Can Muslims take women as slaves and then rape them?

[sooda]

In Islam (to which a lot of the captives converted) the main objecting is Jannah. A slave has different rights in this world among people but not with Allah. They are equal to everyone else. All their sufferings and ease is degreed by Allah beforehand. And they will be rewarded for patience and righteousness.

Mentioned before slapping a captive would set them free. They were not to be abused.

Prince Bandar Bin Sultan al Saud's mother was a slave girl. He was born in 1949.

 

[sooda]

Please provide a credible source for your claim. Your alleged presence at what would be a historic event not withstanding. Such a historic event would have been recorded. (In other sources besides newspapers please.)
Your claim, the date of 1952, being 67 years ago would make you far older than 67 so as to have been there and recollect with accuracy, you realize.



Please provide a credible source for your statement.

I am much older than 67.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes. Means they can't be intimate with them for at least until one monthly cycle has passed. If they're pregnant, they can't be intimate with them until they have given birth. So as to your assumption that they wanted to rape the captives. Just saying they can't do that on the spot. (but if a woman is a virgin there is no waiting period of course)

You're culture is 1400 years later than what we're talking about. This kind of thing doesn't happen now in ME either. The whole point was to abolish slavery. But it couldn't have been abolished just like that. There were so many slaves with nothing but their master. And Muslims were encourage to free slaves and to help them get their freedom. (the prophet bought a lot of slaves only to liberate them)They could be married by a Muslim man who gets permission from the master. After which of course intimacy between the latter and the woman ends and again there is the iddat.

Of course slavery was common back then,most cultures used slaves but then or now it's wrong and not the behaviour one would expect of a devinely inspired religion.

 

[England my lionheart]

No sugar coating it. Life was very hard in Arabia even in 1948. There were many, many blind people, everyone had smallpox scars and 90% of children under two had malaria in the Eastern province. No roads or telephones or cars or schools or hospitals.. I could go on, but you probably wouldn't believe me..

So now your implying that being taken bought or sold as a slave was an act of Mercy,a slave is a human that must do things against their will and do not have free will,this is wrong.

 

[England my lionheart]

In Islam (to which a lot of the captives converted) the main objective is Jannah. A slave has different rights in this world among people, but not with Allah. They are equal to everyone else. All their sufferings and ease is degreed by Allah beforehand. And they will be rewarded for patience and righteousness.

Mentioned before, slapping a captive would set them free. They were not to be abused.

We see this in the Bible too,"slaves have rights",this is nonsense because without free will and the ability to choose they are someone's property.

 

[sooda]

So now your implying that being taken bought or sold as a slave was an act of Mercy,a slave is a human that must do things against their will and do not have free will,this is wrong.

You ever see the Libyan desert or the Sahara or Saudi Arabia? Abandoning a war widow would be a death sentence.

 

[Wasp]

We see this in the Bible too,"slaves have rights",this is nonsense because without free will and the ability to choose they are someone's property.

They still have a free will and an ability to choose. And they have rights even if they have a bit less than some others. Note, they also have less responsibility.

Still you seem to be avoiding the fact that Islam aimed at abolishing slavery and that could not have been done just like that - free all the slaves. You're not being realistic.

 

[sooda]

You ever see the Libyan desert or the Sahara or Saudi Arabia?

They still have a free will and an ability to choose. And they have rights even if they have a bit less than some others. Note, they also have less responsibility.

Still you seem to be avoiding the fact that Islam aimed at abolishing slavery and that could not have been done just like that - free all the slaves. You're not being realistic.

Was there ever slavery in Australia?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An Imam has told his congregation in Wales that war is approaching and Islam allows them to take women as slaves and rape them.
UK Imam: War is Coming, Muslims Can Take Women As Sex Slaves

Is this a preamble to Zechariah 14:3 ?

Zechariah 14:2 2I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

Theologically speaking, it seems to me that christians and jews are allowed by their "divine moral standard" to keep slaves and have sex with them as well.

 

[England my lionheart]

They still have a free will and an ability to choose. And they have rights even if they have a bit less than some others. Note, they also have less responsibility.

Still you seem to be avoiding the fact that Islam aimed at abolishing slavery and that could not have been done just like that - free all the slaves. You're not being realistic.

Tell me,how is it possible to have free will and the ability to choose anything for a captive/slave?.

Surely the best way to abolish slavery would be to prevent it on the first place but they were part of war booty,in other words the spoils of war.

 

[England my lionheart]

You ever see the Libyan desert or the Sahara or Saudi Arabia? Abandoning a war widow would be a death sentence.

Forceably taking someone to be a slave is taking them whether they like it or not,whether they need help or not it's still slavery,it's as wrong now as it was then,slavery still exists in many places in the world including europe,it's still wrong.

 

[sooda]

Forceably taking someone to be a slave is taking them whether they like it or not,whether they need help or not it's still slavery,it's as wrong now as it was then,slavery still exists in many places in the world including europe,it's still wrong.

Slavery was wrong, but existed anyway.

 

[sooda]

Theologically speaking, it seems to me that christians and jews are allowed by their "divine moral standard" to keep slaves and have sex with them as well.

Zechariah 14:2 2I is about the other countries in the Roman Empire that fought alongside Vespasian and Titus against Israel in 70 AD. They were Greeks, Syrians, Arabs and Egyptians.

 

[Wasp]

Tell me,how is it possible to have free will and the ability to choose anything for a captive/slave?.

Surely the best way to abolish slavery would be to prevent it on the first place but they were part of war booty,in other words the spoils of war.

Because the captive has some freedom.

The captives were by no means always held in bondage. They could be freed for ransom and exchanged for Muslims held prisoners on the other side.

And again Muslims were encouraged to free the slaves. Even if they have them or get them. Give them a chance to gain freedom and independence.

 

[sooda]

Because the captive has some freedom.

The captives were by no means always held in bondage. They could be freed for ransom and exchanged for Muslims held prisoners on the other side.

And against Muslims were encourage to free the slaves. Even if they have them or get them. Give them a chance to gain freedom and independence.

Lionheart is baiting you. The British and the Vikings were also slavers... and Australia had some weird slavery laws..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Zechariah 14:2 2I is about the other countries in the Roman Empire that fought alongside Vespasian and Titus against Israel in 70 AD. They were Greeks, Syrians, Arabs and Egyptians.

Ok.

Unclear how that is in any way relevant to the post you are responding to, but ok. I guess.

 

[sooda]

Ok.

Unclear how that is in any way relevant to the post you are responding to, but ok. I guess.

Because its past tense. The Bible is a mess..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because the captive has some freedom.

Except the freedom to leave, live free and disobbey the master's commandmends.
So, not free at all, actually.

When you are the property of someone, there is no freedom.

The captives were by no means always held in bondage. They could be freed for ransom and exchanged for Muslims held prisoners on the other side.

And against Muslims were encourage to free the slaves

But not obligated. So they didn't have to if they didn't want to.

Even if they have them or get them. Give them a chance to gain freedom and independence.

If I were a god, i'ld just tell them "don't treat people, no matter who they are, as your personal property" and be done with it.

 

[Audie]

Of course slavery was common back then,most cultures used slaves but then or now it's wrong and not the behaviour one would expect of a devinely inspired religion.

What do you see in any "inspired" religion that
is socially revolutionary, an actual advance in
enlightened consciousness over what already
existed?

"I have a Divine Idea; lets to
"Love they enemy" is not it.

 

[Audie]

Except the freedom to leave, live free and disobbey the master's commandmends.
So, not free at all, actually.

When you are the property of someone, there is no freedom.







But not obligated. So they didn't have to if they didn't want to.





If I were a god, i'ld just tell them "don't treat people, no matter who they are, as your personal property" and be done with it.

Ha, I'd tell them a whole lot more than that!
And make them listen.

How about waking up with a giant squid in the
bed, not just a horses head?

Oh, they'd listen!