Jump to content
Islamic Forum
LifeInChrist

Proof Mohammed Was Sent From God & Slavery In Islam

Recommended Posts

I never heard that before, but I could believer that a lot easier than it being Muhammad.

I was taught the same as you, that the comforter was a reference to the Holy Spirit as seen in the Pentecost event recorded early in the book of Acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
You do realize the comforter was Paul right? How could Jesus appear to Paul on the road to Damscus unless he was no longer here on Earth? What did Paul do in most of the letters to the early churches? He gave comfort, not really rocket science there

It is an interesting concept I never heard a Christian bring in the perspective before. I need to search that out. I always thought of it as the Holy Spirit because doesn't it say that the comforter is the Spirit of truth who will always be with you. Paul isn't always with me accept his world in the Bible maybe. For me he makes a better commforter than Muhmmad. But you got me wondering. How did you come to that conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is that a joke? What is US currency made of? It looks like paper to me.

Hahaha!So, according to your opinion if their is shortage of wealth/money, just create papers and you are rich. Wow. And looks like you do not even know anything about gold coins.

 

We have seen the application of slavery as well. Which one has historically looked better for the recipients of such treatment. Since both of these (the Islamic concept of slavery and the Geneva Conventions) are just idealizations and a starting point, I have to judge them by that. I would rather be under the Geneva Conventions than be a slave. Perhaps you would rather be a slave, that is an individual decision. Perhaps we could have the best of both worlds and offer prisoners of war a choice between Islamic slavery and the Geneva Conventions?

 

No, you have Not seen application of Islamic slavery. Here is the post

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737053-proof-mohammed-was-sent-from-god-slavery-in-Islam/page__st__40#entry1246425

 

And Yes! Let's see who has so much wealth to waste on idle prisoners just for Geneva Conventions.

 

 

But what if the slave owners don't want to give the slaves back?

 

They will have to do this in order to end the conflict.

Are you complaining because my position has gotten clearer as we have discussed it? What an odd complaint. And then you mischaracterize my position again when it is as clearly defined as the Geneva Conventions? I'm not clear why this upsets you.

 

Lolz. You did not even reply to the point I made at that post. And I am not upset.

 

How can he buy himself if you aren't giving him money? What does it mean to be morally correct? Must the slave express gladness to the person who waged war against his people and country, killed his compatriots, and enslaved him, or is there some other standard? Perhaps it means he must convert to monotheism or even Islam?

 

He can buy himself by signing a contract where his date of emancipation will be mentioned, until then he will have to work. Or he will have to work and earn certain amount of gold coins say for example. But money will be taken by the master directly.

Must the slave express gladness to the person who waged war against his people and country, killed his compatriots, and enslaved him, or is there some other standard? Perhaps it means he must convert to monotheism or even Islam?

 

You seems to be suffering from short term memory loss. Those people waged war against us. And then they were defeated and caught. That's why they are prisoners. But instead of killing them, we are giving them chance to survive, and morally correct themselves. The treatment is also good.

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737053-proof-mohammed-was-sent-from-god-slavery-in-Islam/page__st__40#entry1246429'>http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737053-proof-mohammed-was-sent-from-god-slavery-in-Islam/page__st__40#entry1246429

 

But I remember you saying you couldn't trust these individuals earlier in the discussion and that they would turn on you if given a chance. If this is the kind of people they are, why would you trust their pledge? And if they don't want to be slaves, you kill them? Even if they had surrendered to you and were unarmed?

 

I said if the financial power and total independence is given to them, it will be quite suicidal. And execution are for those people, who do not want to surrender, or even after surrendering, they do not listen us, rather threaten to harm us.

 

Can he be bought or sold? Is he forced to work? Is he unable to terminate the relationship whenever he wants? If the answer is yes, then it is slavery regardless of what your regulations of it are. There is a reason it is being translated as 'slave'. Because it constitutes slavery.

 

Yes, he can be bought and sold if the master does not have much resources to run his own life or the slave is behaving very badly, many countries export and import workers. He will have to work even if he does not like. But too heavy works will not be given to him. Of course he is unable to terminate relationship whenever he wants, it depends upon mutual agreement. If these things constitute 'slavery', where is the problem? After all they are prisoners first. Also see the treatment. We can not waste resources by feeding and clothing idle prisoners. You always avoid this fact.

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737053-proof-mohammed-was-sent-from-god-slavery-in-Islam/page__st__40#entry1246429

 

And yet I continue to find more things to ask questions about. I would rather talk and work. I see this, this discussion, as part of that effort toward promoting the Geneva Conventions. But unlike a slave, you are free to walk away from this discussion any time you wish. I have no power to stop you.

 

Yes, you can always nag to get unrealistic things done. And you aren't working really. We can see how USA treats even the many innocent people (Muslims), let alone the prisoners. The reason of their arrest is also very ambiguous. Talking in Islamic forum won't help you much in promoting the Geneva Conventions, rather you should talk more with your natives, i.e Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
078.6, 7 Y: Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?

 

Ãóáóãú äóÌúÚóáö ÇáúÃóÑúÖó ãöåóÇÃðÇ {6} æóÇáúÌöÈóÇáó ÃóæúÊóÇÃðÇ {7 } ÓæÑÉ ÇáäÈÃ

Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground?

 

Have they? Can you provide a source?

 

The Mountains were not placed as pegs to "stabilize" the earth, actually the modern scientific rational on the formation of mountains is that they are formed when two continental plates converge, which causes mountain ranges to rise at the locations where they meet. So the mountains come from within the earth, they are not placed on it to stabilize it like a peg. Though I can see how primitive Bedouin peoples living in deserts with no understanding of deep time, and no knowledge of plate tectonics might think that mountains were simply placed down onto earth to stabilize it by an all powerful God. Mountains are often made of a different color rock than the earth around it, in fact I believe there are some volcanic mountains near Medina in Saudi Arabia that do look very different from the surrounding earth so it would certainly seem logical for peoples living there to think that God had placed them there as "pegs".

 

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s.

 

I am interested in learning more about this theory, I have not heard about it before. I googled it and just got a bunch of Islamic websites talking about it, not scientific ones. I am a skeptic so I would prefer you to provide a link or the name of an actual scientific work describing the process whereby mountains help "stabilize" the Earth. Preferably a peer-reviewed scientific paper or book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have they? Can you provide a source?

 

The Mountains were not placed as pegs to "stabilize" the earth, actually the modern scientific rational on the formation of mountains is that they are formed when two continental plates converge, which causes mountain ranges to rise at the locations where they meet. So the mountains come from within the earth, they are not placed on it to stabilize it like a peg. Though I can see how primitive Bedouin peoples living in deserts with no understanding of deep time, and no knowledge of plate tectonics might think that mountains were simply placed down onto earth to stabilize it by an all powerful God. Mountains are often made of a different color rock than the earth around it, in fact I believe there are some volcanic mountains near Medina in Saudi Arabia that do look very different from the surrounding earth so it would certainly seem logical for peoples living there to think that God had placed them there as "pegs".

I am interested in learning more about this theory, I have not heard about it before. I googled it and just got a bunch of Islamic websites talking about it, not scientific ones. I am a skeptic so I would prefer you to provide a link or the name of an actual scientific work describing the process whereby mountains help "stabilize" the Earth. Preferably a peer-reviewed scientific paper or book.

 

first: the verses don't talk about the "way of formation" and it didn't say "placed" but "made" what ever the way. and after the formtion it happened that the mountains to have a deep roots, and here is the sourse: " A book titled "Earth", Press and Siever, p. 435 or around and figures

Which states that: mountains have underlying roots.

 

about "stabilization" i'm searching the source for you,

while for now if we considered the earth surface just like floatting plate over a melted materials, then any vertical down extentions will work just like stabilizers, that can be found down ships or over airplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have they? Can you provide a source?

another point for now, the stabilization is due to mass cosentrations too,

 

If you are really interested in the subject, and can read English faster than me :sl:, here is a book authered by Dr. Zaghloul Al-Najjar (Professor of Geology), who owned his degrees and instructed in th U.K. universities and institutes. you will find many other interesting points and some and 30 references,

I believe you can read and understand it faster than me, I'm not original English speaker

 

"The Geological Concept Of Mountains In The QUR'AN"

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yet4shared(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/file/75342585/6e620442/The_Goodly_Word_____.html?dirPwdVerified=8413eaea"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yet4shared(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/file/75342585/6e620...rified=8413eaea[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theoretically and practically, there is no source of slavery in Islam but the war prisoners. Even slavery is not the only way for those people, the Quran give priority to (setting free or substituting). And a slave is a prsoner in a private house in stead of a public prison.

 

This is no different from any other society that practiced slavery, and how do you define a "prisoner of war"? Muhammad took the women and children of his defeated enemies as slaves even though they were non-combatants, and he encouraged his men to rape them (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, #3371, Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459 & Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506).

 

Muhammad in fact even laid down in the Koran itself that sex with female slaves is permitted:

 

033.050

YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;

PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war,

SHAKIR: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war,

 

070.029-031

YUSUFALI: And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed, But those who trespass beyond this are transgressors;-

PICKTHAL: And those who preserve their chastity, Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;But whoso seeketh more than that, those are they who are transgressors;

SHAKIR: And those who guard their private parts, Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed, But he who seeks to go beyond this, these it is that go beyond the limits--

 

Is forced sex with female slaves part of Islam's morally superior form of slavery?

 

theoritacally and practically, there is no slaves in any Islamic country

 

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7576444.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you can ask more friendly, i'll appreciate that for you

you have to have a comparative look, great imagination, and to know there are a significant differences between the life in 2010Ac and 610 Ac

 

This is no different from any other society that practiced slavery, and how do you define a "prisoner of war"? Muhammad took the women and children of his defeated enemies as slaves even though they were non-combatants, and he encouraged his men to rape them (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, #3371, Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459 & Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506).

1- i'm sure we will not find the word "encourage rape" nor even the word "rape" in the hadeeths

2- we have to take into account the time effect, if that was the law all over the world, at that time, to take the "women in the in the war area" as captives or slaves why to blame the Moslems alone.

3- having sex with the captive slaves, i believe too it was the law all over the world. the Romans, Persian, it's recorded in the NT and the OT too

 

then the question will be, what is the difference between Moslems and the others at the time?

 

sure you red the above posts, plz refer to it again;

while generally, Islam changed the inferior look to the slaves, changed their names to "my boy" and "my girl", urged to deal with them mercifully, feed then, cloth them, help them, ......

Islam restricted most of the slavery inputs, while opened many channels to set them free, all of that led to reduce the numbers and the full solubility of the slaves to the society gradually

 

while the slaves were ruling some countries in the Islamic world, 1000s of them were still served as food to the wild animals in Rome to enjoy the masters.

while there were no significant differences between the free and slave in dignity in the Islamic world in the 7th centaury. Others were still dealing with them just like animals tell the 19th century and like a second grade human tell the end of the 20th century.

 

Muhammad in fact even laid down in the Koran itself that sex with female slaves is permitted:

1st it was permitted by Allah

2nd it was in the sake of the females more than the man, 1st that's one of here needs as a female, 2nd if she bear a child she will free as well as here child, and will be dealt with as a free woman

 

Is forced sex with female slaves part of Islam's morally superior form of slavery?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7576444.stm

Media fakes, who control the Media?

i believe, you will not like that if it was about you, "pagans and atheist in the middle of Africa are practicing this or that" would you like this? and how to prove the opposite?

Media is not an authentic source of info

Edited by AHMAD_73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is no different from any other society that practiced slavery, and how do you define a "prisoner of war"? Muhammad took the women and children of his defeated enemies as slaves even though they were non-combatants, and he encouraged his men to rape them (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, #3371, Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459 & Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506).

 

Yes, or else those women and children would die in the desert. You do not expect us to build a palace for them. Now see the treatment of those so called slaves.

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737053-proof-mohammed-was-sent-from-god-slavery-in-Islam/page__st__40#entry1246429

 

As for hadith, there is no evidence whatsoever that they were forced. We rather have evidence from hadith that even a simple slap on those so called slaves is sinful and the master must emancipate her/them.

 

Muslim :: Book 15 : Hadith 4082

 

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free. 2097

 

Dawud :: Book 38 : Hadith 4445

Narrated Salamah ibn al-Muhabbaq:

 

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) made a decision about a man who had intercourse with his wife's slave-girl as follows. If he forced her, she is free, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her; if she asked him to have intercourse voluntarily, she will belong to him, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her.

 

Malik :: Book 41 : Hadith 41.3.15

Malik related to me from Nafi that a slave was in charge of the slaves in the khumus and he forced a slave-girl among those slaves against her will and had intercourse with her. Umar ibn al-Khattab had him flogged and banished him, and he did not flog the slave-girl because the slave had forced her.

 

 

 

Muhammad in fact even laid down in the Koran itself that sex with female slaves is permitted:

 

Yes, consensual sex. so, there is no problem. Qur'an is very clear that men and women are to dwell in tranquility.

 

 

 

030.021 Wamin [a]y[a]tihi an khalaqa lakum min anfusikum azw[a]jan litaskunoo ilayh[a] wajaAAala baynakum mawaddatan wara[h]matan inna fee [tha]lika la[a]y[a]tin liqawmin yatafakkaroon(a)

 

030.021 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.

 

Al-Qur'an, 030.021 (Ar-Room [The Romans, The Byzantines])

 

This verse surely refutes any claim of rape in Islam.

 

Is forced sex with female slaves part of Islam's morally superior form of slavery?

 

 

 

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7576444.stm

 

Islam does not allow forced sex. Scholar of Islam just recommend that women should answer to her master because he is doing so much for her(see treatment). But that does not mean he can force her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you have to have a comparative look, great imagination, and to know there are a significant differences between the life in 2010Ac and 610 Ac

 

This argument is circular, first you say that Muhammad is the ideal man who lived a perfect example for all people in all times to follow. Then when someone points out behavior that would not be considered morally "perfect" in many modern societies, the come back is that "things were different in the Seventh Century". So essentially you are agreeing with the critics that his behavior is not the perfect way of life to follow in modern times.

 

1- i'm sure we will not find the word "encourage rape" nor even the word "rape" in the hadeeths

2- we have to take into account the time effect, if that was the law all over the world, at that time, to take the "women in the in the war area" as captives or slaves why to blame the Moslems alone.

3- having sex with the captive slaves, i believe too it was the law all over the world. the Romans, Persian, it's recorded in the NT and the OT too

 

The English word "Rape" comes from the Latin word "Raptio" which means to seize, kidnap, or abduct. The modern word in English has a sexual meaning. But originally when the Romans applied the term "Raptio" to women in times of war, it meant to seize the defeated enemy’s women and take them as wives, which is essentially the same thing as rape. Look up the incident known as "the Rape of the Sabine Women" on wikipedia. In both contexts the women are captives and have no free will to resist their captors. Obviously this happened a lot in times of war, no one is claiming that Muhammad introduced a new system of barbarism that did not exist before. The point is that, by his words and actions, he perpetuated the existing barbaric system. Surely if Muhammad was truly a prophet of a compassionate and merciful God and an example for all mankind to follow at all times, then God would have told him to forbid his men to have sexual intercourse with the captive women. God would have known that his words and actions would be recorded for all mankind to read and about, study, and scrutinize, so it would be best to err on the side of caution and not do anything that might be considered as "barbaric" by future generations.

 

And as to your point about it happening in the OT and NT. Firstly you are in a discussion with an Atheist here, not a Christian or a Jew so it is not an effective comeback. However, whilst I do not believe that Jesus was NOT a prophet of an all powerful God, I do know that he did not wage war on other tribes, take the women as captors and have sex with them or encourage his followers to do so. The people that wrote the stories about Jesus envisioned a man that went around preaching love and non-violence, even to people that oppress and persecute you. I do not know how much of the stories are true because unlike Muhammad, much of what has been written about Jesus may well be made up or exaggerated. Muhammad on the other hand was a real man, not a semi-mythical figure, and he had real shortcomings just like other men of his time.

 

while the slaves were ruling some countries in the Islamic world, 1000s of them were still served as food to the wild animals in Rome to enjoy the masters.

 

You are claiming that slave origin dynasties like the Mamelukes of Egypt were contemporaneous with Classical Romans? Gladiatorial games were heavily criticized by the early Christian writers, and the first Christian Emperor, Constantine 1 banned them. There were no gladiatorial games by the time of Muhammad. Muslim slave origin dynasties like the Mamelukes seized power in military coups and revolutions, they were not simply given power.

 

urged to deal with them mercifully, feed then, cloth them, help them, ......

Islam restricted most of the slavery inputs, while opened many channels to set them free, all of that led to reduce the numbers and the full solubility of the slaves to the society gradually

 

It is easy to claim that slaves were treated better in Islamic societies, but any historian knows that this is practically impossible to prove. The way slaves have been treated throughout history is very unknown, very little has been written about the actual treatment of slaves, all we know for certain is that slaves were at the mercy of their masters. Masters were free to choose whether to treat them well or not. Islam may have suggested to treat them with mercy but there was no enforcement. What is the punishment in Islam for beating a slave? The Bible has the same stuff about treating slaves well as the Koran (Ephesian 6:9, etc.), both the Bible and Koran encourage people to treat slaves with mercy but did nothing to end the practice of slavery.

 

Media fakes, who control the Media?

i believe, you will not like that if it was about you, "pagans and atheist in the middle of Africa are practicing this or that" would you like this? and how to prove the opposite?

Media is not an authentic source of info

 

Did you read the article? Are you claiming that the entire article is a lie and that there is no slavery in Mali then? You had said that there is no slavery in Islamic countries, I simply posted an article that shows that slavery does exist in Mali. If you are not going to rely on News sources to find out what happens in other countries that you have never visited then how can you expect to find out what is happening there? How can you say that there is no slavery in any Islamic countries if you have no way of finding out about what is happening in those countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, or else those women and children would die in the desert. You do not expect us to build a palace for them.

The morally correct thing to do would be to not kill their husbands and let them live freely. If another tribe initiates the war against you and you have to defend yourself and if the fight comes down to killing all of their husbands then that does not mean that you have to then take their land and their women and children aswell. Let them stay in their homes and continue to live off their land.

 

As for hadith, there is no evidence whatsoever that they were forced.

Are you actually suggesting that after the Muslims had defeated and killed their husbands and seized their homes, land, and possesions, and made them into slaves. They actually wanted to lie down with them? Lol how romantic! Obviously there is no way of knowing if the sex was consentual but only a mentally ill women would want to have sex with her captor in such a circumstance, so we can be pretty sure that 95% of the time the sex was not consentual.

 

We rather have evidence from hadith that even a simple slap on those so called slaves is sinful and the master must emancipate her/them.

Muslim :: Book 15 : Hadith 4082

If you read that hadith closely, you will see that the prescription was against slapping the slave on the face but not against hitting her on other parts of her body:

 

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.

 

Dawud :: Book 38 : Hadith 4445

If you read the Hadith closely you will see that the prescription is against having non-consentual sex with the slave of someone else, in this case the slave that belongs to the wife, not the husband:

 

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) made a decision about a man who had intercourse with his wife's slave-girl as follows. If he forced her, she is free, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her; if she asked him to have intercourse voluntarily, she will belong to him, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her.

 

Malik :: Book 41 : Hadith 41.3.15

This judgment was about one slave raping another slave, not the owner raping the slave. Besides this is a judgment of Umar, not Muhammad.

 

 

[/b]030.021 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.[/color]

Al-Qur'an, 030.021 (Ar-Room [The Romans, The Byzantines])

Perhaps this is a bad translation into English? This says nothing about slavery or rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument is circular, first you say that Muhammad is the ideal man who lived a perfect example for all people in all times to follow. Then when someone points out behavior that would not be considered morally "perfect" in many modern societies, the come back is that "things were different in the Seventh Century". So essentially you are agreeing with the critics that his behavior is not the perfect way of life to follow in modern times.

The English word "Rape" comes from the Latin word "Raptio" which means to seize, kidnap, or abduct. The modern word in English has a sexual meaning. But originally when the Romans applied the term "Raptio" to women in times of war, it meant to seize the defeated enemy’s women and take them as wives, which is essentially the same thing as rape. Look up the incident known as "the Rape of the Sabine Women" on wikipedia. In both contexts the women are captives and have no free will to resist their captors. Obviously this happened a lot in times of war, no one is claiming that Muhammad introduced a new system of barbarism that did not exist before. The point is that, by his words and actions, he perpetuated the existing barbaric system. Surely if Muhammad was truly a prophet of a compassionate and merciful God and an example for all mankind to follow at all times, then God would have told him to forbid his men to have sexual intercourse with the captive women. God would have known that his words and actions would be recorded for all mankind to read and about, study, and scrutinize, so it would be best to err on the side of caution and not do anything that might be considered as "barbaric" by future generations.

 

And as to your point about it happening in the OT and NT. Firstly you are in a discussion with an Atheist here, not a Christian or a Jew so it is not an effective comeback. However, whilst I do not believe that Jesus was NOT a prophet of an all powerful God, I do know that he did not wage war on other tribes, take the women as captors and have sex with them or encourage his followers to do so. The people that wrote the stories about Jesus envisioned a man that went around preaching love and non-violence, even to people that oppress and persecute you. I do not know how much of the stories are true because unlike Muhammad, much of what has been written about Jesus may well be made up or exaggerated. Muhammad on the other hand was a real man, not a semi-mythical figure, and he had real shortcomings just like other men of his time.

You are claiming that slave origin dynasties like the Mamelukes of Egypt were contemporaneous with Classical Romans? Gladiatorial games were heavily criticized by the early Christian writers, and the first Christian Emperor, Constantine 1 banned them. There were no gladiatorial games by the time of Muhammad. Muslim slave origin dynasties like the Mamelukes seized power in military coups and revolutions, they were not simply given power.

It is easy to claim that slaves were treated better in Islamic societies, but any historian knows that this is practically impossible to prove. The way slaves have been treated throughout history is very unknown, very little has been written about the actual treatment of slaves, all we know for certain is that slaves were at the mercy of their masters. Masters were free to choose whether to treat them well or not. Islam may have suggested to treat them with mercy but there was no enforcement. What is the punishment in Islam for beating a slave? The Bible has the same stuff about treating slaves well as the Koran (Ephesian 6:9, etc.), both the Bible and Koran encourage people to treat slaves with mercy but did nothing to end the practice of slavery.

 

Did you read the article? Are you claiming that the entire article is a lie and that there is no slavery in Mali then? You had said that there is no slavery in Islamic countries, I simply posted an article that shows that slavery does exist in Mali. If you are not going to rely on News sources to find out what happens in other countries that you have never visited then how can you expect to find out what is happening there? How can you say that there is no slavery in any Islamic countries if you have no way of finding out about what is happening in those countries?

 

 

I tend to agree with you. It looks like there's a contradiction here between what was commonplace in times past and what is now looked down on. Except that rape has still been used as either a weapon or a result of war, in modern times (The Serbian/ Bosnian conflicts for example)

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TonyJ,

 

Quick question: would you say that society now is more moral than the moral code set down by the Qur'an? What do you consider to be moral and immoral? Do you think that watching pornography, or women showing their bits, consumption of alcohol/drugs and so on is moral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi TonyJ,

would you say that society now is more moral than the moral code set down by the Qur'an?

Yes, society has come a long way since the time of the Koran. We now have laws that give all people equal rights regardless of gender or ethnicity, many nations have very generous social welfare programs that assist the poor with housing, food, etc. We have far less wars today than we had in the past, we have international dialogue, a United Nations that virtually all nations are members of. Even when wars are waged, we have a "code of ethics" called the Geneva Convention which though it is not always followed to the letter it is at least something that many nations have signed and ratified. There is no doubt that human beings have made immense progress on how they treat each other since those times.

 

Obviously more progress can still be made, but when I study history, one of the most impressive things that I note is just how much better our societies are today than they were in the past.

 

What do you consider to be moral and immoral?

 

I suppose the Golden Rule is a good start.

 

Do you think that watching pornography, or women showing their bits, consumption of alcohol/drugs and so on is moral?

 

If you are doing something to yourself, i.e. your own body or your own mind, and it does not harm others, then what right does anybody else have to tell you not to do it? It is your own body and your own mind so you should be given the responisbility to take care of it yourself.

Now that is a moral argument, not a practical one. Practically speaking some limits are neccesary, for example I do recognize that some drugs are potentially very dangerous and should certainly be regulated with age restrictions, licensing, and if they are deeemed to cause disease or death then they should be banned, simply because we cannot gaurantee that evrybody will have access to all the information to make an educated decision as to their use.

 

As for women showing their "bits", I am an Atheist so I believe that human beings lost their body hair gradually and naturally through the process of evolution, but if I did believe in a supreme creator God then I would not think that he would create the human body naked and then expect that humans should cover it up themselves. If he wanted us to cover up our bodies he would have given us hair to hide it.

 

The reason why humans need clothing to protect themselves from the cold or the sun is because we originally evolved in tropical forests and only moved into colder, less sheltered climates when we already had the technology to make clothes to protect our bodies. The idea that a human is somehow more "modest" by covering their body is simply a societal construction. In fact often times clothes are used for the exact opposite of modesty: to display wealth, to emphasize beauty, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, society has come a long way since the time of the Koran. We now have laws that give all people equal rights regardless of gender or ethnicity, many nations have very generous social welfare programs that assist the poor with housing, food, etc. We have far less wars today than we had in the past, we have international dialogue, a United Nations that virtually all nations are members of. Even when wars are waged, we have a "code of ethics" called the Geneva Convention which though it is not always followed to the letter it is at least something that many nations have signed and ratified. There is no doubt that human beings have made immense progress on how they treat each other since those times.

 

Obviously more progress can still be made, but when I study history, one of the most impressive things that I note is just how much better our societies are today than they were in the past.

I suppose the Golden Rule is a good start.

If you are doing something to yourself, i.e. your own body or your own mind, and it does not harm others, then what right does anybody else have to tell you not to do it? It is your own body and your own mind so you should be given the responisbility to take care of it yourself.

Now that is a moral argument, not a practical one. Practically speaking some limits are neccesary, for example I do recognize that some drugs are potentially very dangerous and should certainly be regulated with age restrictions, licensing, and if they are deeemed to cause disease or death then they should be banned, simply because we cannot gaurantee that evrybody will have access to all the information to make an educated decision as to their use.

 

As for women showing their "bits", I am an Atheist so I believe that human beings lost their body hair gradually and naturally through the process of evolution, but if I did believe in a supreme creator God then I would not think that he would create the human body naked and then expect that humans should cover it up themselves. If he wanted us to cover up our bodies he would have given us hair to hide it.

 

The reason why humans need clothing to protect themselves from the cold or the sun is because we originally evolved in tropical forests and only moved into colder, less sheltered climates when we already had the technology to make clothes to protect our bodies. The idea that a human is somehow more "modest" by covering their body is simply a societal construction. In fact often times clothes are used for the exact opposite of modesty: to display wealth, to emphasize beauty, etc.

 

Do you honestly believe everything that you have said?

 

1. Geneva Convention? Code of ethics? Do you watch the news?

2. Are you telling me that consuming alcohol, drugs doesn't have an impact on society?

3. I don't think you are being very honest. Are you telling me that you'd have no problem with a your daughter walking around the streets naked?

 

I think you've proven the dangers of those who believe in evolution; you believe you're an animal and therefore your morals aren't that different to one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you honestly believe everything that you have said?

 

1. Geneva Convention? Code of ethics? Do you watch the news?

 

Whilst what happens today is bad, it is not even a fraction of how bad things were in previous centuries. Just look at the horrors of the Nazis, the Mongols, the Assyrians, etc. They practiced mass genocide. You want to go back to the days of slavery, killing people of other religions, opressing women and ethnic minorities? And waging endless wars with foriegn nations for resources, territory, and religion? Today the majority of nations are at peace, but in previous centuries being in a state of war was almost as common as being at peace. In fact peace was often simply a time to build up a new generation of soldiers for the next war.

 

2. Are you telling me that consuming alcohol, drugs doesn't have an impact on society?

 

The impacts are minimal, if alcohol causes people to commit crime and hurt others then they were probably bad people in the first place. So it is not the alcohol that is really the problem there. Some other drugs actually make people less violent and aggressive, though their other effects can cause long term health issues.

 

3. I don't think you are being very honest. Are you telling me that you'd have no problem with a your daughter walking around the streets naked?

 

I gave you a moral answer, not a practical one. Which is what I thought you wanted. Obviously we live in a society with societal norms that need to be followed in order to be taken seriously. I have no problem with following societal norms.

 

I think you've proven the dangers of those who believe in evolution; you believe you're an animal and therefore your morals aren't that different to one.

 

We are all animals. I for one believe that human beings have more capacity for love and compassion than other animals. But many people would disagree with that statement, other people see all the wars and violence caused by humans and say that other animals are actually morally superior to humans. My wife for example loves animals way more than people, if she sees something on the news about an animal being killed she is horrified but she is largely uninterested in the plight of humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The morally correct thing to do would be to not kill their husbands and let them live freely. If another tribe initiates the war against you and you have to defend yourself and if the fight comes down to killing all of their husbands then that does not mean that you have to then take their land and their women and children aswell. Let them stay in their homes and continue to live off their land.

 

That's your personal morality. From our point of view, it is always better to set up family with them, instead of leaving them to die in such way. War is only fought against the armed one. And Islamic treatment of those so called slave is far better.

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/737053-proof-mohammed-was-sent-from-god-slavery-in-Islam/page__st__40#entry1246429

 

 

Are you actually suggesting that after the Muslims had defeated and killed their husbands and seized their homes, land, and possesions, and made them into slaves. They actually wanted to lie down with them? Lol how romantic! Obviously there is no way of knowing if the sex was consentual but only a mentally ill women would want to have sex with her captor in such a circumstance, so we can be pretty sure that 95% of the time the sex was not consentual.

 

That's a very blanket argument. It was social norm and people were well acquainted with it. It was not a surprise as you think.So, your personal statistic (95%) is quite useless here. But, I must first clarify here that sex with only Jewish and Christian 'slave girls' is allowed. I will go by using your allegation of those 'rape' hadiths. Here are those alleged 'rape' Hadiths.

 

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, #3371, Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459 & Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506).

 

Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3371

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: 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 Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

 

Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 459

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

 

I entered the Masjid and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

 

Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 93 :: Hadith 506

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

 

That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

 

 

 

 

 

In all of these hadith, it basically describes only one instance/issue. And those Arab women were actually idolaters at first. Sex with idolaters is forbidden in Islam. Here is quotation from Imam Nawawi ®-

 

 

And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi'i and who agreed with him from amongst the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have no religious book cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they convert to Islam first. As long as they are following their religion they are forbidden to approach. These slave girls (i.e. in the particular narration) are idol worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it must be interpreted as implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice but to interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best

 

Source: Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa', Bab: Jawaaz Wati' Al Missbiyyah Ba'd Al Istibraa' wa en Kaana laha Zawj Infasakh, Commentary on Hadith no. 3371

 

 

Malik said, "The christian and jewish slave-girl are halal for their master

by right of possession, but intercourse with a magian slave-girl is not

halal by the right of possession."

 

Source: 28.38A Malik Muwatta

 

So, we can see that sex with magians is also forbidden even though they have book. This confirms that only people who follow bible, ahle kitab, are to be approached for sex. And this is what their Bible says

 

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

 

So, this proves our point that the Bible lover, Ahle Kitab, were acquainted with such rule. And it was also a cultural norm then. So, this is an internal matter between the three religions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Any person belonging to other faith/ atheist has got nothing to do with this. But having said this does not mean Muslims are following that Bible verse. Rather we are following Islam which I am trying to clarify here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now even after this Muslim can not have sex instantly with that slave girl. The slave girls must perform Iddah.

 

Abu Dawood, Book 11, Number 2153

 

Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari:

 

Should I tell you what I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided.

 

So, if sex was the main motive, Muhammad(S) wouldn't have given so many restriction.Islam restricted sex only with jews and christians. The reason behind this is understood that these three religion shares many similar things and setting up a family based on mutual consent is very possible.

 

And Where did you find evidence that all of their homes, possessions was seized? The land taken is the place of battlefield. Destroying inhabited place is generally forbidden in Islam. And if they really cared about their wife and children they wouldn't have at first wanted to fight, rather sign a peace treaty. Even then they should not have brought their wife and children in a battlefield.

 

Malik :: Book 21 : Hadith 21.3.10

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?" Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah."

 

Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.

 

"I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."

 

 

And you should not also forget that in early days people used to fight as a tribe where members of the WHOLE tribe used to help each other at all cost.

 

If you read that hadith closely, you will see that the prescription was against slapping the slave on the face but not against hitting her on other parts of her body:

 

Looks like you are giving your own commentary of Hadiths in order to prove anti-Islamic point. If such is your case it does not make any sense to come to a Islamic Forum.

 

See treatment first, you avoided this,

 

http://www.gawaher.c...40#entry1246429

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you read the Hadith closely you will see that the prescription is against having non-consentual sex with the slave of someone else, in this case the slave that belongs to the wife, not the husband:

 

If such was the case Suwaid b. Muqarrin would not have said this to Hilal b. Yasaf as he had slapped his own slave. I don't know where do you get such interpretation from without even quoting a Prominent Muslim scholar. Anyway, here are other Hadiths.

 

Book 015, Number 4086[using large font size is not allowed]

 

 

 

Abu Mas'ud al-Badri reported: "I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas'ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas'ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future.[using large font size is not allowed]

 

 

 

Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 89 :: Hadith 264

Narrated Ma'qil:

 

I heard the Prophet saying, "Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise."

 

 

 

'Umar ibn al-Ahwas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that he heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say during his Farewell Pilgrimage:

 

 

 

"Verily, you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you. As for your rights over your women, they are that they should not allow anyone to sit on your beds whom you dislike, or allow anyone into your houses whom you dislike. Verily, their rights over you are that you should treat them well with regard to their clothing and food." (Reported by Ibn Maajah, 1851).

 

Moreover,

 

1) According to Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah if both the husband and wife are captivated together, their marriage tie still continues; they will not be separated.

 

2) Related by Al-Daraqutni, Ibn Majah and Ahmad: "The Prophet said, "There shall be no infliction of harm on oneself or others".

 

 

'Others' includes all people, so also slavegirls ! Raping a slavegirl is clearly doing her harm (emotional and physical) which would be a big sin for a muslim to commit and violation of the above hadith. Moreover the prophet (peace be upon him) commanded muslims to treat their slaves well and with respect, which clearly proofs that rape of female slaves is forbidden in Islam.

 

3) The prophet (peace be upon him) said:Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them.[source: Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124]

 

 

4) Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were: "The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves ! "Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 158.

 

5) Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised that slaves should be well-treated. He said, 'Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created.' "Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 188.

 

6) Sallam ibn 'Amr reported from one of the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Your slaves are your brothers, so treat him well. Ask for their help in what is too much for you and help them in what is too much for them."Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 190.

 

7) Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The slave has his food and clothing. Do not burden a slave with work which he is incapable of doing."Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 192.

 

Surely forceful intercourse is a serious burden for them.

 

 

8) the Prophet directed husbands how they should approach their wifes, He said: "None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal; but let there first be a messenger between you." The Companions exclaimed, "What is that messenger?" The Prophet replied, "Kisses and (romantic) words!" (Reported by Al-Daylami)

 

 

These Hadiths are more than enough for us to believe that Islam prohibits such a harmful act like rape, you agree with it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This judgment was about one slave raping another slave, not the owner raping the slave. Besides this is a judgment of Umar, not Muhammad.

 

Umar is a Muslim who strives to follow Muhammad(S). You need to have basic understanding of Sunni Islam before you claim such thing. Anyway, If there was so much rape performed by Muslims at that time, why would he even punish Muslim rapists? No assumption please.

 

Here is another hadith.

 

In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:[using large font size is not allowed]

 

 

 

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'

 

[using large font size is not allowed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, society has come a long way since the time of the Koran. We now have laws that give all people equal rights regardless of gender or ethnicity, many nations have very generous social welfare programs that assist the poor with housing, food, etc. We have far less wars today than we had in the past, we have international dialogue, a United Nations that virtually all nations are members of. Even when wars are waged, we have a "code of ethics" called the Geneva Convention which though it is not always followed to the letter it is at least something that many nations have signed and ratified. There is no doubt that human beings have made immense progress on how they treat each other since those times.

Do you think international law actually makes a difference? Countries still do what they want when they want for example the US entered Iraq without the permission of the UN. And who cares about the UN anyway since it is totally corrupt with the 5 permanent members of the security council who can use their veto when they want. The UN uses the term humanitarian intervention when it wants - if the UN was sincere and really cared about humans then why hasn't it entered Syria since it entered Libya? The UN security council have their own interests and in a corrupt voting system how can they claim they care about the people. Also slavery still exists today under the phrase human trafficking - do states really care? Obviously not, very few states have adopted legislation in order to protect people who are victims of human trafficking. As a student of law and politics the more I study it the more pessimistic I look at the world - there is no such thing as equal rights in a capitalist system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps this is a bad translation into English? This says nothing about slavery or rape.

 

Another completely personal opinion. Do not post such comments next time. This verse says males and females are to find peace in each other. And there is love , mercy in our heart. These are signs for people who reflect. Surely, peace, love, mercy is contrary to rape. The whole Qur'an is called a book of Ayats or signs, to reflect and act.

 

Here are some Tafsirs-

 

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

 

(It is He Who has created you from a single person, and He has created from him his wife, in order that he might enjoy the pleasure of living with her) (7:189). This refers to Hawwa'. Allah created her from Adam, from the short rib on his left. If Allah had made all of Adam's progeny male, and created the females from another kind, such as from Jinn or animals, there would never have been harmony between them and their spouses. There would have been revulsion if the spouses had been from a different kind. Out of Allah's perfect mercy He made their wives from their own kind, and created love and kindness between them. For a man stays with a woman because he loves her, or because he feels compassion towards her if they have a child together, or because she needs him to take care of her, etc

 

 

Tafsir al- Jalalayan

 

And of His signs is that He created for you, from yourselves, mates — Eve was created from Adam's rib and the remainder of mankind from the [reproductive] fluids of men and women — that you might find peace by their side, and become intimate with them, and He ordained between you, all, affection and mercy. Surely in that, mentioned, there are signs for a people who reflect, upon God's handiwork, exalted be He.

 

 

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

 

(And of His signs) of the signs of His divine Oneness and power (is this: He created for you spouses) human beings like yourselves (from yourselves that ye might find rest in them) so that the husband may find rest in his wife, (and He ordained between you) husband and wife (love) love of the wife for her husband (and mercy) of the husband towards his wife; it is also said that this means: love of the young ones of the old ones and mercy from the older ones towards the young ones. (Lo, herein) in that which I have mentioned (indeed are portents) signs and lessons (for folk who reflect) upon what Allah created.

 

 

 

Final conclusion is, consensual sex with those so called slave women following Christianity, and Judaism is allowed in Islam So, this is an internal matter between the three religions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Any person of belonging to other faith/ atheist has got nothing to do with this actually. And no one here should accuse other of rape or any crime based on their personal assumption. Argument just for sake of argument should also be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a very blanket argument. It was social norm and people were well acquainted with it. It was not a surprise as you think.

 

OK, so again you are using a circular argument. You say that things that horrify people today were the norm back then. But surely if taking females as captives in times of war and having intercourse with them is morally wrong, then why did Muhammad not condemn it outright?

 

The fact is that you would never accept such a thing as morally correct if it was done to your own family: your own daughter or sister, or your own wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×