Monday, January 19, 2009

Muslims Kidnap and Repeatedly Rape Christian Girls in Pakistan

If it weren't for the fact that the girls were taken to the mosque and forced to convert to Islam, we might conclude that these were men who simply wanted to rape young girls. However, conversion was a key element in the attack on these young Christians. Sadly, things like this are quite common in the Muslim world.

The Washington-DC based human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that two Christian girls in Pakistan have finally been rescued after two Muslim men kidnapped them two months ago, raped them repeatedly, forcibly converted them to Islam, and sold them to other men as sex slaves. READ MORE.

28 comments:

B said...

"Sadly, things like this are quite common in the Muslim world."

What do you mean "common"? And what is your proof for this?

And what exactly are you saying is common? Is it rape? If that is so then also in your country. If you are talking about raping girls because they are from another faith, well then I don't appreciate your stereotyping.

What about the filthy Serbian Christians that raped tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women in Bosnia? What about cases of rape due to hate crimes of Muslim women in Europe? Hmm.. I guess I should say that these kinds of things are common in non-Muslim countries according to your logic.

I should also stereotype and say that Christians have a habit of raping themselves just like how it was done in Rwanda in 1994. (some estimate 250,000 rapes by Christians against one another).


Cmoon David your really pushing Muslims away like this and would really lose more and more respect if they see you post this kind of stuff.


Regards,

Bassam

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Actually these things are very common in Muslim countries especially in suppressing religious minorities. Fortunately rapists who rape a muslim woman in Europe get punihed, unfortunately I shall agree that rapists in Europe get away fairly easily; was it up to me a rapist would executed. However, even such justice does not apply in most Muslim countries where a religious rape has occured.

If we consider Serbia and Rhawanda, well first of all Serbia is equally influenced by the communist spirit and atheism. However and I agree 'rape' can be associated to Christians who are nominal, that is Christians by name only and are not followers of the Christian path of life.

Such people, as strangely as it sounds may even be religous and eager to practice whatever ritual is put upon them, yet they do not follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as to the Christian repentance, mindset, moral, ethics and lifestyle.

Such people, if we take into the account the teaching of Jesus, Paul, James, Peter and John are not followers of the true path.

James declares that they have a dead faith in contrast to a living faith.

So inviduals can possess a dead faith that serves them nothing when it comes to protect them from hell fire, versus a living faith accompanied by or more correctly marked by life and obedience to God that secures them a place of comfort in the afterlife.

If we look at Islam, a range of hadiths permit Muslims to rape female prisoners while on the battlefield. Hence rape in a absolute sense is not entirely prohibited in Islam.

Sunil said...

>> And what exactly are you saying is common? Is it rape?

David's post has more than just about rape: "taken to the mosque", "forced to convert to Islam", "conversion was a key element in the attack".
And it is not a civil war or rioting kind of context, where all kinds of anti-social political elements participate in the name of religion, race, language etc and do all kind of atrocities (and of course deserves very high condemnation/castigation).

As for how "quite common" it is in the Muslim world, David can probably share more cases.

There is no need to hesitate to condemn/castigate the use of force/attacks/rape etc and forcing religious conversion. The more frequent it is, the more it deserves condemnation.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I don't see why Christians in their hundreds of thousands can not march against the Muslim embassies in the West calling out slogans, handing out leaflets in protest of such matters. Overall, the situation of Christians in Muslim countries is not better than Palestine, in fact it is worse.

It simply needs some inpolitical Christians like myself to organise it and hold rallies and seminars in Christian Churches or schools to reveal the actual situation of our brothers and sisters in Muslim countries.

These are certainly matters worth praying about and acting upon.

Unknown said...

Hogan:If we look at Islam, a range of hadiths permit Muslims to rape female prisoners while on the battlefield. Hence rape in a absolute sense is not entirely prohibited in Islam.

There are no ahadith that permit Muslims to rape female prisoners. Brother Sami Zaatari dealt with this issue quite effectively when he debated Wood on the veracity of Muhammad(saw).

Unfortunately, there are verses in the corrupted bible that do permit rape in the logical sense.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." - Colossians 3:22

A homo master can order his male Christian slave to do coitus interuptus with him. This would prove that Christianity promotes homosexuality. The Islamophobe may say that a good Christian will never issue such orders

But another verse contradicts the refutation

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." - Peter 2:18

So even if a Christian slave abhors the idea of sleeping with his master, in order to be a good Christian he must be complaisant if required to undertake such a detestable activity.

Wood:"Sadly, things like this are quite common in the Muslim world."

Have you traveled the Muslim word? Or is your Holy Spirit/Satan passing on false information again?

Sunil said...

>> I don't see why Christians in their hundreds of thousands can not march against the Muslim embassies in the West calling out slogans, handing out leaflets in protest of such matters.

Yes, and in a civilized/peaceful manner. I hope, many Muslims who do not hesitate to condemn/castigate the human rights violations, ill-treatment on minorities/women etc in the name of Islam in Muslim countries would join as well. And similarly, Christians should join the protests on genuine Muslim grievances (and in both cases, after getting a public guarantee from the leaders that the crowd will behave without resorting to violence, vandalism and other such unruly behavior).

MP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MP said...

Ibn lies:
# 1: «There are no ahadith that permit Muslims to rape female prisoners»

Just two examples:

the hadith of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, volume 2, # 2150:

«Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."»

the hadith of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, volume 2, #2167:

«Muhaririz said: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse), Abu Said said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: "Can we draw the penis when the apostle of Allah is among us before asking him about it?" So we asked him about it. 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.""»

But even the amazingly corrupted Qur’an allows it:

surah 70:22-30: «"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."»;

surah 4:24: «"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.»

Even according with the Hughes Dictionary of Islam Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves - Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49;

by comparison the Bible makes perfect reference than even in the case of war one should not have sexual relations with slaves unless one as married the female prisoner:

Dt. 21:10-14:

«21:10 When you wage war against your enemies, God will give you victory over them, so that you will take captives. 21:11 If you see a beautiful woman among the prisoners and desire her, you may take her as a wife. 21:12 In such a case, when you bring her home, she must shave off her head and let her fingernails grow. 21:13 She must take off her captive's garb and remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother. Only then may you be intimate with her and possess her, making her your wife. 21:14 If you do not desire her, however, you must send her away free. Since you have had your way with her, you may not sell her for cash or keep her as a servant»


# 2: «Unfortunately, there are verses in the corrupted bible that do permit rape in the logical sense»

Make notice to the expression being used here: «in the logical sense»… since there’s not even the smallest textual evidence of such thing Ibn (with his muslim mentality and worldview of distorting everything…) tries to imply that the texts he quotes may be read as permitting rape… that’s a total falsity…

Let’s see:

«Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord» - Colossians 3:22…

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." - Peter 2:18

the problem doesn’t even exist since in the Christian worldview rape or homosexual intercourse are not allowed due to 1) the respect of the body of the other as temple of the Holy Spirit; 2) as homosexuality is a sin against the evens:

1 Cor. 6:13-20:

« Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. »

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

«Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God»

So when Paul say “in everything” and “to win their favor”, or Peter day “all” this is not “all” in absolute sense, but in the heart of that previous Christian message… when someone says to another people you can do “all” to win the heart of your lover, intelligent people understands the meaning of this “all”… only persons with mental diseases due to religious intoxication (from the corrupted Qur’an invented by Muhammad and/or Uthman) don’t grasp this… but then… when homosexuality is allowed in muslim ‘s core tradition, what should we expect?

Homosexuality allowed in muslim core tradition:

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, p. 96, Kitab Bab ul Salaat, narrates a tradition from Zuhri [Sahih al-Bukhari, p. 96, 1375 AH print]: "The Imamate of a mukhanath at a time of necessity is Sahih".

# 3: «A homo master can order his male Christian slave to do coitus interuptus with him. This would prove that Christianity promotes homosexuality»

Once again… Ibn is talking of Christianity (who has admitted already that slavery is against his core message… unlike the muslims who allows it… see bellow…) with his muslim worldview: translating a typical muslim action allowed in muslim moral codes to the Christian worldview ignoring that in this ones that moral codes are completely against Christian believes… but I’ll make a public apology to Ibn if he shows one single textual or historical evidence that the NT or true Christian texts allows what he said…

Slavery allowed in muslim’s core tradition:

sura 33:50: «Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.»

Once again, according to Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God - Sura 16:77; according to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. - Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155;

Even Bernard Lewis in his "The Arabs in History" writes: "polytheists and idolaters were seen primarily as sources of slaves."…

Also Ibn Warraq writes: "Arabs were deeply involved in the vast network of slave trading - they scoured the slave markets of China, India, and Southeast Asia. There were Turkish slaves from Central Asia, slaves from the Byzantine Empire, white slave from Central and East Europe, and Black slaves from West and East Africa. Every city in the Islamic world had its slave market."
And this until our days as Allan Fisher documented in "Slavery and Muslim Society in Africa"…

# 4: «The Islamophobe may say that a good Christian will never issue such orders»

The only islamophobe (and Ibn: have you taken notice that you suffer from christianophobia? You’re a mental patient…) I know are Muhammad and Uthman who distorted the message from Allah because they were afraid of the true…

We have already seen that Ibn’s argumentation falls from the root since he is wrongly applying typical muslim’s categories in Christian’s worldview..

So, Ibn… some simple questions:

a) do you accept what is happening in Pakistan?

b) Do you, as an human being, accept it? If not, why?

c) Would you like to see that same thing being done to your sisters or daughters? If not, why?

Regards…

Nakdimon said...

Alforreca: “«Muhaririz said: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse),”

WOW! The conversations that went on in the mosques!

LOL. And these are the very people that criticise the Bible for containing “pornography”.

Unknown said...

Al Forecca:Just two examples

So where in these traditions do we see Muslims being permitted to rape female captives?

Al Forecca:But even the amazingly corrupted Qur’an allows it:surah 70:22-30, surah 4:24

Where do these verses say Muslims are allowed to rape? They say Muslims can have sex with their wives and female slaves, but where is the information about rape?

Forecca:by comparison the Bible makes perfect reference than even in the case of war one should not have sexual relations with slaves unless one as married the female prisoner; Dt. 21:10-14

The version I'm using says the following: When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry......Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. SINCE YOU FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

That's from the Good News Bible Today's English Version. Before you accuse me of appealing to wrong translations, consider the following comments which are in harmony with the version of the passage quoted above:

"....Once her status has been altered in this way, the master cannot revert to treating
her as disposable property. But is this because of her status as a slave concubine, or for some other
reason ? The motive given in v. 14 is “since you have humiliated her”. The term used is the same
as that which provides the motivation for the Deuteronomic rape law: [ Deut. 22:29] , and there the rapist has an obligation to marry his victim. Both laws contemplate the same sequence of events: rape followed by regularisation of the relationship, followed by contemplation of its possible termination" (Bernard S Jackson, Wisdom Laws:A Study of the Misphatim of Exodus)

"......If the law is not concerned
with the problem of rape in battle, it does give sanction to sexual coercion in the aftermath of war..." (Harold C Washington, “Lest He Die in the Battle and Another Man Take Her : Violence and the Construction 28:kkof Gender in the Laws of Deuteronomy 20-22” in: ‘Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient 28:kkNear East’)

So there is textual evidence of the permissibility of rape in the bible.

Forecca:the problem doesn’t even exist since in the Christian worldview rape or homosexual intercourse are not allowed due to 1) the respect of the body of the other as temple of the Holy Spirit; 2) as homosexuality is a sin against the evens

Yes, these are sins. However, in order to be a good Christian slave, one has to comply with the whims of his/her master no matter how decadent they are. This is clearly stated in Peter 2:18. As is understood, a slave maybe required to undergo sexual deviances not because he wants to, but because he has to.

My arguments still hold.

As for your three questions, no I do not support rape in any form. Alhamdolillah, there is no basis for rape in either the Quran or Sunnah. Unfortunately, the bible condones it, as I have demonstrated in this post.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

HOGAN SAID: "Actually these things are very common in Muslim countries especially in suppressing religious minorities."

Hogan, merely repeating a previously made assertion without providing evidence for that upon request does not constitute any form of proof or evidence of that assertion.

If we consider Serbia and Rhawanda, well first of all Serbia is equally influenced by the communist spirit and atheism. However and I agree 'rape' can be associated to Christians who are nominal, that is Christians by name only and are not followers of the Christian path of life.

Likewise, if we consider Pakistan which has been influenced largely by Asian Subcontinental culture which condones Honor Killings, forced marriages as well as the influence of Capitalist spirit.... it still doesn't remove the problem.

The fact remains the rapes occur on both sides, however could you give us a Near contemporary example of mass rapings on the scale of your Christian brothers in Serbia?

BTW Yes I condemn this horrific act, as has been condemned by the Religion of Islam as taught by the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him and his purified progeny).

MP said...

Ibn's ignorant attack on Christianity continues:

«The version I'm using says the following: When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry......Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. SINCE YOU FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her»...

You jumped some verses Ibn... It reads: «and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you MAY MARRY HER»...

(NJB says more clearly: SHE WILL BE YOUR WIFE)...

One unintentional jump Ibn? How furtive of yours… If I didn’t know muslim falsity I would be surprised…

so Ibn, all would happen inside marriage... so... the hebrew word "innîtäh", only means have a sexual intercourse… in Det. 22:29 it refers to rape because that’s the context required by the previous verse: «If a man meets a young virgin who is not betrothed and seizes her, sleeps with her and is caught in the act »… that’s not the case in Dt.21…

but even in Dt. 22 the rapist would have to get married later with her: «her ravisher must give the girl's father fifty silver shekels; since he has exploited her, she must be his wife and, as long as he lives, he may not divorce her»…

about your misleading questions about sura 70:22-30, surah 4:24 it’s so obvious that the text in referring to rape (what else should one call to a sexual intercourse with a slave?), I’ll let other readers to see by themselves…

«So there is textual evidence of the permissibility of rape in the bible.»... so IBn: either you are ignorant, or malicious… or both cases…


By the way Ibn… didn’t you say no hadith allowed rape? Did you make an U-turna after the examples I presented?... here they are again:

Just two examples:

the hadith of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, volume 2, # 2150:

«Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."»

the hadith of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, volume 2, #2167:

«Muhaririz said: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse), Abu Said said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: "Can we draw the penis when the apostle of Allah is among us before asking him about it?" So we asked him about it. 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.""»

Ibn then made another escape-goat, or goat’s escape, tactic: «Yes, these are sins. However, in order to be a good Christian slave, one has to comply with the whims of his/her master no matter how decadent they are. This is clearly stated in Peter 2:18. As is understood, a slave maybe required to undergo sexual deviances not because he wants to, but because he has to.»

No Ibn… no action is allowed if it’s against one’s ethical principles… Once again: that’s YOUR interpretation of Peter 2:18 because in your mentality it’s ok to disassociate one’s action with one’s believes (when in case of fear one can lie about ones belies… you said it so some threads before…)… It’s your perverted mind that sees it in the text, while it does not allow anyone with a clear mind to see that… No sin (moral action before God) is allowed to a Christian even to comply to his master (action before a man)… only those who can’t see the truth don’t see it… once again: It will be your muslim pears who will judge you…


Ibn finally said: «As for your three questions, no I do not support rape in any form. Alhamdolillah, there is no basis for rape in either the Quran or Sunnah. Unfortunately, the bible condones it, as I have demonstrated in this post»

Three lies and a question:

Lie #1: «there is no basis for rape in (…) the Quran»… we have seen it there is…

Lie #2: «there is no basis for rape in (…) the Sunnah»… we have seen it there is…

Just some more evidences:

Quran not only allows slavery and sex with captured women and slave girls (4.3, 4.24, 23.6, 33.50, 70.30), it says Allah may even pardon those who forced their slave girls to sell their bodies.

Quran 24.33: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.

Following hadiths shows that prophet of islam and other jihadis used to capture women in raids and had sex with them (which is technically raping of helpless captives)

Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717

"Narrated Ibn Aun: Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.

Lie #3: «Unfortunately, the bible condones it, as I have demonstrated in this post»

No you haven’t Ibn… the only thing you demonstrated was your ignorance or bad intentions has I demonstrated… But once again: No where in Dt.21 it speaks of rape, because the word “innîtäh” refers to intra marriage intercourse… in Dt.22 it does refer to rape but it’s not sanctioned, but punished…

Then.. after three lies in a row, how can we interpret your other words: «I do not support rape in any form?» as an original true or simply the fourth lie?

I here say that I CONDEMN (this is not the same as the euphemistic expression “I do not support”…) any rape in any form… Can you say the same Ibn?...

Will you dare, as Yahya did, to say that these actions made by muslims are wrong?

But then even Yahya is wrong: these things happened in «Pakistan which has been influenced largely by Asian Subcontinental culture which condones Honor Killings, forced marriages as well as the influence of Capitalist spirit»… but we don’t see Christians in this country doing these… and never inside a Church… They, these who did this atrocities in Pakistan, believe they are doing it in conformity to theire religious beliefs… that never happened in Serbia…

To be clearer: no atrocity made in Serbia by people who were baptizes was mandated or justified by the Bible… but that cannot be said by muslims actions like these ones who are continually being made in accordance with the core of muslim believes of disrespect towards non muslims…

Regards

p.s.: if you have any doubt, Ibn, about what I’m saying about the Bible verses you quoted, please contact this muslim apologist (it loos he is from Polynesia by is email) who disagree with you: Faranazk@sapo.pt

I'll be back in a weeks time...

May Jesus, our Lord, God and Saviour, bless you all... (you also Ibn... you also...)

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: “The version I'm using says the following: When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry......Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. SINCE YOU FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

WOW! All caps!

Ibn, how is your Hebrew? Please give us the correct transliteration, and it’s literal translation. What translation are you using?

Let me tell you one thing: This “translation” is not even remotely accurate!

Nakdimon

Unknown said...

Desperate to refute the irrefutable-that the bible allows rape while the Quran and hadith don't-Forecca commits a number of egregious errors.

Forecca:You jumped some verses Ibn... It reads: «and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you MAY MARRY HER. NJB says more clearly: SHE WILL BE YOUR WIFE

I didn't include those lines because they were irrelevant. Recall that what I highlighted was the injunction that a captured woman once married cannot be divorced because she was coerced into sex. You refute this blatant sanction of rape by attempting to argue that since the sex happens after marriage which itself takes place a month following her imprisonment, there is nothing immoral about the pertinent law. Are you for real? What makes you think a woman would sexually surrender herself to a man who a month ago destroyed her family?

I see that you didn't address the quotations I provided.

Forecca:so Ibn, all would happen inside marriage... so... the hebrew word "innîtäh", only means have a sexual intercourse…

The Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 21:14 is "ana". This is what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has to say about its meaning: The general meaning of the Heb. Piel of “ana” is “humble” or “force into submission”. In other
passages where it denotes forcing sexual relations upon a woman the RSV renders it “humble” [ Gen.
34:2; Ezk. 22:10 ] , “humiliate” [ Dt. 21:14 ] , “violate” [ 22:24, 29 ] , or “force” [ 2. S 13:12, 14, 22, 32 ].

Either way, the captive is raped. It is incredible that a practice as abhorrent as this is sanctioned in the bible. Truly, this cannot be God's Word.

Forecca:about your misleading questions about sura 70:22-30, surah 4:24 it’s so obvious that the text in referring to rape (what else should one call to a sexual intercourse with a slave?), I’ll let other readers to see by themselves…

Sexual intercourse with a slave is concubinage. But that's besides the point. The Surahs in question do not permit rape. If you can disprove me logically, then please do.

Forecca:By the way Ibn… didn’t you say no hadith allowed rape? Did you make an U-turna after the examples I presented?...

I already addressed those ahadith. Where do they sanction rape?

Forecca:No Ibn… no action is allowed if it’s against one’s ethical principles… Once again: that’s YOUR interpretation of Peter 2:18 because in your mentality it’s ok to disassociate one’s action with one’s believes (when in case of fear one can lie about ones belies… you said it so some threads before…)… It’s your perverted mind that sees it in the text, while it does not allow anyone with a clear mind to see that… No sin (moral action before God) is allowed to a Christian even to comply to his master (action before a man)… only those who can’t see the truth don’t see it… once again: It will be your muslim pears who will judge you…


It is quite unfortunate that big mouthed Christians like you are devoid of logical skills. Instead of presenting a logical reason as to why Peter's statement cannot be interpreted to sanction rape, you resort to ad hominem which is really an indication of your defeat.

I will recast my argument in such a way as to leave no room for doubt about the logical permissibility of rape in the NT.

Peter said Christian slaves should obey their masters even when they are harsh. When they demand sex from their reluctant subjects, the masters are being harsh. Therefore, Christian slaves should obey their masters when they want sex.

Can you formulate an argument like the one above regarding Quranic sanction for rape? If so, please do not hesitate to post it. I will, Insha'Allah, destroy it easily. After all, I already have debate experience on this very issue.

Forecca:Quran 24.33: Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.....it says Allah may even pardon those who forced their slave girls to sell their bodies

It is obvious that you haven't read the verse. Allah says He will pardon those slave girls who are forced into prostitution, not their coercers.

Forecca:I here say that I CONDEMN (this is not the same as the euphemistic expression “I do not support”…) any rape in any form… Can you say the same Ibn?...

Of course I condemn it.

Forecca:To be clearer: no atrocity made in Serbia by people who were baptizes was mandated or justified by the Bible

False. The bible clearly allows it.

Forecca:I'll be back in a weeks time

That's similar to what that loser Nakdimon said. "I'll be back in a week's time"="I got humiliated by my opponent."

If you can the muster the courage to respond, then please let me know.

Nakdimon:WOW! All caps!
Ibn, how is your Hebrew? Please give us the correct transliteration, and it’s literal translation. What translation are you using?

Good News Bible Today's English Version

Sami Zaatari said...

how many ladies have been raped in the west since the posting of this article? go check the stats and then calculate it.

David Wood said...

Notice that, once again, Muslims are more outraged that I'm exposing the deeds of their fellow Muslims than they are that their fellow Muslims are drugging and raping women.

Ibn said: "Have you traveled the Muslim word? Or is your Holy Spirit/Satan passing on false information again?"

Yep, it's inevitable. Start cricizing Muslims, and eventually they will start blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

I say "things like this are quite common" because I've read a ton of articles about Muslims raping non-Muslims in Pakistan and other countries, all while compelling them to convert to Islam.

Sami said: "how many ladies have been raped in the west since the posting of this article? go check the stats and then calculate it."

But how many of those women were raped by dedicated Christians? That's exactly my point. A person who really believes in and follows Jesus can't rape anyone. But people who follow Muhammad's example can rape women, since Muhammad and the Qur'an allow Muslims to do this.

It seems the facts have touched a nerve here. I'll put together some more articles.

Fernando said...

Dearr Ibn...

as a matter of facte Alforreca sayde goodbye to you before youre laste post...

are you blinde?

Your tatic is: since he/she is nott reading mie postes I can say watever I wante and then say thate if he/she doesn't responde its because I have won...

so Ibn, unswere my questionn, and iff you don'te I declare you publiccally defeated:

«Hestuh umm philloh daputtah?»

Alforreca can't read your sttattements also...

Alforreca interpretation off the passagese is OK...

here's a morre complette definition of the word in questionn (Big Lexycon of the Bible - Abridged BDB version, p. 787s):

1) putted down, afflicted (26 times in the Hebrew Bible);
2) become low and humble (25 times in the Hebrew Bible);
3) be afflicted (17 times in the Hebrew Bible);
4) be scared by a teacher or God’s teachings (13 times);
5) humble one-self (12 times);
6) be afflicted by fasting (6 times);
7) be disciplined as a disciple by other person or God (5 times)

No reference at all to a sexual intercourse... one can admite it due to the contextt in Dt 21 and 22, but nothing more... but even as an action of humilliation it is because touchings other person's genitalia without love was considerred humiliating another...

your lack of inteligence is total... Ibn... it's well clear in the other textements uou due about the NT passages... not even a muslim apologist would agree with you...

And you didn't dealed ith tthe hadiths in your firstt answer to Alforreca... eveyone can see it abobe... your lies are so clearr... from now on I'll call you mister Pinnozhio... just kidding... I guess thats what happens when one as to dephend an unhuman religion as Islam...

Gay Muslim said...

Good Night...

Please Ibn... could you provide us all with an orthodox muslim scholar text than consubstantiates your interpretations to the texts provided by other bloggers in this thread? I would be glad to present that to the persons who rapped my sister two hears ago just because she married a non-muslim Bangladeshi and then said in court that they were following the words of Muhammad…

p.s.: sorry to the blogg administrators for the jokes I published here before… won't happen again...

B said...

David said: "But how many of those women were raped by dedicated Christians? That's exactly my point. A person who really believes in and follows Jesus can't rape anyone. But people who follow Muhammad's example can rape women, since Muhammad and the Qur'an allow Muslims to do this."

David you've reached rock bottom in desperation and I can't express how silly and offensive your words are to Muslims.

How convenient for you to slip out of the "Christians raping women" charge by just simply saying that they aren't true Christians, despite them truly believing in Jesus as their God and dying for their sins. You have no Biblical right to declare such people as disbelievers. Just because the Bible teaches that you should see the fruit of people's faith, the committing of sins does not contradict that. Someone could commit sins and still be a Christian, otherwise there is no true Christian then because all of you are sinners. If you reply back and say "Yeah but sinners must repent and not commit sin all the time", well then my question to you is how do you know that those Christian rapists didn't repent and stop what they are doing? You have no right to declare them non-Christians. You can say that their acts are non-Christian, but you can't say that they themselves are not Christian.

You then have the nerve to say that Muslims are abiding by their faith when they rape women and force them to convert in Pakistan. Something you can never ever prove from Islamic sources and I challenge you to start a thread with me and you one on one debating it in the comments section with no distractions from other people.

Man the nerve of people such as yourself. You go and say the things you say while believing in a God who at one point in time allowed the rape of women (yes I am referring to the Old Testament and you still didn't counter refute that link I provided around a year ago. I am still waiting)

Sunil said...

>> slip out of the "Christians raping women" charge by just simply saying that they aren't true Christians, despite them truly believing in Jesus as their God and dying for their sins. You have no Biblical right to declare such people as disbelievers. Just because the Bible teaches that you should see the fruit of people's faith, the committing of sins does not contradict that. Someone could commit sins and still be a Christian, otherwise there is no true Christian then because all of you are sinners. If you reply back and say "Yeah but sinners must repent and not commit sin all the time", well then my question to you is how do you know that those Christian rapists didn't repent and stop what they are doing? You have no right to declare them non-Christians.

The definition of a Christian is not just a cerebral knowledge about Jesus' incarnation and Messiah/Savior. Being a Christian has to do with forgiveness of sins, establishment of loving relationship with God, spiritual rebirth and regeneration of the heart into the fruits of spirit as promised by Jesus/NT. So, to have the biblical ground to call a person as true Christian, the person should also show God’s regeneration of the heart and fruits of spirit (love, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness etc). Can still slip into sin at times, but if you are talking about a major sin like rape, it is virtually impossible (that too on a large scale). So, if an alleged Christian indulges in rape, we need a real positive confirmation that he indeed cried out in repentance before God and before the victim and be willing to admit his guilt and be punished under the law. In the absence of such a positive confirmation, we can say on biblical grounds that he never was a true Christian.

A regenerate person with fruits of spirit too may fall into sin, but he/she will not be in a state where he/she does not even know that he/she is committing a major sin. So, to draw a parallel with the incident we are discussing, if the alleged Christians drags a girl to a church, forcibly converts her and repeatedly rapes her, and the crowd that gathers protest her return to father on grounds of religion etc - and the persons (and the protesting crowd) in question still do not even know that they are sinning, then there are biblical grounds to say that the rapists (and the crowd) were never true Christians. There is no evidence of the regeneration of the heart and the fruits of spirit that is to be seen in a true Christian (love, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness etc). In the case of Pakistan incident, the fact that the rapists and crowd behaved the way they did and they all collectively assumed that they are all true Muslims (and that a large number of other muslims across the globe would agree with the crowds behavior) should be cause of major embarrassment/concern.

Alexandre Freire Duarte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alexandre Freire Duarte said...

The two faces of falsehood… or the lack of credibility of muslim poster Ibn…

Watching the debate that emerged here in the past day or so, I realized that some muslims don’t have any respect with the truth… Let’s see the steeps Ibn does:

When dealing with the Bible:

1) Ibn presents some texts from the Bible which CLEARLY doesn’t support his positions;

2) Ibn DISTORTS these texts to make them say what he, from his cultural point of view, wants them to say;

3) Someone explains with scientific exegesis why Ibn is WRONG;

4) Ibn IGNORES that explanation;

5) Ibn FALSIFIES evidences by amputating texts and fabricating pseudo-evidences;

6) Someone tries again to explains, with scientific exegesis and true bibliography, why Ibn is WRONG

7) Ibn IGNORES those explanations and declares himself the winner of the debate (how can there be a debate when someone is so unwilling to be true…)

When dealing with the Qur’an/hadiths:

1) Someone presents some textual evidences that CLEARLY say something;

2) Ibn says they don’t, WITHOUT EXPLAINING his position;

3) Someone presents more textual evidences that CLEARLY say that same thing;

4) Ibn starts DISTORTING the texts making conceptual bridges between words with no clear connexion to FALSIFY evidences (for example when he says that having sex with slaves who don’t live with the status of wives is concubinage, when it clearly isn’t…)

5) Someone explains why Ibn is WRONG;

6) Ibn IGNORES those explanations and declares himself the winner of the debate (how can there be a debate when someone is so unwilling to be true…)

So… the evidences are quite clear: Ibn is the winner in all the circumstances even when everyone sees he isn’t because he is completely FALSE in is argumentation…

p.s.: I would, if I could, pay 1.000.000 dollars to someone who can prove that the atrocities made by Serbs (which I, as a Christian condemn) are justified and ordered by Biblical texts… this is: if someone can give Biblical evidence that a Christian (who reads the OT at the light of the NT) should do that atrocities; clearer: where in the Bible it is said that a Christian (once again: who reads the OT at the light of the NT) should kill or rape anyone…

Nakdimon said...

Bassam: “David you've reached rock bottom in desperation and I can't express how silly and offensive your words are to Muslims.“

Oh, and your fellow Muslims repeatedly calling Ruach haKodesh (the Holy Spirit) haSatan is perfectly OK? I suggest Muslims get their priorities straight! Who is greater: The Ruach Who sanctifies man, or the prophet who is sanctified by the Ruach? (not that this is the case with Muhammad, mind you!)

“How convenient for you to slip out of the "Christians raping women" charge by just simply saying that they aren't true Christians, despite them truly believing in Jesus as their God and dying for their sins. You have no Biblical right to declare such people as disbelievers. Just because the Bible teaches that you should see the fruit of people's faith, the committing of sins does not contradict that. Someone could commit sins and still be a Christian, otherwise there is no true Christian then because all of you are sinners. If you reply back and say "Yeah but sinners must repent and not commit sin all the time", well then my question to you is how do you know that those Christian rapists didn't repent and stop what they are doing? You have no right to declare them non-Christians. You can say that their acts are non-Christian, but you can't say that they themselves are not Christian.”

Well, who are you explicitly talking about? First, as you should know, not all those who live in the West are Christians. The West is not Christian, it is secular!

Second, no Christian that hears such things about a fellow Christian will accuse those who spread the word of “propaganda” and will refrain from defending the fellow Christian in the face of the evidence. Au contraire with the Muslims! You will attack the people that expose what appears to be common Muslim behaviour, which is directly being tied to the religion itself. Not by the reporters, but by the perpetrators. And rightly so, because this shows us the way of Islam when it’s dominant. This concerns non-Muslims and it would be worrying if it wouldn’t concern them. Because we are being confronted with two things: In the West non-Muslims see Muslims claiming that the way the Muslims behave in Islamic countries is not according to the teachings of their prophet, but in Islamic countries they claim that they follow the ways of their prophet and sanction the most inhumane laws for non-Muslims, for women in particular. I am not a feminist, but the rules and rights for women I have read about in Islamic countries are dire! I suggest that you get your hands on an edition of the magazine “Open Doors” to see for yourself what I mean.

Third, if there are Christians that do these things, they don’t do it in the name of their religion, as we have seen these men doing. And those women don’t stand a chance. A Muslimah that is raped in Islamic countries can’t press charges against the rapist. He escapes scot-free, unless she just so happens to be the luckiest woman on earth to have 4 MALE witnesses to the event. Not only that, but she must be so lucky that all 4 witnesses will be willing to testify against the man. This is virtually non-existent in Islamic countries. And since she is not able to produce these witnesses, she doesn’t press charges. Because if she does, SHE will be the one sentenced to either prison, lashes or stoning because she supposedly was either promiscuous of committed adultery. And this is the fate of the Muslimah. How much worse is the fate of the non-Muslim woman, who has even less rights and is regarded as even lower than the Muslimah!

“You then have the nerve to say that Muslims are abiding by their faith when they rape women and force them to convert in Pakistan. Something you can never ever prove from Islamic sources and I challenge you to start a thread with me and you one on one debating it in the comments section with no distractions from other people. “

That thread will consist of the typical Bassam defence: “this narration is weak so I wont deal with it.”

“Man the nerve of people such as yourself. You go and say the things you say while believing in a God who at one point in time allowed the rape of women (yes I am referring to the Old Testament and you still didn't counter refute that link I provided around a year ago. I am still waiting)”


And such comments come from Muslims who criticise and vilify the paedophile priests whenever they get caught fondling little children, but have no problem with their prophet thighing a six year old girl and penetrating her when she is nine. Too bad for those Christian priests that they aren’t Islamic prophets, because then they would have some justification for their actions!

Nakdimon

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." - Colossians 3:22

A homo master can order his male Christian slave to do coitus interuptus with him. This would prove that Christianity promotes homosexuality. The Islamophobe may say that a good Christian will never issue such orders

But another verse contradicts the refutation

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." - Peter 2:18

Elijah replies:

Ibn could you please show were rape mentioned in mentioned in those passages? I simply fail to see the logic of your exegetical skills.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yahya wrote:

Likewise, if we consider Pakistan which has been influenced largely by Asian Subcontinental culture which condones Honor Killings, forced marriages as well as the influence of Capitalist spirit.... it still doesn't remove the problem.

The fact remains the rapes occur on both sides, however could you give us a Near contemporary example of mass rapings on the scale of your Christian brothers in Serbia?

Elijah replies:

The article revealed, the openess in a society to kidnapp two Christians without secrecy, to force them to convert in a court publicly, to beat their family when they demanded their girls to be released. And as you will see these criminals will get away, that is a standard procedure in Pakistan, and it has nothing to do with culture, its a example of religious oppression.

Secondly, I don't think you read my post concerning the Serbs and the Rhawandas.

And you want an example of mass rape on the same scale as the Serbian example, Then think of Sudan.

Yahya wrote:

BTW Yes I condemn this horrific act, as has been condemned by the Religion of Islam as taught by the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him and his purified progeny).

Elijah

May God bless your for that

Fernando said...

Juste some more hadithes:

"If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." -- Bukhari 4.54.460

"By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself (to him for sexual intercourse) she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle." -- Ibn Majah 1854

Disgusting!!!

saTan Twin said...

Its 99% made up. I did my own search and found this news. All names are made up, dates are made up. The following link even gives you the FIR #s to verify.

http://www.dawn.com/2008/11/23/local2.htm

saTan Twin said...

rrr