Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Bizarre when you think about it. It's even more crazy when you realize people kill each other over this kind of silliness.
-
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!
Violence in Islam?
- Thread starter kassault37
- Start date
Exactly. Bizarre when you think about it. It's even more crazy when you realize people kill each other over this kind of silliness.
70:22 Not so those devoted in prayer...
...70:29 And those who guard their chastity
70:30 Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess, - for then they are not to be blamed.
The website http://islamqa.info/en/ref/10382 states that, 'There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).
Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”'
Obviously IslamQA didn't take into account Qur'an alone scholars, although it is fair to point out that they are a small minority amongst self described Muslims (to the best of my knowledge).
So I guess I would ask what do you consider, "those who guard their chastity" to mean?
I'm personally inclined to understand that at the least this would encompass such things as nudity, and to expose one's self to one's P.O.W would in modern times still be considered sexual assault as I understand it.
Also the Islamqa site lists 2 classes of slaves to the Prophet Muhammad, those He freed and married, and those He took as concubines regarding which it states;
"He took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of His son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among His concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both."
Do you say the historical sources which claim the Prophet had concubines are false?
If so does your historical methodology go something like Prophet = good, concubinage = bad, therefore Prophet having concubines = impossible, or do you have a more scientifically rigorous historical methodology?
Last edited:
Aamer
Truth Seeker
First of all, putting "Captives" in parenthesis is ONE HELL OF AN ASSUMPTION. What translation are you using? I don't trust anything in parenthesis. It's someone trying to push their bias on the unsuspecting reader. Most of is Quranist Muslims take "Whom your right hand possesses" to mean long term committed relationship. There is no evidence whatsoever that this term is referring to slaves. Secondly, please don't use Hadith or "Historical References" with a Quranist. History is written by the victors. In this case it's the Abbasid Caliphate, who were pushing their own agenda. Very little is actually known about the personal life details of Prophet Muhammad. Nothing was recorded about him until the Abbasid caliphate stepped in 200+ years later. All we have is the scripture. The Quran. Peace!
Hello again Aamer,
Thank you for the timeliness of your response.
The translation I am using is the Yusuf Ali translation as printed online here Surat Al-Ma`arij [70:26-32] - The Noble Qur'an (you might have to tick the Yusuf Ali box if it is not the default translation), referenced only because it is widely used amongst English speaking Muslims.
1. When you say "long term comitted relationships", since this is an additional category listed alongside wives in the verse, what kind of long term comitted non-marital relationship could it possibly refer to? Could that "long term comitted relationship" be a reference to concubinage?
When you say that history is written by the victors, I remain doubtful of the extent to which you have examined this from a scientific perspective. The council of nicea wrote trinitarianism into Christianity, yet we have records of those who objected to the doctrine, people persecuted for opposing it etc (refer to First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and other online sources for elaboration).
2. Surely then, if the Abbassids wrote concubinage into the life of the Prophet it would have left a similar controversy in historical sources?
3. Furthermore why would not authentic historical sources have survived in other places such as the Caliphate of Cordoba or other places where literate Muslims may have lived beyond the reach of the Abbasids?
4. Why did those Muslims (outside the Abbasid empire) not object that the Prophet did not take concubines?
5. In the Islamqa link from my prior post it was stated that the Arabic word for concubinage was something like sirr or sirrah or something like that (I'm afraid the page seems to be temporarily down and so I can't copy the word across), and that this word is in the Qur'an, do you either;
a)Say that the word they referred to does not translate as concubine?
or,
b)That this word is not in the Qur'an?
6. According to this website, Does the Qur'an Allow Sex with Slaves / Concubines ? - Islamica Community the slaves must be married in order to have sex with them, however it translates Quran 4:25 as saying regarding slaves, "Marry them with their owners permission..." would this not mean that such a marriage occurs without the slave's permission, since it is the owner of the slave who decides if she is to be married?
7. This partly relates to Q6, Shouldn't a P.O.W be the sole decider in modern times of who she wishes to marry, such that even if her owner forbid it she should have the right to do so by modern human standards anyway?
Thanks for taking the time to explain your perspectives on these issues to me.
Kind regards.
Do you believe it is permissible to have sexual relations with a slave girl?
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Well astonishing ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
A former muslim needs help understanding a verse !! Why you didn't ask that question before you converted ! !
Nice verses you picked from 191-to 193 ,,, But you forgot the verse 192
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Innocent mistake I know !!
Anyways let me explain for you the verses by putting them in full context
2:190-194
190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
191And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (the verse you forgot
)193Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
So basically this is only allowed when your enemy is fighting you as mentioned in verse 190
Any other thing you need help with? I will be glad to help
gnostic
The Lost One
Based on not just the Qur'an, but on the life of Muhammad, I would say "no", Islam is not a peaceful religion.
And based on all the battles, invasions and wars that followed their prophet's death, to build the successive empires, again, I would say "no".
If you look at the life of Jesus, and compare his actions against that of Muhammad's, then it is clear that Jesus is more peaceful of the two, and the more passive of the two.
Christians had only began persecuting others or making wars, when they had gained political power, couple centuries later. Muhammad had gained political power early on, when he entered Medina, and began fighting back, but it longer became fighting for self-defence when he begun seeking fights, hence attacking others.
Power corrupts. And nothing corrupts more than political and military powers. Muhammad didn't give up the power after he entered Mecca victoriously, in essence he was a king in all but name, because he ruled or governed what he had conquered.
Muhammad is Islam.
And based on all the battles, invasions and wars that followed their prophet's death, to build the successive empires, again, I would say "no".
If you look at the life of Jesus, and compare his actions against that of Muhammad's, then it is clear that Jesus is more peaceful of the two, and the more passive of the two.
Christians had only began persecuting others or making wars, when they had gained political power, couple centuries later. Muhammad had gained political power early on, when he entered Medina, and began fighting back, but it longer became fighting for self-defence when he begun seeking fights, hence attacking others.
Power corrupts. And nothing corrupts more than political and military powers. Muhammad didn't give up the power after he entered Mecca victoriously, in essence he was a king in all but name, because he ruled or governed what he had conquered.
Muhammad is Islam.
Lol. I'm pleased to see the last choice in the lead.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
The prophet Muhammad peace be upon him never acted like a king. I am not interested in discussing history because any one can make history says what he wants.
All Muslims actions in history are derived from the Word of God. The Quraan. If you have something to prove, start from there.
So no Muslim has never been a bad person or done anything bad? So all those Jihadi terrorists who kill other people and themselves are deriving their actions from the Qur'an?
Sabour
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean that. I was talking about the wars that were followed after the death of the Prophet. The ones that Gnostic was referring to.
These do not exist. Media makes them.
4:29 O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful.
5:32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
Media makes them? They don't exist? What? :areyoucra You think they're actors or something?
Sabour
Well-Known Member
LOL ... nice reaction
Look when a muslim is a SUSPECT about stealing 5 dollars, it goes on the headlines for 5 days. When a non muslim kills 10 people, it only come once in the news, and not as a headline.
gnostic
The Lost One
Not "king-like"?one-answer said:
So at no point in Muhammad's life did he used word "treason", and not punish them or make war against his enemies?
Only ruler would use the word "treason".
And did not he not make laws (in the Qur'an), and them judge people, like a king?
Rulers are usually the who legislate laws, or use them to judge subjects.
Did Muhammad not command his men in time of battles or wars?
Rulers are usually the ones who declared or make wars.
You are blind, if you don't see him acting like a ruler?
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Quraan clearly provides the context of wars.
A king, according to your understanding, sets rules as he wants and orders to start whatever war he wants. Prophet Muhammad didn't put rules, rules were put by the Quraan, by the Word of God.
gnostic
The Lost One
one-answer said:
If you ever understood politics, the law written doesn't enact or legislate itself through any book or text alone. The law written down in text or book only recorded what law can be or have been used. They laws have to be enacted by people under the ruler or government to be used, otherwise the law in text are just empty words.
If Muhammad tell people want to do, how to do it, etc, this in essence he is ruling or governing on behalf of the Qur'an or Islam. And in war, if he dictate the strategy or tactics, or dictate the terms of peace, treaty or surrender, then he is a ruler.
You don't need a crown or scepter or throne to run the country. You don't need the palace.
After Saul's death, David ruled the tribe of Judah for a number of years (can't remember the number of years), without a palace, throne, crown and scepter. It wasn't until after he united the other tribes of Israel under his rule.
It is the same as religion. You can have religion for a nation, without temple, or any other building. No temple or other structure are needed for worship. For years, decades and centuries, the ark of covenant was housed in a tent. Although David had plan to build a temple, this temple wasn't built until his son Solomon had it built.
You can be ruler without a crown or throne. And you can certainly rule without the title of king.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong. There's was a neo-Nazi who killed some Jewish people a couple weeks ago and it was big news. School shootings are big news. Muslims are hardly ever in the national media here.