Monday, January 19, 2009

The Qur'an on Sex with Captives

My friend Bassam says that he would like to have a discussion on Islam, Christianity, and rape. I gladly accept his challenge. However, before we begin I will need a few days to post materials from the relevant Islamic sources on this issue. I'll start with the Qur'an, and in subsequent posts will go through all of Sahih Sittah, the Sirah literature, and some commentaries. Once everything has been posted, Bassam and I can have our discussion.

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex; except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 33:50—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 . . .

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—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.

27 comments:

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I just wonder:

Muslims on this blog, if your mother, sister, daughter, sister or mother - inlaw, wife,

were to caught in war and raped on the battle field as a range of Islamic sources seem to permit,

or were taken in to the home of an individual who was not a Muslim (or lets say a Muslim)

and was either forcible married and then raped

or simply raped (outside marriage) since such a women was a booty --

would muslims in here still legitimize such an act?

Or does it only apply when Muslims fight and take a booty?

How do Muslims explain these texts and these acts described in the Hadiths and the Qur'an, which also was practiced by Muhammad and his followers?

Would Muslims be offended if similar passages were recorded in the Gospels and the Apostolic writings.

Nakdimon said...

“Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .”

This one is the killer! You CANNOT have sex with women who are already, EXCEPT if they are your slave women. SO IF YOUR SLAVE WOMAN IS MARRIED, AND YOU WANT SOME, THEN HER HUSBAND CAN TAKE A HIKE AND COME BACK WHEN YOU ARE DONE GETTING BOOTAY!

And Islam doesn’t condone rape? Well, if you don’t want to call it rape, in the least it condones adultery!

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

There are few horrific passages:

Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, #637)

In other words Ali deserved more than raping a girl from the booty.

"Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" 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." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.3: 432)

Basically, Muhammad urges upon his followers that they not to practice 'coitus interuptus' since Allah himself decides a man coming into being. In other words rape them all the way.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. 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". (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, #506) (further reference Bukhari 5: 459)

Here the conclusion is the same as above.

during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. 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". (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, #506) (further reference Bukhari 5: 459)

Again, the same conclusion as above!

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interrupts)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the 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 messenger 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". (Sahih Muslim vol.2, # 3371)

Here the text elaborates about the act of rape. The main reason being that the companions of Muhammad suffer because of their absence of the wives. Hence they decide to rape these women. However, the intention is not marry them after the mass rape, but to get ransom for them, which is why there certain fear about impregnating them which in that case reduces the value of them.

The conclusion is however the same as the one above.

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to and end). (Sahih Muslim, vol.2, #3432)

In this case Sura 4: 24 is given by the prophet to justify the act of rape.

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 your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Quran verse is 4:24]. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, vol.2, #2150)

In case Sura 4: 24 is again given to assure the justification of the act.

One terrifying phrase here clarifies the rape was being conducted in the presence of the captive males.

Just imagine, your mother, daughter, sister, wife being raped in your presence.

And the only reason being lust, and the god of the Qur'an approves of it and even encourages such.

The Muslim may accuse of lying or demonizing islam, but notice, I am only referring to early islamic sources.

And am I saying that all muslims approve of this? No!

As has already been clarified on this blog, we do not accuse every muslim for the violent nature of their religion. Clearly we separate between these. Yet one has to consider, and ask oneself whether a religion that condones lust and sexual crime and even permits it truly was revealed from God.

Nakdimon said...

“Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to and end). (Sahih Muslim, vol.2, #3432)”


Hogan, isn’t it extremely convenient that all those “revelations” time and time again occur AFTER the event that it relates to? There is no ruling up front and when there is a ruling up front and it gets in Muhammad’s way, it is abrogated to satiate his desires. But how can anyone with a straight face claim that Islam doesn’t condone rape?

But fear not, oh, you Muslims, these narrations, although they are in the Sahih Sitta, are “weak”.

LOL

Nakdimon said...

“The Muslim may accuse of lying or demonizing islam, but notice, I am only referring to early islamic sources.”

YES! And rightly so! You are STILL demonising Islam, because the sources that you use are “weak”

Sorry I couldn’t help this one! :- P

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I fully agree with you Nakdimon?

Muslims are all too eager to enforce modern critical scholarship on Christianity and the Bible, typically individuals writing almost 2000 years after the events, and I am supposed (they think) to subject my view to these people and their historical methods and often humanistic presumptions.

However, when we point that out early sources that according to early Muslims were obtained from the companions of Muhammad we are simply to reject these since they do not match to the Western moral, which Muslims struggle to appease these days.

Then the Muslims compare these sources to e.g. the Gospel of Thomas or another apocryphical work and ask why we do not follow these?

However, it seems that orthodox Muslims found these sources to be trusthworthy enough to transmit, even to write down at an early date (if some pro-islamic voices on this blog are correct). Whereas orthodox Christian (versus heretical) did not accept the Gospel of Thomas, hence while it flourished in gnostic circles it was not transmitted or copied among the orthodox, even though they probably studied it and had access to it.

Ibn said...

Sami Zaatari already logically disproved Wood's childish arguments when the two debated publicly. However, the biblical sanction of rape remains to be refuted as is evident from the following posts

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/01/
muslims-kidnap-and-repeatedly-rape.html?
showComment=
1232368260000#c7578869074845573945

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/01/
muslims-kidnap-and-repeatedly-rape.html?
showComment=
1232382840000#c5363886159309327457

For the pleasure of Nakdimon and other illiterates, here is a statement of Maimonides about the legality of raping female prisoners of war

“…A soldier in the invading army may, if overpowered by
passion, cohabit with a captive woman … [ but ] he is forbidden to cohabit with her a second
time before he marries her … Coition with her is permitted only at the time when she is taken
captive … he must not force her in the open field of battle … that is, he shall take her to a private
place and cohabit with her ….”

kkMaimonides, M. 1195 [ circa ]. The Book of Judges: The Code of Maimonides [ Hershman, A.M. trans ]
11:kkNew.Haven:.Yale.University.Press.[.1949.].,.5:.8:.2,3

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

“…A soldier in the invading army may, if overpowered by
passion, cohabit with a captive woman … [ but ] he is forbidden to cohabit with her a second
time before he marries her … Coition with her is permitted only at the time when she is taken
captive … he must not force her in the open field of battle … that is, he shall take her to a private
place and cohabit with her ….”

kkMaimonides, M. 1195 [ circa ]. The Book of Judges: The Code of Maimonides [ Hershman, A.M. trans ]
11:kkNew.Haven:.Yale.University.Press.[.1949.].,.5:.8:.2,3

Elijah replies:

Can you show how this applies to the Mosaic law?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Oh I see yeah, yeah I can see how you apply to it elsewhere.

Will I am on the way home, let me get back to you later.

Fernando said...

Elijah asked: «Can you show how this applies to the Mosaic law? I'me verie curiouse... verie... By the way... does anione knows what is ibn talking about when he sais that Sami Zaatari already logically disproved Wood's childish arguments when the two debated publicly? How many debetes in this topic were there? Did Ibn listened to theme? Im justt curiouse ;-)

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: “For the pleasure of Nakdimon and other illiterates, here is a statement of Maimonides about the legality of raping female prisoners of war”

Isn’t the Islamic “if all else fails, blame the Jews”-argument hilarious? “Can’t defend my sources, so better point to others.” But this is actually one of the major reasons why I don’t believe in the concept of the “Oral Law”, that rabbinic Judaism tries to exegete from scriptures.

But think about it. Even the Maimonides rule is a violation of the Biblical command. The Biblical account says that the captive woman has to be taken as a wife before you can have sex with her. Not only that, but you will have to wait a full month until you are allowed to have sex with her. So the argument from “passion” is totally misplaced and a direct violation of the commandment in the Torah.

In other words, you can’t have sex with her until she becomes your wife. Otherwise you VIOLATE the commandment of God. And after you have divorced her, you cant treat her as a captive anymore because you have already taken her as your wife and humbled her by putting her away. So not only is Maimonides in gross error, but Islam’s only prophet is also in gross error.

So there is just no biblical basis for having casual sex with captive women. In Islam, not only is that permitted, but you can also sell her into slavery afterwards, whether you have impregnated her or not. And that is EXACTLY what Muhammad and his companions did!

Nakdimon

Ibn said...

Nakdimon:Isn’t the Islamic “if all else fails, blame the Jews”-argument hilarious?

Where have I blamed a Jew?

Funny how the messianic charlatan who accuses Muslims of rejecting their own sources is himself guilty of the same crime.

At least admit that the only reason why you reject this deliciously embarrassing tradition is because of its sanction of rape.

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: Where have I blamed a Jew?

Funny how the messianic charlatan who accuses Muslims of rejecting their own sources is himself guilty of the same crime.

At least admit that the only reason why you reject this deliciously embarrassing tradition is because of its sanction of rape.


Where did you blame a Jew? You are debating Christians and you try to vindicate your religion with a quote from the Rambam. That is where you blame the Jews. Why else would you go to a RABBINIC JEWISH source? You are saying “well, Maimonides sanctions it too!”. Who cares! He is wrong and has no biblical basis for it. Neither does your delusional prophet have any biblical basis for such an atrocious act. But somehow, you try very hard, yet in vain, to try to tie it to anything or anyone we feel sympathetic to.

So, sorry. Muhammad is the charlatan here, son: While I am a real Jew, he is a fake prophet!

Nakdimon

Matthew said...

Wow, someone named Maimonides says something about rape. It must be the core teaching of Jesus' message!

Nakdimon said...

Yeah, Matthew, somehow I cant figure out the comparison!

Fernando said...

Wass Maimonides a Christiane?... If not, whatte was Ibn's intention with his poste? Has we say in our dialect: «Eh amaximah hespre çaauom daestu hpithez»

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I finally managed to look at Ibn's response, unfortunately I cannot say I am impressed with his reply (as ussual), also I find his views scary, particularly his praising of the right to rape female slaves, not to speak about the doublestandard present.

Ibn wrote:
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.

Elijah replies:
The details you imagine are completely absent from the passage, can you show me were exactly, the passage refers to sexual activity.

If you assume that ‘everything’ includes promiscuity, then you fail to grasp the context.

The passage describes the everyday rutine of the slave, that would be his practical work and responsibility, which explains the reading: ‘and do it not only when their eye is on you and to win their favour.’

This is therefore not a reference to rape or appeasing a slave master sexually. Otherwise you need to show me where Paul explicitly refers to that.

As I said nothing in the passage even alludes to rape or homosexuality which in any case are prohibited in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

In fact the passages we read from the Qur’an and the hadiths on this matter clearly permit several of the very things which Paul here condemns, such as Sexual immorality and Adultary.

Funny you should describe these very things into Biblical passages that do not even indicate these practices when your own book clearly permits it.

Ibn wrote:

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.

Elijah replies:

Again you miss the meaning of the context, it does not speak about rape or sexual conduct but basic mistreatment, verse 19 speaks about unjust punishment and verse 20 mentions beatings. There is not a reference to sleeping with a master!

Reading further we find that these people are to take Jesus as their example in his suffering.

However, let me ask, if you are a slave, lets say a female slave and your master would force to engage in sexaul activity or rape, what would you do, or what would you Ibn write to that person.

The captive womem of Muhammad and his followers were all raped, what would you write to them, fight back, refuse? Oh come man!

Being a Muslim and adhering to its teaching you agree with such practice Ibn!

Now even if Paul was encouraging slaves to appease their master sexually you are bound to agree with it, your own religion condones and permits Ibn!

However, to your information, Paul is not condoning such practice, and you have failed utterly to show us how were the passage implies this.

Reading your interpretation of these passages of the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter (and remember Peter was an apostle of Jesus and therefore victorious) I can only quote another passage from Paul as a warning to you:

‘To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact both their minds and consciences are corrupted’ (Titus 1: 19)

You seem read sex, rape and homosexuality into everything, and that worries me.

According to Paul here you approach to the text reveals that you are an unbeliever.

At least Paul and Peter introduce good conduct, such as being a good person, persevering in times of trouble etc. Much like you would state that any slave referred to by the Qur’an ought to obey his muslim master in things that are everyday basics.

The only difference between these passages and the Qur’an is:

1. Paul and Peter are not necessarily referring to Christian slave masters here.

2. They are not referring to sexual matters, as I have already pointed out from both contexts.

Ibn wrote:

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?

Elijah wrote:

So is sex with female slaves, outside marriage, taken in war not rape or at least adultary if they consent.

If the passage desecribed your mother, wife, sister or daughter, would you still praise such practice? I wonder! Or this is yet another double standard.

I simply do not get wise on your mindset, you praise islam as a peaceful religion and yet you condone sex with women taken by force in battle, even without being married to their master.

Ibn wrote:

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.

Elijah replies:

Ok lets assess Ibn interpretation here.

Lets take it from the translation you used: ‘you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. The Hebrew word for ‘liking’ here is ‘chashaq’ which means: being attached to, to love, to have pleasure in, to like. The word is use elsewhere in the old Testament as devotion toward God (Psalm 91: 14) and God’s feelings (Isaiah 38: 17)

The word for the captive women after the ceremony is ‘ishshah’, which in its literal sense just means a female or women (Genesis 2: 23). While the word can allude to a concubine (judge 19: 1), which seems to be ackward translation, and nothing in Deut 21 alludes to a concubine, the context seems to refute this as the process indicates the typical phrases that denote marriage. This is why the word also describes a bride, as we see in Gen 29: 21 (it is interesting when you look at the incident with Jacob and Rachel, Jacob says to Laban give me my wife...I want to lay with here, as with the Deuteronomy passage this is where the marriage is consumated). See also Deut 20: 7, here the husband and the wife need to have undergone matrimony, in Hebrew ‘aras’, which means to engage, which explain why the soldiers could not approach her until the month was over (I will get back to that).

The word ‘ishshah’ can also mean widow (2 Sam. 14: 5). Which is why we need the context to verify the meaning.

You would assume that the passage describes rape since the women has undergone ‘anab’ prior to marriage or consumation.

However ‘anab’ is not referred prior to the consumation, if your are right ‘anab’ would be the consumation.

Also ‘anab’ has a range of meanings such as to ‘depress’ which in the literary form is understand as to abase self, afflict, chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, force, humble self and submit self and speech.
The word in itself does not indicate that the male raped the female as the text nowhere alludes to that.

Secondly, the ‘anab’ may equally relate to the attitude of the male not to like her, to such an extense that she chooses to leave.

Interestingly, an evil speech against a wife to be divorced is mentioned in Deuteronomy 22: 14; while the situation in Deuteronomy 19 is different, the possibility is the slander such a man wrought upon her.

I simply fail to see any reference to rape in this passage.

Yeah your reference to RSV may hold, that he humbled her, but that is why the passage says he disliked her, he spoke evil of her or went against her, in a marriage, particularly that culture and era that was humbling a person.

Your reference to Jackson does not hold either:

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)

The problem with his interpretation is firstly that Deuteronomy 19 did not describe anab prior to their coming together. The sequence was noticing, liking, taking home, waiting for a month, coming together; there is simply no indication to any sexual intercourse until after the one month waiting.

Jackson’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 22: 29-30 is more correct but does not support your case. As the the man is forced to marry the girl after ‘anab’, which in this context clearly alludes to sexual conduct in form of disgrace.

We may say here that the process here is reverse, not because such is the normal way but rather because the act is inormal, and the man is forced to marry due to anab in this context.

Now since you are so found of quotes here is one from P.C. Craigie

On 21: 11 he says:

If a man sees a beautiful women among those taken captive and desires her, he is free to take her...as a wife. The marriage however, was not to be consummated immediately.

On 22: 14 he writes concerning anab:

The rights given to the women seem to be designed as some sort of compensation for the losses incurred by the marriage and subsequent divorce.

Here Craigie avoids any eisigesis (that is reading into the text) which you and your sources attempted.

Obviously and this is a major rule I have learned from my Hebrew studies, my lecturer always emphasises that in Hebrew language where each word has such a variaty of meanings, the context is what counts, and context did not reveal that the women had been raped, that is unless you can show the reference explicitly from the text.

Interestingly also in the Deuteronomy 22 passage the male that lays with the unbethroth girl is not necessarily raping her, the word used is táphas of which the primary root is to manipulate, which indeed may refer to the use of force but not necessarily.
Notice also the reason why such a man cannot be killed, there is simply no assurance that the matter relates to rape, as if the incident took place in the town and the girl could screem or succumb to the manipulation. Notice also that the male who raped or manipulated a girl pledged to be married is caught in adultary, whether the matter is rape or not it is punishable by death, while the girl survives since no witness is there to approve of rape or adultary in her case. In the case fo the unbetrothed girl there is no witness, there clear evidence of rape or manipulation, and since the matter is not adultary, both survive but the male has to take the consequences.

In those days and age and in such a situation the Mosaic Law protects the innocent and chooses rather to let the possible sinner go than let an innocent die. I would say that this is a matter of divine wisdom.

Notice also that the young man who raped or manipulated the girl that was not pledged to be married is not permitted to escape the responsibility, he had to pay fifty shekels to his father-in-law (which is five years or so of wage) and looses the privilege to rule over his wife in case of divorce.

When Forecca pointed some of these matters out to Ibn, Ibn responds:

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?

Elijah replies:

Irrelevant, you misinterpret to a large scale the text and then declare such an important point to be irrelevant.

This is why I consider your exegetical skills utterly pathetic as we have witnessed for three weeks now.

Forecca correctly pointed out as I have pointed out that the ‘anab’ is not mentioned until after marriage and only after her divorce as he as disgraced and humbled her by disliking her and possibly by speaking against her.

There is no reason to even indicate rape unless you can directly link the word to the act within the very passage, and you can’t because the act of rape is nowhere mentioned.

Then Ibn blantly exclaims:

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.

Elijah replies:

Obviously we have refuted his allegation, however I wonder if that is his standard criteria, how does he respond to these passages in the Qur’an and the hadith:
Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex; except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 33:50—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 . . .

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—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.
Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, #637)

In other words Ali deserved more than raping a girl from the booty.

"Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" 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." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.3: 432)

Basically, Muhammad urges upon his followers that they not to practice 'coitus interuptus' since Allah himself decides a man coming into being. In other words rape them all the way.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. 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". (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, #506) (further reference Bukhari 5: 459)

Here the conclusion is the same as above.

during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. 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". (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, #506) (further reference Bukhari 5: 459)

Again, the same conclusion as above!

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interrupts)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the 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 messenger 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". (Sahih Muslim vol.2, # 3371)

Here the text elaborates about the act of rape. The main reason being that the companions of Muhammad suffer because of their absence of the wives. Hence they decide to rape these women. However, the intention is not marry them after the mass rape, but to get ransom for them, which is why there certain fear about impregnating them which in that case reduces the value of them.

The conclusion is however the same as the one above.

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to and end). (Sahih Muslim, vol.2, #3432)

In this case Sura 4: 24 is given by the prophet to justify the act of rape.

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 your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Quran verse is 4:24]. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, vol.2, #2150)

In case Sura 4: 24 is again given to assure the justification of the act.

One terrifying phrase here clarifies the rape was being conducted in the presence of the captive males.

I hope for the sake of Ibn’s sanity that he does not categorize these passages as the word of God or even the words of Islam’s prophet?

If you do Ibn, you need serious help.

At least the passages in the Bible did not clearly indicate, permit or even condone rape of females, and even if they did, then certainly not for lust with the exclusion of marriage.

Even though your interpretation of Sura 19 was correct it exceeds the teachings of Islam by the speed of light as the male was to bring this women home, marry her and provide her with absolute freedom.

In the case of Islam, at least based upon the passage above, a Muslim soldier may rape a female on the battle field without any sense of responsibility, and he may even rape a multiple number of women (concubines) home beside his wives.

I have to say that Ibn has not only shot himself in the foot he has managed to show the worst double standard I have ever witnessed.

Ibn wrote:

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.

Ibn wrote:
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

Ibn wrote:
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.

Elijah replies:

What?

So let me get this straight it is not rape to force a women taken prisoner into sexual intercourse.
Ok!, well...

I need to ask the Question again, Ibn, if your mother, sister, wife or daughter were to be taken captive and forced to engage in intercourse with a new master because they forcible have been turned into concubines, would you call the act against your family a moral and legal act or evil? Mostly like rape? Just admit it you would call it rape, right?

Could You please elaborate on that? If the females in your family were captured by enemy forces that according to their law permitted such, would you categorize it rape if they were used for sexual intercourse by their new masters, even outside marriage (and God forbid that).
Could you please answer me that question.

Does that also mean that the 70.000 Christian and animist female captives in Islamic captivity in Sudan, who are undergoing rape on a every scale are experiencing what you call a justified practice.

Can you answer me here Ibn? Is it ok for these Christian women to be raped, as you say they are concubines, and it is ok for the master to have sex with concubines.

Would you then say that what is happening to these girls and women is ok?

I would like you to answer that. And just remember you defended that practice based upon the Qur'an, now I wonder if you really agree with the Qur'an when the practice is used upon females in our day and age.

According to the passage in Deuteronomy, we assume based upon the rules of war in Deuteronomy that the women’s family and males are dead.

Furthermore, The text does not indicate any rape or sexual intercourse until after the one month waiting period. While in the hadiths such as Abu Dawud we read that the males were present when they females were raped, and these women were not even taken into marriage but passad on as the other Hadiths confirm too.

And you call this religion of yours a religion of moral and peace???

Ibn wrote:

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?

Elijah replies:

No you did not adress these hadiths, and the hadiths clearly permit the rape of female prisoners on the battle even though there is not intention of marrying or taking these as concubines. The intention is clear lust and Allah condones and permits it, including your prophet!

Ibn wrote:

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.

Elijah replies:

Logic?

What logic can you explicitly show me were the New Testament passages talk about rape?

I bothered to provide you some exegetical points. Can you be a good honest Muslim and show us where the passages refer to forced sexual activity, explicitly? Because the Qur’an and the Hadiths are explicit in their wording.

Ibn wrote:

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.

Elijah replies:

Formulate???

What do we need to formulate?

I think you just made our point!!!

While you are forced to formulate arguments from the Bible to prove your case, we do not need to formulate a thing.

We can simply expose your approach by considering the simplicity of the context.

On the other hand:

We can present to you the passages from the Qur’an and the Hadith that clearly condone and permit rape, without any formulation.

And then what happens?

Funny, then Muslims turn against their own book to formulate arguments against the very teacing and practice condoned by Islam.

I guess all we have seen so for from your side is formulation, whether you attack or whether you defend.

So far to your information you have failed miserably to present anything of significance.

karim said...

I am amazed at the distortions Hogan Elijah Hagbard uses in order to argue that the Biblical passage Deut 21:10-14 does not condone rape.

Let us take a look closely at the passage:


______________________________

Deut. 21:10-14 - KJV Translation


[ 10 ] When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, [ 11 ] And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; [ 12 ] then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; [ 13 ] And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
[ 14 ] And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

_________________________________


When we take a close look at the verse in question we that the verse only lays down a procedure in case a man wants to "marry" a captive woman. Nowhere does the verse state or say that it is forbidden to rape the captive woman. The verse is only concerned about a man who wants to "marry" a captive , and describes what should be done [ in case a man wants to marry a captive woman ] .

Secondly when we take a close look at the passage in question [ deut. 21:10-14 ] we see that the passage actually sanctions rape. For example Deut. 21:11 is translated literally:

________________________________

[ v. 11 ] “…and hast seen in the captivity a woman of fair form, “and hast delighted in her” , and hast taken to thee for a wife..." [ Young's Literal Translation of the Bible ]

_________________________________


Notice how the literal translation of the passage demonstrates to us that the biblical soldier "delighted in her" . This clearly refers to the act of rape. Biblical commentator and theologian Mathew Poole also discussues the hebrew expression used in deut. 21:11 and states:


___________________________________

Mathew Poole commentary


... “hast taken delight in her” ; which may be a modest expression for lying with her, and seems probable, because it is said, ver. 14 “that he had humbled her”, to wit, by military insolence, when he took her captive, not after he had married her, for then he would have expressed it thus, “because thou hast married her”, which had been more emphatical than to say, “because thou hast humbled her”


source:

Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 1: Genesis- Job ( Hendrickson Publishers 1985 ) p. 376

__________________________________


In other words when a man rapes a woman, and wants to marry her, the passage in question [ deut. 21:12-14 ] lays down the procedures that must be followed. What Hogan Elijah Hagbard also fails to tell his readers, is that these captive women would be "forced" to marry their captors, see:

______________________________

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible


“…Desirable virgins captured on the battlefield could be forced to
marry their captors
....”

Source:

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible" by David Noel Freedman, Allen Myers
and Astrid B.Beck Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing 2000 ) , p.1359

________________________________


In other words after being raped, these captive women could be forced to marry their "holy" captors


Now in in deut. 21:14 the text states: "....And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled [ anah ] her. .."

In other words the bible confirms that the captive woman was "humbled" [ anah ] by her captor ? What does the Hebrew word "anah" mean in the context of Deut. 21:10-14. We already pointed out that Deut. 21:11 states that the biblical soldier "hast delighted in her" [ i.e. enjoyed the captive woman or had sex with her by force ]. In case he wants to marry the captive woman which he "enjoyed" earlier , he should perform certain rituals which are mentioned in Deut. 21:12-13. AFter having performed these rituals the text in Deut. 21:13 states "thou shalt go in unto her" . In other words after having performed some rituals he soldier was allowed to rape her. It is after these texts that the biblical author states: "...And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled [ anah ] her. .." [ Deut. 21:14 ] . In other words after the biblical soldier had forced sexual intercourse with the captive woman in Deut 21.11 [ "and hast delighted in her" ] and Deut. 21:13 [ "thou shalt go in unto her" ] the Bible states in Deut. 21:14 that the soldier was not allowed to sell or enslave the captive woman if he did not like her anymore later on, but to let her go free , because he had "humbled [ anah ] her" . In the context of 21:10-14 it is clear without doubt that the expression "because thou hast humbled [ anah ] her" refers to the fact that the captive woman was earlier raped by the soldier. Therefore the Hebrew word "anah" in Deut 21.14 refers to the act of rape. In various source we also read that this is one of well known meanings of the Hebrew word "anah". Wilhelm Gesenius for example translated the verb Anah as “to weaken a woman through rape”. [ source: Wilhelm Gesenius, “Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, Berlin:
Springer,1962) , p. 604 ]

In another source we read that "Anah" means:

_______________________________

1. humble, mishandle, afflict ; 2. humble a woman by cohabitation 3. afflict ; 4. humble, weaken“.

source:

Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. , “Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament, based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius” ( Oxford: Oxford University press, 1951 ) , p. 776

__________________________________


It is therefore clear that the expression "because thou hast humbled [ anah ] her" in Deut. 21:14 refers to the fact that the captive woman was raped earlier by the biblical soldier. In addition Prof. C. Pressler has refuted the weak and desperate arguments of those who desperately try to argue that the verb "Anah" [ humble ] in Deut. 21:14 does not refer to rape [ see: C. Pressler “The View
of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws” ,Walter de Gruyter 1993, p.15 ].

If the captive woman in Deut 21.10-14 was not raped and / or not forced into marriage by her captor, the bible would have not said in Deut. 21:14 that the captive woman was "humbled". It would be absurd to say that a women who freely consented to sexual intercourse with her captor and /or consented to marry her captor out of her own free will, was "humbled". Since when are women who consent to have sex with their captors or decide to marry them of their own free wil "humbled" ? it is clear without doubt that the expression "because thou hast humbled [ anah ] her" in Deut. 21;14 refers to fact that captive woman was raped earlier by her captor. Hogan Elijah Hagbard is therefore clearly wrong in claiming that Deut. 21:10-14 does not sanction rape. Prof. Bernard S Jackson is fully right in his conclusion that the captive woman in Deut. 21:10-14 was raped. Any honest person will not take the comments of Hogan Elijah Hagbard serious in comparision to the comments of Bernard S. jackson, since Bernard S. Jackson is a professor of jewish law who very well knows the Hebrew language. So again the facts clearly demonstrate that Deut. 21:10-14 sanctions rape of female prisoners of war.

Nakdimon said...

Karim,

Let me first ask you: What would convince you that this is not about raping women?

I ask you this, because if there is nothing that would convince you, then I wont even bother. But if you want to see, for example rabbinic commentary on that verse, then maybe I can be of some help.

Nakdimon

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I will get back to you later Karim.

Let me just say that you are making the exactly same errors as Ibn.

1. Using eisegesis
2. Misrepresting and denying the actual meaning of context
3. Using quotes to support your case

You failed to show in the context that soldier slept or laid with the women prior to the rituals. 'Delighting' or 'liking' the captive women is not tantamount to rape. He saw the women he liked her, that is basically all you get from the text and the Hebrew.

The only reference to sex, is after the one month period, when the soldier goes to her. That is simply the procedure here, nothing else is mentioned. You and the source you read are reading an amount of details into the text that don't belong there, that is called eisegesis.

As to 'anab' as I also mentioned and as you are aware of, I hope, is that 'anab' has multiple meanings, and only the context can verify its exact meaning. In this context, 'anab' is referred to after the soldier has brougth the women home, consumated the marriage with her, and then treated her badly. That is the context here. 'anab' here refers to his treatment of her within the marriage, which initially gives her the right to divorce. As I said to Ibn, If you can show me any explicit link from 'anab' to a explicit reference to the soldier laying with her prior to the one month period, I will accept your postulate. The problem is such an act of rape is not even mentioned, and between the entire procedure from liking, the consumation and the divorce bit, it is solely the reference to the soldier not liking her, that is the only 'anab' here, and that is the context.

So unless you can show that exact link, there is no point debating this matter, we will continually move on in our circle and I will have to answer theories and matters of eisegesis.

Now as to your quotes (and Muslims do this the entire time), if you think that quoting a scholar impresses me or appeals to me, you got to think twice. I spend my entire day, reading people like Bultman, Kasemann, Sanders, Ehrmam, and many other man's, who are expert on the fields.

Unfortunately all these experts in the fields contradict each other in various, they more or less all hate religion, and question (based on their expert studies and views) that God may not exist or does not interact with this universe in anyway. They all believe (based on their expert views and presumption)state that Jesus was a mere man, who was not born by a virgin, who never performed miracles, never propheciesed anything or received any revelations.

Now Karim, these are all experts on the field, I can give you thousands of quotes from these guys that would contrast what we both believe in.

Now if you will accept everything Bultman, Ehrman, Sanders and Muhammad Sven Kalisch believe in, since they are all experts on the field (because I post you the qoutes) then I will take you seriously when you post me those quotes (I am not saying I will take your quotes seriously, since I have studied far too many years too simply embrace what a scholarly quote assumes). Otherwise you are just playing the same old double standard.

Notice if qoutes matter (as you assume), Muhammad does not exist?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Let me point out however, Karim that the particular part of the blog here, relates to the Qur'an and the sex with captives. All we seem to argue is what the Bible presumably means to say.

Can you please, elaborate upon the Qur'anic passages and if you don't mind the passages of the Hadith on this matter.

Also I asked a simple question. Ibn stated that having sex with a women taken captive outside marriage is not rape but a right or so. He actually praises this practice.

Can you tell me if this applies also if the victim is your mother, spouse (wife if your a man Karim) daughter, sister?

Is the practice a glorified right only when we consider non-muslims being captive and rape only if, say a muslim women is the victim.

Let me elaborate on this, if Israel should occupy the entire gaza in nearby future, kill a multitude of men and bring their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters home as concubines and engage in sex with them (and God forbid that to happen), based on what the Qur'an says, would such a practice be acceptable?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Oh let me also say, Karim, that many scholars are far too guilty of simply comparing the religion and practice of Israel with the practice of their neighbors around. This is also done in New Testament studies, and guess also in liberal studies on the Qur'an.

True Israel's neighbors practiced rape and torture of war prisoners, but reading all this into the text and terminology of the Mosaic law is a bit too cheap.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Oh guys, I totally forgot a vital matter here.

Even though the passage did describe the raping of a women in a past tense. It does not necessarily defend the act of rape otherwise anab and the freedom of the women to divorce because of it would not be mentioned.

Rather the focus of the passage is on the soldier and his responsibility to take her home, treat her as a wife, and her freedom to leave if she is mistreated.

Furthermore, there is virtually no comparison between this passage and the passage we read from the Qur'an and the hadiths.

In the Qur'an the slave owner is encouraged perpetually to engage in sex with her, outside of marriage.

And the Hadith passage clearly state that the women could be and were raped and then dumped, no mention of marriage or responsibility of the soldiers.

So even though the passage and 'anab' referred to rape here, it would only look at rape in retrospect, not as a permission to rape a slave women.

However, it still remains to be proven explicitly that 'anab' relates to 'chashaq' from which we need clear evidence that 'chashaq' refers to rape not simply 'falling in love', and 'chashaq' has several meanings.

And even though I and a number of others should be wrong about this, the passage does not legalize rape in manner as the Qur'an and the Hadiths do, but merely clarifies the next step, which requires responsibility and the freedom for the victim.

karim said...

Salaam Hogan Elijah Hagbard, thx for your comments, you failed however to respond to the crucial points i raised. As i demonstrated the passage in question [ deut. 21;14 ] only discusses what a soldier should do "in case he wants to marry a captive woman" , the passage does not state what to do "if a soldier only wants to rape the woman" [ without marrying ] her. Therefore this passage does not prohibit rape.

Secondly if he wanted to marry her, he could force her to marry, as the eerdmans dictionary of the bible confirms.

Thirdly you sayd: "...Even though the passage did describe the raping of a women in a past tense. It does not necessarily defend the act of rape otherwise anab and the freedom of the women to divorce because of it would not be mentioned...". This comment is incorrect since the man is not punished in any way after raping the captive woman, the bible only says that he should let her go free "in case he doesn't like her anymore" , in other words if he raped her, and still likes her, he can be married to her for the rest of his life with "biblical" sanction, without any punishment for him. Only if he doesn'like her anymore, the bible states he should let her go free "because he had humbled her" , which confirms that the bible recognizes that the captive woman was raped , and approved of this act, the bible only compensates the captive woman by letting her go free "in case her captor doesn't like her anymore" , so although the bible realizes that the woman was raped and sexually abused, it does allow this act and only grants the woman her freedom "in case the captor does not like her anymore" , in order to cheer the woman some up after her rape and / or forced marriage she could go free [ in case the captor later on did not like her anymore . However she would be send away without any money or anything else to build up a new life. In other words after the captor had send her away from his home [ because he did not like her anymore ] , she was forced to become a prostitute or to steal a lot in order to survive in those days.

To conclude , in the Bible deut. 21:10-14 confirms that a captor was allowed to "humble" his female captive, i.e. he could rape her and force her into marriage. In the Qu'ran and the hadith we only read that intercourse between a master and his slave-girl is permissible, the quran and the hadith do not say that he was allowed to "rape" [ humble ] her as the Bible does, and this is a huge difference. Later on i will write a response to your "interpretations" of the hadith in question, and analyze the historical context of those hadith etc.

Further the fact that the Bible approves is rape is confirmed in another biblical passage, see:


__________________________________

Isaiah 3:14-22

The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor [is] in your houses. What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor ? saith the Lord GOD of hosts. Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

_________________________________


In order to punish some haughty woman the Biblical Lord decides to "expose" their secret parts. The meaning of this text is explained as followed by Prof. C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch:


__________________________________


The attractive influence of natural charms, especially when heightened by luxurious art, is very great; but the prophet is blind to all this splendour, and seeing nothing but the corruption within, foretells to these rich and distinguished women a foul and by no means aesthetic fate. The Sovereign Ruler of all would smite the crown of their head, from which long hair was now flowing, with scab [ "v'sippach" , a progressive preterite with "Vav apodosis" , a denom. verb from "sappachath" , the scurf which adheres to the skin: see at Hab 2:15 ] ; and Jehovah would uncover their nakedness, by giving them up to violation and abuse at the hands of coarse and barbarous foes-the greatest possible disgrace in the eyes of a woman, who covers herself as carefully as she can in the presence of any stranger

source:

Commentary on the Old Tetament by C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Vol. VII, Isaiah [ William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan 1980 ], p. 143-144

_________________________________


ANother scholar adds:


_________________________________

The Isaianic poet's barrage of difficult-to-translate "hapax" intends to position the reader to dwell upon the removal of each clothing article, thus evoking images of a slow, agonizing rape of the daughters of Zion by YHWH

source:

Johnny Miles [ Texas Christian University ] , "Re-reading the Power of Satire: Isaiah's 'Daughters of Zion', Pope's 'Belinda', and the Rhetoric of Rape", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 205 [ 2006 Sage Publications ] .

_________________________________


In other words besides Deut. 21;10-14 we read in isaiah 3:14-22 that the Biblical Lord himself decides to punish some haughty woman with rape. In another biblical passage we also read that the biblical lord himself decides to send armies to jerusalem who sall rape their women, see:

__________________________________

Zechariah 14:1-2

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh , and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city

_________________________________


John Calvin comments on this passage:

_________________________________

God would be the author of those calamities

source:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom30.iii.xv.ii.html

_________________________________


Conclusion: the Biblical Lord himself decides to punish jewish women by letting an invading army rape them. In addition Deut. 21;10-14 confirms that Bible makes it permissible for a soldier to "humble" a woman, i.e. to rape her.

karim said...

I would also like to comment on the next statement of Hogan Elijah Hagbard. In one of his comments he states:

"...So even though the passage and 'anab' referred to rape here, it would only look at rape in retrospect, not as a permission to rape a slave women. However, it still remains to be proven explicitly that 'anab' relates to 'chashaq' from which we need clear evidence that 'chashaq' refers to rape not simply 'falling in love', and 'chashaq' has several meanings ..."

response

in one of my earlier posts i analyzed the context of Deut. 21:14and demonstrated the expression "because thou hast humbled" was said by the biblical author after the captor had forced sex with his captive woman in Deut 21.11 [ "delighted in her" ] and Deut. 21.13 [ "thou shalt go in unto her"]. it is very weak and desperate to argue in this context that the expression "because thou hast humbled her" does not refer to the rape of the captive woman earlier. Moreover a mutual consensual marriage or an act of sexual intercourse by mutual consent and love would surely not "humble" a woman. In other words the fact that the bible states that the woman was humbled, confirms that she was raped.

Further in order to argue or claim that this Biblical passage [ deut. 21:10-14 ] only seems to look at rape in retrospect, not as a permission to rape a slave women, one needs to demostrate or proof that the Bible condemned the man for "humbling" [ raping ] the captive woman or punished or cursed him for this act. If someone gets not condemned, punished or rebuked for an action by God, it surely means it's not an forbidden act or a sin, since God would never let a sin go unpunished or approve of a sin. The fact that the biblical soldier in no way is condemned in this passage [ Deut. 21:10-14 ] for raping the woman and/or forcing her into marriage, clearly demonstrates that the Bible does permit a soldier to rape captive woman , as the great jewish rabbi Maimonides confirmed and many others [ which I and other Muslim brothers cited earlier in our previous posts ].

Finally, the fact that the bible permits a soldier to rape a female captive is supported by Deut. 20:14which instructs the soldiers to plunder the women of their enemies: ‘devour the spoil of your enemies' [ women were in ancient times spoil of war ].

karim said...

In one of his post Hogan Elijah Hagbard asked me the next question:

_________________________________


Let me point out however, Karim that the particular part of the blog here, relates to the Qur'an and the sex with captives. All we seem to argue is what the Bible presumably means to say.

Can you please, elaborate upon the Qur'anic passages and if you don't mind the passages of the Hadith on this matter.

Also I asked a simple question. Ibn stated that having sex with a women taken captive outside marriage is not rape but a right or so. He actually praises this practice.

Can you tell me if this applies also if the victim is your mother, spouse (wife if your a man Karim) daughter, sister?

Is the practice a glorified right only when we consider non-muslims being captive and rape only if, say a muslim women is the victim.

Let me elaborate on this, if Israel should occupy the entire gaza in nearby future, kill a multitude of men and bring their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters home as concubines and engage in sex with them (and God forbid that to happen), based on what the Qur'an says, would such a practice be acceptable?


_________________________________


response

First off all the hadith you cite and quranic verses only state that is permissible for a master to have a sexual relationship with his female slave / concubine. The quran or hadith do not say that one is allowed to rape [ humble ] the woman, as the Bible does.

The prophet in many hadith instructed his people not to mistreat [ female ] slaves [ see for example Tirmidhi 977 ] . To rape one's female slave would be a violation of the prophet;s instrution not to mistreat slaves. Those hadith you refer too in your earlier posts i shall discuss later on in a seperate paperwork, since there needs to be a lot written on the historical context of those hadith, the correct translations of the arabic text [ for example you cited that hadith of sunan abu dawud in which the english translation states that Muslims were having sex with captive in the presence of their husbands , the arabic original text of this hadith however does not say this, and only states that the women in question had pagan husband ( who were not present, but fled away as the Seerah of the prophet confirms ) etc. .. ] and other related issues.

I would not approve of Muslim women being raped by the israeli soldiers or other armies. Nor would i approve of Muslim soldiers raping female prisoners, since this would violate the instruction of the Prophet Muhammad not to mistreat [ female ] slaves.

Dan Jones said...

What do we expect, its a cult ran by a pedophile so anything goes...