Thursday, January 22, 2009

Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim on Sex with Captives

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Sahih al-Bukhari 2229—Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah’s Messenger (an Ansari man came) and said, “O Allah’s Messenger! We get female captives as our share of 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 which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4138—Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa’id said, “We went out with Allah’s Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah’s Messenger while he is present among us?’ We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection.’”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4350—Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the 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, “Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 5210—Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Messenger about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no person that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6603—Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, “O Allah’s Messenger! We get slave-girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?” Allah’s Messenger said, “Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no living creature which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 7409—Narrated Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus 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.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.’”

SAHIH MUSLIM

Sahih Muslim 3371—Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning about al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sahih Muslim 3373—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl with them. We then asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of Judgment must be born.

Sahih Muslim 3383—Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.

Sahih Muslim 3432—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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 (iv. 24)” (i.e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).

Sahih Muslim 3433—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) sent a small army. The rest of the hadith is the same except this that he said: Except what your right hands possess out of them are lawful for you; and he did not mention “when their ‘idda period comes to an end”. This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Sa’id (al-Khudri) (Allah be pleased with him) through another chain of transmitters and the words are: They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed: “And women already married except those whom you right hands posses” (iv. 24).

116 comments:

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Rape! Lets call it what it is! Rape!

David Wood said...

Patience, my friend. Patience.

Nakdimon said...

WOOOOOOOOW!

David, in all candor... I am really seriously starting to wonder if Bassam still wants to have that 101 with you about rape in Islam and Christianity!


Why WOULD he still want it?

Nakdimon said...

I wonder how "weak" these narrations are, btw.

Nakdimon said...

Oh David, Surah 24:33 seems to condone prostitution and rape as well, doesnt it?

David Wood said...

Nakdimon said: "David, in all candor... I am really seriously starting to wonder if Bassam still wants to have that 101 with you about rape in Islam and Christianity!"

We're just getting started. We still have to go through the rest of Sahih Sittah, then through the Sirah literature, then through some commentaries, and finally through some modern Muslim views. The final compilation should be an excellent resource. I'm happy Bassam made me think of it.

Nakdimon said: "I wonder how "weak" these narrations are, btw."

They're as solid as narrations get.

Nakdimon said: "Oh David, Surah 24:33 seems to condone prostitution and rape as well, doesnt it?"

I think it allows prostitution, though it doesn't promote forcing a girl into prostitution. It does, however, say that Allah is "Oft-Forgiving" to those who force their slave-girls into prostitution. We'll discuss this more in a post.

David Wood said...

Note: I think a Muslim could reasonably interpret the end of this verse to mean that Allah will forgive the slave-girl of her fornications if she is forced into prostitution (i.e. it's not referring to Allah forgiving the man who forces her).

Nakdimon said...

David: "Note: I think a Muslim could reasonably interpret the end of this verse to mean that Allah will forgive the slave-girl of her fornications if she is forced into prostitution (i.e. it's not referring to Allah forgiving the man who forces her)."

I agree. it depends if the final part of the phrase is either feminine or masculine.

Maybe Nabeel can provide some insight into this.

David Wood said...

Nakdimon said: "I agree. it depends if the final part of the phrase is either feminine or masculine."

Is there a pronoun in the Arabic? The passage says: "But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." So this could refer to Allah being forgiving towards "anyone" (i.e. the people who compel) or to "them" (i.e. the women who are compelled) or to both.

If the passage is ambiguous, I would be inclined to give the Qur'an the benefit of the doubt. That is, when Muslims have a reasonable interpretation of the data, I have no problem granting their interpretation. It's when Muslims only have an unreasonable interpretation of the data that I have a problem. For instance, Sami and Bassam believe that when Muhammad's followers had sex with their captives, the sex was consensual (i.e. the women wanted it too).

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Hey guys--

I don't know much about Arabic; I was taught how to read it and pronounce it as a youngster, and my grandmother taught me some basic translation. I also memorized the last 15 surahs and their translations. That's about it though.

With that said, I think the end of 24:33 does not have a direct object. It just says "Allah is oft-forgiving, merciful".

But, again, I'm no expert. That's just my two cents :-)

-Nabeel

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I know brother Wood, I need excercise more patience.

I debated this topic on Pal-Talk a with Muslim apologist who continually interpreted the passages, that Muhammad warned his followers not to have sex with these women, whereas the passages clearly state that Muhammad encourged them to rape them fully without any worry about impregnating them as Allah himself decides the bringing into existence of an individual. After a while they kicked me off the room.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

by the way, is there a schedule to the forthcoming debate events, both in the UK and in the US?

Bassam said...

David, how's this discussion between you and I going to take place?

You said we should wait until you finish all that you have, but the thing is that you are posting different arguments over several different posts.

So are you saying that we debate individual arguments in individual posts over yours or are you going to compile the rest of what you have into one big post?

David Wood said...

Bassam,

I was referring to the passages on sex with captives from Islam's sources. I think we need all of the passages collected into one place so that people can see them in context when we're discussing things. (Note: You can do the same with the Bible if you want. If you want to gather every passage you plan to use, I'll post that as well.)

Bassam said...

okay then David, post them all at one go in one post. you posting them over time is going to make me respond in each post. its preferable that we do them all at one go.

Matthew said...

Sahih al-Bukhari sounds more like "It's not ok", but Sahih Muslim 3371 and 3373 sound more like "It's ok"

David Wood said...

Bassam,

No bossing me around on my own blog. I'm posting as I look them up so that people can familiarize themselves with the material gradually. (It's a bit much to throw all of it at them at once!) BTW, you're certainly free to comment as a proceed. I'm not sure why you'd want to comment, though. All I've been doing is quoting passages. Are you a bit nervous about the passages?

Matthew,

What in Sahih al-Bukhari sounds like it's not okay? Azl? Muhammad never forbid it. He simply held that it's better not to do it, since every child destined to be born will be born. So, while it was always okay to have sex with captives, it wasn't okay to practice birth control.

Notice that Muhammad's position was scientifically inaccurate. According to Muhammad, it doesn't matter whether a man finishes or not. But certainly it does!

David Wood said...

Elijah said: "I debated this topic on Pal-Talk a with Muslim apologist who continually interpreted the passages, that Muhammad warned his followers not to have sex with these women . . ."

That, of course, is the most absurd interpretation of these passages. Fortunately, I know that Bassam is smarter than that, so he'll have something better for us.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Bassam-

It's up to David to post them how he sees fit, and it's up to you to react accordingly. It's not your place to tell David to post them all at once because you cannot refrain from responding.

Just so you know, I was at David's home over winter break, and he was trying to do all this in one post. However, the man has tons of difficulties in his life, any one of which would absolutely preoccupy the average person, yet he never complains about them, nor do you ever hear about them.

So cut the man some slack and let him work how he needs to work.

-Nabeel

Matthew said...

What in Sahih al-Bukhari sounds like it's not okay? Azl? Muhammad never forbid it. He simply held that it's better not to do it, since every child destined to be born will be born. So, while it was always okay to have sex with captives, it wasn't okay to practice birth control.

Now it makes sense to me. His response was directed at the birth control, not at the "sex with captives"-part of the question.

Fernando said...

Good morningue...

I just have to say thate, for sure, all thise hadithes are non canonicals; or they are false; or they are not to be interpreted in the waie any normal and inteligent and truth loving people do; or that the Bible is even huorse; or that you, professor Wood, shouldn't be posting these posts in your blog; or all these aspects toguether...

that's whate I have to say in order to sumurize all the typical muslim argumentations...

Bassam said...

"No bossing me around on my own blog. I'm posting as I look them up so that people can familiarize themselves with the material gradually. (It's a bit much to throw all of it at them at once!) BTW, you're certainly free to comment as a proceed. I'm not sure why you'd want to comment, though. All I've been doing is quoting passages. Are you a bit nervous about the passages?"

David, its not an issue of bossing you around, its just that you said that you would want the discussion to begin after you finish posting everything and now you changed that and it seems like the discussion is occuring gradually at every individual post. I was only requesting you to return to your original plan.

Why would I be nervous about something that I challenged you to? You're acting like I don't know what your'e going to bring up. Just speed it up so that we can begin.

Regards,

Bassam

Nabeel Qureshi said...

"after you finish posting everything..."

He's not done posting everything. When everything is posted, then he'll be done posting everything.

David Wood said...

My original plan was to post what all of the Muslim sources have to say on this issue before we discuss it. That's exactly what I'm doing. As you know, there are a ton of sources. You're acting as if it takes five minutes to go through 40-50 different books. It doesn't. So I'm going to continue posting the sources as I look through them. When I'm done, I'll put them all together into a single post. I can't at all figure out why you're complaining about this. You're saying, in effect, "It's okay to post what all of our sources have to say; but whatever you do, don't break up the material to make it more manageable for readers." You're not making sense. Now quit complaining.

Bassam said...

Listen Master of your website who's ego got hurt because someone is requesting him to do something. I'm saying that you are going against your original plan to have a discussion on the material after you finished everything, yet you are not doing that, for you are discussing the matter with your islamophobic friends before posting everything and hence indirectly asking Muslims like myself to remain silent in these threads until you finish posting everything up. (this is what you are asking me to do if we are to follow your original plan) That is my objection. But since you and your buddy Nabeel are making a big deal out of this and are having an attitude problem let us just cut to the chase and start debating.

Also, let me make myself clear to everyone, I will only respond to David. I have no time to answer everyone here. If you want your argument to go through to me then let David say it for you.

Bassam said...

As for your first post David, you haven't shown any Quranic verses stating that one could rape his slave girl. You only showed verses that say that one may have sex with his slave girl. That's not the debate, so those verses don't prove your point.

As for your second post (i.e. this post), again where is the rape?

Sami Zaatari said...

i think this shows the weakness of the Christian arguments, which is fine, i mean this issue was adressed in my first debate with Wood, and as i said then, and will say again, Christians simply read whats not there, hey, when you dont have an argument, invent one! indeed, the hadiths say they had sex and practiced azl, but no we will say thats rape! lol as for bassam having second thoughts, bassam has already won the debate before it even started, im sure he must even be smirking! all bassam will have to do is post davids entire post, and simply ask: where is there any mention of rape or forced sex???? debate over. as they say, lets deal with what the TEXT SAYS, not what we want the text to say.

Bassam said...

There are several hadiths (I'm assuming that David studied Islam well enough to know them, otherwise he can ask me to post them) that state that one is not to oppress and harm his slaves and those under his authority. This is a general rule and command. Obviously, rape is to harm and oppress.

For David to say that rape is acceptable and an exception to this general rule, he must provide evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made such an exception to the general rule. Otherwise, the general command sticks and disproves David's claim.

Also remember that David argued that the raping that took place in Nigeria is condoned by Islam. Those women were not slave girls, but David still said that Islam condoned these acts.

So David has to prove that Islam:

1) Condones rape of slave girls
2) Condones rape of any non-Muslim girl to force her to convert to Islam.


Let's see if he can do it.

Regards,

Bassam

David Wood said...

Bassam,

I still can't figure out what you're talking about. I said that you and I would have a discussion after I've posted everything. Where did I say that I would cease all discussions with everyone else in the meantime? Never. Quit putting words in my mouth.

As for your comments, I'm going to stick to my original plan of posting all of the sources before I address the issue with you. Feel free to comment, but I won't for now.

David Wood said...

I'm not going to comment yet, but it seems that Bassam agrees with Sami: The women whose families had just been slaughtered by Muslims were just dying to have sex with the Muslims. Similarly, the women whose husbands were still alive when 4:24 was revealed wanted to have sex with the Muslims. I just wanted to clarify the Muslim position for everyone.

OumAmir said...

"They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed: “And women already married except those whom you right hands posses”

I'm I reading this right that it was/is okay for a muslim to sleep with another man's wife if she is a captive?

David Wood said...

OumAmir said: "I'm I reading this right that it was/is okay for a muslim to sleep with another man's wife if she is a captive?"

Yes, you're reading this correctly. According to Bassam and Sami, this shows that such married women clearly wanted to have sex with the Muslims (since the only other interpretation would be that the Muslims were raping them).

Nakdimon said...

Bassam: “As for your first post David, you haven't shown any Quranic verses stating that one could rape his slave girl. You only showed verses that say that one may have sex with his slave girl. That's not the debate, so those verses don't prove your point.”

I find this just lame. The hadith says that the men wanted to have sex with the captive women, but their men were still there. And in spite of that, Allah supposedly sends a verse down anyway, telling the men that they can have their way, even though the husbands of the women are there. These women are still married, but because they are “right hand possessions” one can still have sex with those women.

So since these women are still married, this accounts for either rape or adultery! You take your pick.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Sami: “where is there any mention of rape or forced sex???? debate over. as they say, lets deal with what the TEXT SAYS, not what we want the text to say”

Well then we can stop the debate before we have even begun. See this is the Muslim mindset: If you want to prove them wrong, you have to come up with a specific quote of their choosing. But when they want to prove us wrong, they will take anything, twist it to make it fit suit their purpose and announce that you have lost the argument, even though they haven’t lived up to their own standards for “proof”, namely, a specific quote of OUR choosing!

“The application of double standards is ….”

Nakdimon

David Wood said...

Bassam said: "There are several hadiths (I'm assuming that David studied Islam well enough to know them, otherwise he can ask me to post them) that state that one is not to oppress and harm his slaves and those under his authority."

Please share with the group some reliable ahadith saying that a man must ask for his slave-girl's permission in order to have sex with her.

Bryant said...

I just listened to the debate betwen Bart Ehrman and James White.
I thought it was a good debate. You can download the debate at aomin.org for the extremely reasonable price of six dollars. Please support our brother James.

James White was extremely prepared and it showed. I believe that Bart seemed suprised at the level of scholarship that James presented. I particularly found James' cross examination to be extremely useful.

Bart Erhman used the exact same presentation from his lecture on Youtube. I occasionally knew what he was gonna say next, even down to his jokes. At one point he tried to question the veracity of James' scholarship by insinuating that James was not familiar with German and French scholarship. However, he contradicted himself by at times arguing that we should not form our conclusions from authoritative scholarship. He came of slightly condecending. He remained from commenting on Islam. This to me seemed almost calculated. It is as if he refuses to correct those he knows misues his works for the demise of Christianity. I dont believe that Bart gave any good reason to believe that the New Testament misquotes Jesus. I believe that James thoroughly dealt with the problem of not having the original manuscripts.

I am going to listen to this debate many times to absord the insanely large amount of info presented by James in his opening statement.

This was one of the best debates I have ever heard. Both men know how to debate.

David Wood said...

Yes, I'm going to post a link to James's site after he does his episode of the Dividing Line.

Bassam said...

David said: I'm not going to comment yet, but it seems that Bassam agrees with Sami: The women whose families had just been slaughtered by Muslims were just dying to have sex with the Muslims. Similarly, the women whose husbands were still alive when 4:24 was revealed wanted to have sex with the Muslims. I just wanted to clarify the Muslim position for everyone.

Aaah! David with his usual sarcasm displays his ignorance of history and inability to understand his opponent’s arguments.

First of all I never said that the slave girls were “just dying to have sex” with their Muslim captors. The hadith only shows that the Muslims asked the Prophet for permission to have sex with their slave girls in a specific manner (i.e. coitus interruptus).

The narrations don’t show:

- How many Muslim captors decided to go through with having sex with the slave girls.
- How many women actually ended up having sex with their Muslim captors.
- Most importantly, whether any slave girls were raped

Notice how weak David’s argument is. He can’t actually show us where the slave girls were raped. His entire argument (if not entire then at least mainly) is based on the assumption that slave girls would never have consensual sex with their captors. David’s argument is as follows:

- The Islamic traditions show that Muslims had sex with their slave girls
- According to my logic it is inconceivable that slave girls would consensually have sex with the captors that just killed their tribe
- In conclusion, the Islamic traditions show that Muslims raped their slave girls

David is ignorant of history, for slave girls did consensually have sex with their captors.

John McClintock said:

Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat. (John McClintock, James Strong, “Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature” [Harper & Brothers, 1894 ] , p. 782)

Matthew B. Schwartz said:

The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] … Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers’ laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes

They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.

The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.
The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts" the women. (Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women" [ Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007 ] , pp. 146-147)

Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that slave women back in the past would consent to having sex with their captors. So if we put aside our 21st century mindset and look at history, there is nothing wrong with saying that slave girls back then consented to having sex with their captors.

If David says that not all the women felt this way and there was bound to be some who didn’t want to have sex, I would agree with him. However, how does this prove that the Muslims raped slave girls? How does David know whether the Muslim back then actually raped the slave girl who was unwilling to have sex with him? Isn’t it possible that if he saw her unwilling he would have sold to her to another Muslim at a cheaper price? Yes that is possible.

Isn’t it also possible that the Muslim might have bought another slave girl who was willing? Yes that it possible. How does David know that this didn’t happen? What is his proof that they raped them?

Even if David could prove that the Muslims raped them, what is his proof that this was approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him)? It’s possible that Muslims committed sins back then and disobeyed the Prophet (peace be upon him). So where could David show us the Prophet (peace be upon him) agreeing with such behavior?

He cannot and I challenge him to.

David also said that it is okay for Muslims to kidnap and rape just like in Nigeria. This is a lie and he can’t prove it.

Imam Al Shafi’ one of our most respected classical scholars said in Kitab al Umm, Volume 3, page 253 said that if someone kidnaps a slave girl and rapes her must face punishment (flogging if he was single and stoning if he was married).

Al Shanqeeti, one of our most respected modern Maaliki scholars said in Zaad Al Mustanq'i, Volume 9, page 335 the same exact thing.

This is how our respected conservative (not liberal) scholars understood Islam. Does David know better than them and can he cite bigger scholars that say the contrary? I challenge him to.

Let me also present the authentic story from Sunan Al Bayhaqy which states:


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

Notice that Umar bin Al Khattab (the second caliph) ordered the man who captured the slave girl and had sex with her to be stoned for this crime, for he took the slave girl (i.e. kidnapped her) unjustly.

Does David know Islam better than Umar ibn al Khattab? Yeah right.

David said: Please share with the group some reliable ahadith saying that a man must ask for his slave-girl's permission in order to have sex with her.

David you supposedly studied logic, thus I am assuming that you aware of the fallacy of burden of proof.

Please understand my argument:

- The Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited causing harm to and oppressing those under our authority.
- Rape is causing harm to someone and is considered a form of oppression
- If you (i.e. David) say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made an exception to this general prohibition by allowing one to rape his slave girl, the burden of proof is upon you to show evidence for this exception.
- If you are not able to show evidence for this exception then we must assume that the Prophet’s general command sticks, thus proving that Islam forbids one to rape his slave girl.

Got it David? So don’t make silly requests demanding specific statements. You might as well ask me to show you where Islam says that you can’t stab someone with a sharpened pencil.

In conclusion, David has no case. Let’s hope he’s brave enough to admit he is wrong on this particular point.

Fernando said...

Bassam said: «You might as well ask me to show you where Islam says that you can’t stab someone with a sharpened pencil.»...

dearr friend Bassam... couldn't you have found another exemple morre convenient to show us all that islam, and muslims aren't intrinsequely violent? If youre more spontainiously words to find an example to mock with other person are these, whell... what to say?

Then Bassan said: «In conclusion, David has no case.

Are you sure? I read with very carefull what you wrote and I must say I don't agree with you...

What is your proof that they didn't rape them? The text clearly allows the reading of the rappe... and there are more historical evidences off massive rapings than of slaves "willingly" (but can a slave have a free personal will?... I know the answer... ) giving themselfs to theire captures...

Do you really think that the thousands of women that were stolen in the meridional Mediterranian by muslims corsairs until the late XIX century to be their sexual preiys gave theire liffe free and willingly to theire captures?

But then... what was the point of the texts that professor Wood posted unless that they thought the rape evidence was evident and relevant?

And what are the streght off your final arguments? Do you really believe that someone that know the Qur'an and the hadiths (specially in connection with Muhammade's life) would give a penny to your position? I don't think so...

Ibn said...

Excellent rebuttal brother Bassam.

I suggest you ignore Fernando. He's about as logical as a square circle.

Fernando said...

Ibn, in his typical way of diberting the ebidences, said: «I suggest you ignore Fernando. He's about as logical as a square circle»...

as matter of fact one can have a "square circle"... but then I imagine that you, Ibn, beeing so knwoledge with math as you are withe islam and (logical) trueth, know this...

Bassam argumentations do fall by the root when wee see that they are based in his preconcepts... they can't stand by themselffs... but then... ignoring ebidences isn't it the typical way of some muslim apologists deal (or not deal) with the truth?

Being so, I must sai I'm really glad to see you, Ibn, recomed that procedure... others will see and judge the factts...

OumAmir said...

Here's my question for our Muslim friends,

Why on earth would Muhammed sanction sex with married women?! The last hadith listed on David's post reads as if the husbands were still there. Then why, if the relations were consensual, this isn't considered adultery?

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

In the case of a married man, adultery is when he engages in sexual intercourse with a free woman (other than his wife or wives) and a slave that doesn't belong to him.

Moi said...

Fernando said: «Do you really think that the thousands of women that were stolen in the meridional Mediterranian (...)»...

Maybe you were referring to Septentrional Mediterranean... as it was evidenced in Robert C. Davis’s “Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800”?

By the way... even though your argumentation in criticizing Bassam’s words lacks depth, it really goes to the nucleus of his position and raze it… thanks brother…

Dk said...

Bassam said:

"Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that slave women back in the past would consent to having sex with their captors"

lol, the only thing you have done is acquitted the Bible from all rape charges, while the references have nothing to do with the Arab Muslims and therefore Islam is still stuck in the same problem.

there is plenty else to comment on in your pathetic excuse of a "rebuttal", well it was better than Sami's attempt of making an abitrary standard about the word "rape" needing to be in the text lol,

you guys are laughable.

someone better enjoy taking this nonsense apart or I might come back for more.

Fernando said...

Moi saide: «Maybe you were referring to Septentrional Mediterranean...»... yes... mie efford to writte in english sometimmes gives me a hard time... I realie ment "north shore"...

Yes... Bassam's arguments(???), even with a big postt like his, are verie fonnie: he mixtures onions with patoatos and then says: "abracadabra... here you have an invencible nuts corktail"... I really hope mie gentle words will allow him to realize how shalow he was...

Sami Zaatari said...

Dk i suggest you pay attention as the debate topic is not on the Quran alone, but the Bible as well. mumber two there is no Islamic problem as the supposed arguments against the Quran and hadiths have been nullified, and i need to remind you to pay attention yet again as it has been shown that rape and forced sex is mentioned in the Bible, yet no where in the Quran or hadiths.

so indeed the only patehtic thing is your inability to concentrate, but hey, its ok, keep going around saying lol laughable, this is pathetic bla bla bla, this is dk at his best, always cheap talking his way through arguments because he has no real meaningful responses.

infact DK since im quite sick of your arrogance, im challenging you to a debate on your atheism on paltalk, Does Allah exist? (just to make you happy since you want to say Allah rather than God). if you accept let me know and we will fix a date and time.

Matthew said...

So, what our muslim friends are telling seems to be this:
Since we can't prove that sex with captives is forced on them, we have no case?

This argumentation ridiculus, as usual. You would never accept this kind of reasoning from christians.

David Wood said...

Notice the inconsistency of Bassam and Sami.

According to Islam, Muslim men have the God-given right to have sex with their slave girls and female captives as much as they want, even if these women's husbands are still alive, and even if their husbands have just been killed.

When we say, "It's obvious that these women wouldn't have wanted to have sex with the Muslims," our Muslim friends say, "That's not good enough. We want clear statements affirming that rape is permissible. The only thing that will qualify as evidence is a clear statement saying, 'Rape is okay for Muslims.'"

So that's the burden of proof placed on us. We can't just go with the obvious implications of a passage. We need a clear statement.

But what happens when I ask for the same thing? What happens when I ask for a clear statement saying that Muslims must ask for permission before carrying out their God-given right to have sex with their captives?

BASSAM SAID: "So don’t make silly requests demanding specific statements. You might as well ask me to show you where Islam says that you can’t stab someone with a sharpened pencil."

Did you catch that? We're not allowed to "make silly requests demanding specific statements"! So we certainly have double standards here.

Not only this, but Bassam is also guilty of the logical fallacy called "strained analogy," since he said that me asking where Muslims are told to ask for permission is like me asking where Muslims are told not to stab people with sharpened pencils. The two cases aren't parallel at all.

Nevertheless, I think we can make them parallel. Suppose we open up the Qur'an and we read, "And the Muslims may feel free to stab the unbelievers with sharpened pencils." Here's how the conversation on this passage would go:

DAVID: "The Qur'an allows Muslims to stab people with sharpened pencils."

BASSAM AND SAMI: "Where on earth does it say that?"

DAVID: "When it says, 'And the Muslims may feel free to stab the unbelievers with sharpened pencils.' It seems pretty clear to me."

BASSAM AND SAMI: "But it only allows us to stab people with pencils if the people agree that it's okay for us to stab them with pencils."

DAVID: "Sorry guys. No one wants to be stabbed by a pencil."

BASSAM AND SAMI: "We challenge you to bring forth your proof! Give us clear statements that say that we're not supposed to ask for permission before we stab someone with a pencil! We want clear statements!"

DAVID: "Well, I'm simply going with the most obvious implications of the passage. But since you're looking for clear statements, why don't you give me a clear statement showing that you're supposed to ask for permission before stabbing someone."

BASSAM AND SAMI: "What? How dare you ask us for clear statements! You might as well ask us for clear statements showing that men are supposed to ask for permission before we have sex with our captives! How unreasonable you're being."

So let's be clear on this right now. Bassam and Sami, I want you to declare what counts as evidence, because you keep changing your definition of evidence. (NOTE: I have quite a bit to say about Sami's article on why Christianity is bad for the world, since he obviously uses a completely different standard from the one he's using here.)

Bassam said...

David, your response is absolutely absurd and your position is weak and that is as clear as daylight.

Notice David's analogy:

DAVID: "When it says, 'And the Muslims may feel free to stab the unbelievers with sharpened pencils.' It seems pretty clear to me."

According to David's analogy he must have showed us a hadith or Quranic verse that states "feel free to rape your slave girls if you want to".

However, David has not shown such a hadith or Quranic verse. So his analogy is fallacious and clearly demonstrates the weakness of his position.

David has not provided a comprehensive paragraph by paragraph response to my rebuttal. If he says "well I am waiting to gather all my narrations and then I will respond to you", then fine. Its better for you to stay quiet until you do so because your partial responses are shallow and useless. Its better to remain quiet and then offer a proper response. (and dont' say I am bossing you around, its just friendly advice for your own sake)

Regards,

Bassam

David Wood said...

Basssam says that I haven't offered a comprehensive paragraph by paragraph response to his rebuttal. What did I say even before he offered his rebuttal? I said I'm going to focus on finishing posting the sources, as we originally agreed. (I think Bassam wants to have the discussion now because he doesn't want me to finish giving the sources. He knows what's in the sources I haven't gotten to yet. I find it interesting that Bassam is getting quite nervous and desperate here. Why so?)

But let's look at Bassam's response. He said: "According to David's analogy he must have showed us a hadith or Quranic verse that states 'feel free to rape your slave girls if you want to'. However, David has not shown such a hadith or Quranic verse. So his analogy is fallacious and clearly demonstrates the weakness of his position."

Here Bassam completely missed the point. Let's compare the statements:

(1) "Feel free to have sex with your captives, even if they're married, even if you just slaughtered their families, and even if you're simply going to sell them to someone else after you're finished having your way with them."

(2) "Feel free to stab someone with a pencil."

Both statements are clear, and neither one says that permission must first be sought. Thus, if a Muslim wants to say that one of the passages only means that Muslims can take advantage of their rights after seeking the permission of the victim, I think we have a right to ask where the passage says that they must first seek permission.

Thus, the point stands. Bassam offered an absurd analogy. I fixed his analogy to make the two cases parallel, and he desperately twisted one in order to try and wriggle out of the fact that the Qur'an guarantees Muslims the right to have sex with their slave girls and captives, and that it nowhere tells Muslims that their slave girls and captives must give their consent. Since consent doesn't matter, Muslims are free to do as they please. Bassam has still offered no response to this.

But we may ask another question here. Why does Islam allow sex with slave girls and captives at all? Why must Muslims be allowed to have four wives, and any number of slave girls as their sex partners? Why didn't Muhammad simply command his followers to control their urges, as Christians are told in the New Testament? It's as if Muslims still want to commit adultery; they simply want to make it legal by allowing sex with all sorts of women (including married women)!

Now back to the Muslim sources.

Bassam said...

David said: “Basssam says that I haven't offered a comprehensive paragraph by paragraph response to his rebuttal. What did I say even before he offered his rebuttal? I said I'm going to focus on finishing posting the sources, as we originally agreed.”

I already said that I knew you were going to say that, hence I advised you to stay quiet until you are able to give proper responses, since your responses right now absolutely stink.

David said: “(I think Bassam wants to have the discussion now because he doesn't want me to finish giving the sources. He knows what's in the sources I haven't gotten to yet. I find it interesting that Bassam is getting quite nervous and desperate here. Why so?)”

Wow, it seems like David has become like someone whom according to David had an arrogant attitude and looked like a poor fool when doing so (i.e. Nadir Ahmad)

David said: (1) "Feel free to have sex with your captives, even if they're married, even if you just slaughtered their families, and even if you're simply going to sell them to someone else after you're finished having your way with them."

(2) "Feel free to stab someone with a pencil."


How on earth are you comparing the two? The first one says that you can have sex, which is not a crime and the other one says that you can stab someone, which is a crime and causes harm.

David said: “Both statements are clear, and neither one says that permission must first be sought. Thus, if a Muslim wants to say that one of the passages only means that Muslims can take advantage of their rights after seeking the permission of the victim, I think we have a right to ask where the passage says that they must first seek permission.”

I already answered you. I already said that we already have statements from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that causing harm and oppression to those under your authority is forbidden. This is the proof that you cannot rape your slave girl.

So you are the only who is supposed to show the exception to this general rule. We don’t need the Prophet to say:

1) Don’t throw an apple at your slave girl
2) Don’t hit her with a stick 3 meters long
3) Don’t hit her with a stick 3.5 meters long
4) Etc………………….

and wriggle out of the fact that the Qur'an guarantees Muslims the right to have sex with their slave girls and captives

Where did I try to deny this? I never denied this. Of course the Quran says that the Muslims have the right to have sex with their slave girls and captives. This verse is saying that it is permissible.

However, I read this verse along with other hadith that state that you cannot harm those under your authority. You seem to ignore that.

It’s like me saying:

- The Bible says that you can have sex your wife.
- This means that even if your wife is not in the mood and does not give consent, you can force her and rape her because the Biblical verse does not specifically say that she must give her consent. Thus, marital rape is permitted in Christianity.

David will reply back and say “No! No! Christianity forbids one from harming his wife, so he can’t rape her”, But Bassam (acting like David here) says that this is not good enough and David must show a verse that specifically states that the wife must give her consent because the Bible makes it clear that the man is permitted to have sex with his wife.

I hope you can see how foolish your argument is now David, because how that would sound to a Christian is how you are sounding to us Muslims right now.

David said: Why does Islam allow sex with slave girls and captives at all? Why must Muslims be allowed to have four wives, and any number of slave girls as their sex partners? Why didn't Muhammad simply command his followers to control their urges, as Christians are told in the New Testament? It's as if Muslims still want to commit adultery; they simply want to make it legal by allowing sex with all sorts of women (including married women)!

Don’t forget to ask me these questions in the future. As for now, don’t divert the topic. Let’s keep it one topic at a time. You still have to show where Islam permits rape of slave girls and give a comprehensive rebuttal (whenever your ready, don’t whine) to my response.


Regards,

Bassam

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

In reply to David's post, i would like to say that scholars [ both Muslim and Christian ] have concluded that one of the golden rules of understanding religious texts is to "let scripture interprete scripture". In other words to find out if a Muslim was allowed to rape his female slave, one needs to look at other narrations or quranic verses that are relevant to the topic. If general rules in Islam clearly state that one is not allowed to harm any one [ except in cases of criminal punishments / hudud or in self-defense or during fighting with soldiers of the enemy in a war ] and not to mistreat slave girls [ see Al-Tirmidhi 977 ] , then it becomes clear to a Muslim who studies his religion that one is not allowed to rape his female slave.

Further nowhere in the Bible does it say that the consent of one's wife is needed for sex. According to David's logic this would imply that marital rape is sanctioned in Christianity, since the Bible nowhere states that a wife's consent is needed for sexual intercourse.

ben malik said...

As for Karim's distortion of the Bible let's try reading 1 Corinthians 7:1-5:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except BY MUTUAL CONSENT and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

In matters of sexual intimacy This text makes it clear that the body of the husband belongs just as much to his wife as her body belongs to him. I will let Wood dismantle your feeble attempts of justifying Muhammad's standing command (or should I say permission?) to rape captive women and your shameful attempts of justifying it.

Fernando said...

Karim said: «scholars [ both Muslim and Christian ] have concluded that one of the golden rules of understanding religious texts is to "let scripture interprete scripture"»

strangge thate you , aftter a whille, to probe your interpretation need to go and quote Al-Tirmidhi... shoulden't the texte of the original Qur'an and the hadiths be enough for itself?

David Wood said...

It seems that Bassam's entire case rests on not harming those under your authority.

Is this a reasonable inference on his part? Not at all. Muslims are supposed to be kind to their wives. However, if the wives are out of line, Muslims are told to beat them. Thus, Muslims are supposed to be kind to their wives, provided the wives are doing everything the Muslims want them to do. Thus, the general principle (be kind to your wives) doesn't negate the Muslim's right to beat his wife.

Similarly, Muslims aren't supposed to kill the dhimmis, provided the dhimmis are doing everything the Muslims want them to do (i.e. paying them money, not fixing their churches, etc.). Thus, once again, the general principle (don't treat the dhimmis overly harshly) doesn't negate the Muslim's right to slaughter the dhimmis when the dhimmis get out of line (for instance, by fixing the roofs on their churches).

Now Bassam says that Muslims are not to harm those under their authority. Does this negate the Muslim's right to have sex with his captives? Of course not. Thus, if a captive or slave girl were to try to resist a Muslim, she would be going against the Qur'an, which guarantees a Muslim's right to have sex with her. In such a case, who should the Muslim listen to, the Qur'an or the woman? The Qur'an, of course.

So, just to review, Islam allows men to have sex with their slave girls and female captives, even if these women are already married. Do married women want to have sex with their Muslim captors? Not at all. So is such sex ever going to be consensual? No. But does the Qur'an allow it? Absolutely.

David Wood said...

Karim,

I agree completely with your point about interpreting scripture with scripture. However, the key is to interpret the unclear in light of the clear.

Muslims are saying, "Yes, the Qur'an allows us to have sex with married captives. But there's nothing wrong with having sex with married captives. This isn't rape, since the women consented. We know they must have consented, because the Hadith tell us not to harm our captives, and having sex with them against their will would have been harming them."

Thus, Muslims interpret a very clear passage (it's perfectly okay to have sex with women who obviously wouldn't want to have sex with Muslims) in light of a very general passage (don't harm those under your authority).

What happens when we apply the principles of interpretation more precisely? We would clearly have to reverse things. We would have to say: "The Hadith tell us not to harm those under our authority. However, this obviously can't mean that we must seek permission to have sex with our slave girls, since the Qur'an grants us an unequivocal right to have sex with our captives, even if they're married and want nothing to do with us!"

To put the matter differently, Bassam and I are both inferring an exception to a rule. The Qur'an says that Muslims are allowed to have sex with married captives. It says nothing about seeking consent. Bassam infers that Muslims must seek consent based on something he reads in the Hadith. I infer a different exception. When the Hadith says not to harm those under your authority, I infer that there is an exception, namely, that this doesn't apply when slave girls try to overthrow the God-given right of Muslims to have sex with their captives.

So Bassam and I are doing the same thing as far as interpretation is concerned. The only difference is that the evidence about what Muslims did with their slave girls fits my interpretation, not Bassam's. That is, if his interpretation is correct, we must believe that a bunch of women who were married, whose families had just been killed, and who were about to be sold into slavery, for some reason agreed to have sex with Muslims. But this is simply absurd. It makes far more sense to believe that Muslims had sex with the women against their wills, and this fits my view perfectly.

But again, I agree with the principle you brought up.

karim said...

Thx for your comment Ben malik [ sam shamoun ] . let us take a look closely at the biblical text:

_________________________________

1 Corinthians 7:1-5

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except BY MUTUAL CONSENT and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

___________________________________

The text states that a wife's body belongs also to her husband. In other words the husband has power over his wife's body. The reverse is also true from this biblical text. So a wife cannot refuse her husband's request to have sex, since she alone is not the only one who has power over her body, but her husband has power over her body too. In regards to 1 corinthians 7;4 , Bible scholar Adam Clarke comments:

_________________________________

Verse 4. The wife hath not power, her husband; her husband's person belongs to her: neither of them has any authority to refuse what the other has a matrimonial right to demand.

source:

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=007&verse=005#1Co7_1
_________________________________


In other words since a wife or a husband were not allowed to refuse the request of the other to engage in sexual intercourse, the verses that follow after 1 corinthians 7:4 only state that mutual consent was required in case one of the spouses wanted to withhold himself/herself from sex. In other words the mention of mutual consent here ONLY refers to the abstinence ( from sex ). Nowhere does the Bible say that a wife's consent is needed for sexual intercourse. On the contrary the passage Ben malik [ sam shamoun ] quotes actually confirms that if a husband does not agree with the wife's decision to refrain from sexual intercourse, he had a right to demand sex from her [ since he had power over her body as the text of the Bible confirms ]. Since the Bible nowhere states that a wife;s consent is needed for sex, one can argue that according to the logic of David Wood and other Christian Missionaries marital rape is permissible in Christianity.

Further where does the Bible state in Deuteronomy 21;10-14 that the consent of a female prisoner of war is needed for sexual intercourse [ in case she was captured by a biblical soldier ] ? According to the logic of David Wood and other Christian Missionaries this implies that the Bible sanctions rape of female prisoners of war.

David Wood said...

Karim,

I can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting 1 Corinthians or not. I'll simply point out that the passage addresses both men and women. It says "don't deprive one another," not "husbands, don't let your wives deprive you." Thus, the passage is telling women not to deprive their husbands. But the only reason the passage would address women is if women really had a choice. In other words, if women really had no say regarding sex with their husbands, the passage would not address them, since their will wouldn't be an issue. But it does address them, and this presupposes that their will was the deciding factor in whether sex was to take place.

Thus, if this passage were really saying that women cannot refuse their husbands, the passage would be addressed to men, i.e. "men, you have complete sexual authority over your women; don't let them talk back to you." Lo and behold, what do we find in the Qur'an? What do we find in the Hadith? Do we find Muhammad addressing the captives and slave girls, seeking their will? Not at all. The passages address the men, and tell the men that they have the God-given right to have sex with their female captives.

Massive difference, my friend.

Bassam said...

David said: “Is this a reasonable inference on his part? Not at all. Muslims are supposed to be kind to their wives. However, if the wives are out of line, Muslims are told to beat them. Thus, Muslims are supposed to be kind to their wives, provided the wives are doing everything the Muslims want them to do. Thus, the general principle (be kind to your wives) doesn't negate the Muslim's right to beat his wife.”
So the evidence for this exception is Surah 4:24, which makes the exception clear. Where is the clear exception for raping slave girls?

David said: Thus, once again, the general principle (don't treat the dhimmis overly harshly) doesn't negate the Muslim's right to slaughter the dhimmis when the dhimmis get out of line (for instance, by fixing the roofs on their churches).

Either retract that stupid comment of yours or prove it. Show evidence from the Quran or Sunnah that you kill a dhimmi for fixing the roof of the church.

David said: Now Bassam says that Muslims are not to harm those under their authority. Does this negate the Muslim's right to have sex with his captives? Of course not. Thus, if a captive or slave girl were to try to resist a Muslim, she would be going against the Qur'an, which guarantees a Muslim's right to have sex with her. In such a case, who should the Muslim listen to, the Qur'an or the woman? The Qur'an, of course.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You have to be kidding me!!! This is your argument!!!?????? The Qur’an says that the man is permitted to have sex with his slave girl. It doesn’t say that it is his right in the sense that he can do whatever he wants in order to get it.
Even if we say that it is his right, it is his right just like how it is his right to receive obedience from his children. Just like how it is his right to get inheritance if his father passes away.
Now is David seriously trying to argue that Islam would permit a man to physically abuse his children if they didn’t give him his right of respect? Is he also trying to say that he can physically abuse and harm his sister if she were to try and steal some of his inheritance money?
In Islam, one of the rights that a Muslim has over his brother is to be visited when he is sick and to be greeted with salaams. If my Muslim brother does not greet me, does that mean that I can physically abuse him until he does so that he gives me my right?
It seems like this is what he is saying if he were to be consistent. According to David’s logic, if the Qur’an says someone is entitled to something or has a right to something that means that the person can do whatever he wants, even if it was forbidden in order to obtain that right.
This is something absolutely ridiculous, which no Muslim scholar in antiquity has stated. I am really speechless and don’t really know how to reply back to such a laughable argument.
Why is it that none of the companions of the Prophet or the early Salaf understood the Qur’an to teach that one could rape his slave girl? Why not? I mean really, why not? If she doesn’t give him his due right, he doesn’t rape her just as he is not allowed to rape his wife if she doesn’t give him his due right. I already stated what other possible solutions a Muslim has if he were to face this problem. Raping, which is forbidden is not the only solution.
How does it make sense that one cannot slap his slave girl in the face, but could rape her? Give me a break guys.


”David said: So, just to review, Islam allows men to have sex with their slave girls and female captives, even if these women are already married. Do married women want to have sex with their Muslim captors? Not at all. So is such sex ever going to be consensual? No. But does the Qur'an allow it? Absolutely.”
In Islam, once a slave girl has been captured this automatically annuls her marriage so she is not considered as having a husband anymore. As for the consenting issue, I already addressed it.


David said that he and I are doing the same thing when it comes to interpreting, but he favors his because he finds it difficult to believe that women could consent to sex under thos circumstances. This is nothing more than a subjective argument that I already refuted.

My argument stands strong because the Salaf take my position (as I referred to Imam Shafi and Umar ibn Al Khattab) and none of the Salaf believed such a thing. Their interpretation takes precedence over all.

In conclusion, David loses.

Regards,

Bassam

OumAmir said...

Bassam said, "In Islam, once a slave girl has been captured this automatically annuls her marriage so she is not considered as having a husband anymore. As for the consenting issue, I already addressed it."

Annuls her marriage? WHAT?! According to whom? Where on EARTH is that written?

David Wood said...

Bassam said: "David said that he and I are doing the same thing when it comes to interpreting, but he favors his because he finds it difficult to believe that women could consent to sex under thos circumstances. This is nothing more than a subjective argument that I already refuted."

Do you know what a "subjective argument" is? It's one based on personal feelings, rather than objective facts. It's an objective fact that women don't like having sex with men who slaughter their families and are going to sell them into slavery while their husbands look on helplessly. So my argument isn't subjective at all.

It seems Bassam is still clinging to his claim that Islam doesn't allow Muslims to harm their captives. Guess what, Bassam. You harmed these women when you slaughtered their families. Does this mean that you didn't slaughter their families? You harmed these women when you separated them from their LIVING husbands. Does this mean you didn't separate them from their living husbands? You harmed them when you sold these formerly free women into slavery, in exchange for more weapons. Does this mean you didn't sell them into slavery? So you're obviously allowed to harm these women in various ways. You're also allowed to do all of these things against their will. You're allowed to separate them against their will. You're allowed to sell them into slavery against their will. Why then are you not allowed to have sex with them against their will? Because you're told not to harm them? We've already seen that you're allowed to harm them in various ways.

Thus, your response fails, and fails miserably.

Bassam said: "Either retract that stupid comment of yours or prove it. Show evidence from the Quran or Sunnah that you kill a dhimmi for fixing the roof of the church."

Well, according to the Pact of Umar, Christians weren't allowed to rebuild their churches. According to the conclusion of the pact, if the Christians violated any portion of their agreement, Muslims could treat them as people of defiance and rebellion. How do Muslims treat people of defiance and rebellion? You kill them. Thus, if a Christian were to fix his roof, he would be repairing his church, which would be violating the pact, which would allow the Muslims to kill him. Which part isn't clear, Bassam? (Note: I see you find it absolutely repulsive to think that your religion would allow you to kill a dhimmi over putting a new roof on his church, and yet this is what Islam teaches. You need to quit swimming against the current and go ahead and reject Islam.)

El-Cid said...

ibn said: "In the case of a married man, adultery is when he engages in sexual intercourse with a free woman (other than his wife or wives) and a slave that doesn't belong to him."

If this is an accurate representation of the Islamic definition of adultery, then Islam has a completely morally bankrupt definition of adultery.

Ibn, you should be embarrassed to admit in public that your religion allows a married man to go around fornicating with as many slave women as he owns. So apparently, if a Muslim man own 50 females slaves, he can have 50 sexual partners that are not his wife.

David Wood said...

Don't forget about the other three wives a Muslim is allowed to have (unless the Muslim is Muhammad, in which case he is allowed to have far more, in addition to his slave girls).

karim said...

David, thx for your reply. let me respond to what you said. In your reply to me, you wrote:

_______________________________



I can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting 1 Corinthians or not. I'll simply point out that the passage addresses both men and women. It says "don't deprive one another," not "husbands, don't let your wives deprive you." Thus, the passage is telling women not to deprive their husbands. But the only reason the passage would address women is if women really had a choice. In other words, if women really had no say regarding sex with their husbands, the passage would not address them, since their will wouldn't be an issue. But it does address them, and this presupposes that their will was the deciding factor in whether sex was to take place.

Thus, if this passage were really saying that women cannot refuse their husbands, the passage would be addressed to men, i.e. "men, you have complete sexual authority over your women; don't let them talk back to you." Lo and behold, what do we find in the Qur'an? What do we find in the Hadith? Do we find Muhammad addressing the captives and slave girls, seeking their will? Not at all. The passages address the men, and tell the men that they have the God-given right to have sex with their female captives.


________________________________

reponse

David if you had read my post carefully you would have noticed that i cited Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary in order to demonstrate that i was not misinterpretating the biblical text.

Your argument that the Bible gives woman a right to refuse sex because they too are addressed in the Biblical text [ 1 corinthians 7;1-5 ] is extremely weak, since the only reason why the Bible addresses them both in this passage is because it wants to point out that neither the husband, nor the wife has a right to refuse one's partner request for sexual intercourse. Further they are also both mentioned because the Bible ONLY wants to point out that mutual consent is required in case one of the spouses wants to withhold himself / herself from sex. In other words if a wife wants to withhold herself from sexual intercourse, she needs permission from her husband. If she does not get his permission, it is clear from the biblical text that the husband had a right to demand sex from her. The reverse would also be true. let me again cite Adam Clarke's commentary on 1 corinthians 7:4

_________________________________


Verse 4. The wife hath not power, her husband; her husband's person belongs to her: neither of them has any authority to refuse what the other has a matrimonial right to demand.

source:

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=007&verse=005#1Co7_1

__________________________________


In other words the Bible addresses both husband and wife in this passage [ 1 corinthians 7:1-5 ] in order to show Christians that "...neither of them [ husband or wife ] has any authority to refuse what the other has a matrimonial right to demand ..." . This fact refutes David's argument that the biblical passage in question supports his view that a wife could refuse her husband's request for sex. The text of the biblical passage clearly contradicts David's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.

In addition the Bible nowhere states that a wife's or a husband's consent is needed for sexual intercourse. So according to the logic David Wood and other Christian Missionaries this would indicate that a wife can rape her husband, and that a husband can rape his wife. However as we know a wife can never overpower and rape her husband because she has less physical strenght then him. A husband on the other hand [ due to his superior physical strenght ] can overpower and rape his wife , which according to the logic of David Wood and other Christian Missionaries would be permissible in Christianity, since the Bible nowhere mentions that a wife's consent is needed for sex. Since David does not apply his own logic to the Bible, it is very hypocritical for him and other Christians to demand from Bassam a quranic passage or hadith in which it is said that the consent of slave girl is needed for sexual intercourse.

Further if we apply David's logic to Deuteronomy 21:10-14, it would also turn out that this biblical passage supports rape [ since only men are addressed in this biblical passage about having sex with one's female captive ].

In regards to David's comments on islam, the fact that only men are addressed in texts [ about sexual relationships with female slaves ] does not support his view that men were allowed to rape their slave girls, since these men had to follow the commands of Allah and the Holy Prophet. We already told David before that Muslims were forbidden to harm slave girls. In addition in another hadith we read that Muslims were not allowed to mistreat their slave girls [ Al-Tirmidhi,977 ]. Further the story of Umar ibn al-Khattab stoning a man to death for raping a female prisoner of war shows us that rape of female slaves is forbidden in Islam.

Dk said...

Zaatari as usual you fail to even comprehend what I was telling Zawadi.

1) You thought I believed the topic was on the Quran alone, and somehow I was trying to discourage talking about the Bible

False! I was pointing THE REFERENCES Zawadi provided have nothing to do with the captives of Arab Muslims in the time of Muhammad, and therefore his conclussion was a non-sequitor, at best his conclussion was relevant to Israelite captives and not Arab captives of Muhammads time.

2) You asserted the arguments against Islam sanctioning rape had been nullfied and no where does the Quran or Hadith mention "rape" or "forced sex" while the Bible does.

Creating an arbitrary standard about requiring the word "rape" doesn't nullify anything.

I've been over this already, not answering me and repeating yourself only proves you have no "meaningful response", oh such irony!

Finally, since i've already seen your "youtube videos about atheism", lol, I won't be debating such an ignorant kid on the subject. Maybe I will if you make some progress... wait but I will debate you on the subject:

"IS ALLAH RESPONSIBLE FOR HOMOSEXUALS AND HIV?".

I will also debate you on:

"Is Allah repsonsible for the stupidity of Zaatari and other Muslims?"

My thesis in this debate will be reading the Quran AND believing in it is INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE.

Dk said...

btw to all else, Zawadi didn't respond to me because HE CAN'T.

David Wood said...

Karim,

I still can't figure out whether you're being serious or not.

You say: "David if you had read my post carefully you would have noticed that i cited Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary in order to demonstrate that i was not misinterpretating the biblical text."

(1) Until you quoted him, I had no clue who Adam Clarke was, let alone why I must agree with him as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. (For everyone else unfamiliar with Clarke, he was a British Methodist commentator a couple hundred years ago.)

(2) Clarke said nothing about rape. The part you quoted reads as follows: "The wife hath not power, her husband; her husband's person belongs to her: neither of them has any authority to refuse what the other has a matrimonial right to demand."

Where's the rape part? The problem here is that you're smuggling in a Muslim way of thinking. In Islam, when someone does something, Muslims are quick to kill, or to stone, or to chop off a body part, or to beat, etc. Thus, it makes sense for you to think that if your wife doesn't give you what you want, you rape her. But in Christianity, we generally leave punishments to God and to governments. So we're simply not the sort of people who would say, "My wife isn't having sex with me, so I'll rape her." (Note: If you knew the Bible a little better, you'd know that men are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the church. We're supposed to be ready to die for our wives. The thought of raping them is absurd and horrendous to us. But again, since you come from a Muslim background where women aren't thought of like this, I understand why you're having such difficulties.) By the way, I can't believe you're comparing a man having sex with his wife with a man having sex with a woman whose family just got slaughtered by Muslims. This shows how desperate you are.

So we're left with the facts. The passage you've quoted is addressed to both men and women. If the woman's willingness wasn't required for sex, the passage wouldn't have addressed them. The text presupposes that women were able to withhold themselves from their husbands. If the situation had been otherwise, there would have been no point in addressing the women.

Here's another important point. In Christianity, we're told repeatedly to love our wives and not to be harsh with them. We're never told otherwise. That is, there's never a situation where we're told that we can harm our wives. In Islam, you're told to treat your wives kindly. And yet you're free to beat them. Thus, it's clear that, in Islam, you're used to having exceptions to rules. I can see, then, why you'd assume that it's the same in Christianity. But it isn't.

So when the Hadith tells Muslim women that if their husbands demand sex, they must stop whatever they're doing and go have sex with their husbands, it's understood that there are penalties ready for rebellion. But this just isn't the case in Christianity.

You repeat Bassam's claim that Muslims aren't allowed to harm their slave girls and captives. Yet you ignored my proof that these Hadith don't mean what you're saying they mean. You harmed the women when you killed their families. You harmed them when you took their freedom. You harmed them when you separated them from their living husbands. You harmed them when you sold them to someone else as slaves (after having sex with them). So how on earth can you say that you aren't allowed to harm them by having sex with them, when you know perfectly well that you're allowed to harm them in numerous ways?

Bassam said...

David said: Do you know what a "subjective argument" is? It's one based on personal feelings, rather than objective facts. It's an objective fact that women don't like having sex with men who slaughter their families and are going to sell them into slavery while their husbands look on helplessly. So my argument isn't subjective at all.

No it is not an objective fact. You are not a psychologist who interviewed a slave girl who lived thousands of years ago. You don’t understand their mindset.

A slave girl could have been oppressed by her own tribe and was relieved when they got captured by the Muslims. She could have been initially upset and then felt better due to the good treatment by the Muslims of her. The Muslims could have explained to them why they attacked their tribe (e.g. because they attacked them first or were planning to attack the Muslims) and explain their perspective that their intention is not to cause them harm, but to take care of them after the battle because they have no place to go. All these things could change the mindset of the slave girl and make her feel more comfortable and accepting of the situation, especially since it was something widely accepted during her day and age.

So no, you have no right to say that it is an objective fact for all slave girls to feel this way. Just because women today would say “of course I would hate it and not consent to it”, that is not proof for your position David.

Plus, note your inconsistency. You’re saying that it is inconceivable for a slave girl to consent, thus indirectly stating that rape also took place in the Bible since the slave girls back then wouldn’t have consented.

But if you say that it was possible for those slave girls during the Israelite era to consent, then why can’t we say that it was possible for the slave girls during the Prophet’s era to consent as well?

Double standards David. Double standards. Your arguments are not objective, but subjective and you know it.


It seems Bassam is still clinging to his claim that Islam doesn't allow Muslims to harm their captives. Guess what, Bassam. You harmed these women when you slaughtered their families. Does this mean that you didn't slaughter their families? You harmed these women when you separated them from their LIVING husbands. Does this mean you didn't separate them from their living husbands? You harmed them when you sold these formerly free women into slavery, in exchange for more weapons. Does this mean you didn't sell them into slavery? So you're obviously allowed to harm these women in various ways. You're also allowed to do all of these things against their will. You're allowed to separate them against their will. You're allowed to sell them into slavery against their will. Why then are you not allowed to have sex with them against their will? Because you're told not to harm them? We've already seen that you're allowed to harm them in various ways. Thus, your response fails, and fails miserably.

Again, your desperation becomes more than crystal clear.

First of all, we have evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of separating them, but we have no evidence of him approving of rape, which is what you are supposed to show and still have failed.

Secondly, yes these women got harmed when their tribes were defeated in Battle. But this was not done with the intention of harming the women. The circumstances called for the Muslims to fight this tribe. They weren’t going to stop so that they wouldn’t hurt people’s feelings (also notice your trickery; you knew I was talking about physical harm and you switched it over to emotional harm).

Let’s say David that someone attacked you and you killed the guy in self defense because you had no choice. Now, obviously the mother of the person that you killed will be emotionally scarred. You “harmed” her David. Thus, according to your logic David, Christianity permits you to “harm” people because it permits self defense.

Also, your God was so cruel David. He made Mary the mother of Jesus suffer and get “harmed” for seeing her son (allegedly) go through such excruciating pain on the cross. Why couldn’t your God avoid “harming” innocent and pious people in order to allow us to obtain salvation?

Hopefully now you see how absurd your argument is.

David said: Well, according to the Pact of Umar, Christians weren't allowed to rebuild their churches. According to the conclusion of the pact, if the Christians violated any portion of their agreement, Muslims could treat them as people of defiance and rebellion. How do Muslims treat people of defiance and rebellion? You kill them. Thus, if a Christian were to fix his roof, he would be repairing his church, which would be violating the pact, which would allow the Muslims to kill him. Which part isn't clear, Bassam? (Note: I see you find it absolutely repulsive to think that your religion would allow you to kill a dhimmi over putting a new roof on his church, and yet this is what Islam teaches. You need to quit swimming against the current and go ahead and reject Islam.)

Some points to be mentioned:

- The pact of Jerusalem was originally suggested by Christians. So, the one who actually set such conditions are the Christians themselves although Umar added another two conditions.
- The pact itself is just and it is a contract like any other contract if both sides agree to it then it is valid. No one was forced to accept such a pact especially knowing it was suggested by the Christians themselves.
- Scholars have not said that the pact of Umar is a standard fixed rule to be implemented for all times. It was there for its specific time and purpose. Contracts could be adjusted as deemed fit for the particular situation at hand.

The main point is that the Christians were the ones who set the conditions and the Muslims simply agreed. That doesn’t’ mean that this is an Islamic mandate. That doesn’t mean that every contract that Muslims had with Christians had this condition. There are times where Muslims built churches for Christians.

Refer to my article The Status of Non-Muslims In the Islamic State



Furthermore, breaking a portion of the treaty does not always call for killing. Scholars have said that if someone doesn’t pay jizyah he is not to be killed immediately as you state. You must talk to him first or eventually put him in jail. Thus, the same goes for the “changing the roof of the church”.

Anyways, keep these offside topics for future discussions. Let’s focus on rape.

David said: But in Christianity, we generally leave punishments to God and to governments.

The same for Islam. So show us where Allah said that one can punish his wife with rape if she refused to share the bed with him?

David said: So we're simply not the sort of people who would say, "My wife isn't having sex with me, so I'll rape her." (Note: If you knew the Bible a little better, you'd know that men are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the church. We're supposed to be ready to die for our wives. The thought of raping them is absurd and horrendous to us. But again, since you come from a Muslim background where women aren't thought of like this, I understand why you're having such difficulties.)

Oh my God, I just can’t believe the outright inconsistencies here. Notice how David is arguing that the man is not to rape his wife according to Christianity because of other verses that say that one is not to harm her. He is not showing us where the wife has to give her consent, which is what he demands from Muslims.

Hypocrisy, double standards and inconsistencies indeed.

David said: In Christianity, we're told repeatedly to love our wives and not to be harsh with them. We're never told otherwise. That is, there's never a situation where we're told that we can harm our wives.

What if she is trying to kill you? Don’t say “never” David.


In conclusion, David still loses and hasn’t proven his case objectively.


Kind Regards,

Bassam

Ibn said...

David said: Well, according to the Pact of Umar, Christians weren't allowed to rebuild their churches. According to the conclusion of the pact, if the Christians violated any portion of their agreement, Muslims could treat them as people of defiance and rebellion. How do Muslims treat people of defiance and rebellion? You kill them. Thus, if a Christian were to fix his roof, he would be repairing his church, which would be violating the pact, which would allow the Muslims to kill him. Which part isn't clear, Bassam? (Note: I see you find it absolutely repulsive to think that your religion would allow you to kill a dhimmi over putting a new roof on his church, and yet this is what Islam teaches. You need to quit swimming against the current and go ahead and reject Islam.)

Given that history paints a quite different picture of the early Muslim attitude towards their conquered subjects, the pact of Umar is more likely a forgery.

This is from Daniel Brown's book:

No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690... [According to tradition, Muhammad died in 632. -B.C.]

What did change was the ruling class. The new rulers spoke Arabic, represented a different ethnicity, and kept aloof from their conquered subjects... The new rulers continued to use Greek and Persian in adminstrative documents. They continued to mint Byzantine-style coins complete with the image of the emperor holding a cross, and Sasanian-style coins bearing Zoroastrian symbols and Sasanian dates...

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

David said:

_________________

Clarke said nothing about rape. The part you quoted reads as follows: "The wife hath not power, her husband; her husband's person belongs to her: neither of them has any authority to refuse what the other has a matrimonial right to demand."

Where's the rape part? The problem here is that you're smuggling in a Muslim way of thinking. In Islam, when someone does something, Muslims are quick to kill, or to stone, or to chop off a body part, or to beat, etc. Thus, it makes sense for you to think that if your wife doesn't give you what you want, you rape her. But in Christianity, we generally leave punishments to God and to governments. So we're simply not the sort of people who would say, "My wife isn't having sex with me, so I'll rape her." (Note: If you knew the Bible a little better, you'd know that men are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the church. We're supposed to be ready to die for our wives. The thought of raping them is absurd and horrendous to us. But again, since you come from a Muslim background where women aren't thought of like this, I understand why you're having such difficulties.) By the way, I can't believe you're comparing a man having sex with his wife with a man having sex with a woman whose family just got slaughtered by Muslims. This shows how desperate you are.

So we're left with the facts. The passage you've quoted is addressed to both men and women. If the woman's willingness wasn't required for sex, the passage wouldn't have addressed them. The text presupposes that women were able to withhold themselves from their husbands. If the situation had been otherwise, there would have been no point in addressing the women.


________________________________


I am truly amazed about the fact that a christian who "seems" to study his religion seriously has never heard about Adam Clarke [ whose commentary is posted online on various famous christian websites ]. Further i notice that David completely fails to understand the point that i raise in my posts. All the time i was pointing out to him that according to his logic the Bible allows a husband to rape his wife, since nowhere in the passage is the wife's consent mentioned as a requirement for sex in marriage. Further the text of 1 corinthians 7:1-5 clearly refutes David's interpretation of it, and has the message that neither the husband, nor the wife has the right to refuse the request of the other spouse for sex. Now the question is: "if both spouses do not have the right to refuse the request of the other for sex, does this mean that the husband can force his wife into sex ? " . I pointed out that according to your logic , the answers would be "yes" , since the Bible nowhere mentions that the consent of the wife is a requirement for sex in marriage.

Further i can only laugh about your comments about Islam. As a Muslim i do not belief that Islam permits a husband to rape his wife, contrary the islamic commands refute such teaching. As for your claim that islam allows wife beating, you know very well that a muslim was only allowed to hit his wife with a toothpick in case she was guilty of sexual lewdness ( the face was forbidden to hit ) , such a thing cannot be labeled or viewed as a beating. Further those islamic punishments you mentioned [ like stoning, chopping of a hand ] are related to hudud / criminal punishments, they have nothing to do with marital relationships. The fact that you make a comparison between these two different things, shows us how weak and silly your understanding is. Further doesn't the bible have similar commands ? Doesn't the book of deuteronomy say that a wife's hand should be chopped of, in case she graps another man [ who fights her husband ] in his sensitive area ? Doesn't the bible mention the punishment of stoning too ? Doesn't the bible say that the daughter of a priest who plays the whore should be burned ?

As for you comment that the Bible instructs husbands to love their wives, yes this is true, but how does the Bible define love ? Doesn't the bible also say that those who love their children should not spare the rod ? In the Bible discipline is associated with love:

As many as I love I rebuke and chasten... [ Revelation 3:19 ]

He that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes… [ Proverbs 13:24 ]

Discipline in the Bible is associated with wisdom and understanding:

The rod and reproof give wisdom… [ Proverbs 29:15 ]

Discipline in the Bible is also associatd with peace and righteousness:

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby… [ Hebrew 12:11 ]

Since there is no biblical scripture whatsoever that speaks poorly of discipline, and seeing what good things the Bible tells us come from discipline begs the question: "..How can a biblical man say he loves his wife and not discipline her when needed ?.." The bible surely has a weird definition of love.

Further in the same book of the New Testament in which it is said that a husband should love his wife, it is also said that a wife must obey her husband "in EVERYTHING" [ see Ephesians 5:22-24 ] , if "everything" does not include obedience to her husband's request for sexual intercourse, i really do not know what does ! Further the new testament states the a wife should submit to her husband, in the same way as the church must submit to Christ. Must the church submit to everything Christ commands them ? You know the answer is "yes" , so in the same way must a wife submit to her husband in "everything".

Further you claim that the Bible instructs husbands not to be harsh towards their wives, but does this also apply to wives who disobey their husbands or misbehave ? Now let scripture interprete scripture...Elsewhere in the Bible we read that Paul also tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. In the Book of Revelation Christ makes it clear that one way he loves the church is to discipline her [ for ill behaviour or sins ] , see:

__________________________________

Revelation 3:19

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent

___________________________________


The famous Bible Scholar Mathew Henry comments on this passage:

___________________________________


"Whom I love, I rebuke and chasten. You may think I have given you hard words and severe reproofs; it is all out of love to your souls. I would not have thus openly rebuked and corrected your sinful lukewarmness and vain confidence, if I had not been a lover of your souls; had I hated you, I would have let you alone, to go on in sin till it had been your ruin." Sinners ought to take the rebukes of God's word and rod as tokens of his good-will to their souls, and should accordingly repent in good earnest, and turn to him that smites them; better are the frowns and wounds of a friend than the flattering smiles of an enemy

Source:

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=003&verse=019#Re3_1
___________________________________


In other words since a husband is commanded by Paul to love his wife in the same way as Christ loves the Church, it means that he should also be harsch towards his wife in case she sins or rebels against God's law, because Christ also acted this way towards the church in case it rebelled or sinned. Now doesn't the Bible say that a wife must obey her husband in "everything"? The answer is "yes" . So a wife who refuses to obey her husband's request for sex rebels against the commands of the Bible. Therefore in this situation it is permissible for a husband to be harsch towards his wife and discipline her according to the biblical definition of love


David Wood also stated:

__________________________________

Yet you ignored my proof that these Hadith don't mean what you're saying they mean. You harmed the women when you killed their families. You harmed them when you took their freedom. You harmed them when you separated them from their living husbands. You harmed them when you sold them to someone else as slaves (after having sex with them). So how on earth can you say that you aren't allowed to harm them by having sex with them, when you know perfectly well that you're allowed to harm them in numerous ways?

___________________________________


Response

David earlier i explained to you that the general rule in islam is that one is not allowed to harm others. However one was allowed to harm others as an exception to the general rule in self-defense while fighting one's enemies in a war [ or in cases of hudud punishments ]. The husbands of the women were killed because the Muslims had to defend themselves against them [ the warriors of the enemy tribe ] in war. Further the women were enslaved, because not enslaving these women in ancient times [ after their husbands had been killed in war ] would cause them greater harm, since they could not [ without husband or father ] take care of themselves on their own. In other words if they were not enslaved or given in the possession of a muslim family, they would be forced to become prostitues in order to make a living. Secondly if they were left behind by the Muslims [ after their fathers and husbands had been killed ] they would have no male protection anymore, and would be an easy prey for rapists or other evil people. In other words they were enslaved in order to protect them from a greater harm [ murder and rape by strange men ]. Further the woman who was enslaved, had the right in islam to make a contract with her master about her release [ see Quran 24:33 ]. Further various scholars, like Imam Abu hanifa and Shayk Muhammad Ibn ABdul Wahab have pointed out that is was not permissible for Muslim to seperate a wife from her husband, in case they were captured together by the Muslims, nor was it allowed for a Muslim to have intercourse with a captive woman who was captured together with her husband, and taken with him together to the territory of islam [ see: Ibn Abd. Al-Wahhab, “Kitab al-Jihad” , pp. 368-369 ].

Further why do you not reply to my comments on Deut. 21;10-14. In this passage about sex with a female captive, the bible does not address the captive women, but only the biblical soldiers. According to your logic this would proof that the captive women had no right to refuse the avances of the horney biblical warriors, since they are not addressed in the biblical text. Thus according to your logic the bible sanctions rape in Deut. 21:10-14.

Ibn said...

brother karim:As for you comment that the Bible instructs husbands to love their wives, yes this is true, but how does the Bible define love ?

This is a very relevant question. According to these Christians, God is love. Being love, however, doesn't stop him from "beating" his disobedient followers. Extending this to human affairs, one can argue that just as God can punish his subjects out of love, so can a husband discipline his wife.

This is, in fact, the kind of logic Shamoun relied on to prove that the biblical age of marriage is when a girl hits puberty.

Nakdimon said...

The staggering ignorance of Ibn when he asks "how does the bible define love" when it comes to husband and wofe relationship.

Ibn, free yourself from your Biblical ignorance and read and weep and show us a similar ayah as lofty as the following:

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

So we are to love our wives and cherish nurture them as our own bodies and treat them with respect and consideration, because if we don’t, then our prayers will be of no use.

Nakdimon said...

Oh yes... take all the positive cases in Islamic history. Let's see what the Rambam (which you quoted earlier as an authority) says about your prophet and his adherance. Many Medieval Jewish writers commonly referred to Muhammad as "haMeshugga", the Madman, being "pregnant with connotations":


“Remember, my co-religionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us, as Scripture has forewarned us, 'Our enemies themselves shall judge us' (Deuteronomy 32:31). Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they.... Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put with their fabrications, yet we behaved like him who is depicted by the inspired writer, "But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth." (Psalms 38:14). Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence … All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continued maltreatment which well nigh crushes us. No matter how much we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them, they stir up strife and sedition, as David predicted, "I am all peace, but when I speak, they are for war." (Psalms 120:7). If, therefore, we start trouble and claim power from them absurdly and preposterously we certainly give ourselves up to destruction."

This is someone that was undergoing the treatment himself. A witness to all the attrocities.
Any coments?

Nakdimon

karim said...

Nakdimon, you haven't refuted anything. A husband must love his wife as he loves his own body, but he must also love his wife as Christ loves the church . In the Book of Revelation Christ makes it clear that one way he loves the church is to discipline her. Therefore a husband is allowed to discipline his wife according to the biblical definition of love.

Further the Bible commands a wife "to fear" her husband. Bible scholar Vicent Cheung states:

________________________________

In one place, Paul writes that "the wife must respect her husband" (Ephesians 5:33). The
KJV is slightly stronger and says "reverence." Perhaps this has contributed to the false
teaching that Scripture commands only a respectful or submissive attitude and not also obedience in action and behavior. But the word is "fear" – the same one Peter uses of
slaves when he says to them, "Submit yourselves to your masters with all respect ( fear )" (3:18).


source:

http://www.rmiweb.org/books/firstpeter.pdf [ see p. 119 ]

________________________________


In another christian book: "THE DELIVERANCE MANUAL", by Gene & Earline Moody , it is written:

_________________________________

SHOULD WIVES FEAR THEIR HUSBANDS? - Eph. 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. In this verse, reverence (phobe) means to be terrified, affrighted, afraid. Here is a good verse for you women to ponder; are you reverencing your husband?

source:

http://www.lakehamiltonbiblecamp.com/man/sstudy9.htm

__________________________________


Why are wives commanded to fear their husbands in the Bible ? [ just as slaves in the Bible are commanded to fear their masters ]Why is it said to sinners fear God ? The answer to the last question is "because God has the authority to punish people for ill behaviour and sins". So what does it mean when the Bible tells wives to "fear their husbands" . What do they have to fear ? Do they have to fear their husbands sweet kisses when they disobey him ? If the husband had no right or authority to discipline his wife, the command for wives "to fear their husbands" does not make any sense. In other words various biblical verses confirm that a husband could discipline his wife and / or be harsh towards her.

Islam rejects the teaching that wives are to "fear" their husbands. Allah Most High says in the Qur'an: "..And Fulfill My covenant: i will fulfill your covenant - And fear Me alone .." [ Qur'an 2:40 ]. The last phrase according to Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi: ".. establishes that a human being is obliged to fear no one besides Allah Most High.. " [ Mafatih al-ghayb , 3:42 ]. In other words the biblical teaching that wives are to fear their husbands besides God, is rejected by Islam. The fact that the Bible commands people to fear others besides God, is to me already a proof that the teachings of Christianity are not divine but man made.

Ibn said...

As usual, Nakdimoron responded to my arguments hastily, not really paying attention to what I said.

He quotes Ephesians and 1 Peter as evidence that Christians are required by their false religion to love their wives. Did I ever say Christians are not taught to love their wives? No.

Then he fatuously quotes Maimonides, the same scholar he rejected earlier for supporting rape in the bible. How does quoting Maimonides-who lived in the 12th century-disprove my contention that EARLY Muslim rule was tolerant? Once again, Nakdimon is guilty of attacking a straw man.

As my opponent has expressed a tacit approval of Maimonides' perception of Islam, I wonder if he agrees with the Rabbi's statement regarding Muslim theology:

The Ishmaelites are not at all idolaters; [idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts; and they attribute to God a proper unity, a unity concerning which there is no doubt. And because they lie about us, and falsely attribute to us the statement that God has a son, is no reason for us to lie about them and say that they are idolaters . . . And should anyone say that the house that they honor [the Kaaba] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship, then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven . . . [Regarding] the Ishmaelites today - idolatry has been severed from the mouths of all of them [including] women and children. Their error and foolishness is in other things which cannot be put into writing because of the renegades and wicked among Israel [i.e., apostates]. But as regards the unity of God they have no error at all.

Nakdimon said...

Ibn Shaytan: “He quotes Ephesians and 1 Peter as evidence that Christians are required by their false religion to love their wives. Did I ever say Christians are not taught to love their wives? No.”

Oh boy… Ibn Shaytan has emotional issues. Didn’t Ibn Shaytan ask what the Biblical definition of love was? I merely pointed to Ibn Shaytan that the very text that I showed says how to love our wives.

So Ibn Shaytan, FOCUS on the text!

Ibn Shaytan: “Then he fatuously quotes Maimonides, the same scholar he rejected earlier for supporting rape in the bible. How does quoting Maimonides-who lived in the 12th century-disprove my contention that EARLY Muslim rule was tolerant? Once again, Nakdimon is guilty of attacking a straw man.”

Straw man? Ibn Shaytan, please pay attention. I only quoted the Rambam, because you thought he was some authority. So since you find him an authority, I quoted him. And are you actually saying that Muslims in the twelfth century didn’t live up to Islamic laws and jurisprudents?

Ibn Shaytan: “And because they lie about us, and falsely attribute to us the statement that God has a son, is no reason for us to lie about them and say that they are idolaters”

LOL! This is illustrative of the ignorance of Muslims about what others believe, just as Mo was ignorant about what Jews and Christians believed. Jews supposedly said that “Ezra is the son of Allah”. WHEN? WHERE? WHO?

Your prophet was one ignorant wannabe!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Karim: “Nakdimon, you haven't refuted anything. A husband must love his wife as he loves his own body, but he must also love his wife as Christ loves the church . In the Book of Revelation Christ makes it clear that one way he loves the church is to discipline her. Therefore a husband is allowed to discipline his wife according to the biblical definition of love.”

Obviously you aren’t reading the text I have quoted. We are not to discipline our wives, we are to love them. When Paul tells us to love our wives as the Messiah loved the Church he explains what he means by that. Does he say “discipline her”? NO! He gives the following examples:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church…However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself.

Nothing about beating your wife to a pulp when you FEAR that she might speak her mind or has her own opinion that goes against yours, as the Qur’an teaches. It amazes me that Muslims will go through all that trouble to downplay all the inhumane rulings of the Qur’an but will criticize and twist the beautiful New Testament teachings such as found in Ephesians 5 and try to make them as inhumane as those of the Qur’an.

Nakdimon

Ibn said...

Nakdimoron:Oh boy… Ibn Shaytan has emotional issues. Didn’t Ibn Shaytan ask what the Biblical definition of love was?

No, I didn't ask for the biblical definition of love. Karim did and I quoted him saying that. Like the true idiot that you are, you didn't bother to properly read my post.

Nakdimon:Straw man? Ibn Shaytan, please pay attention. I only quoted the Rambam, because you thought he was some authority. So since you find him an authority, I quoted him. And are you actually saying that Muslims in the twelfth century didn’t live up to Islamic laws and jurisprudents?

I argued that early Muslim rule was tolerant. Instead of dealing with that, you bring up Maimonides' statement regarding the persecution
Jews suffered at the hands of the AlMohad rulers (12th century). By no means were the AlMohad early Muslim rulers.
Next, you attempt to divert the topic even further by inquiring as to whether later Muslim rule lived up to Islamic laws and jurisprudence. Are you that desperate?

Nakdimoron:LOL! This is illustrative of the ignorance of Muslims about what others believe, just as Mo was ignorant about what Jews and Christians believed. Jews supposedly said that “Ezra is the son of Allah”. WHEN? WHERE? WHO?

A section from among the Medinan Jews did, you Messianic joke. As usual, you couldn't be bothered to read history (or apply your logical skills, assuming you have any).

Nakdimoron:Nothing about beating your wife to a pulp when you FEAR that she might speak her mind or has her own opinion that goes against yours, as the Qur’an teaches. It amazes me that Muslims will go through all that trouble to downplay all the inhumane rulings of the Qur’an but will criticize and twist the beautiful New Testament teachings such as found in Ephesians 5 and try to make them as inhumane as those of the Qur’an.

You don't know what an argument from analogy is, do you?

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: “No, I didn't ask for the biblical definition of love. Karim did and I quoted him saying that. Like the true idiot that you are, you didn't bother to properly read my post.”

Yes indeed, people misread others frequently. I guess Ibn is inerrant. But in any case, you thought that it was a relevant question and failed to answer it properly.

Ibn: “I argued that early Muslim rule was tolerant. Instead of dealing with that, you bring up Maimonides' statement regarding the persecution
Jews suffered at the hands of the AlMohad rulers (12th century). By no means were the AlMohad early Muslim rulers.”


I have seen how tolerant your earliest source on Islam is in Ibn Ishaq. But, of course, you throw Ibn Ishaq under the bus because you don’t like what he is saying about your demon possessed and rapist prophet, who also tortured a man for money. And therefore, completely in Islamic style, you claim that “al mohad” weren’t Muslim rulers. I bet you have no interest in anything that Ibn Warraq wrote about Islamic history, do you? The quote that I placed were from the book “The Jews of Arab lands. A History and Source Book” by Norman Stillman. But Arab countries where those Jews lived in weren’t Islamic by the 12th century, were they?

Ibn: ” Next, you attempt to divert the topic even further by inquiring as to whether later Muslim rule lived up to Islamic laws and jurisprudence. Are you that desperate?”

Never diverted the topic, just countering with an argument based on your diversion. But since you are reluctant, AGAIN, to answer me, it’s clear where the truth lies.


Ibn: “A section from among the Medinan Jews did, you Messianic joke. As usual, you couldn't be bothered to read history (or apply your logical skills, assuming you have any).”


What History are you talking about? Islamic history? You mean that history that people were making stuff up left and right in order to get the Islamic data on par with true historical facts? Have YOU read Jewish history? I have and there is NOTHING AT ANY POINT IN TIME when Jews supposedly believed that Ezra is the son of God. If you have the source, SHOW ME. Quit making statements without backing them up.

You Muzzies always make claims but when you are asked to provide the proof you chase tail! You entire Islam is the JOKE here buddy, since it grossly mistakes Jewish and Christian teachings. Although Jews and Christians have never believed what the Qur’an ascribes to them, you go “Duh… well…. If the Qur’an says they believe that, then the do, no matter if they have or haven’t believed it!” Your idols, both Allah and Muhammad, were totally ignorant of what we believe or have ever believed. To illustrate, let me ask you some questions and if you can’t answer, then my point is established and your Islam is a fraud. And I would like to see sources for your claims:

1 When did Jews believe that Ezra is the son of God?

2 When did Christians ever have a quiblah?

3 Why does the Qur’an always mention Mary when it attacks the Christian beliefs of God? (Remember! The Qur’an doesn’t say this is a fringe group, it says Christians in general!)

4 When did God even reveal to Israel that when one kills a man it’s as if he killed the entire world?

5 When did Jews ever believe that only Jews will enter Paradise?


Mistakes in the Qur’an about biblical characters:

1 According to the Qur’an Moses claimed that there were kings and prophets raised in Israel. Please provide at least 2 prophets and 2 kings.

2 The Qur’an claims that Miryam, the mother of Yeshua, is the daughter of Amram and the sister of Aharon. Historically they are centuries removed. The only Miryam that is the daughter of Amram and sister of Aharon is the Miryam of the Exodus. This is clearly a mix up.

3 How is Miryam, the mother of Yeshua, the daughter of Amram and the sister of Aharon, when she is from the tribe of JUDAH and NOT from LEVI, as are Amram and his descendants.

And the list goes on and on and on and on… Face it, your prophet was an ignoramus. And so was your god Allah.

If there is no meaningful response from your part, then this will be my last response to you.

Nakdimon

Ibn said...

Nakdimoron:Yes indeed, people misread others frequently. I guess Ibn is inerrant. But in any case, you thought that it was a relevant question and failed to answer it properly.

How so? Man should love his wive as Christ loves his church. If Christ can chasten his church despite his love, so can a man. The argument from analogy is works flawlessly here.

Nakdimoron:I have seen how tolerant your earliest source on Islam is in Ibn Ishaq. But, of course, you throw Ibn Ishaq under the bus because you don’t like what he is saying about your demon possessed and rapist prophet, who also tortured a man for money.

That's an ad hominem of the circumstantial kind.

Nakdimoron:And therefore, completely in Islamic style, you claim that “al mohad” weren’t Muslim rulers.

Straw man. I never said the Al Mohad weren't Muslim rulers.

Nakdimoron:I bet you have no interest in anything that Ibn Warraq wrote about Islamic history, do you?

Red Herring.


Nakdimon: The quote that I placed were from the book “The Jews of Arab lands. A History and Source Book” by Norman Stillman. But Arab countries where those Jews lived in weren’t Islamic by the 12th century, were they?

Another red herring. My contention is about early Muslim rule, not how the rulers conducted themselves in the 12th century.

Nakdimoron:What History are you talking about? Islamic history? You mean that history that people were making stuff up left and right in order to get the Islamic data on par with true historical facts? Have YOU read Jewish history? I have and there is NOTHING AT ANY POINT IN TIME when Jews supposedly believed that Ezra is the son of God. If you have the source, SHOW ME. Quit making statements without backing them up.

Genetic fallacy. It is ironic how earlier, you chided me for not accepting Ibn Ishaq's accounts; Yet, here, you yourself suspect history as preserved in Islamic sources.

The Medinan Jews, in general, were Arab converts to Judaism who were so unorthodox in their beliefs as to be scarcely distinguishable from their pagan counterparts. Hence, it is not at all improbable that they worshiped Ezra as the Son of God.

Nakdimoron:You Muzzies always make claims but when you are asked to provide the proof you chase tail! You entire Islam is the JOKE here buddy, since it grossly mistakes Jewish and Christian teachings. Although Jews and Christians have never believed what the Qur’an ascribes to them, you go “Duh… well…. If the Qur’an says they believe that, then the do, no matter if they have or haven’t believed it!” Your idols, both Allah and Muhammad, were totally ignorant of what we believe or have ever believed. To illustrate, let me ask you some questions and if you can’t answer, then my point is established and your Islam is a fraud. And I would like to see sources for your claims:

Big words from an illiterate buffoon! Oh, I'm having the time of my life!

I joined this forum as a defender of Islam, expecting to debate formidable opponents while simultaneously enhancing my dialectical experience. And what do I get? The likes of Nakdimoron! Heck, even Wood is pathetic.

Nakdimoron:1 When did Jews believe that Ezra is the son of God? 2 When did Christians ever have a quiblah? 3 Why does the Qur’an always mention Mary when it attacks the Christian beliefs of God? (Remember! The Qur’an doesn’t say this is a fringe group, it says Christians in general!)4 When did God even reveal to Israel that when one kills a man it’s as if he killed the entire world? 5. When did Jews ever believe that only Jews will enter Paradise?

I'll answer you as soon as you explain to me what your questions have to do with rape which is what this thread is all about.

See this is the problem with you. You can't stay on topic.

El-Cid said...

Karim said: "As for your claim that islam allows wife beating, you know very well that a muslim was only allowed to hit his wife with a toothpick in case she was guilty of sexual lewdness.."

Oh dear Lord!...not the "beat her with a toothpick" line!

"Here honey...I know I just caught you making out with the neighbor, so now I'm going to give you a gentle pounding with this tiny splinter of wood. Let that be a lesson for you, and see that you never do it again."

Nakdimon said...

HOW ON EARTH DO YOU HIT SOMEONE WITH A TOOTHPICK???

ben malik said...

I just want to add one comment to Karim (a.k.a. Usman Sheikh) since he managed to help us find a contradiction to the Quran. He quoted the following:

"..And Fulfill My covenant: i will fulfill your covenant - And fear Me alone .." [ Qur'an 2:40 ]. The last phrase according to Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi: ".. establishes that a human being is obliged to fear no one besides Allah Most High.. " [ Mafatih al-ghayb , 3:42 ].

And let me add the verse that follows right after:

And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone (faittaqooni). S. 2:41

The problem is that the Quran says that Muslims are to fear Allah AND THE WOMBS:

Mankind, fear your Lord (ittaqoo rabbakumu), who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them scattered abroad many men and women; and fear God (wa ittaqoo Allaha) by whom you demand one of another, and the wombs (wa al-arhama); surely God ever watches over you. S. 4:1 Arberry

Y. Ali translates it this way:

O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women; - reverence God, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for God ever watches over you. Y. Ali

So Muslims must equally fear or revere both Allah and the women who bore them, which makes them equal to Allah!

I just want to say thanks, Karim, for managing to provide further evidence that the Quran is filled with contradictions and that Muslims don't really worship Allah alone.

There is no need for me to address the rest of his nonsense and desperate spins of the Holy Bible since the brothers such as Nakdimon are doing a fine job of refuting his misinterpretations of the Scriptures.

karim said...

Nakdimon said earlier:

___________________________________



Obviously you aren’t reading the text I have quoted. We are not to discipline our wives, we are to love them. When Paul tells us to love our wives as the Messiah loved the Church he explains what he means by that. Does he say “discipline her”? NO! He gives the following examples:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church…However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself.

Nothing about beating your wife to a pulp when you FEAR that she might speak her mind or has her own opinion that goes against yours, as the Qur’an teaches. It amazes me that Muslims will go through all that trouble to downplay all the inhumane rulings of the Qur’an but will criticize and twist the beautiful New Testament teachings such as found in Ephesians 5 and try to make them as inhumane as those of the Qur’an.



_______________________________

response

You haven't refute my points, plus you read the text not properly of Ephesians. Pauls instructs husbands to love their wives as christ loved the church. As we know Christ loved his church in various ways. The command for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church clearly indicates that husbands must imitate Christ in every various way that he loved his churh. Paul next only gives one example of Christ's love for his church . After giving one example Paul states "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives" , the fact that a husband is instructed to imitate christ in this example, does not mean or indicate that husbands were not commanded to follow all the other various ways of how Christ loved his church. The command to "love your wife as christ loved the church" clearly refers to all the various ways of how Christ loved his church, and one way he did love his Church was by physical discipline of its members [ See Revelation 3:19 ] .

Further In Ephesians 5, Paul also pointed out that the authority of a husband over his wife, is the same authority as Christ has over his Church. Question: "Has Christ the authority to discipline his church with the rod ? The answer is a clear "yes" . if the authority of the husband over his wife, is the same as the authority of Christ over his church, then clearly a husband in the Bible is given the authority to hit and discipline his wife. Because a husband [ according to the Bible ] has authority over his wife, in the same way as Christ has authority over his church, Paul commands wives to obey their husbands in everything [ since the church has to obey Christ also in everything ] ! Further both Peter and Paul commanded wives to fear their husbands [ just as a slave in the Bible was commanded to fear his master ] . In my post earlier i proved that the greek word used in the verse by Paul means "fear" and not respect. If a husband was not allowed to beat or discipline his wife in the Bible, then why would Paul command wives to "fear" their husbands ? Did they had to fear their husbands sweet kisses and hugs ? off course not ! The fact that paul commands wives to fear their husbands, clearly again confirms that the Bible permits a husband to beat his wife, without any restricitons ! I challenge you to show me where the Bible says "do not beat your wife" or "do not beat her in the face" , or "only hit her lightly". I can tell you that the Bible does not have such verses, therefore the Bible does not care for women that much, not a single verse prohibits wife beating or discusses ancient problem [ why: was it not important enough for the biblical Lord to lay restrictions on men in regards to this issue ? ] , on the contrary the verses of the Bible clearly show it is permitted without any restrictions. According to the biblical definition of love, physical discipline is part of love. The Bible is surely a weird book, and clearly man made.

ma salam

karim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
karim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ben malik said...

Karim (Usman Sheikh), stop being desperate and turn to commentaries (which is all you can do) when the text of the Arabic is clear and in front of you:

Mankind, fear your Lord (ittaqoo rabbakumu), who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them scattered abroad many men and women; and fear God (wa ittaqoo Allaha) by whom you demand one of another, and the wombs (wa al-arhama); surely God ever watches over you. S. 4:1 Arberry

There is no word for heed in the passage. The verse plainly says that you must fear Allah AND the wombs so my point stands uncontested. Since you like commentaries so much here are a couple for you to deal with. The first is from al-Jalalayn:

O people, of Mecca, fear your Lord, that is, His punishment by being obedient to Him, Who created you of a single soul, Adam, and from it created its mate, Eve (Hawwā’), from one of his left ribs, and from the pair of them, Adam and Eve, scattered, separated and spread, many men and, many, women; and fear God by whom you claim [your rights] from one another (tassā’alūna: the original tā’ [of tatasā’alūna] has been assimilated with the sīn; a variant reading has tasā’alūna), so that one of you says to the other, ‘I ask you, by God…’, or ‘For God’s sake…’; AND, FEAR, KINSHIP TIES, lest you sever them (a variant reading [of wa’l-arhāma, ‘and kinship ties’] is wa’l-arhāmi, as a supplement to the pronoun contained in bihi [sc. God]). They used to implore one another by ties of kinship. Surely God has been watchful over you, heedful of your deeds, for which He will requite you, that is to say, He is ever possessed of such an attribute. (http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)

And this comes from Ibn Kathir:

(1. O mankind! Have Taqwa of your Lord, Who created you from a single person, and from him He created his mate, and from them both He created many men and women, and have Taqwa of Allah through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and REVERE the wombs. Surely, Allah is always watching over you.)(http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10367)

(And have Taqwa of Allah through Whom you demand your mutual (rights) and REVERE the wombs), protect yourself from Allah by your acts of obedience to Him. Allah's statement,

[الَّذِى تَسَآءَلُونَ بِهِ]

(through Whom you demand your mutual (rights)), is in reference to when some people say, "I ask you by Allah, and then by the relation of the Rahim (the womb, i.e. my relationship to you)'', according to Ibrahim, Mujahid and Al-Hasan. Ad-Dahhak said; "Fear Allah Whom you invoke when you conduct transactions and contracts.'' "And REVERE the womb by not cutting the relations of the womb, but keep and honor them, as Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi`, and others have stated. (http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10383)

Don't ever try to pull that stunt again. And you need to just face the fact that you Muslims are not monotheists but polytheists that have been deceived into thinking that you are.

karim said...

In reply to Ben Malik [ aka Sam Shamoun ] , i would like to say, check the orginal Arabic of Quranic verse 4:1, the word fear is not mentioned before the expression [ "the wombs" ], even Yusuf ALi Himself puts the word "reference" in brackets , meaning he adds it to the verse, because it is "his" interpretation of the verse and its meaning.

However Maududi translated the verse more accurately as:

_______________________________

(4:1) O men! Fear your Lord Who created you from a single being and out of it created its mate; and out of the two spread many men and women. Fear Allah in Whose name you plead for rights, and heed the ties of kinship. Surely, Allah is ever watchful over you.

[ See Maududi, Tafheem-ul-Quran, English translation ]
________________________________


The next English translation of the Holy Qur'an [ "The Majestic Qur'an: An English Rendition Of Its Meanings"] , which is regarded by Shayk Hamza Yusuf as one of the best English Translations of the Holy Qur'an translates the passage [ 4;1 ] as:

__________________________________

Qur'an 4:1

O Mankind ! [ Fear your Lord ] WHo created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate and from the two of them spread about a multitude of men and women. Fear Allah by Whom you claim [ your mutual rights ] , and [ preserve the ties of ] the wombs. [ 179 ] Allah is watching over you.


[ Note ] 179: As in many passages of the Qur'an, an order to preserve the bonds of kinship follows the order to fear Allah , emphasizing its importance.

Source: “The Majestic Qur’an: An English rendition of its
Meanings” , The Nawawi Foundation ( Chicago ) & The Ibn Khaldun Foundation ( London ) , 2000 , p. 77 ]
___________________________________

The argument that Muslims are also commanded to fear their Wombs [ the women who bore them ] is based on "personal" interpretations of text, but not on the literal text of the Qur'an . Therefore one cannot proof or argue here that this verse contradicts verse 2:40, since the text of verse 4;1 can be interpretated in various ways.

ben malik said...

By reposting the same mistaken post you simply establish the validity of my argument and therefore Muslims are commanded to commit shirk by fearing Allah AND the wombs.

So once again I want to thank you Karim (Usman Sheikh) for demonstrating to us that a) the Quran contradicts itself as my one example conclusively demonstrated, that b) it promotes shirk or idolatry, and that c) it is not in clear Arabic but is written in a mish-mash style.

So much for the Quran being a clear book. Hahaha!

Nakdimon said...

Isn’t it amazing that Karim desperately looks for anything that so much as hints to domestic violence when it comes to the NT, but when it comes to the Quran he goes out of his way to find anything to soften the references that say that men can beat their wives. He even tries to make a case for “hitting with a toothpick”, however nonsensical that might be. HOW DO YOU "HIT" SOMEONE WITH A TOOTHPICK? The Muslims back then didn't even know what a toothpick was if you would show them one!


Look at the language that Paul uses to describe the attitude of the man to the woman:

love your wives, just as Christ loved the church AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER
IN THIS SAME WAY, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies…
He who loves his wife LOVES HIMSELF
no one ever hated his own body, BUT HE FEEDS AND CARES FOR IT, just as Christ does the church…
However, each one of you also must love his wife AS HE LOVES HIMSELF

Had Paul meant that we should be as Christ in every way, he would have said it. But Paul gives us specific examples over and over again of what he means when he says what he says. Yet you somehow think that it doesn’t matter if Paul is specific and explains himself and you add your own twisted Qur’anic view into the text, trying to impute on Paul what he never said. I know that Muslims claim that Christianity was supposed to be Islam but got corrupted into Christianity, but this is just ridiculous: stop trying to insert Islamic teachings into the New Testament! We are not allowed to beat our wives.

And then you try to, again, insert Islamic teachings into the letters of Paul by claiming that the wife should “be afraid” of her husband, lest he beats her to a pulp, just like in Islam. Sorry, Karim, but the word in the text doesn’t just mean to be scared. It also means “to revere”, as in “be in awe”. Just as in Acts 10:2 and 10:22 Cornelius wasn’t “scared” to get a beating from God, but was in awe of God. Just as in Colossians 3:22 doesn’t say that we should be afraid of God, but to demonstrate to be in awe through obedience to God. It has nothing to do with fearing a beating. But just as the man has to show ultimate love to his wife (like Christ who gave himself for the Church), the wife should have ultimate obedience to the husband (just like the Church is to show ultimate obedience to Christ). You stand corrected!

And then you claim that your twisted views of this passage shows that the Bible doesn’t care for women. At least Paul doesn’t say that women are STUPID and have half the intelligence of a man, or that they are deficient to men in religion. You go ahead and try to soften that to make your prophet look good. LOL!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

another thing. Ben Malik brings up a good point about the so-called "clarity" of the Qur'an. if the text is so clear and literary unprecedented, then why all those texts in parentheses? The Qur’an is a religious text with the single most text in parentheses I have ever encountered. As if the translators are scared that the text will be misunderstood. Or that the text just makes no sense without the text in brackets.

Nakdimon

Ibn said...

What exactly is the contradiction? If I fear Allah, that naturally translates into a fear of violating his regulations.

karim said...

Nakdimon, you obviously do not understand why it is said to people "fear God" ? Why do we fear God ? Because we know God will be displeased if we sin, and he can punish us for our sins and wrong doings, so thats why believers "fear" God. Acts 10:22 only states that Cornelius was a man who feared God , Act 10:2 also only states that a devout man "fears" God [ i.e. he his pious, avoids sin because he fears God's power to punish him for his wrong doings, if God had no power to discipline us for our sins, we would have almost nothing to fear buddy ]. Col 3:22 also only states that slaves need to fear God. I think i need to remind you of a comment i cited earlier in regards to paul's command to wives to fear their husbands:

__________________________________

Bible scholar Vincent Cheung states:

In one place, Paul writes that "the wife must respect her husband" (Ephesians 5:33). The
KJV is slightly stronger and says "reverence." Perhaps this has contributed to the false
teaching that Scripture commands only a respectful or submissive attitude and not also obedience in action and behavior. But the word is "fear" – the same one Peter uses of
slaves when he says to them, "Submit yourselves to your masters with all respect ( fear )" (3:18).


source:

http://www.rmiweb.org/books/firstpeter.pdf [ see p. 119 ]

________________________________


More proof to show that the Greek word "phebeo" in Ephesians refers to true "fear" and not only respect, is the usage of the word in Mat 2;22 ,see:

___________________________________


But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid [ phebeo ] to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee

___________________________________


Do we need to say more ? Why would Paul tell wives to "fear" their husbands, if they did not had the authority to discipline them physical ! Didn't Paul also clearly say that the authority of a husband over his wife, is the same as the authority Christ has over his Church ? We all know that Christ has the authority to punish his church physical, if christ has the husband must have also ! Do you think it is a coincidence that Paul instructs wives to "fear" their husbands in the same passage in which he states that the authority of a husband over his wife, is the same authority as Christ has over his Church ? You ignore these facts, cause they don't suit you buddy. I only interprete scripture by scripture. I do not inject islamic teachings into Christianity, cause islam doesn't command wives to "fear" their husbands, nor does Islam command men to physical abuse their wives. In Islam hard beating one's wife, or hitting one's wife in the face are strict forbidden acts . You laugh about islamic rules and say that Muslims back then didn't knew about the toothpick, you obviously didn't know that i was referring to the Arabic siwak [ a small soft tiny stick, which was used back then to clean one;s teeth with ].

Another request, can you tell me Nakdimon where the Bible prohibits beating one's wife in the face, as Islam does. Can you show me Nakdimon where the bible states that a wife may not be hit hard or brutal, as prophet Muhammad said in his farewell speech ? Just show me where the Bible prohibits these cruel acts, which Islam Forbids ! So you are wrong in saying that i inject islamic teachings into your bible, i clearly do not. You should also realize Nakdimon, that Paul largely preached his message to the Greeks and Romans, check history books and discover that wife beating was very common in ancient greek societies and Rome, and a wide spread practise. So why did Paul not prohibit this practice, when he preached his message towards them ? Paul obviously didn't want to abolish that cruel practise, nor did he put any restrictions on it, shame on paul and your bible.

Nakdimon further stated:

__________________________________

At least Paul doesn’t say that women are STUPID and have half the intelligence of a man, or that they are deficient to men in religion. You go ahead and try to soften that to make your prophet look good. LOL!

__________________________________

response

The prophet never called women stupid, that argument of yours is all based on a wrong interpretation of a hadith in sahih bukhari & Muslim, which is adressed here:

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/f/Are_women_deficient_in_intelligence.pdf

In the above paperwork your claim is refuted. Further it was not Islam that called women less intelligent then men, but Paul in the Bible !, see:

http://islamic-answers.com/biblical_view_on_a_woman_s_intellect

I know truth is hard sometimes man, you attack Islam for things which it does not teach, but your own bible does teach !

ben malik said...

I guess Karim (Usman Sheikh) doesn't understand that reposting the same commentaries over and over again doesn't prove his position, but simply shows that he is incapable of doing exegesis for himself or rebutting the points which his opponents bring in response against him. He doesn't understand that words are to be defined within their contexts. His root-word fallacy only shows that he has no clue how do discover meaning of words so he needs to resort to word studies.

Women are to show reverence to their husbands in the sense of showing respect to the authority that husbands have been given over them. They are not reverence them in the way they reverence God.

In order to help Usman Sheikh (a.k.a. Karim) to understand this point I quoted surah 4:1 where Muslsims are told to fear both Allah the wombs. The same Arabic word governs both words and both Allah and the wombs are conjoined by the Arabic conjunction wa ("and") showing that Muslims must fear both equally. So there is no way for him to get out of this, except by ognoring all these points and reposting his commentaries over and over again.

Therefore, Muslims are commanded to worship Allah and their relatives, since this is how the Muslim commnetaries explained the meaning of wombs in this text, which means that they are polyhteist.

Karim will NEVER find a similar construction from Paul. He will not find Paul commanding Christians to revere or fear God and husbands, or God and wives, or God and masters. But this is what Muhammad commanded in his incoherent, mishmash "miracle."

Moreover, Muhammad did call women stupid when he claimed that they were deficient in intelligence and that it required two women to equal the testimony of one man:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) on ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that THE MAJORITY of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion THAN YOU. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WOMEN EQUAL TO THE WITNESS OF ONE MAN?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301; see also Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/006.sbt.html)

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCY OF A WOMAN’S MIND." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/048.sbt.html)

Here we have Muhammad's "inspired" commentary of surah 2:282 where his mishmash book says that two women are required to testify in the case of business transactions. Please notice that the reason why Muhammad said two women were needed is because they are deficient intellectually. He didn't explain it the way some desperate Muslims like Karim explain it, so don't try to pull any games with us, Usman Sheikh. Your prophet's words are clear, being the supposed master of eloquence.

So I challenge Usman Sheikh TO PLEASE quote something similar from the Holy Bible which insults women like this deceiver whom you believe is God's mercy to mankind did.

karim said...

Lol, ben malik you copy stuff that is refuted already in the links i posted in my previous post, you should better worry about the fact that Paul viewed women less intelligent then man, thats why he forabde them to teach men, "because Eve was deceived, Not Adam" , can it get any clearer. Further the commentaries i cited refuted you weak argument that paul only commanded husbands to respect their husbands or "revere" , the meaning is "fear" , just as Peter commanded slaves to fear their masters. Were masters in the bible not allowed to beat their slaves, hmm so what does "fear your masters" mean and "fear your husbands".

karim said...

Further Ben Malik, your translation of the hadith in Sahih Bukhari is not very accurate, it's all adressed in the link i posted.

Bassam said...

It's funny how Shamoun keeps accusing Karim, who is Karim the owner of www.islamic-answers.com and ex-write of answering-christianity of being Usman Sheikh.

Usman Sheikh does not engage in these kinds of topics. His specialty is on historical issues of Christianity and Islam. Shamoun thinks that everyone is a snake like him who likes to pretend that they are someone else.


Imam Al Zamakhshari in his commentary Al Kashaaf here and Abu Hayyan in his commentary Al Bahr Al Muheet here have argued that the Arabic structure easily allows for the Arabic verse to read "And fear Allah who He and the wombs you implore others with". This means that you implore others with Allah and the wombs, not fear Allah and the wombs. The Arabic easily calls for that.

I would also like to bring to everyone's attention that certain Qur'anic commentators are known for certain specialties (e.g. Imam Al Tabari is known for collecting all the narrations on a certain topic), and Imam Al Zamakhshari and Abu Hayyan are known for their expertise in the Arabic language.

Secondly, even if the word "fear" was referred to the "wombs", it means that one has fear of disobeying his mother in order to avoid being severely punished.

Even Shamoun supports this with his citation of Jalalayn and ibn Kathir.

Jalalayn said "AND, FEAR, KINSHIP TIES".

Notice that Jalalayn didn't say "fear your mothers equally like Allah" like Shamoun the liar and deceiver said. Jalalayn is stressing on the importance of kinship ties and how we should fear breaking them.

Ibn Kathir states "and REVERE the wombs"

This obviously can't be understood literally. We are not being asked to fear the woman's private parts. Ibn Kathir understood this verse just like how the other commentators did.

Not a single Muslim in history has understood this verse to say that one must fear Allah and his mother equally. Why is that so? Why is the only and first person to say this an ignoramus buffoon who hates Islam and clearly has an agenda against and doesn't know Arabic and comes 1400 years later?

loooooooool.


Regards,

Bassam

karim said...

Djazakallah brother Bassam for your input. let's get back to Ben Malik [ Sam Shamoun ] who wrote:

_________________________________



So I challenge Usman Sheikh TO PLEASE quote something similar from the Holy Bible which insults women


__________________________________


First i am not Usman Sheik, but karim. Second the Bible is a book full of insults towards women, i shall give you one example, see:

__________________________________

Lamentations 1:8-17

Jerusalem hath "grievously sinned" ; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward. Her filthiness [is] in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified [himself]. The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things: for she hath seen [that] the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation. All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their pleasant things for meat to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile. [Is it] nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD hath afflicted [me] in the day of his fierce anger. From above hath he sent fire into my bones, and it prevaileth against them: he hath spread a net for my feet, he hath turned me back: he hath made me desolate [and] faint all the day. The yoke of my transgressions is bound by his hand: they are wreathed, [and] come up upon my neck: he hath made my strength to fall, the Lord hath delivered me into [their] hands, [from whom] I am not able to rise up. The Lord hath trodden under foot all my mighty [men] in the midst of me: he hath called an assembly against me to crush my young men: the Lord hath trodden the virgin, the daughter of Judah, [as] in a winepress. For these [things] I weep; mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water, because the comforter that should relieve my soul is far from me: my children are desolate, because the enemy prevailed. Zion spreadeth forth her hands, [and there is] none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, [that] his adversaries [should be] round about him: Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them.
___________________________________


Notice how the sinful city of Jerusalem is described as a menstruous woman ! Naomi Greatz comments:

__________________________________

Why do the prophets and rabbis need such myths and metaphors to depict their relationships with God ? What is gained by blaming the people for their female weaknesses ? ... The Prophets condemn men and use female sexuality to represent male sin, which humiliates them, by placing them in the inferior female position.


source: Naomi Graetz, "Jerusalem the Widown" , Shofar, Winter 1999
__________________________________


In the Bible women are viewed as less intelligent then man, see:

_________________________________

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [1 Timothy 2:14-15 ]
__________________________________


Professor of the New Testament ,Ralph Earle in his commentary writes:

__________________________________

It was the woman who was deceived by Satan and who disobeyed God. Since she was so easily deceived, she should not be trusted as a teacher

source:

Ralph Earle , Expositor's Commentary, p. 362, Vol. 11, 1 Timothy [ Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI. 1978 ]
__________________________________


Cornelius a Lapide comments on 1 Timothy 2:14-15 :

__________________________________

This means: woman must remain silent and learn, that is not teach , and be subject to her husband, because the man excels her, first because of the dignity of being the first creation: for Adam was created first, then Eve from Adam; secondly because of the strength of his intelligence. For Eve allowed herself to be seduced so easily and imprudently, but not Adam. Chrysostom said the same thing, noting that, following the example of the first woman Eve, all women are here implicitly accused of imprudence and levity. Therefore Primasius teaches beautifully: "The Apostle teaches that women must be subject to their husbands because they are second in hierarchical order, but first in guilt"......... This means that Paul is saying the following: One - Woman, as having been seduced by the Serpent, is inferior to man in reason and prudence, and should be subject to him. Two - Therefore God also rightly subjected her to her husband as a punishment for her sin through which she had enticed the man to sin. And, as Chrysostom and Oecumenius point out, on this one occasion a woman taught badly and corrupted the man and everything else, therefore she should not teach any more, but be silent, and learn from man to speak well and act well

source:

Cornelius A Lapide: "Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram" [ Paris, 1891] , vol. 19, pp. 205-206
___________________________________


Do we need to say more ?

ben malik said...

Hey the wannabe apologist who continues to pretend to be defending Muhammad but who actually manages to help Christians see why one has to be irrational, devoid of any logic, to become a Muhammadan chimes in!

Bassam, let me play your game and dance with you since you have become like Naik, one of Islam's greatest magiciains and tricksters. Here is your own translation from al-Zamakhari:

"And fear Allah who He AND THE WOMBS you implore others with".

Boy that sure agrees with what I have been saying, that you fear Allah AND THE WOMBS.

Secondly, of course Muslim scholars wouldn't interpret it the way the Arabic actually reads but found ways to explain the mistakes that Allah and his messenger constantly made in the most eloquent Arabic book of all. They were smarter than Muhammad and his Allah since they could see that this verse is commanding Muslims to fear both Allah and the wombs equally. But they remembered that Muhammad was supposed to be a monotheist who got rid of all his paganism and idol worship so they couldn't agree that this command exposes you monotheists wannabes for what you are, idol-kissing pagans who are duped into thinking they worship one God. They had to come out with some reasons to distort the perspicuous Arabic Quran and masquerade that as exegesis in order to oull a fast one over Muslims who will buy any lie such as yourself.

So thanks for proving nothing except for wasting everyone's time with your reply. And if you have guts I can arrange a debate with Shamoun that snake so you can dazzle him with your logic and replies. I am sure you have the intelligence which the author of the Quran lacked to expose Shamoun the snake. Hahaha

Just remember that the real snake is the one who spoke and controlled your prophet and made him think he was having sex with all those women and duped him into praising the goddesses of the pagans. It is the same snake who authored the Quran and who the Bible says will end up in hell. His most famous name is Satan, better known among Muslims and in the Quran as Allah.

ben malik said...

Hey Karim, thanks for doing what I said you would do since your so predictable. When you can actually do some serious exegesis and not merely quote authorities then we can have a serious discussion. Just ask Bassam, the guy who pretends to know logic when he has no clue, and he will be sure to tell you that you have shown youreself to be a master of the fallacy of appealing to authority and stacking the deck.

Bassam said...

Hahahhahahaha, Shamoun the snake said:

Here is your own translation from al-Zamakhari:

"And fear Allah who He AND THE WOMBS you implore others with".

Boy that sure agrees with what I have been saying, that you fear Allah AND THE WOMBS.



Is he really that stupid or does he think that everyone is that stupid? Does the above translation say to fear Allah and the wombs? NO. It clearly says in English that you fear Allah, [THE ONLY OBJECT OF YOUR FEAR] who He [REFERRING TO ALLAH] and the wombs you implore others with [meaning, you implore others with Allah and the wombs. Not women being the object of your fear].


Secondly, of course Muslim scholars wouldn't interpret it the way the Arabic actually reads but found ways to explain the mistakes that Allah and his messenger constantly made in the most eloquent Arabic book of all.

Hahaha, what a moron. This coming from someone who doesn’t know basic Arabic, which even if he did wouldn’t be good enough to comment.


It’s funny how he still refers to Shamoun in the third person. Won’t he just give up already?


Regards,

Bassam

Bassam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ben malik said...

What's stupid is that we even waste time on you, but like I said I like magicians and tricksters so I will go another round. You say:

Is he really that stupid or does he think that everyone is that stupid? Does the above translation say to fear Allah and the wombs? NO. It clearly says in English that you fear Allah, [THE ONLY OBJECT OF YOUR FEAR] who He [REFERRING TO ALLAH] and the wombs you implore others with [meaning, you implore others with Allah and the wombs. Not women being the object of your fear].

Do you even believe your own lies and hype? Your "explanation" leaves the text disjointed because it says to fear Allah AND the wombs, and yet you say that wombs are separated from being one of those objects to be feared. So in your not so bright translation the wombs are introduced without explaining what you are supposed to do with them. To help yu understand the verse accordng to your understanding reads fear Allah alone and the wombs whom you implore, period. But there should be some words which follow right after implore to explain what believers are supposed to do with these wombs since you claim that the verse isn't putting wombs and fear together.

So your way of explaining it means the author of your mishmash forgot to finish the sentence since this is what you get:

"fear Allah, who He and the wombs you implore others with...

The three dots signifies that there are words mssing.

And let me repeat. EVEN YOUR TRANSLATION PROVES THAT YOU MUST REVERE BOTH ALLAH AND THE WOMBS WHICH YOU IMPLORE.

So what was that about being stupid?

Hahaha, boy and this comes from a guy who has been attacking me for not knowing Arabic. It is obvious that you don't understand English, let alone Arabic.

Moreover, I guess the exegetes like al-Jalalayn and Ibn Kathir did not know Arabic snce they also saw that the text was commanding you pagan black stone kissing rapists to revere Allah and the wombs you implore.

Boy, ain't it amazing that for a guy who doesn't know Arabic I just destroyed your points, a guy who by his comments is insinuating that he knows Arabic? Face it, you come up with the stupidest comments and conclusions that are not supported by your mishmash book of any Muslim I have seen. What makes this so funny is that you think you are being logical. Hahaha, now that's funny.

And this comment of yours was even more hilarious when you said concerning Ibn Kathir's translation that you polytheists have to revere the wombs:

This obviously can't be understood literally. We are not being asked to fear the woman's private parts. Ibn Kathir understood this verse just like how the other commentators did.

Obvious to whom? To someone like you who has bought into the lie of the Quran being the standard of Arabic excellence and who stubbornly follows a stone kissing false prophet? You are both sad and desperate.

And talk about being stupid what do you say about people like you who follow an uneducated, illiterate nomad who commands you to kiss stones and rape married women, committ adultery, and who also taught that you flush satan out of yout noses, and that satan farts and pisses in people's ears? Now that is retarded.

I do got to hand it to you. You are a world class jester like Naik.

ben malik said...

Oh, and btw what do you say of a person who believes his God has fingers but is uncertain whether he has a palm? See this for the details- http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/11/bassam-zawadi-on-gods-literal-fingers.html

What's next? Are you going to ask whether your Allah has an anus since he sits on a throne?

And you called me a buffoon and stupid. Hahaha!

karim said...

I enjoyed reading Ben malik's weak responses, if you cannot reply back with any good argument, just type some non-sense.

I want to add some more info to Bassam's usefull comment, see:

___________________________________

brother Bassam wrote:

Imam Al Zamakhshari in his commentary Al Kashaaf here and Abu Hayyan in his commentary Al Bahr Al Muheet here have argued that the Arabic structure easily allows for the Arabic verse to read "And fear Allah who He and the wombs you implore others with". This means that you implore others with Allah and the wombs, not fear Allah and the wombs. The Arabic easily calls for that.
___________________________________


Ben malik's favourite tafsir [ tafsir Ibn kathir ] tells us that verse 4:1 is in reference to when some people say, "I ask you by Allah, and then by the relation of the Rahim (the womb, i.e. my relationship to you)" [ Tafsir Ibn kathir, Darussalam, Vol 2, p. 369 ]. This information further supports the view of scholars like Imam Al Zamakhshari and Abu Hayyan, who have argued that that the Arabic structure [ of verse 4:1 ]easily allows for the Arabic verse to read "And fear Allah who He and the wombs you implore others with". This means that you implore others with Allah and the wombs.

ben malik said...

Karim, are you really that desperate? Ibn Kathir's comments IN CONTEXT show how weak both you and Bassam are, not me. Even your selective quoting from Ibn Kathir establishes my case against you guys. Let me walk you through this:

I ask you by Allah, AND THEN by the relation of the Rahim (the womb, i.e. my relationship to you)"

Just like the person asked by both Allah and the relations established by the womb Muslims are to fear Allah AND THE WOMB. Let me repeat it so it can sink in - just like in this example BOTH Allah and the womb are invoked, so too you must fear Allah AND THE WOMB together.

Thanks Karim for helping me again even though you thought you were helping your cause. Hehehe

Ohh, while you are at it and make sure to reply by misquoting another twenty sources .

Kim Godsend said...

It is strange that Wood and Shamoun expect Ephesians 5 to be the final word on the husband-wife relationship and a clear prohibition of marital rape. Yet nowhere in Ephesians does it say that a man cannot rape his wife. The Christian argument is basically as follows: "Well, Ephesians clearly presents a context of love between husband and wife and, naturally, rape cannot occur within a context of love. So the Bible does not have to explicitly state, 'You cannot rape your wife.'"

The above strikes me as a reasonable argument. But when Muslims use a similar argument from the Qur'an, the Christians here reject it. If a Muslim says, "Look, the Qur'an 4:36 says that one must do 'ihsaan' (kindness) to his slaves. 'Ihsaan' is the same word that the Qur'an uses in reference to the treatment of one's parents (same verse) and which in the Sufi tradition denotes spiritual excellence and perfection. So clearly, you cannot extend kind and excellent treatment to your slave on the one hand and rape her on the other. That's obvious. Therefore, the Qur'an need not have to say, 'You cannot rape your slave.'"

But no, the Christian missionary rejects the above argument as flawed and insists that the Qur'an must clearly and explicitly reject the concept of slave rape, something which is not ever demanded of from the Bible.

It's really quite simple. If you expect one standard from the Qur'an, you must demand the same standard from the Bible as well. If you assume that captured women would never consent to having sexual relations with their masters, you must assume the same for both the Old and New Testaments (which both allow female slavery).

I say, marriage in the New Testament is itself a form of female slavery and legitimized marital rape (by Wood and Shamoun's logic) when you consider the fact that there is no divorce option present unless there has been adultery. But wait a minute, silly me, there is no mention of a woman's consent in getting married either, is there? So by Wood and Shamoun's logic, since the Bible is silent on this issue, we can argue from silence that a man can kidnap a woman (whether a slave or free), forcibly marry her, and then forcibly rape her for life.

Who cares how the Christian Churches of past ages have understood these verses and what countless biblical commentaries have to say. We don't really care about Qur'anic commentaries either, do we? If we lined up 250 000 Islamic scholars who argued on the basis of the interpretation of the Qur'an (Surah 4, verse 36) that rape of female captives is not allowed, it still wouldn't make a difference to those people whose hearts are deaf to the Truth and who are heedless of God's Call.

Kim Godsend said...

In the book, "Slavery in Islam" by Maulana Saeed Ahmad, the author states:

It is forbidden to forcibly have intercourse [with a slave]. It is reported by Salamah ibn Muhabbaq that a man copulated with the female slave of his wife. The case was brought to the Prophet and he said:

"If the man has had intercourse with the female slave forcibly, then the slave is free and he will have to compensate the owner of the slave. But if the slave had agreed to the act, then she belongs to him and he will have to compensate the owner of the slave."

Hafiz ibn Taymiyyah has said that the hadith is sound, although some people have questioned it. (see Al-Qiyas fi al-Shara' al-Islami, pg. 57) He writes further that if anyone disfigures his slave, the slave will become emancipated. Imam Maalik, Imam Ahmad, and other scholars agree with him. The Prophet is quoted on the subject in aathar and his Companions too, for example Sayyidina Umar. If force is applied to commit an immoral act, that is considered the same as disfiguring.

Nakdimon said...

Kim,

If you are going to reason that way, then we all can say that since there is no prohibition of eating human or animal excraments, therefore it is allowed in Islam, right?

And like this there is there are all sorts of despicable things we can come up with of which there are no prohibitions of either in the Qur'an or the Hadith and claim that they are all allowed, since there is no prohibition.

It is amazing to me, that Muslims will go this low in order to find ANY fault in the Biblical texts.

Until you guys can have a normal discussion about these things, without making all kinds of childish accusations like these, I will refrain from responding to you.

ben malik said...

I agree Nakdimon, it is a waste time discussing with these kids who will do anything to attack the Bible by the most pathetic explanations imaginable, while ignoring the plain reading of the texts, and yet will do everything to defend all of Muhammad's wickedness and perverted teachings such as committing adultery with and raping married women.

And you can also mention the fact that the Quran never explicitly condemns sleeping with animals or prohibits lesbianism, or even orgies. In fact, you can make a case that the Quran allows men to have orgies with their wives and concubines at the same time since it never prohibits it.

Now watch the spins and deceptive misinterpretations to defend the prophet of the black stone.

Dk said...

Karim and Bassam are vile, sick, disgusting perverts who defend rape and captial E, Evil.That is all that can be stated.

The problem with Wood, Nakdimon and Benmalik thinking these people are capable of rational thought, but the truth is there only concern is defending there filthy wickedness and rape infested religion. Shame on you lying scum of the earth.

Thankyou to ben malik for presenting another of hundreds of contradictions in the Quran, and to actually read the responses from Karim and Bassam was highly entertaining, I mean these guys do it with every known issue why would they not try to escape this one? hahahaha, it just GETS WORSE AND WORSE. THE EYES OF THE REILGIOUS ARE DEAD. You are the most immoral people of all

what said...

Dear Brothers in Humanity (Christans,jews,and followers of any religion or not.
Brother in Islam
Actually the Books Bukhari & Muslim are (not Sahie)are not true according to shia Islam.So no body could defend them as these are full of lies and falsifies Islam many wrong narrations.

Please have look at shia books to know true Islam