TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's how language works.
"fundamental to islam" is something entirely different then "a fundamentalist".
The first refers to doctrines.
The latter refers to people and their approach to their religious beliefs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Muslims take women as slaves and then rape them?
- Thread starter 2ndpillar
- Start date
It's how language works.
"fundamental to islam" is something entirely different then "a fundamentalist".
The first refers to doctrines.
The latter refers to people and their approach to their religious beliefs.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
He asked where in the middle east slavery was legal.
It was legal in Islamic state.
That this "nation" wasn't internationally recognised or that it didn't last for longer then a few years, doesn't take away from the fact that they did control huge territory and ruled over many many people.
For a while there, they actually were a nation with laws, a treasury etc.
Recognised or not.
So it seems to me to being a perfectly valid answer to his question.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Think about what you're saying.... One problem is here and now. The other does not exist.
Think about what I'm saying? Wow.
Okay, so let's play along with your thought bubble. Nothing matters. There is no here and now, since everything happened in the past, or is a guess about future projection.
You posted a response to my post. Yet my post happened in the past.
Rather, I would think that humans have some ability to learn from the past. Not all, it seems, but some. Have you heard the term 'standing on the shoulders of giants'?
Do you really think there is nothing to learn from the past? Do you really think the actions of humans that came before us didn't impact and shape both the world and our views of it today? Do you really think we float on a bubble of now, when now is itself an infinitely small division of a moment?
Really?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I would be interested to know the Shia view.
Audie
Veteran Member
It was, I was just tossing in a bit of commentary-
that many laws are simply ignored, so something
being illegal may be a bit irrelevant.
Cooky
Veteran Member
What you're post reflects is essentially downgrading a current human rights violation to... philosophical ideals...? Imagery..? History..? IDK.
What I do know, is that ISIS has raped women systematically, as a common practice, during my lifetime... Imams are currently advocating rape before our very eyes.
Yet, it's important to divert our attention to WW2? Why..?
So the Saudi Kingdom law trumps the Koran? And here I thought the Saudi Kingdom law was based on the Koran. Live and learn.
Some people rely on obfuscation, insults, and strawmen. You simply have to live with it. The bottom line, did it work?
It is and it states in the Quran "what your right hand posseses",do what you like there will be no blame.
Cooky
Veteran Member
And that's a fundamental doctrine that (they believe) God has commanded them to do!
...It's not a suggestion.
At all.
Doesn't Quran 24:33 mean the answer is an unquestionable no??
"If they [female slaves] desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to the female slaves], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful."
Seems pretty certain that you can't compel a female slave to acts of sex, under the Quran.
"If they [female slaves] desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to the female slaves], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful."
Seems pretty certain that you can't compel a female slave to acts of sex, under the Quran.
Cooky
Veteran Member
I think that only means that Allah will be merciful to the slave woman after a Muslim man is compulsed to raping her.
IOW, she wouldn't have committed a sin.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm curious as to your authority for this statement, as my own searching seems to suggest, first, that it's hardly settled, and second, that it's extremely unlikely that Aisha was that old. At least, that seems to be the consensus as far as I'm able to determine, but perhaps I don't have as much research time as you.
I'm not sure how your lifetime got to be such an important measuring stick for relevance, but ok.
For what it's worth I'm not reducing anything. You're reducing history. Me, I see both the current occurrences around the world and the history of actions which thoroughly spans cultures and generations as a sad indictment on humans placed in violent and lawless situations.
I'd go further and say people advocating for such things in the cold light of day are somehow even worse than the scum who perpetrate them.
It's not. Not if you see WW2 as the point. The same point could be made using Bosnia if the timing works better for you.
sooda
Veteran Member
No Muslim country's laws are strictly based on the Koran.
sooda
Veteran Member
Aisha was engaged (promised) to another man before she was released to marry Muhammed.
Historically, Arabs NEVER married girls who had not reached puberty which comes late on the Arabian peninsula because of poor diet. Marrying girls off before the menses was established put her life in danger.
You can also date Aisha's age from the age of her sister.
I'm sorry that you declined to provide any references for your authority, which is what I asked for. I can certainly find references from multiple sources that suggest a much earlier age, including: Al-Tabari says she was nine at the time of marriage, which was consummated a year later. Sahih al-Bukhari's hadith says "that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old;" other sources differ on the age of marriage, but agree that the marriage was not consummated at the time of the marriage contract.
So what sources do you cite, and how do you show that they are right and the others wrong?