and the MOST EVIL. In the first place, if the Quran is the word of God and if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God should not have included the idea of God in the immutable Quran at all.

Thus the conflict with basic morality put the Quran in a spot on the possibility it may not be the words of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,862 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Is that because the white slave was viewed as worth more or because the slave trader saw an opportunity to make a profit. No where iare we told if the Slave owner was Muslim, Christian or Jew.

We only know he was a slave owner and made a profit selling the we slave for 2 black slaves.
Law of business, the goal of a seller is to sell and make a profit. so basically-since he sold and was happy with the deal, He must have felt the 2 black slaves were worth more than one white slave An even trade would not have made him a profit. You need to sell at a higher price than what you bought a slave for, if you are going to make a profit selling slaves.
This is the most abominable view I read from you.
This is because you are willing to sacrifice your moral bearing for the worst merely because Confirmation Bias sake.
Giving the excuse Muhammad was a man of his time is already very evil and inexcusable because he is God's messenger. But your condoning Muhammad as a slave seller for a profit is repugnant.
Suggest you review your above view and retract the above for your own basic moral standing.

33:21. Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

68:4. And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:13 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,713 times
Reputation: 435
"Which means it is not likely the slaughter occured as some seem to think"

The slaughter did occur. What did NOT occur was a marriage between Muhammed's gang and the captive women after their husbands, sons and fathers were captured and/or slaughtered. The men were captured and/or slaughtered and then the women were raped. We even have a clear example here of the Quran backing up a hadith:

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you EXCEPT those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Obviously the "female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers" were not the wives of Muhammed and his gang. They were captive women and their husbands were disbelievers. Muhammed's gang wanted to rape them but were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives WHO WERE NOT THEIR WIVES in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So in this case the non-Muslim husbands had not been slaughtered but their wives had been captured. These wives, again, were captives and NOT the wives of Muhammed's gang. Allah steps in and tells the men to go ahead and rape them!! "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you EXCEPT those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

The rape of captive women did take place. And now all captive women and slaves were considered 'what the right hand possesses' and it is perfectly fine to have sex with them and even rape them. Allah says so!

Here is another case:

"O Allah'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 coitus interruptus. A soul that which Allah has destined to exist will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

Here Muhammed's men are raping captive women that they want to later sell for ransom. It seems pregnant women are worth less (or worth nothing) so Muhammed's men want to withdraw before ejaculation. They ask Muhammed about this. Muhammed says go ahead and ejaculate into them because if Allah wants the women to be pregnant he will make them pregnant no matter if you ejaculate into them or not.

Not only do we have the permission from Allah to rape/have sex with captive women/slaves, we have examples of it in action in the hadiths. We have the Quran backing up what the hadiths say.

"except those whom your right hands possess" is NOT talking about Muslim wives. It is talking about women that are given to Muslim fighters as booty from battles and the women that are slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:20 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,713 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
This is the most abominable view I read from you.
This is because you are willing to sacrifice your moral bearing for the worst merely because Confirmation Bias sake.
Giving the excuse Muhammad was a man of his time is already very evil and inexcusable because he is God's messenger. But your condoning Muhammad as a slave seller for a profit is repugnant.
Suggest you review your above view and retract the above for your own basic moral standing.

33:21. Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

68:4. And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
THANK YOU! This was exactly what went through my mind but was afraid to say anything as I thought it might violate some rule. I was physically and emotionally sickened by that post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,862 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Yes the women were willing partners in marriage, which means the maniacal mass orgy you envisioned, did not occur for the reasons you noted in your observation.
I think you did not get juju's point.

From what I read, juju did not imply the Quran directly promote mass orgy.
Rather the Quran condone captives as slaves - 'what your right hand possess'.
It is how the Quranic verses are expounded in the Hadiths on slavery and the acts of Muhammad with regard to captive slaves that some zealous Muslims took a step further. There is nothing to stop them from the orgy they did. Who is to say they are wrong. Muhammad may have condoned it or has to close on eye because he need those Muslims [his soldiers] then support in his imperialistic mission.

The problem is this is universalized as a principle and example within the religion and its ethos for Muslims to follow eternally.

Mass rapes, orgy and the worst evil can happen in war [you are very familiar with that and has first hand experience].
This is the reason why actual war elements should NEVER be mixed with soteriological [matter of life or terrible death in hell] elements at all as done by other religions.
Now that the Quran and its ethos has included martial elements we must address this fact and do something about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 06:12 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,284,120 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
"If you read them in context, they are telling who a Muslim is permitted to Marry. Under all Shariah madhabs (Which are based upon Qur'an, Synnah Ahadith and Sira Sexual relations without marriage are a hadud crime, meaning a crime that requires punishment if s person is found guilty."

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, exactly. Are you claiming these captive women willingly wanted to be married and have sex with Muhammed and his gang right after seeing their husbands, sons and fathers slaughtered by said gang?

I read this stuff pretty carefully, with the context, and over and over. I just don't think that women, seeing their husbands and fathers and sons slaughtered by Muhammed and his gang, decide to marry that gang on the spot and have an orgy and then be enslaved or sold. Let's say a gang of men come into your house and slaughter you and your sons and your wife's father and some other men that are over visiting you with their wives. You are all slaughtered, beheaded, in front of your daughters and mothers and wives. Can you now think that the daughters, wives and mothers will willingly consent to a quickie marriage and mass orgy with the gang that just slaughtered their fathers, sons and husbands? I just can't.

Besides, this gives it away:

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

In this case, there were husbands that were alive and watching! And it was Allah himself, as documented in the Quran, that encouraged the rape of the captive women while the husbands looked on!
You make a very good point

Quote:
I read this stuff pretty carefully, with the context, and over and over. I just don't think that women, seeing their husbands and fathers and sons slaughtered by Muhammed and his gang, decide to marry that gang on the spot and have an orgy and then be enslaved or sold. Let's say a gang of men come into your house and slaughter you and your sons and your wife's father and some other men that are over visiting you with their wives. You are all slaughtered, beheaded, in front of your daughters and mothers and wives. Can you now think that the daughters, wives and mothers will willingly consent to a quickie marriage and mass orgy with the gang that just slaughtered their fathers, sons and husbands? I just can't.
Which means it is not likely the slaughter occured as some seem to think

Surah 4 ayyats 1-35 are a discourse dealing with marriage and harmonious family life. It needs to be read as a single chapter and the Surah read as a book dealing with morality in a multitude of situations

Ayyat 24 is quite clear in emphasizing marriage is required before sexual relations are permitted.

4:24 (Asad) And [forbidden to you are] all married women other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]: this is God's ordinance, binding upon you. But lawful to you are all [women] beyond these, for you to seek out, offering them of your possessions taking them in honest wedlock, and not in fornication. And unto those with whom you desire to enjoy marriage, you shall give the dowers due to them; but you will incur no sin if, after [having agreed upon] this lawful due, you freely agree with one another upon anything [else]: [28] behold, God is indeed all-knowing, wise.

4:24 (Y. Ali) Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

4:24 (Picktall) And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

4:24 (French) et parmi les femmes, les dames (qui ont un mari), sauf si elles sont vos esclaves en toute propriété. Prescription d'Allah sur vous! A part cela, il vous est permis de les rechercher, en vous servant de vos bien et en concluant mariage, non en débauchés. Puis, de même que vous jouissez d'elles, donnez-leur leur mahr, comme une chose due. Il n'y a aucun péché contre vous à ce que vous concluez un accord quelconque entre vous après la fixation du mahr. Car Allah est, certes,
Omniscient et Sage.

Yes the women were willing partners in marriage, which means the maniacal mass orgy you envisioned, did not occur for the reasons you noted in your observation.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,284,120 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
This is the most abominable view I read from you.
This is because you are willing to sacrifice your moral bearing for the worst merely because Confirmation Bias sake.
Giving the excuse Muhammad was a man of his time is already very evil and inexcusable because he is God's messenger. But your condoning Muhammad as a slave seller for a profit is repugnant.
Suggest you review your above view and retract the above for your own basic moral standing.

33:21. Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

68:4. And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
I was not speaking of Muhammad(saws) I was speaking of the slave owner. The one the slave escaped from and sought refuge with Muhammad(saws) we have no indication the slave trader was a Muslim.

As The slave owner owned the slave and probably was not a Muslim Muhamad(saws) had no right to free the slave. The slave owner wanted the value of two Black slaves in exchange for the escaped white slave.

My point being that was not implying Muhammad(saws) valued the black less. The man he had to pay was a slave trader and motivated by profit. He wanted to make a profit from the sale.

From the narration it should be clear that the value of 2 black slaves was worth more than one white slave. or in other words a black man was worth as much as a white man.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2015, 09:37 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 1,651,915 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
However if you are to regard yourself as intellectually educated and a critical thinker, you should not bring in slavery in other contexts to deflect this particular issue, i.e. Islam and slavery. Hope you understand what is keeping to topic and off topic in forums.
.
the name of the link is Islam and slavery and that is what we are discussing

Quote:
Islam affirms that Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, created man
fully accountable, and enjoined duties upon him, to which reward and
punishment are connected on the basis of man’s free will and choice.

No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away
that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and
oppressor.

This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is
asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without
shame that....Islam and slavery - islamqa.info

also Islam did not establish slavery but it was there . and Islam put rules for it.

remember there was no treaty for prison of war between two fighting people

the only way for slavery in Islam is when they are captive in the war and they are part of the fight ,
any person not participating in the fight should not be touched.

remember there was no treaty for prison of war between two fighting people

would you prefer to have the captive killed ?

or would you like for the woman who is captive to be abused by many men?

in Islam there are rules for treating the captive woman . such as

if a woman was captured with her husband and they become under the custody of a man then the woman should not be touched.

no other man is allowed to touch her

if the woman give a baby then she will be free when her master die

if she pregnant should not be touched until the baby is born

And non-pregnancy until menstruation menstrual cycle

in general they treated Humanely and because of that many them become Muslim and rescued from the hell fire .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top