Islam and people who wear the hijab

[Sabour]

so adultery is permitted for men in islam as long as the woman is a slave?

Does it occur to anyone that the women captured during war WERE free before they were made into slaves??

It is not as simple as that. I dont know the full story behind the relation between men and women in that context but according to what I know it is not randomly meaning whenever a man wants he can. Islam gives her rights and the men becomes responsible for her. It is ssomewhat similar to marriage.

What was said is only a tiny portion of the story.

There is more information to be discussed aboit the subject.

I think I once catched a youtube video for yusuf estes about that. I will post it if I come across it.

 

[TashaN]

so adultery is permitted for men in islam as long as the woman is a slave?

Does it occur to anyone that the women captured during war WERE free before they were made into slaves??

If that is the rules in Islam, then it simply paves the way for groups like the Bokoharem to kidnap school girls, proclaim them slaves and then do what they want with them. Does anyone really believe that God, the creator of all people, would allow his own creation to be treated in that way??

I dont think so.

That was in the past when slavery was still legal, so women were also taken as spoils of war. Since you are a Christian, i'll give you some examples so you can understand what i'm referring to.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Judges 5:30)
'Are they not finding, are they not dividing the spoil? A maiden, two maidens for every warrior; To Sisera a spoil of dyed work, A spoil of dyed work embroidered, Dyed work of double embroidery on the neck of the spoiler?'

 

[Pegg]

That was in the past when slavery was still legal, so women were also taken as spoils of war. Since you are a Christian, i'll give you some examples so you can understand what i'm referring to.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Judges 5:30)
'Are they not finding, are they not dividing the spoil? A maiden, two maidens for every warrior; To Sisera a spoil of dyed work, A spoil of dyed work embroidered, Dyed work of double embroidery on the neck of the spoiler?'

ok, two points about the verses you are using here.

1. The isrealites did not do what the quran says you can do. The bible allowed soldiers to 'marry' the women who became captives. And if the women were not pleasing to the soldiers, they were to be set free and were not to be slaves.

2. The account in judges is about a pagan king named Sisera who was put to death at the order of Jehovah God. The poem written about the event is what you've quoted above. These are not Gods permissions with regard to war... its an account about a wicked king who was put to death and who was in the habit of collecting captive women and dividing them among his soldiers.

If these are the scriptures from the bible which are being used to justify raping women during combat, i can assure you that whoever is using them is very mistaken.
Isrealite men were not permitted to engage in ANY sexual activity when they were on duty in combat....not even with their wives. If a soldier had sexual relations with his own wife he was not permitted into the soldiers camp. So contrary to what Mohammad thought was acceptable during wartime, the God of Abraham was against it.

 

[Ingledsva]

It is not as simple as that. I dont know the full story behind the relation between men and women in that context but according to what I know it is not randomly meaning whenever a man wants he can. Islam gives her rights and the men becomes responsible for her. It is ssomewhat similar to marriage.

What was said is only a tiny portion of the story.

There is more information to be discussed aboit the subject.

I think I once catched a youtube video for yusuf estes about that. I will post it if I come across it.

It is not "somewhat similar to marriage" when you are a RAPED SLAVE!




*

 

[Ingledsva]

That was in the past when slavery was still legal, so women were also taken as spoils of war. Since you are a Christian, i'll give you some examples so you can understand what i'm referring to.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Judges 5:30)
'Are they not finding, are they not dividing the spoil? A maiden, two maidens for every warrior; To Sisera a spoil of dyed work, A spoil of dyed work embroidered, Dyed work of double embroidery on the neck of the spoiler?'

Indeed Tanakh had it in the past as well.


HOWEVER -


They left it in the past!


A follower of Islam told us that concubines and sex slaves are actually still allowed.

Both are SEX SLAVES - making such RAPE.


*

 

[TashaN]

ok, two points about the verses you are using here.

1. The isrealites did not do what the quran says you can do. The bible allowed soldiers to 'marry' the women who became captives. And if the women were not pleasing to the soldiers, they were to be set free and were not to be slaves.

2. The account in judges is about a pagan king named Sisera who was put to death at the order of Jehovah God. The poem written about the event is what you've quoted above. These are not Gods permissions with regard to war... its an account about a wicked king who was put to death and who was in the habit of collecting captive women and dividing them among his soldiers.

If these are the scriptures from the bible which are being used to justify raping women during combat, i can assure you that whoever is using them is very mistaken.
Isrealite men were not permitted to engage in ANY sexual activity when they were on duty in combat....not even with their wives. If a soldier had sexual relations with his own wife he was not permitted into the soldiers camp. So contrary to what Mohammad thought was acceptable during wartime, the God of Abraham was against it.

It says you may keep them and ENJOY what the Lord has given you, not marry them, or does "keep" in this case mean marry, so it will be marry all the women, children, livestock?

... you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

 

[TashaN]

Indeed Tanakh had it in the past as well.


HOWEVER -


They left it in the past!


A follower of Islam told us that concubines and sex slaves are actually still allowed.

Both are SEX SLAVES - making such RAPE.


*

A follower of any faith is not an authority who represent the religion. I think you already know that because it's common sense. It would have been different if an authorized and credible scholar claimed it.

 

[Ingledsva]

A follower of any faith is not an authority who represent the religion. I think you already know that because it's common sense. It would have been different if an authorized and credible scholar claimed it.

He did provide material.


EDIT - also found this -

"In his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers", Dr. 'Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says (pp. 51,52),


"Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other - it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner."


"Although the vast majority of contemporary Muslims abhor slavery, it remains part of their religious law.

'Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Shari'a and Basic Human Rights Concerns, in Liberal Islam, ed Charles Kurzman, 1998"




*

 

[TashaN]

He did provide material.


*

He can provide material from the Quran or Hadith but that still along with what i said earlier that it was something global in the past and is not applicable today since slavery is no longer legal. That's why i asked if a modern scholar would condone it.

 

[Pegg]

It says you may keep them and ENJOY what the Lord has given you, not marry them, or does "keep" in this case mean marry, so it will be marry all the women, children, livestock?

... you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

'enjoy' does not mean have sex with.

Surely you can see it does not mean have 'sex with all the women children and livestock'

to enjoy the spoils of war means to derive benefit from those things. They could be utilized by the isrealites. The captive women could become wives for the unmarried men.

The rules governing the Isrealites were as follows:

Deut 21:10 “If you go to war against your enemies and Jehovah your God defeats them for you and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you are attracted to her and you want to take her as your wife, 12 you may bring her into your house. She should then shave her head, attend to her nails, 13 and remove the clothing of her captivity, and dwell in your house. She will weep for her father and her mother a whole month, and afterward you may have relations with her; you will become her husband and she will become your wife. 14 But if you are not pleased with her, you should then let her go wherever she wishes. But you may not sell her for money or treat her harshly, since you have humiliated her.


Once the woman was his wife, she had all the same legal rights as a free woman because she was now a free woman. Her marriage dignified her and she was no longer a captive...she was as free as every other Isrealite woman. And you might notice, that there was to be no sex... it was only when the man had sexual relations with her that she legally became his 'wife' and he was her legal 'husband'

 

[Pegg]

He can provide material from the Quran or Hadith but that still along with what i said earlier that it was something global in the past and is not applicable today since slavery is no longer legal. That's why i asked if a modern scholar would condone it.

but Islamists have shown that they do not dismis Islamic laws for secular ones. Some muslims want sharia law imposed on everyone.

Those who fight jihad are ignoring secular laws against acts of terrorism. They dont view secular laws as more binding then islamic ones, and if they are willing to commit acts of murder under the banner of Jihad, then whats stopping them from taking sex slaves?

Its built into the tenants of islam that its ok to do that...Mohammad gave the ok. I dont think the Bokoharem group care about secular laws against kidnapping and enslaving young girls. Nor do they care about the age of consent or laws against rape. Why? Because the Quran tells them they can do that.

 

[TashaN]

'enjoy' does not mean have sex with.

Surely you can see it does not mean have 'sex with all the women children and livestock'

to enjoy the spoils of war means to derive benefit from those things. They could be utilized by the isrealites. The captive women could become wives for the unmarried men.

The rules governing the Isrealites were as follows:

Deut 21:10 “If you go to war against your enemies and Jehovah your God defeats them for you and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you are attracted to her and you want to take her as your wife, 12 you may bring her into your house. She should then shave her head, attend to her nails, 13 and remove the clothing of her captivity, and dwell in your house. She will weep for her father and her mother a whole month, and afterward you may have relations with her; you will become her husband and she will become your wife. 14 But if you are not pleased with her, you should then let her go wherever she wishes. But you may not sell her for money or treat her harshly, since you have humiliated her.


Once the woman was his wife, she had all the same legal rights as a free woman because she was now a free woman. Her marriage dignified her and she was no longer a captive...she was as free as every other Isrealite woman. And you might notice, that there was to be no sex... it was only when the man had sexual relations with her that she legally became his 'wife' and he was her legal 'husband'

Isaiah 13:15-16
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

If women can be wives then why they need to be *violated* and the children to be dashed to pieces?

Any reason?

 

[TashaN]

but Islamists have shown that they do not dismis Islamic laws for secular ones. Some muslims ......

You said it, some Muslims, in the same manner that some Christians will blow up abortion clinics. Is that in the Bible too?

 

[Draupadi]

It is not as simple as that. I dont know the full story behind the relation between men and women in that context but according to what I know it is not randomly meaning whenever a man wants he can. Islam gives her rights and the men becomes responsible for her. It is ssomewhat similar to marriage.

What was said is only a tiny portion of the story.

There is more information to be discussed aboit the subject.

I think I once catched a youtube video for yusuf estes about that. I will post it if I come across it.

The hadiths present the full context although the Quran is silent on whether the captives' consent is needed or not. According to the former the women were coerced. No woman in their sane mind will make love to her captor who had killed her family, seized her wealth and made her a slave. The hypocrisy is you need to marry a free woman and not a slave. If you don't that's fornication. Even a married slave is bound to serve her master as his concubine! That's the difference between free people and slaves (usually non-Muslims) in God's eyes. And strangely God forgot about the needs of the male slaves.

 

[Pegg]

Isaiah 13:15-16
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

If women can be wives then why they need to be *violated* and the children to be dashed to pieces?

Any reason?

that passage of scripture is describing the way the Medes will come against the city of Babylon.

Deut 10:15 Whoever is found will be pierced through, And whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their children will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, Their houses will be looted, And their wives will be raped. 17 Here I am raising up against them the Medes, Who regard silver as nothing And who take no delight in gold. 18 Their bows will shatter young men; They will show no pity on the fruit of the womb Nor mercy to children. 19 And Babylon, the most glorious of kingdoms, The beauty and the pride of the Chal·de′ans, Will be like Sod′om and Go·mor′rah when God overthrew them. 20 She will never be inhabited, Nor will she be a place to reside in throughout all generations. No Arab will pitch his tent there, And no shepherds will rest their flocks there.



So again, this is not making allowances for raping women during war. Its a warning to Babylon that the Medes will come and do that to them because that was the violent nature of mens wars back then.... as it still is today.

 

[TashaN]

that passage of scripture is describing the way the Medes will come against the city of Babylon.

Deut 10:15 Whoever is found will be pierced through, And whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their children will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, Their houses will be looted, And their wives will be raped. 17 Here I am raising up against them the Medes, Who regard silver as nothing And who take no delight in gold. 18 Their bows will shatter young men; They will show no pity on the fruit of the womb Nor mercy to children. 19 And Babylon, the most glorious of kingdoms, The beauty and the pride of the Chal·de′ans, Will be like Sod′om and Go·mor′rah when God overthrew them. 20 She will never be inhabited, Nor will she be a place to reside in throughout all generations. No Arab will pitch his tent there, And no shepherds will rest their flocks there.



So again, this is not making allowances for raping women during war. Its a warning to Babylon that the Medes will come and do that to them because that was the violent nature of mens wars back then.... as it still is today.

It says God will send the Medes to them. Doesn't that mean God in the bible condone it?

 

[Pegg]

You said it, some Muslims, in the same manner that some Christians will blow up abortion clinics. Is that in the Bible too?

there is nothing in the bible which gives permission to do such a thing under any circumstance.

But it seems that there is permission given in the Quran to do some pretty bad things. So a jihadist can justify his actions based on whats written in the Quran. But a christian could never use the scriptures to justify such acts because such an act is in opposition to Christs teachings and the christian scriptures.

thats the difference.

 

[Pegg]

It says God will send the Medes to them. Doesn't that mean God in the bible condone it?

No. It doesnt mean God condones it.

Its a prophetic warning as to what the Medes are going to do to the Babylonians. There are similar passages where God warns the Isrealites that the Babylonians will come against them and carry out atrocities... and likewise there are other warnings to other nations about what will befall them at the hands of their enemies. And the reason why God allows such things to happen is because he will not protect the wicked from the wicked. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword for that is justice.

In all this, God implores mankind to turn away from human rulership because of the way man dominates and destroys. God never condones mans atrocities... he wants peace and he wants people to put down their weapons and love one another.

Eccl 8:9 All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.

Micah 7:3 Their hands are expert at doing what is bad; The prince is making demands, The judge asks for a reward, The prominent one makes known his desires, And they work it out together


When anyone acts in wicked ways, God is far from that person as the prophet Isaiah says:

Isaiah 59:2 No, but the very errors of YOU people have become the things causing division between YOU and YOUR God, and YOUR own sins have caused the concealing of [his] face from YOU to keep from hearing. 3 For YOUR own palms have become polluted with blood, and YOUR fingers with error. YOUR own lips have spoken falsehood. YOUR own tongue kept muttering sheer unrighteousness. 4 There is no one calling out in righteousness, and no one at all has gone to court in faithfulness. There has been a trusting in unreality, and a speaking of worthlessness. There has been a conceiving of trouble, and a bringing of what is hurtful to birth.


God is not blessing the wars of men. He is not with those who murder and plunder. If anyone wants to know God, they must surrender to peace and righteousness first...only then will God allow himself to be found by them,.

 

[TashaN]

No. It doesnt mean God condones it.

Its a prophetic warning as to what the Medes are going to do to the Babylonians. There are similar passages where God warns the Isrealites that the Babylonians will come against them and carry out atrocities... and likewise there are other warnings to other nations about what will befall them at the hands of their enemies. And the reason why God allows such things to happen is because he will not protect the wicked from the wicked. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword for that is justice.

In all this, God implores mankind to turn away from human rulership because of the way man dominates and destroys. God never condones mans atrocities... he wants peace and he wants people to put down their weapons and love one another.

Eccl 8:9 All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.

Micah 7:3 Their hands are expert at doing what is bad; The prince is making demands, The judge asks for a reward, The prominent one makes known his desires, And they work it out together


When anyone acts in wicked ways, God is far from that person as the prophet Isaiah says:

Isaiah 59:2 No, but the very errors of YOU people have become the things causing division between YOU and YOUR God, and YOUR own sins have caused the concealing of [his] face from YOU to keep from hearing. 3 For YOUR own palms have become polluted with blood, and YOUR fingers with error. YOUR own lips have spoken falsehood. YOUR own tongue kept muttering sheer unrighteousness. 4 There is no one calling out in righteousness, and no one at all has gone to court in faithfulness. There has been a trusting in unreality, and a speaking of worthlessness. There has been a conceiving of trouble, and a bringing of what is hurtful to birth.


God is not blessing the wars of men. He is not with those who murder and plunder. If anyone wants to know God, they must surrender to peace and righteousness first...only then will God allow himself to be found by them,.

But who is the one who said I am raising up against them the Medes?

 

[TashaN]

there is nothing in the bible which gives permission to do such a thing under any circumstance.

But it seems that there is permission given in the Quran to do some pretty bad things. So a jihadist can justify his actions based on whats written in the Quran. But a christian could never use the scriptures to justify such acts because such an act is in opposition to Christs teachings and the christian scriptures.

thats the difference.

Really? Are you sure the bible doesn't speak of violence against other people? Christians are the last ones who dare speaking of violence in other faiths scriptures. Do you really want me to dig up the bible now and go that road? Jesus himself called for Jihad along with his disciples before they got caught, according to the bible itself.