Monday, January 2, 2012

Samatar Mohamed Again Condemns the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Allah

Samatar has been posting comments today, and virtually everything he's said so far is sheer nonsense. I'm actually surprised that someone can write so much without getting something right. Rather than posting responses in the comments section, let's go through Samatar's claims a bit more carefully. I'll take a single paragraph to start. Samatar wrote:

But the problem with your assumption David is that you assume that when the prophet (pbuh) said fight, that he meant to go to war. This is a gross misinterpretation to the word like Jihad and martyrdom. Most non muslims assume that Jihad means to wage holy war, but it is a strive or struggle in the way of Allah (swt)in many matters such as a muslim like me defending the faith by discussing issues in Islam. You shouldn't take a verse from the Quran that applied to a certain scenario, and then apply that verse to every scenario. That is the reason that historical context is important. When you quote a verse such as 9:29, you should also apply the historical context of how the verse was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Now we'll zero in on individual claims.

"But the problem with your assumption David is that you assume that when the prophet (pbuh) said fight, that he meant to go to war."

Did I assume that when Allah commands Muslims to fight (in 9:29), he meant Muslims should go to war? Not at all. Samatar's god explained things for me quite well. In Surah 9:111, Allah explained what "fight" means in the context of this Surah:

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.

So according to Allah, the "fighting" in Surah 9 involves "slaying" and "getting slain." But apparently Samatar knows more than Allah, because Samatar doesn't believe that "fighting" actually involves "fighting." I confess, I like Samatar's Qur'an better than Allah's.

"This is a gross misinterpretation to the word like Jihad and martyrdom. Most non muslims assume that Jihad means to wage holy war, but it is a strive or struggle in the way of Allah (swt)in many matters such as a muslim like me defending the faith by discussing issues in Islam."

As usual, Samatar is inventing his religion as he goes along. If I am guilty of a "gross misinterpretation" for claiming that Jihad involves fighting, then Muhammad was guilty of the same gross misinterpretation. For Muhammad claimed that the best kind of Jihad is the kind that involves shedding blood:

Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’”

But Samatar likes peaceful Jihad best, which is why Samatar is a much better man than his prophet. I find it strange, however, that Samatar asks us to believe in Muhammad, and then tries to convince us that Muhammad was totally ignorant of Islam.

"That is the reason that historical context is important. When you quote a verse such as 9:29, you should also apply the historical context of how the verse was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)."

Okay. Here's the historical context of Surah 9:29:

Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.

So what's the context? Muslims were wondering where they were going to get money, and Allah revealed that they would get money by subjugating the unbelievers and forcing them to pay the Jizyah. Muhammad then put together and army and set out to fight the Romans.

According to Samatar, however, the command to "fight" in 9:29 doesn't involve actual fighting. Poor Muhammad! He didn't know about Samatar's special understanding of the Qur'an! When Allah commanded Muhammad to fight, Muhammad fought. When Allah commands Samatar to fight, Samatar reinterprets the command, insults his god, reviles his prophet, and then tells us to become Muslims! I love Westernized Muslims!

I'll wait for Samatar to respond before I go on to his other absurd claims. (Wait till you see how he massacres the Qur'an in an effort to attack the Old Testament! Classic!)

103 comments:

search 4 truth said...

@ SAMATAR

I REFUTED YOU IN THE JIHAD COMMENT SECTION. I BROUGHT ALL FOUR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT AND THE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES YOU IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. GO BACK AND READ IT ALL. I WILL POST IT AGAIN HERE ONLY IF I HAVE TO AND YOU IGNORE THE EVIDENCE. YOU ARE IN TOTAL AND COMPLETE DENIAL OF REALITY!


A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.
Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.

Samatar Mohamed said...

Just going to make a quick correction. When I said that Jihad does not mean physical violence, i meant that Jihad does not ONLY mean physical violence but encompasses any struggle that is done for the cause of Allah (swt). That includes fighting but does not exclude any other non physical struggle for the cause of Allah (swt). And with regards to the historical context to surah 9, There is a lot to go over, and anyone who wants the historical context can read this article by Sami Zaatari.

http://muslim-responses.com/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_

And what I meant by the fight used in 9:29, was that fight is not ONLY used for the physical violence, but rather any fight against disbelievers whether through violence or not violence. When a muslim debates a non muslim to defend his way of life, he is fighting a Jihad. When a muslim decides not to drink alcohol while some schoolmates try to convince him otherwise, he is fighting a Jihad. When a muslim prays in a public school even though they do not allow him to, he is fighting a Jihad for Allah (swt). And when a muslim goes to war against disbelievers to defend his people from oppression, that is also a Jihad. My point is that Jihad is a term that applies in many different circumstances, and the same goes with 9:29 of the Noble Quran. Back to surah 9, sami goes over the historical context of the surah to show how it was used. Because, if Surah 9:29 applied in every case, then the prophet would surely have used 9:29 when he returned in the conquest of Mecca. He could have fought and killed all unbelievers if that was what the verse meant, but when you dive into the historical context as Sami has done, you see quite otherwise.

simple_truth said...

Spot on, David!

Samatar continues to deny his prophet and his religion. I never thought that one could be so ignorant of one's religion. Perhaps, he is not so ignorant and is trying to deceive us into thinking that he can make his religion more appealing to us Westerners. If he is sincerely wrong, I wonder how so many Muslims living outside of Islam's dominant control could not have read ibn Kathir and other tafsirs. How can any Muslim honestly talk peace without knowing about the last ten years of Mohammad's life, especially surah 9, which is the basis of offensive Jihad and one of the last three revealed surahs?

I was going to respond to that post of his, but you have it already beaten me to it. Continue to expose him and his sillyness.

Samatar Mohamed said...

And quickly on the Old Testament attack. My point when I bring up the Old Testament is to show the double standard of christians. You christians believe that violence in any way is wrong and that Jesus (pbuh) prohibited the act because those who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. But the same Jesus (pbuh) according to you also commanded the killing of innocent women and children. If you cannot see the obvious double standard that you impose then i am at a loss for words. If you see a man abusing and torturing his slave and treating him as a property you would completely go against this. But the Old testament itself allowed masters to beat their slaves as long as they do not kill their slaves. Do you start to see the blatant double standard.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

What shocks me even more David is that deep down you know that you find the Old testament disturbing as it completely goes against what the New Testament teaches on peace. And because you and other christians are ashamed of the Old testament you continue to treat it like it has nothing to do with you. But the reason we bring it up is because it goes against what you believe, and which leads to the important question. Do you believe that Gods morals change or not?

andy bell said...

good lord. Who cares what the hell Scimatar says. The guy's just trollin. I bet half the things this illiterate stunad writes in the comments section, is done for effect.

Any fool can figure out the causation/correlation effect in both religions. The OT is Jewish/christian scripture. Yet jews and christians aren't killing gentiles and massacring others in the name of their Gods. The quran is the muslim scripture and tons of muslims are going alqueda all over the world.

What kind of retarded amoeba can't figure this out.

Anthony Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anthony Rogers said...

"This is a gross misinterpretation to the word like Jihad and martyrdom. Most non muslims assume that Jihad means to wage holy war, but it is a strive or struggle in the way of Allah (swt)in many matters such as a muslim like me defending the faith by discussing issues in Islam."

Samatar, you told us how you reinterpret Jihad. Would you be so kind to tell us how you reinterpret martyrdom? Does martyrdom mean struggling so hard when discussing issues in Islam that you keel over from too much strain? Thanks in advance for your reply.

Radical Moderate said...

I have heard it said by Muslims that there are two Jihads. The lesser Jihad, which is fighting and the greater Jihad which is the internal strugle.

The greater Jihad is the Jihad that is prefered but I would submit that ths greater Jihad is in fact the interal strugle to get over the natural repulsion to go out and fight and die.


For instance in every military you go through Basic Training. This basic training all though does teach some combat skills is not intendend to be a complete over all training on the art of war.

Instead basic training is breaking a individual down so that he can over come his natural repulsion at the idea of facing death and killing other people.

In other words it tears down the will of the individual so he is reliant on the whole of the platoon or squad. This is a case of the Greater Jihad to fight the lesser Jihad.

Another point is the Muslim pre occupation with sawing peoples heads off.

It has been documented that Jihadi Muslims do not just walk up to Kuffar with a long sharp knife and saw their heads off.

Instead they start out small, by decapatating chickens, then move up to sheep and lambs and finaly to a real human being. That is fighting the greater Jihad to condition ones self to fight the lesser Jihad

In the same way, serial killers do not start out killing human beings. In the same way they start out small usually birds, mice, pets, and finaly up to humanbeings. Another case of fighting the greater Jihad to fight the lesser Jihad.

THe Quran makes mention of this in Surah 2. Sorry I'm not going to look up the actual verse, but if challanged I will if "THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS WILLING"

"Fighting is prescribed for you, even though it is something you hate, but it may be that you love something that is bad for you and hate something that is good for you"

So here you see that Allah is conditioning his slaves to overcome thier love of life and hatred of death and killing (The Greater Jihad) so they can go out and fight the Lesser Jihad and that is killing humanbeings.

SGM said...

@ Samatar Mohamed,

David Wood was absolutely correct when he said, “Wait till you see how he massacres the Qur'an in an effort to attack the Old Testament! Classic”.

Sure enough, you have massacred our scriptures just as you do yours. You can’t understand your own scriptures and you want to show us how to interpret the BIBLE. Really!!!!!

You State, “But the same Jesus (pbuh) according to you also commanded the killing of innocent women and children.” Can you please provide me a reference where Jesus said to kill innocent women and children. And please don’t tell me the old old stupid Moslem saying that if Jesus is God and God said to kill children in the OT then it is the same as Jesus said it. This is where you need some education. I am sure we all will be glad to educate you on this.

And for your information (once again), no true Christian is ashamed of the Old Testament. I am not sure where you get that we are.

In regards to Exodus 21:20-21, once again as a typical Moslem, you are mutilating the verse as you do with your own verses of the Quran. But then again, it is our duty to educate you in both ours and yours scriptures. This verse is talking about the death of a slave due to violence. However, if the slave does not die, then the master is not to be avenged as if he would have in slave’s death. Now does it relieve the master from violence against the slave, absolutely not. Just 4 verses below in verse 26 we read what happens when the master hits a slave and causes injury. E.g., if hitting causes any damage to the slave’s body, he is to let him go free.

So you see, if you read the Bible in context you will have no problem understanding God’s true word. However, if you keep spewing the words of your scholar Sami without reading it yourself and applying logic and common sense, you will run into problem. In case you need help understanding the BIBLE or the Quran, just ask for help and we will be glad to help.

Fernando said...

Dear Samatar Mohamed... I neber laughed so much as wgen you quoted teh book of Exodus... so: you wante us too read a text in its context (and we did) and you don't eben bother to do the same withe the Bible... thats strange... do you meane thate muslim's texts should be read in a way thate cannot be applied to the Holy Bible?...

Search 4 Truth said...

I dont think Samatar is trolling. I think he truly is what he seems to be. Completely incapable of context, critical thinking, objective reasoning and intellectual integrity!

If anyone ever notices when we provide the evidence that refutes him, he disappears. And then when that same topic comes up again, he regurgitates the same argument that was already refuted. he doesnt want the truth. He looks for ways to substantiate his point of view. and he completely ignores and disregards all the evidence that contradicts his perspective! He is delusional.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

We all know that jihad is not only physical, it could be internal. That is not the topic!

We are discussing offensive jihad. And your comparison to Gods punishment for a specific people, place, and time, and the command for all Muslims for eternity to fight non Muslims is a logical fallacy. It's like comparing apples and hand grenades.


We are not commanded to physically fight non Christians until all people are subjugated or believe that Jesus is the son of God. On the other hand, you can read the clear words of your evil Allah and Mohamed!


Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


There is no way you can compare Jesus's commands to love your enemy, to fight those who do0 not believe in Allah!

YOU HAVE PROBLEMS! MENTAL ISSUES!


Your rhetoric about personal internal jihad is not and has not ever been the subject or topic of the conversation. DUH!

Search 4 Truth said...

Refuting Those Who say You Need A Khaleef (imaam) For Offensive Jihad

Al-Jihad legally in Shar’iah:

The four Fuqaha’ have agreed that al-Jihaad is al-Qitaal (fighting) and to help there in (i.e. in Qitaal).

To you is the definition of the four jurists:

1. Al-Hanafiyah:

It says in Fath al-Qadeer by Ibn Humaam 5/187: “al-Jihaad: calling the Kuffar to the religion of truth and to fight them if they do not accept”. al-Kaasaani said in al-Badaa’i’, 9/4299 “To sacrifice ones strength and energy in Fighting in the way of Allah ‘Azza wa-Jal with ones life, property and the tongue and whatever besides”.

2. Al-Maalikiyah:

For a Muslim to fight against a Kaafir who is not under oath, to raise the word of Allah, or if he (Kaafir) is in his (Muslim’s) presence (in order to attack him), or upon his (Kaafir) entering his (Muslim’s) land. (Haashiya al-’Adawi/as-Sa’eedi 2/2 and ash-Sharh as-Sagheer/Aqrab al-Masaalik by ad-Dardeer 2/267)

3. Ash-Shaafi’iyah:

Al-Baajawari said, “al-Jihaad means: al-Qitaal (fighting) in the way of Allah”, al-Baajawari / Ibnul-Qaasim 2/261. Ibn Hajr said in al-Fath 6/2, “…and legally (it means) sacrificial striving in fighting the Kuffar”

4. Al-Hanbaliyah:

“To Fight the Kuffar” see Mataalibu Ulin-Nahi 2/497. “al-Jihaad is al-Qitaal (fighting) and to sacrifice all strength in it to raise the Word of Allah”, see ‘Umdatul-Fiqh p.166, and Muntahal-Iraadaat 1/302.

Allah SWT forbids His prophet peace be upon him to follow the liars-disbelievers of Mecca- in that is against Truth (al haq).

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Al-Qurtubi said in his interpretation of Quran 18/230 ‘He forbids him from leaning to disbelievers and they used to call him to stop fighting so that they stop as well. Allah clarified that leaning to them is a Kufr(disbelief). “And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. » Israa 74. And Idhan means: docility and mannerism. Allah explained here that disbelievers of Mecca wished that Mohamed peace be upon him would soften and effectuate with them, things which Allah forbid His prophet to do.’

And also, on the day of Al-Fath (when the Prophet sallallahu alayhe wa sallam conquered Makkah), the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa salam) said: “There is no Hijrah (migration from Makkah to Al-Madinah) after the victory, but only Jihad and good intention. If you were required to march forth, then march forth.” {Fath Al-Bari 4:56}

Allah Subhana wa Ta’ala also said:

“O Prophet! Make Jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. Hell shall be their home; and it is the worst of all homes.” {Surah At-Tawba 9:73}

Ibn Abbas (radhi Allahu anhu) said: “Allah commanded the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa salam) to fight the disbelievers with the sword, to strive against the hypocrites with the tongue and annulled lenient treatment of them.” {Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, p. 475 and Tafsir At-Tabari 14:359}

Furthermore, Allah commanded the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa salam) to fight even if others didn’t join, when He (subhana wa Ta’ala) said:

“Therefore, O Muhammad, fight; in the path of Allah, you are accountable for no one except for yourself. Urge the believers to fight, it may be that Allah will overthrow the might of the unbelievers, for Allah is the strongest in might and severe in punishment.” {Surah An-Nisaa 4:84}

Commenting on this verse, Ibn Kathir said: “Allah commands His servant and Messenger, Muhammad (sallallahu alayhe wa salam), to himself fight in Jihad and not be concerned about those who do not join Jihad.” {Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 529}

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Offensive Jihad

This is where the enemy is not fighting Muslims or gathering to fight the Muslims. This type of jihad is Fard Kifayah, which means that if some Muslims perform this duty, the obligation falls from the rest. If none of them responds to this obligation, then they are all in sin.

Allah says:

“O believers, fight them until there is no more fitnah and the Deen of Allah (way of life prescribed by Allah) is established completely” {Surah Al-Anfal 8:39}

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah, If they do that then their blood and wealth is safe from me, except by the laws of Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allaah.” {Narrated by al-Bukhaari, Vol. 1, No. 24; Muslim, Vol. 1, No. 29}

Ibn Qudaamah said: “Jihad is an obligation upon the community; if some people undertake it, the rest are relieved of the obligation.” What fard kifaayah means is that if it is not undertaken by enough people, then all the people are guilty of sin, but if enough people undertakes it, the rest will be relieved of blame. Initially the command is addressed to all of them, as in the case of an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn), but then in the case of fard kifaayah the obligation is dropped if enough of the people undertake to do it, unlike the case with fard ‘ayn where the obligation is not dropped if someone else does it. Jihad is a fard kifaayah, according to the majority of scholars.” {al-Mughni, 9/163}

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Everyone who hears the call of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to the religion of Allah with which he was sent and does not respond to it must be fought so that there will be no fitnah and so that submission will all be for Allah.” {Majmu’ al-Fatawa 28/249}

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

In regard to offensive jihad and whether or not having an imam or ruler that is followed is a condition for this type of jihad; then we have the statement of Imam Ash-Shawkanee to this affect. His full name is Imam Ali bin Muhammad bin Abdullah Ash-Shawkanee. He lived 1173-1250AH (1777-1834CE), he was a great scholar who studied under a number of great scholars, his famous book being “Nayl Al-Autar”. Imam Ash-Shawkanee said in his book Irshaad as-Saa’il Ilaa Dalaa’il al-Masaa’il:

“The Muslims differed over attacking the Kuffaar in their lands [offensive Jihaad], as to whether or not the great Imaam is a condition for such? The true truth that is acceptable is that [Jihaad] is obligatory upon every Muslim individual, and the Qur’aanic verses and Prophetic narrations are unrestricted [meaning, they do not mention a condition of an Imaam].” {Page 80 of ar-Rasaa’il as-Salafeeyah}

Neither Ibn Qudamah nor Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on them) placed the condition of having a ruler or imam for jihad to be Fard ‘Ayn.

Not only is the claim that jihad cannot be Fard Ayn without a ruler or Imam that is followed baseless in the light of Quran and Sunnah, but we shall see that this even contradicts the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) and the way of the righteous companions and their understanding.

In Saheeh Bukhari it is reported that Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) made a peace treaty with the Quraysh, which allowed the Muslims to perform Umrah the year after the treaty was conducted. However, in this treaty there was a quite distressing condition, which said that if a Makkan embraced Islam and went to Allah’s Messenger to seek shelter, he would be handed back to the Makkans… After making this treaty, Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) returned to Madeenah. Now, a man named Abu Basir bin Asid Ath-Thaqafi from the Quraysh happened to have embraced Islam during this truce. When the Prophet returned to Medina, Abu Basir, the new Muslim convert from Quraish came to him. The infidels sent in his pursuit two men who said (to the Prophet), “Abide by the promise you gave us.” So, the Prophet handed him over to them. They took him out (of the City) till they reached Dhul-Hulaifa where they dismounted to eat some dates they had with them. Abu Basir said to one of them, “By Allah, O so-and-so, I see you have a fine sword.” The other drew it out (of the scabbard) and said, “By Allah, it is very fine and I have tried it many times.” Abu Basir said, “Let me have a look at it.”

When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the mosque running. When Allah’s Apostle saw him he said, “This man appears to have been frightened.” When he reached the Prophet he said, “My companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too.” Abu Basir came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, Allah has made you fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the infidels), but Allah has saved me from them.” The Prophet said, “Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be (i.e. he would start a war), should he only have supporters.”

When Abu Basir heard that, he understood that the Prophet would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached the seashore. Abu Jandal bin Suhail (another Muslim convert) got himself released from them (i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraysh embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraysh heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (i.e. infidels) and took their properties. The people of Quraysh sent a message to the Prophet requesting him for the sake of Allah and kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would be secure. So the Prophet sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir’s companions). {Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 3, Number 891}

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

We can deduce the following points from this hadeeth:

1. Abu Basir started fighting alone without waiting for any companion to join him. Afterwards, he had some companions to stand by him, and was engaged in jihad according to the command of Allah:

“Therefore, O Muhammad, fight; in the path of Allah, you are accountable for no one except for yourself. Urge the believers to fight, it may be that Allah will overthrow the might of the unbelievers, for Allah is the strongest in might and severe in punishment.” {Surah An-Nisaa 4:84}

Ibn Kathir (May Allah have mercy on him) said regarding this verse:

“Allah commands His servant and Messenger, Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa salam, to himself fight in Jihad and not be concerned about those who do not join Jihad. Hence Allah’s statement, “You are accountable for no one except for yourself.” {Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 2, Page 529-530}

2. Abu Basir (may Allah be pleased with him) did not fight under any ruler or imam, rather he was his own commander, when he put one of his enemies to death and later other companions joined him and fought alongside him.

3. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not say that Abu Basir was wrong or that he was mistaken because he had no imam over him, rather the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) kept silent about it, showing approval of such action. Thus, we can say that this action of Abu Basir was indeed Sunnah, rather the prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said “Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be (i.e. he would start a war), should he only have supporters.” so he ment by this that fighting by yourself offensively is good but if you was to have a group it would be better.

We say this narration is sufficient for us to prove that having an imam or ruler that is followed is not a condition for Jihad. This is agreed upon by great scholars of the past that it is not a condition for jihad, and Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab’s grandson talked specifically against this innovated condition and also used the hadeeth of Abu Basir to prove his view.

Shaykh ‘Abdir-Rahmaan bin Hasan bin al-Imaam Muhammad bin ‘Abdil-Wahhaab an-Najdee said in response to some objections of Ibn Nabhaan:

“It is to be stated: By what book and by what ayah does there contain an evidence that Jihad is not obligatory except with an Imam that is followed?! This is from the inventions in the Din and a straying from the path of the believers. The evidences that invalidate this opinion are too well known to mention.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

From them, there is the general order to wage Jihad and encouragement towards it and the threat of punishment for abandoning it. The Most High said: {And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allah is full of Bounty to all that exists.} [Surah al-Baqarah 2: 251] And He said in Surah al-Hajj: {For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, the places of worship much would surely have been pulled down.} [Surah al-Hajj 22:40]

Everyone who establishes Jihad in the path of Allah has obeyed Allah and fulfilled what Allah has obligated and the Imam would not become the Imam except through Jihad not that there is no Jihad without an Imam. The truth is the exact opposite of what you have said oh man…”

Until he (’Abdir-Rahmaan bin Hasan) said:

“The points of reflection and the evidences concerning the falsehood of what you have authored is abundant in the Book and the Sunnah, in the biographies, narrations and statements of the People of Knowledge with proofs and narrations – they are almost not even hidden from an idiotic person because even he would know of the story of Abu Basir when he came as a Muhajir and the Quraysh sought from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to return him to them according to the condition that was between them in the treaty of al-Hudaybiyyah so he departed from them, killed the two Mushriks that came in search of him. He headed to the seashore after he heard the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) say: “Woe to his mother! What excellent war kindler he would be, should he only have supporters.”

Thereafter he attacked the caravans of the Quraysh when they came from Sham. He would seize (their wealth) and kill thereby he was independently waging war against them without the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) because they (the Quraysh) were in a treaty him in the truce. So, did the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) say: “You were mistaken in killing the Quraysh because you all were without an Imam?” Far removed is Allah from all imperfections and impurities! How harmful ignorance is upon its people! Refuge is sought with Allah from opposing the truth with ignorance and falsehood!” {Ad-Durrar as-Sanniyah 8/199-200}

We also have a statement from the great scholar and jurist Ibn Qudamah Al-Maqdisi (died 720AH/1302CE) who said:

“The absence of an Imam does not postpone the Jihad, because much is lost in its postponement.” {Al-Mughni 8/253}

http://islam.worldofislam.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=935:refuting-those-who-say-you-need-a-khaleef-imaam-for-offensive-jihad&catid=131&Itemid=44


WAKE UP!

jonnykzj said...

@Samatar Mohamed

It is true that "Jihad" can mean BOTH physical and mental struggle. HOWEVER THE TERM used in 9:29 and many other verses in sura 9 and other verses of the Quran is "Qitaal" or "qaatilu" specifically in 9:29 and "QITAAL" ALWAYS MEANS PHYSICAL FIGHTING. Infact I suggest that Christians instead of only focusing on the term Jihad should always bring up "QITAAL" ALONG WITH IT for once tis is done the Muslims can no longer play around. As for the OT i posted to you my reply under David's previous comment.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Anthony Rodgers

here is an article illustrating the concept of martyrdom.

http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/Concept-Ezzati.htm

@Simple truth and search for truth

You seem to think that us muslims are completely bound to Ibn Kathir's interpretations as if he is a prophet or something. We muslims respect Ibn Kathir, but we also have the brains to agree and disagree with Ibn kathir. When Ibn kathir said that we should fight unbelievers untill they are killed, I believe that Ibn Kathir was wrong in this assessment. When I bring sources on christianity, I do not bring up Martin Luther of the protestant reformation to judge the entire christian faith, rather, I go straight to the Bible. Now, I am not saying that Ibn Kathir is not reliable as he is one of the greatest commentators of Islam. All I am saying is that the method that you use by attempting to refute muslims by an interpretation of Ibn Kathir and others is the equivalent of me attempting to refute you and other christians with the sayings of Martin Luther. It is a flawed argument.

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar

You are willfully ignorant. Our only sources were not ibn kathir. He is just a small portion of the overwhelming evidence from ALL of the Islamic sources.

I truly do pity you. You are stuck in your delusion and cannot think your way out of it! It is one of the most fascinating things I have ever witnessed in my entire life. It's like watching a hypnotist turn a man into a duck on stage! I never would have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself!

cheryl_maree said...

WOW, I just have to say that in discussing this same topic with muslims I know personally, they two-step in the same way Samatar does, it just amazes me! How can they not see it? Can they just open their eyes and their hearts and stop worrying about arguing and refuting. I think sometimes they are just so caught up in the refutation of it that they don't really see it, amazing.

jonnykzj said...

@Samatar Mohamed

The tafsirs were just an additional argument. The main content IS EXPLAINED in the hadith themselves as well as also in the Quran as bro David pointed out. Here are some more ahadith from Sahih Bukhari. NOTICE in the Arabic the term used is from the root "qatala" and how they go into details saying that not only do they have to believe BUT ALSO OBSERVE SALAT, ZAKAT, ETC AND EVEN THEN ONLY IF THEY DONT VIOLATE ANY OF THE NUMEROUS LAWS WHICH UNDER SHARIAH WLD DESERVE THE DEATH PENALTY. NOTE ALSO how in the Arabic the hadith nrs are slightly shifted, probably coz muslims were trying to hide these from the "kufaar":

Narrated ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "i have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Book #2, Hadith #24 in English and #25 in Arabic)

(2) Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "i have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." (Book #8, Hadith #387 in English # 385 in Arabic)
...

jonnykzj said...

...

(3) Narrated Abu Huraira: When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'i have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! i will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! if they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle . i would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and i came to know that his decision was right." (Book #23, Hadith #483)

Couldnt even find the last hadith in Arabic but you can find it at http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=23&translator=1&start=0&number=483#483
The two other hadith in Arabic u can find at:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&BookID=24&PID=24
and
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&BookID=24&PID=388
In case they decide to take the hadith away i'll post the Arabic here too:
Bukhari 25حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْمُسْنَدِيُّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو رَوْحٍ الْحَرَمِيُّ بْنُ عُمَارَةَ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ عَنْ وَاقِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللهِ

Bukhari 385
حَدَّثَنَا نُعَيْمٌ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ عَنْ حُمَيْدٍ الطَّوِيلِ عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا وَصَلَّوْا صَلَاتَنَا وَاسْتَقْبَلُوا قِبْلَتَنَا وَذَبَحُوا ذَبِيحَتَنَا فَقَدْ حَرُمَتْ عَلَيْنَا دِمَاؤُهُمْ وَأَمْوَالُهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّهَا وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللهَ

Nakdimon said...

Samatar,

You said that you are not bound by ibn kathir. fair enough. but on what basis do you disagree with ibn kathir? based on the strong language of 9:29 I dont see how you can disagree with him. but the question then becomes: if jews and christians refuse to pay the jizya, what according to your quranic interpretation, should be done with them that does justice to the stern exhortation of 9:29?

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar

Thank you for the link on what Martyrdom means to Muslims.

Here is a link on how Christians "Wittness" by their Martyrdom. I hope you take time to read it.

SAINTS PERPETUA, FELICITAS, AND COMPANIONS— MARTYRS—203

Just some excerpts

"On the day of their martyrdom they set forth from the prison. Behind the men walked the young noblewoman Perpetua, "abashing the gaze of all with the high spirit in her eyes," and beside her the slave Felicitas....Perpetua was singing, while Revocatus, Saturninus, and Saturus were calling out warnings to the bystanders and even to Hilarion himself, as they walked beneath his balcony, of the coming vengeance of God. The mob cried out that they should be scourged for their boldness. Accordingly, as the martyrs passed in front of the , or hunters, each received a lash.


To each one God granted the form of martyrdom he desired. Saturus had hoped to be exposed to several sorts of beasts, that his sufferings might be intensified. He and Revocatus were first attacked half-heartedly by a leopard. Saturus was next exposed to a wild boar which turned on his keeper instead. He was then tied up on the bridge in front of a bear, but the animal refused to stir out of his den, and Saturus was reserved for one more encounter. The delay gave him an opportunity to turn and speak to the converted jailer Pudens: "You see that what I desired and foretold has come to pass. Not a beast has touched me! So believe steadfastly in Christ. And see now, I go forth yonder and with one bite from a leopard all will be over." As he had foretold, a leopard was now let out, sprang upon him, and in a moment he was fatally wounded. Seeing the flow of blood, the cruel mob cried out, "He is well baptized now!" ...

...Perpetua and Felicitas were exposed to a mad heifer. Perpetua was tossed first and fell on her back, but raised herself and gathered her torn tunic modestly about her; then, after fastening up her hair, lest she look as if she were in mourning, she rose and went to help Felicitas, who had been badly hurt by the animal. Side by side they stood,"

Notice no suicide belts or swords nessasary.

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar the site you posted seems to be a Shia site, are you a SHIA?

Nakdimon said...

Samatar. another question I just have to ask: you accused david of misinterpreting the word jihad. can you demonstrate that david has misinterpreted the word jihad in any of the verses he used to prove that jihad means violence? can you prove that in any of the verses david used the word jihad actually doesnt mean physical violence but rather inner struggle or defending islam through debate or something like that? if you cant then davids point on what the quran teaches on jihad stands and your accusation of "gross misinterpretation" on davids part should be withdrawn.

Traeh said...

Bernard Lewis, renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East, says the overwhelming majority of uses of the word "jihad" in Islam's core texts are military in meaning

He writes on page 72 of his book The Political Language of Islam, that
"...the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [Muslim specialists in the Qur'an, Hadith, life of Muhammad, and Islamic law] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."

Lewis also writes, on page 31 of his book The Crisis of Islam, that
"For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power."

Fernando said...

Hahahahahaha... only now I read that Samatar muHAMmad said thate «Jesus according to you also commanded the killing of innocent women and children»... really? Where? looool... typicial ignorant muslim...

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Radical Moderate

No i am not a shia, but I tend not to place myself to a group. Rather, I follow the Quran and the sunnah of the prophet (pbuh). I guess you would call me a sunni, but I just tend to call myself a muslim. Shia's do not agree with many things sunnis would, but we do also agree on many things.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@All christians

I am not the only muslim out their who believes that offensive war is not a part of islam. I am not coming up with this revolutionary idea, but reiterating the points of the muslim apologists such as Shabir Ally, Bassam Zawadi, and others. If anyone is interested, I will give some sites with some debates on peace in Islam, which more or less comes down to whether offensive Jihad is allowed in Islam.

Shabir Ally vs Jay Smith

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmYHnkMCUN4)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzyFOF7GzMM)

Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr4zGSiR4as&feature=related)

Sami Zaatari vs Allan craig

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSKg7DvlNic)

And there are many others. Ask any muslim apologist today and the overwhelming majority will tell you that offensive jihad is not allowed in Islam. But you are all acting as if I am the lone person wit this idea when I am not. The large majority of muslims agree that Islam does not permit offensive Jihad. And for those of you who question why some of the muslim commentators thought otherwise, listen to Shabir Ally vs Jay smith, where shabir brings forth a probable reason as to why some of them believed offensive war is permissable.

CristoTeAma said...

@Radical Moderate

Thanks for that link brother, it's really inspiring to read such things, because sometimes we feel that following Chrisy can be hard because we can't do some stuffs that we would like to, and we struggle with that until the spirit leads us to don't desire such things, but these Christians were so "young", they didn't need years to feel what every Christian should feel which is dying for the sake of God and his testimony is the best kind of death u can have in difficult times.

@Samatar
Nice try with Exodus 21, but i think you should read the entire chap, and take a lil look to verses 26 and 27.
BTW Did you check the Hadiths about the slaves raping? explaining the "which your right hand posses"... ?

Traeh said...

Samatar,
Most Muslims call the first four caliphs the "rightly guided" ones. Just in the first century after Muhammad, their armies overran the whole of North Africa and moved into Spain, and in the other direction drove east all the way to India. Surely you don't expect us to believe they fought all that way "defensively"?

Since the four "rightly guided" caliphs were clearly engaged in offensive warfare, Samatar, you must think they were not rightly guided at all! So you disagree with the mainstream of Islamic scholars, Islamic tradition, and the majority of the world's Muslims, who very commonly refer to the four "rightly guided" caliphs. Congratulations, Samatar, you evidently are an apostate. Welcome!

Baron Eddie said...

@ Samatar Mohamed

I didn't want to put any comment but since you addressed it to all Christians then I will ...

I am willing to pay you "Jizya" if you stop puting such comments ...

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar

You said that Jihad is not a offensive war. Well define a Offinsive war in Islam.

For instance is it defenisvie or offensive for a Muslim Calaphaite to go to war with a anotehr nation that refuses to pay the Jizya?

Samatar Mohamed said...

So Fernando, if it was not Jesus (pbuh) who commanded the killing of women and children in the Old Testament, then who was it. Was it the father.

Samatar Mohamed said...

at Christeotama

I did read the hadiths and the Quranic verses allowing muslim men to have sex with whom their right hand posess (meaning the she slaves). But the hadith and Quran does not tell muslims to force them to sex, but the right is given. Just like when the Quran allows muslim men to marry up to four wives, Allah (swt) does not force the muslims to marry four women but gives us the option to marry four women if we have the ability to care for each of them and treat them equally. Every time you and Search for truth bring hadiths about the capturing of slave women and the men having sex with them, your theory of rape hinges on the logic that the women would not want to have sex with the men who captured them and killed their men. But as indicated in Bassam Zawadis article, that is not always the case in history. The two examples Bassam gives are:

1. 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).

2.
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).

Now, I will admit that there is a possibility that they could not have consented, but there is also a possibility they did consent to having sex with the muslim men. And because the hadiths do not specify whether they consented or not, then there is no justification for the accusation that the prophet (pbuh) consented the rape of women. At best, you can say that the prophet (pbuh) might have consented this, and you know that the evidence is not strong enough for the accusation.

Bassam Zawadi site: Does Islam permit Muslim Men to Rape Slave Girls.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_

Samatar Mohamed said...

And Radical Moderate, thanks for the site and i will be reading it.

Billy said...

Samatar wrote: “I am not the only muslim out their who believes that offensive war is not a part of islam. I am not coming up with this revolutionary idea, but reiterating the points of the muslim apologists such as Shabir Ally, Bassam Zawadi, and others.”

Samatar, it is important to recognize that these apologists are people who debate with Christians and non-Muslims. Therefore, others and I are concerned that they may be practicing “holy” deception consistent with the Quranic injunction. Secondly, these men do not seem to hold debates with the scholars of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, arguing that the scholars of Al Azaar University and other learned Imams are wrong. These people seem to tell only us that Islam is peaceful, while the Islamic radicals engage in violence almost daily.

However, the Islamic canonical literatures, examples of Muhammad and his followers, and the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence make it unambiguous that offensive Jihad is intrinsic in Islam. Despite that, you are desperately trying to have a peaceful version of Islam. The peaceful interpretation of Islam, as admirable as it is, is not theologically and rationally sound, and it does not comport with the dominant and established view of Islam.

Samatar, when you say having sex with kidnapped women do not constitute rape and the like, you yourself know or should know that there is something fundamentally wrong with that reasoning. However, I understand, as long as you want to exonerate Mohammad, you must say things like that.

However, as a human being you do not have to be pigeonholed by the orthodox and dominant interpretation of the Quran. You certainly have the choice to reinterpret the Quran, to interpret it in a non-literal way, to follow the teachings of Shabir Ally, Bassam Zawadi, and reject the teachings of the mainstream Islam and the four dominant schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The Muslim groups who have eschewed offensive Jihad such as the Ismailis, Ahamadias, Sevener Shiis, I presume, are considered heretics and are persecuted by the mainstream Muslim groups for their rejection of the offensive Jihad theology.

Samatar, the difficulty you face is that you want to reject offensive Jihad and other violence in Islam, but Islamic literature is replete with normative violence. Perhaps in time you will find a cogent, coherent, and peaceful worldview to follow. In your search, I invite you to examine the Christian theology as well.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar = willfully ignorant.

Rosey said...

David, it is difficult debating with people whose god has told them to be deceitful and lie to unbelievers. This man is catering to those who do not yet know what Islam really teaches. I'm so glad you always set the record straight.

search 4 truth said...

@ Everyone

Option

#1 Samatar actually believes what he is saying.

#2 Samatar is suffering from a complete and total inability to accept reality, possibly bordering or surpassing pathological.

#3 Samatar is trying to lull us into a state of comfort and passivity (jihad)to make Islam look better than it realy is, so his Ummah can continue their Jihad and gain strength in numbers.

#4 He really is dumb.

#5 This is his jihad, Taqiyya, Similar to #3. Lying for his Allah.

#6 You add here Etc.....

Billy you are spot on man! Great post!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Billy

About the study of christianity, I have been studying the religion and will continue to do that for the rest of my life along with my study of Islam and other religions. you said

(Samatar, when you say having sex with kidnapped women do not constitute rape and the like, you yourself know or should know that there is something fundamentally wrong with that reasoning. However, I understand, as long as you want to exonerate Mohammad, you must say things like that.)

With your statement Billy, I did said that having CONSENSUAL sex with a captured slave is not rape. If the rape was not consensual, then that is definitely rape. However, as I already said earlier in my post, the hadiths do not specify whether the sex was consensual. Therefore, you must try to go behind the logic that a captured women would never agree to have sex with those who captured them. But as I showed in my earlier post, history does show otherwise in certain cases. Then to say that it was definitely rape without any doubt would be a premature assumption. I think I have reiterated this point over ten times but not one person in this blog has shown that they grasp my point. If you see a hole in this point then you are definitely free to show me. And here is the article where Bassam speaks about if rape with a slave is permissible in Islam.


http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_

curly said...

@Samatar Mohamed,
Please respond to Nakdimon “if jews and christians refuse to pay the jizya, what according to your quranic interpretation, should be done with them that does justice to the stern exhortation of 9:29?”. I am really interesting to listen your opinion about it. Thank you so much.

CristoTeAma said...

@Samatar

“1. 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).”
I would have to read the whole context of this text, because I know Bassam’s dishonest ways, besides I told you to check the part where they did this with their husbands being alive, if we go to the historical context, men on that time wouldn’t accept their wives back if they did this (I would say including know), even more the Jews, so I think that if it’s the case (as I said I would need the whole context) it must be about a defeat where they (women) are left alone because their husbands, fathers, or anyone who could take care of them were killed in that defeat. Yet that’s not the case in the Hadiths I quoted you. But I haven’t read the whole text so I am making conjectures.

CristoTeAma said...

@Samatar

NOW ABOUT
“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”
How do you get to the conclusion that “Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes” with this verse?
Deuteronomy 21
Marrying a Captive Woman
“10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”

Or maybe I got you wrong and you are saying in general armies… Because if you actually read that verse you would see the clear difference between your GOD ALLOWING YOU TO COMMIT ADULTERY OR FORNICATION and mine… which states they must get marry with them, and treat them as wives and not like “those which your right hand possess” (But I know that’s another topic so let's discuss this another day).

CristoTeAma said...

@Samatar

Then Bassam wrote:
“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.”

How can you even quote this? I mean I ask my girlfriends here if they like “Cristiano Ronaldo” from "Real Madrid" soccer team and most of them say “NO WAY” because I live in Barcelona, but then ask about “Leo Messi” and they love him, so yep women and even men love the Hero, but THEIR HERO, not the enemy hero who killed/beat their hero. Does the people of Irak love the Americans? because they are the winners?

But the real issue Samatar is that even if you quote the violence in the Old Testament, that was a period of time law (which we could explain whenever you want the reason of this), and Jesus left that clear (love your enemies, give the other cheek), but in your case, none abrogated such violence, so it wouldn’t help you to prove Islam is peace because it’s not. And to finish you wrote “Now, I will admit that there is a possibility that they could not have consented,” and that’s enough for many Muslims to believe they can do this just like their Prophet did, because it seems to be the Quran isn’t that clear as it claims to be, yet I can be sure my GOD wouldn’t want me to do such acts, because he has taught me I must love my enemies and I must include my enemies’ wife there, and also I can’t commit adultery, and as I said in the older post they were fighting for Allah weren’t they? Why couldn’t they wait until they went back to their wives? Because in the Jews case, they had to marry these women, and in the New Testament we can see the strength toward these sexual related thing (thanks to the holy spirit i dare to say) that these people had, so we would expect more from the people who follows “the true god-Allah”, and less from corrupted people-Apostles...

Nakdimon said...

Samatar. I asked you two simple questions.

1 – in light of your accusation of David having misinterpreted the word Jihad in regard to Quranic verses I would like to know if you can demonstrate that Jihad in those particular verses David used, can or should be used in reference to inner struggle or defending islam through debate or polemics.

2 – in light of your disagreement with Ibn Kathir on his assessment of Surah 9:29, what is the basis for your disagreement with his assessment? In other words, what, according to the Quran, should be done with the Jews and Christians if they refuse to pay the Jizya, given the historical context of the verse being revealed has everything to do with physical assault rather than debate, dialogue, refraining from alcohol while others encourage you to do so, etc.

A third question pops into my mind while I’m writing this:

3 – are there any Madinan verses where Jihad is used for inner struggle or any application that regards to physical violence? If so, can you provide them?

Nakdimon

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar you wrote...

" If the rape was not consensual, then that is definitely rape."

When is RAPE ever consensual?

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar you wrote...

"Therefore, you must try to go behind the logic that a captured women would never agree to have sex with those who captured them. But as I showed in my earlier post, history does show otherwise in certain cases."

Come on man.

I have asked Muslim woman if I was to come over slauther their families kill thier husbands, fathers, brothers, sons etc... IF they would want to have sex with me.

Funny thing is they all say NOOOOOO. I'm at a lost, becasue using your logic at least one of them should of said yes.

You remind me of a interview I saw with a rapest.

He was proffessing his inocense on TV that he did not rape this woman since it was consensual.

Here is the story you tell me if this sex was consensual.

He and a friend met two college woman and stayed over at their apartment.

His friend raped and killed one of the girls in the bedroom. The girls roommate was out getting breakfast or something. WHen she returned and saw what had happend to her friend she was TERRIFIED.

Then the murder raped her as well.

THen said to his friend, "Go in and get you some she is ready"

The friend went into the bedroom and asked the girl if it was "Ok to have sex wth her". He said SHE SAID YES.

SO he had sex with her, then the other friend killed her and they both left.

So tell me was this sex consnesual? Is this rapest inocent of rape I mean after all she said YES.

Herakleios said...

@Samatar:
Only by reading your statement about those women, willingly taking the enemy as husbands - i would see the whole situation from a different point of view.
Regarding those women, that wear nice clothes for the upcomming Battle...
For me the best reason, why they do that would be, to safe them from even a worse fate, than that they might suffer if they wouldnt subdue to the "winners".

It is definitely against their will. If they could choose, they would want their husbands to win the Battle and come back home.
Now with the possibility that the enemy might win, the best thing for them to at least survive is to "feel themselves subdued ;)".
I would still call the procedure some kind of rape, although the women wouldnt really defend herself in a physical way ... its just a way to keep harm from herself and stay alive.
See it as their only possibility to have some kind of influence on what will happen to them.
They can defend themselves and get raped and killed, or dress nice and subdue to the enemy and hope that they will only get raped and not killed ;)...
i call the second option rape - cause it is definitely not their wish, to be the wife of the enemy. If they could, they would choose their own people to win! Its just a way to survive for women in those times. It makes the whole thing even worse in my opinion and shows, how cruel those times back then were - when women had to suffer such a fate!

Fernando said...

Hi Samatar... I think you're folowing the tipical path followed by ignorant muslims...

lets see: who's Jesus? Jesus is teh Second Person off the Holy Trinity made human (without ceasing to be God)... so: did Jesus "exist" in the AT? no... the Second Person off the Holy Trinity only incarnated later... so: wheres Jesus commanding the killing of innocent women and children»...

you may ask: did teh Second Person of the Trinity command the killing of «innocent women and children»...

first (semi-)answer: can you present a passage, in its context, that YHWH, the Holy Trinity, commanded such thing?

second (full-)answer is: no... no one is innocent in the face of God; only God (and not allah, that pagan moon-god of yours) is the Holy one...

Billy said...

Samatar,

I just want to address briefly the issue of sex with captured women in Islam. Your assertion is that the Islamic literature is silent as to whether the captured women consented to sex or not; hence, as a Muslim, you are more inclined to believe that they consented to intercourse with their captors.

Fair enough. If I may, let us examine the rights of Muslim wives briefly. A Muslim wife does not have the right to refuse sex with her husband except under a very few circumstances such as when she is ritually unclean, devoted to Allah, or sick, etc.

So if a Muslim wife refused sex with her husband without an approved excuse, what should the husband do? The husband can admonish her, threaten her that the angels are going to curse her all night long (psychological violence), and then beat her until she obeys (physical violence).

If a husband threatens his wife by saying that the angels are going to curse her and she will burn in hell if she does not please him, and she consents to having sex, that is consent under duress. If he uses physical violence and she consents, that is consent under duress.

You can capture a woman, put a knife to her neck (or threaten her with other forms of psychological or physical violence), and request sex, and she will likely consent under duress. That, samatar, is rape.

So according to the Islamic view, if you can somehow get the captured women to consent, either through psychological or physical violence, it is not rape. But Samatar, I am sure you know in your heart or should know that this is egregious.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Billy

I agree that the scenario you put forth is definitely rape. However, you have changed the meaning of the hadiths to establish you points. The hadith said that angels curses the women who does not have sex with their husbands (and obviously it is referring to the women having no legitimate excuse for not having sex with their husbands). But you make the hadith as if it means that the man threatens the women by saying the angels will curse her, and that is not true at all. And the Quranic verse allowing the man to beat his wife is not speaking about the women preventing sex from the man, because the second step listed by the Quran is that the man should abstain from sleeping with his wife (i.e. sex). In the prophets farewell speech he said in muslim ( The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet (pbuh) in his Farewell Pilgrimage said: "Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that - EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY (fahisha mubina = adultery). If they do, then refuse to share their beds and beat them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE). And it has been stated before that the word used is وَٱضۡرِبُوهُنَّ‌ۖ, and the beating can range from a small tap all the way to a painful beating. And because the prophet showed that the beating is to be done without INDECENT violence, then the scenario you put forth is very weak at best.

@Radical Moderate

I meant that if the sex was consensual, then it wasn't rape. I am sure you understood my mistake though, so I am not sure why you brought it up.

cheryl_maree said...

I was just wondering if everyone noticed how Samatar avoids all the questions on this blog and then acts like he answered Billy and Radical Moderate? Come on Samatar answer Nikdimon and others if you can ...

Nakdimon said...

wow Samatar. I kinda feel neglected...

Billy said...

Samatar, your assertion is that the Islamic literature is silent on whether captive women consented to having sex with their captors or not. The reason it is silent is that it is an irrelevant issue.

I am sure you are aware of the edict that when a woman is captured, her previous marriage is immediately annulled and she becomes a slave (Reliance of the Traveler and other Muslim scholars).

The act of capture voids their previous marriage and makes them slaves, which obviates the consent issue you raise.

“This is the great dilemma faced by Westernized Muslims. They believe their religion comes from God, yet they are utterly repulsed by what their religion teaches. So they cling to ridiculous reinterpretations in an effort to rescue their god and their prophet. Welcome to Islam.” (David Wood).

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar

I wanted to make sure that it was a Freudian slip and not something intentional.

Samatar I'm wondering if you could respond to my question regarding if the person commited rape?

Radical Moderate said...

@Herakleios very well said, you saved me the time of writing something similar.

The only thing I would add is that because of Muslism veneration of all that Mohamed did, and the quran permiting such behavior, it has set in stone a dispicable practice from our primitive history.

Also notice that the men could have sex right after pilliging, plundering rampaging and killing.

Compare that with the Bible, where first the men that have shed blood where to stay outside of the camnp for a period of time to calm down and purify themselves to re enter society.

Also note that if one of the captive woman where appealing to the victories Isralites they where not to take them as their wife that day but instead where to give them a period of time to morn their family. THey were to shave their heads, cut thier nails, and wear sack cloth for a month I believe.

In Islam the captive woman could be taken the day of the victory, and marriage was only a option.

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar

Have you ever stopped to wonder why even the moron Osama hasnt attempted to assist you. Even one of the3 greatest and most embarrassing imbeciles of Islamic apologetics doesnt even attempt to defend your and your laughable position! Where is your Ummah?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Billy

So according to you Billy, rape is accepted in Islam. Now let me go over it one more time. The hadith does not indicate whether the women consented, history also proves that women have consented to having sex with the men who captured them. If this is not satisfactory, then how about I give you a hadith were a woman was raped by a man, and what the result was.

Sunan Abu Dawud

Book 38, Number 4366:
Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr:

When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her.

She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).

When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.

He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them. (Sheikh Albani declared this hadith to be "hasan" (good) in Sunan Abu Dawud no. 4379).

So just to sum it all up, there was a specific case when a man did rape a women, and the prophet (pbuh) ordered the man to be stoned to death. However, if islam permitted rape, then why would he order the stoning of the man. Clearly, the prophet (pbuh) understood that rape is unacceptable.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Nakdimon

Sorry if It seemed like I neglected you, but you know as well as I do tha it is very hard to reply to everyone. There is only one of me, and more of you.

As to your question as to whether 9:29 referred to internal Jihad, i admit that I was mistaken in this and it did refer to physical violence. But the violence was not offensive in the historical context as this long article by Sami Zaatari shows. If you take the time to read it, you will see the context of surah ( if you are interested.

http://muslim-responses.com/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_


On your second question regarding if a non muslim does not pay the Jizyah, you already know the answer is that the christians who do not pay the jizyah should be fought until they do pay the Jizyah. However, when the Jizyah is paid, the christians and Jews are given protection etc.. from the muslims. Here are to articles by Bassam the deal with the topic of non muslims in a muslim state and the Jizyah.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/non_muslims_paying_jizyah_in_a_state_of_humiliation

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_status_of_non_muslims_in_the_islamic_state

Again, i did not mean to neglect you but you should know it is difficult to reply to many different people.

Nakdimon said...

So basically Samatar tells us that David is lying about the Quranic application of Jihad, but when asked what the correct application in light of the Quranic verses themselves and the ahadith and tafasir, Samatar cannot answer, lest he has to admit David’s application is correct and Samatar was wrong to accuse David of misinterpreting the Quran. This would as a result mean that Samatar either has to defend what he so desperately wants to avoid or leave Islam altogether.

Hence the silence from Samatar to answer a couple of simple questions, even after repeated requests for answers.

Nakdimon

Billy said...

Samatar,
I think the story you provided addresses a Muslim man raping a free Muslim woman; it does not address the treatment of captured women.

Your assertion is that Islam does not allow rape. However, Islam perverts the definition of rape. That is precisely the reason Islamic edict unilaterally voids a captured woman’s previous marriage and makes her a slave. This permits Muslim men to rape these women and not be guilty of rape by Islamic standards.

simple_truth said...

Billy said...

"Samatar,
I think the story you provided addresses a Muslim man raping a free Muslim woman; it does not address the treatment of captured women."

Spot on, Billy. Samatar always tells us to get context; but, he didn't do the same. I see this common of Muslims to cite an hadith but fail to apply context so that it fits their agenda. For example, if the hadith makes Islam looks good, the context is said to apply to all times, but when it goes against them, the context suddenly becomes critical. A great example of this selective contextualization is the no compulsion in religion (2:256).

"Your assertion is that Islam does not allow rape. However, Islam perverts the definition of rape. That is precisely the reason Islamic edict unilaterally voids a captured woman’s previous marriage and makes her a slave. This permits Muslim men to rape these women and not be guilty of rape by Islamic standards."

The subtle thing behind these redefinitions is that they always benefit the Muslim, especially the men. If these definitions were reciprocated against them, they would be the first to cry unfair, unjust, immoral, opression, etc. They are so enamoured and blinded by Mohammad and Islam that they can't be rational and logical when thinking outside of the box of Islam.

simple_truth said...

Nakdimon said...

"So basically Samatar tells us that David is lying about the Quranic application of Jihad, but when asked what the correct application in light of the Quranic verses themselves and the ahadith and tafasir, Samatar cannot answer, lest he has to admit David’s application is correct and Samatar was wrong to accuse David of misinterpreting the Quran. This would as a result mean that Samatar either has to defend what he so desperately wants to avoid or leave Islam altogether.

Hence the silence from Samatar to answer a couple of simple questions, even after repeated requests for answers."

Yes, they realize the problem but are probably too proud to humble themselves to accept correction or reason. Their allegiance to Islam and Mohammad is not worth the effort to see beyond their beliefs and consider alternatives. They are trapped in a circle of reasoning that makes it impossible to critique Mohammad and the Qu'ran objectively.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Billy

But if anything, the hadith showed that the prophet (pbuh) understood that rape is wrong. I already read the hadith and understand it was a muslim woman who was attacked. But that does not change the fact that the prophet (pbuh) frowned upon the rape to the extent that he ordered the stoning of the man. This in itself does not prove that the prophet (pbuh) did not allow his companions to rape the women, but it does establish a foundation as to what the prophet (pbuh) thought about the action of rape. So let me understand your position better Billy. Do you hold that the evidence in the Quran and hadith is enough to prove without a shadow of a doubt that rape is allowed in Islam. Or do you hold that the evidence is not enough to prove that positio, but gives an indication that islam permits rape. And lastly, lets not forget what the Old testament said about rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Am I to understand that the women who is raped is to have to marry the man who raped her. If that is the meaning of the passage, then how would you reply to that. Or is it time to go redefining the bible to fit your interpretation. We will see. So in total, there is no evidence that Islam permits rape in the Quran and authentic hadith. But there is evidence on how the Old Testament treated the women who was raped. I cannot believe what he did to you, don't worry, we will make him suffer by forcing him to marry you for his lifetime. That will serve him good.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Nakdimon

Yes, I was wrong Nakdimon on that account that the verse meant physical violence. That was ignorance on my part and I hope Allah (swt) forgives me of my ignorance. But have you read the historical context of how surah 9 was used or no. Sami goes over how the surah was used in reality.

(http://muslim-responses.com/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_)

Billy said...

Samatar,
“But if anything, the hadith showed that the prophet (pbuh) understood that rape is wrong.”

This hadith would seem to illustrate that rape in the context of UNMARRIED free Muslim men and women is prohibited. I didn’t dispute that; don’t think anyone in this forum disputed that.

Incidentally, Hedaya p. 141 gives Muslim men the right to rape their Muslim WIVES, but that also is outside the scope of this discussion.

Our Question is that does Islam permit the rape of captured women. Our (Christians and other non-Muslims) answer has been in the affirmative. I have already established that this is done by changing the definition of rape. According to the Islamic rulings, the act of capture voids their marriages and renders the women the slaves of Muslim captors to be used for sex or to be sold, etc. The civilized world calls this rape, and Muslims call this rape when the roles are reversed.

@simpletruth, excellent observation.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

I have absolutely no respect for you. You are so blatantly full of horse manure it disgusts me!\


"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" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

" But if anything, the hadith showed that the prophet (pbuh) understood that rape is wrong. I already read the hadith and understand it was a muslim woman who was attacked. But that does not change the fact that the prophet (pbuh) frowned upon the rape to the extent that he ordered the stoning of the man."

It only shows that at least in that instance, he understood; but you continue to dismiss the fact that the situation is not dealing with slaves. The issue was not about free Muslims but slaves. You are conflating the topic. You are not helping your cause until you show that slaves were able to agree to sex shortly after being captured and had no compulsion as captives in their consent. No compulsion means that they were free to resist with no fear of retaliation for not consenting. The fact that they were in a subordinate position and were considered property of their master makes it a very difficult to demonstrate that these women were completely free to refuse advances.

" This in itself does not prove that the prophet (pbuh) did not allow his companions to rape the women, but it does establish a foundation as to what the prophet (pbuh) thought about the action of rape."

I will agree with you only because he seems to be repulsed with free Muslim women being raped; but, you fail to show that female slaves, who are treated as property, got the same treatment. Female slaves were not equal to free Muslim women.

" So let me understand your position better Billy. Do you hold that the evidence in the Quran and hadith is enough to prove without a shadow of a doubt that rape is allowed in Islam. Or do you hold that the evidence is not enough to prove that positio, but gives an indication that islam permits rape."

The indication is that Islam allows rape, except that it isn't defined that way. That is the greatest hurdle in the way of your understanding as we see it. The definition of rape precedes the Qu'ran; therefore, the Qu'ran can't redefine it, even if the Qu'ran creates its own rules governing it while denying that it exists as non-Muslims say.

You could actually gain better understanding if you would only answer a few of the questions that we have asked you. You have not responded to my questions for a while now. I asked you that if some of your female relatives (assumed to be Muslims too) were captured by non-Muslims and then had sex with them, would you consider your relatives as consenting freely to this act or feel they were under some compulsion to perform? Would their decision be based upon the fact that the captors had the upper hand and could ultimately insist that their desries be met by one means or another? Would they in any way have to think that if they didn't comply that they would be harmed in any way? Would they have to calculate in their decision any possible harm if they did refuse?

Would you feel that if they were approached without being catptured or threatened in any way, that they would also consent? Why would a married Muslim woman want to have sex with a captor, especially within minutes or hours after being captured? Why would they wan't to degrade themselves since Allah has commanded them to guard themselves against such things? If you think about this from a Muslim perspective, you should instantly see the problem.

simple_truth said...

....continued

" And lastly, lets not forget what the Old testament said about rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

I knew that you wouldn't be able to resist the tu quoque fallacy by appealing to the Bible. It wouldn't matter if the Bible was ten times worse than the Qu'ran, the Qu'ran would still have to be confronted. Your Qu'ran doesnt' get a pass because some other text may have the same or similar issue. So, please stop trying to drag the Bible into an Islamic issue unless warranted. In this case, it isn't warranted since we are not making comparisions between the two.

" Am I to understand that the women who is raped is to have to marry the man who raped her. If that is the meaning of the passage, then how would you reply to that."

I will correct you in your understanding. If you look at verse 25, it already deals with force. In that case, the woman is innocent since she cried out against the sexual advance (indicating nonconsent) and the man is to be put to death for violating her. From that we know that verse 28 doesn't refer to the same thing (rape). The word used is a different word that refers to trickery, seduction, or other kinds of manipulation that gets the woman to consent through deception. That is why verse 28 doesn't not call for his death; instead, part of his punishment is that he has to marry her without the possibility of divorce since he has already decieved her. Also, he has to pay the silver as compensation because he didn't ask the farther's permission to marry beforehand. That is the way that I understand it from studying.

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Verse 28 is similar to Exo 22:16-17 which reads:

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

" Or is it time to go redefining the bible to fit your interpretation. We will see."

Since, I have answered your question, you have seen.

" So in total, there is no evidence that Islam permits rape in the Quran and authentic hadith. But there is evidence on how the Old Testament treated the women who was raped. I cannot believe what he did to you, don't worry, we will make him suffer by forcing him to marry you for his lifetime. That will serve him good."

I already knew that you wanted this outcome; but you don't get it. Did you take any time to study Deu 22? Did you try to find some reptuable commentaries to see if there was a consistent thought in understanding the passage? I already know the answer.

Billy said...

This Islamic cleric explains that marital rape is acceptable in Islam. His argument is that a wife does not have the right to refuse her husband; therefore, the cleric finds the concept of marital rape in western countries an absurd concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hgKcFXfRA0

Search 4 Truth said...

Sami is incorrect in nearly every single thing he says! It is revisionism at its worst!

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar

Muhammad’s marriage to Safiya came about after he attacked Khaibar successfully and unprovoked. Here are some quotes to illustrate the circumstances behind and surrounding Muhammad’s Khaibar attack (all Hadith quotes are from Bukhari, most authentic source of prophetic tradition):

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367:

Narrated Abdul Aziz:
Anas said, ‘When Allah’s Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, “Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined.” Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning of those, who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, ‘With his army.’) We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’ Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her.?

Thabit asked Anas, ‘O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?’ He said, ‘Herself was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her.’ Anas added, ‘While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, ‘Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.’ He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah’s Apostle.’

First, he attacked Khaibar for no reason at all. In above hadith, Muhammad said, as reason for the attack: “…evil will be the morning of those, who have been warned.” So, Muslims may argue that the attack motivated by their rejection of Islam even after warning. So what? People reject religions all the time; it’s their right. Is that a cause to attack them, harm them, kill them..? Only a Muslim with no rational thinking will see this as an acceptable justification to attack other people.

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar


Second, Muslims attack because of greed. It is all about the booty. In the attack 93 Khaibarites lost life, Safiya’s husband was captured, brutally tortured and then killed:

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 437:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy’s defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha, where her menses was over and he married her. Then Hais (a kind of meal) was prepared and served on a small leather sheet (used for serving meals). Allah’s Apostle then said to me, ‘Inform those, who are around you (about the wedding banquet).’ So that was the marriage banquet given by Allah’s Apostle for (his marriage with) Safiya. After that we proceeded to Medina and I saw that Allah’s Apostle was covering her with a cloak while she was behind him. Then she would sit beside his camel and let Safiya put her feet on his knees to ride (the camel).

Please note that Safiya was ‘distributed’ amongst Muslims. She belonged to Dihya. However, this did not last as Muhammad changed his mind and wanted her for himself. Why is that? Is it because she was a widow? Being a ‘widow’ is a good excuse for Muslim apologists to show that poor Muhammad was such a ‘hearty feely’ kind of guy. He just wanted to help those poor widows. Let us investigate why Muhammad changed his mind and took Safiya from Dihya. Here are some hadiths that can help:

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 431:

Narrated Anas:
Amongst the captives was Safiya. First she was given to Dihya Al-Kalbi and then to the Prophet.

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 437:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet came to Khaibar and when Allah made him victorious and he conquered the town by breaking the enemy’s defense, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was mentioned to him and her husband had been killed while she was a bride. Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha, where her menses was over and he married her. Then Hais (a kind of meal) was prepared and served on a small leather sheet (used for serving meals). Allah’s Apostle then said to me, ‘Inform those who are around you (about the wedding banquet).’ So that was the marriage banquet given by Allah’s Apostle for (his marriage with) Safiya. After that we proceeded to Medina and I saw that Allah’s Apostle was covering her with a cloak while she was behind him. Then he would sit beside his camel and let Safiya put her feet on his knees to ride (the camel).

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar



Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said to Abu Talha, ‘Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar.’ So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah’s Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, ‘O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men.’ Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba, where her menses was over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah’s Apostle told me to call those, who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah’s Apostle and Safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah’s Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for Safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, ‘This is a mountain, which loves us and is loved by us.’ Then he looked at Medina and said, ‘O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina’s) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures).’

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:

Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar, when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed”, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkalbi, but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’.



Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq, whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah’s Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba, Safiya became clean from her menses; then Allah’s Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, ‘I invite the people around you.’ So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel).

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar


Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar, where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those, who were ordered to use a veil.

Above Hadiths show that Safiya was a young (aged 17) and beautiful girl, when Muhammad ‘married’ her. She was taken to bed by Muhammad as soon as she became clean of her menses; given her situation as captive girl, she had no choice but to submit to Muhammad’s lust, despite the fact that her husband and adult male relatives and tribesmen had just been killed.

Muslim apologists see Muhammad’s marriage to Safia as a valid marriage, and gesture of kindness: giving status of wife to helpless widow. But I call it rape. No woman would ever sleep with you willing, after you have killed her husband and many adult men in her immediate and extended family, let alone marry you.

It’s all about the Booty

In early Islam, Muslims attacked other groups of people mostly because of their greed. It is all about the booty:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 540:

Narrated Abu Musa:
We came upon the Prophet after he had conquered Khaibar. He then gave us a share (from the booty), but apart from us, he did not give to anybody else, who did not attend the Conquest.

Rape was a non-issue for Muhammad and early Muslims

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:

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

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

"You could actually gain better understanding if you would only answer a few of the questions that we have asked you. You have not responded to my questions for a while now. I asked you that if some of your female relatives (assumed to be Muslims too) were captured by non-Muslims and then had sex with them, would you consider your relatives as consenting freely to this act or feel they were under some compulsion to perform? Would their decision be based upon the fact that the captors had the upper hand and could ultimately insist that their desries be met by one means or another? Would they in any way have to think that if they didn't comply that they would be harmed in any way? Would they have to calculate in their decision any possible harm if they did refuse?"

I would believe that they were raped for sure. Although, I could not be certain, all signs would indicate that they were raped. However, It would also depend partly on who the group is in reality. If lets say that it was a group of people who had moral values, and had high regards for slaves, and believed that slaves should be treated fairly:

Source: Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 158.

· Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised that slaves should be well-treated. He said, 'Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created.' "

And that group had great concern over the treatment if slaves:

Source: Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124

Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were: "The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves ! "


And also, the fact that the group believed that slave girls should not be forced into fornication:

"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

And that the group actually believed that rape was such a terrible act, that act was punishable by death.

(Hadith I showed earlier in the blog about the man stoned for raping a muslim women).

And not to mention the fact there there was no evidence that the group ever did commit rape (We will get into our definitions of rape as we continue our discussion). Then I would say that they are in safe hands.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search for truth

I admire the fact that you continue to attempt a dialogue with me even though you find be delusional, ignorant, crazy, etc... But lets tackle the hadiths one at a time shall we please. However, simple truth and Billy have mentioned that muslims and christians have different definitions of rape, therefore, lets discuss what we both believe is rape.

Billy said...

Search4Truth,
On January 3, 2012 11:10 PM you gave a bunch of options regarding Samatar. I believe option number 5 is a good one: “#5 This is his jihad, Taqiyya, Similar to #3. Lying for his Allah.”

Samatar himself has claimed that he is a Jihadi—not the violent type. He said the following on January 2, 2012 11:32 PM:
“When a muslim debates a non muslim to defend his way of life, he is fighting a Jihad.”

Note he is defending his way of life: His right to have slaves, his right to capture and rape women, his right to engage in pedophilia. He is defending his evil, immoral, and vile way of life. In other words, the United States must change its anti-slavery laws to accommodate his right to own slaves. We must decriminalize pedophilia so Muslims can engage in pedophilia as Mohammad did.

search 4 truth said...

@ Billy

I agree, and he is using taqiyya to defend it. So he is lying for Allah to make Islam look better than what it really is, to make us feel more complacent and comfortable. He thinks by his lying he is doing right by Allah. What a sickness Islam is! Absolutely vile and from Satan. No doubt in my mind it is Satans death cult! I hate Islam with every part of my being.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Billy

"Note he is defending his way of life: His right to have slaves, his right to capture and rape women, his right to engage in pedophilia. He is defending his evil, immoral, and vile way of life. In other words, the United States must change its anti-slavery laws to accommodate his right to own slaves. We must decriminalize pedophilia so Muslims can engage in pedophilia as Mohammad did."

Am I defending my way of life, of course I am because I believe it is the true way of life. Now, I have been discussing all this time that Islam prohibits the raping of women, encourages the freedom of slaves if they ask for it, treating slaves as if they are your own brother, feeding them from what you eat, clothing them from what you wear, and that a slave cannot be forced into fornication or be harmed as I showed earlier. Am I using taqiyya or are these points that are shown throughout the Quran or hadith. The main point I want to emphasize is that violence is allowed in Islam, but the violence must be justified and must not be an offensive form of violence. Surah 9 which most christians or non muslims like to bring up, when looking at the historical context (site posted earlier on the history of surah 9), you see that it was used in defense, and not in an offensive way. I truly hope that you continue to study Islam, and go into the history of how Quranic verses and hadiths were applied, and not just taking one verse and applying it to every scenario.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

And everything you have just said has been clearly and irrefutable proven to be false. You are just incapable of accepting reality. You are a liar and your way of life permits taking captives, raping them infront of their husbands even if you are married yourself. And offensive jihad!

It is clear for all to see, accept of course you. Even your scholars disagree with you. Once again, you disgust me!

Search 4 Truth said...

Tell me Samatar that your wife , mother, sister or daughter would want to have sex with the people that just slaughtered some of your family and tribe, in front of their husbands or family!

Now tell me your female family members would be horny for them! Dont deflect or anything! Just answer the question.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives (SAMATARS WIFE AND MOTHER) in the presence of their husbands (SAMATAR)who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Search 4 Truth said...

One more question that you ran from previously

Can a captive woman refuse sex with her Muslim capture? YES or NO

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Searchfortruth

"One more question that you ran from previously

Can a captive woman refuse sex with her Muslim capture? YES or NO."

Of course the captive can refuse sex. That was my whole point. That as long as it was consensual (meaning that they approved or consented), then it would not be rape. However, if they did not consent, and the prophet (pbuh) still allowed the companions to have sex with the women who did not consent, then that would definitely be rape. Let me repeat this to prevent further confusion, a captive women CAN refuse sex with the ones who captured them in Islam, that was what I was arguing all along. The hadiths do not show that they disapproved, rather the point of the hadith was to establish that no matter if the companions ejected their penises before ejaculation, that it would not matter because regardless, every person who God plans to be born, will be born. Now, the hadith does not say that all the women had sex with the men, or who consented or did not, therefore, without any sort of specific information, we are left with uncertainty, and to establish a probable or actual conclusion from evidence that is not conclusive, is an error on your part.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Also there is no where in Islamic doctrine that says you are to free a slave if he or she asks to be free. You are such a liar it is amazing. The last nations to abolish slavery were Islamic nations, and that was only under pressure from the U.N. And before you say that Islam abolished slavery before the U.N. remember that the U.N. was created after WWII> And Islam NEVER abolished slavery. Many Islamic scholars and leaders, even Muslimahs are calling for slavery and sex slaves to be re implemented.

1948: UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally[53]
1952: Qatar abolishes slavery
1960: Niger abolishes slavery (though it was not made illegal until 2003)[54]
1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962: Yemen abolishes slavery
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970: Oman abolishes slavery
1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery[55][56][57]

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

They cannot refuse sex! You are a liar!
You have not presented any evidence. Now lets look at what your modern day scholars have to say!

You have already been refuted and exposed on this topic countless times. Now watch as you run and deny reality once again. I doubt you will even respond!

She forfeits her right to maintenance and clothing if she does not let him be intimate with her. He has the right to hit her if she persists in being defiant. It is not permissible for her to refuse intimacy if he asks for that, rather she is disobeying Allaah and His Messenger (by refusing). In al-Saheeh it says: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, the One Who is in heaven will be angry with her until morning comes.”
From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/278. The hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 1736.
So the wife should be admonished first, and warned against defiance (nushooz) and of the anger of Allaah and the curse of the angels. If she does not respond, then the husband should forsake her in her bed, and if she does not respond to that, then he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury. If none of these steps are effective, then he may stop spending on her maintenance and clothing, and he has the right to divorce her or to allow her to separate from him by khula’ in return for some financial settlement, such as giving up the mahr.
Similarly a slave woman does not have the right to refuse her master’s requests unless she has a valid excuse. If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her in whatever manner he thinks is appropriate and is allowed in sharee’ah.
And Allaah knows best.
Husband forcing his wife to have intercourse
Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 33597

See where it says a captive cannot refuse without the threat of punishment?

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar
Why havent you answered if your wife, or daughter, or mother or sister would be horny for her captures?


Come on its an easy question!

Now for more of your lies refuted! For about the tenth time!

[It is] un-Islamic to stop husbands from having sex with their wives even if they were doing so without their consent.[1]
Dr Aamir Liaqat Hussain, Pakistan's minister of state for religious affairs

Billy said...

Samatar said: “I have been discussing all this time that Islam prohibits the raping of women…”

Samatar, yes you have been discussing it, but you have only demonstrated that Islam prohibits a Muslim man from raping a free Muslim woman. You can’t use that to generalize, because you well know that Islamic law is fundamentally discriminatory. Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal before the Islamic law.

We systematically demonstrated that Muslim captors raping captive women is not considered rape according to the Islamic law. To get around the problem of rape, Muslims have unilaterally and conveniently voids a woman’s previous marriage, and makes her a slave when captured. This permits the Muslim captors to rape the women and not be guilty of rape. I even showed you a video of an Islamic cleric explaining that even the concept of marital rape is absurd.

Billy said...

Samatar said: “…encourages the freedom of slaves if they ask for it, treating slaves as if they are your own brother, feeding them from what you eat, clothing them from what you wear, and that a slave cannot be forced into fornication or be harmed as I showed earlier…”

This suggests that you disagree with the total abolition of slavery in the United States. Do you not have any compunction in suggesting that slavery should be legal?

Your argument is clearly refuted in this article. Particularly, see the section, Refuting the claims about verse 24:33: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar has always maintained that that hadith literature (and also the Quran passages) were silent about whether or not the sex with the captives were consensual or not..
And he kept maintaining that, in fact, the captive consented to having sex with the Muslim men.

He failed to show it from the Quran or the hadiths however that those captives did consent... because frankly, the passages from the Quran and hadith are silent on anything about consenting.

So while he can accuse us of inferring something that is not mentioned in the passages (i.e. that the Muslim men had sex/raped the captives without their consent), he himself is also guilty of inferring something that is not mentioned in the passages (i.e. that the sex between the Muslim men and the captives were consensual).

Now, as Search4Truth has quoted from Sunan Abu Dawud, captured women (whose husbands were alive) are fair-game for the Muslim men to have sex with...
Which is more probable;
(A) that the women would consent to having sex with their captors in the presence of their husbands/families?
(B) that the women would NOT consent to having sex with their captors in the presence of their husbands/families?

If (B), then Samatar is wrong and Allah has approved Muslim men to rape.
If (A), then Samatar is right and that it is not rape. But Allah has approved sex outside of marriage (other than a man's wife) and thus Allah approves adultery.

So which is it?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search for truth

Now it seems like I am getting redundant. As to whether a slave can ask, along with the grant of being free, I take you to surah 24:33. Now, next time you wish to call me a liar, please ensure that there is nothing to disprove your claim. I will get into your other points tommorow.

Surah 24:33

And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allâh which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil act unwillingly).

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar
\
Again, you are reinterpreting it to what you want it to mean but not what it real teaches. As usual. They must purchase their freedom and only if their masters are not in debt or in need of them! You are willfully ignorant. Why do I know your death cult better than you?





* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn

And let those who cannot find the means to marry be continent, [those who do not have] the bridal money or the means for financial support needed for marriage, [let them restrain themselves] from fornication, until God enriches them, [until] He improves their means, out of His bounty, and they marry. And those who seek a written contract [of emancipation], from among those whom your right hand owns, of male slaves and female slaves, contract with them accordingly, if you know in them any good, such as trustworthiness and the ability to earn [income] in order to fulfil the amount stated in the written contract, which might be worded for example thus: ‘I contract you for [the amount of] two thousand to be paid over a period of two months, at one thousand a month, and if you fulfill this, you are a free man’, and the other would say, ‘I accept’; and give them — this is a command for the [slaves’] owners — out of the wealth of God which He has given you, in the measure that will help them to fulfill their commitment to you (the action of ītā’, ‘giving’, here suggests that some of the amount to which they have committed themselves should be waived).


So you take the slaves in battle, and then make them pay for their freedom. But wait, what did Mohamed do?

Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, 'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'"

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 47, Number 765:
Narrated Kurib:

the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."

So you get more reward for giving the slave to a relative!

Sahih Muslim
Book 015, Number 4112:
'Imran b. Husain reported that a person who had no other property emancipated six slaves of his at the time of his death. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called for them and divided them into three sections, cast lots amongst them, and set two free and kept four in slavery; and he (the Holy Prophet) spoke severely of him.

So the man on his death bed freed them all, but what did Mohamed do? re enslaved them. LOL! Wow what a great man! And he spoke badly of the person who freed them! Doesnt sound consistent with your view! LOL!

So what we find is that you are not commanded to free a slave just for asking. How illogical is that? There would be no slavery dummy. And they must purchase their freedom, its better to give them to a relative than freeing them, if you are in debt your slaves stay enslaved, etc...

Nice try, I admire your gusto but completely despise your willful ignorance.

And would your Mother, wife, and sisters be horny for their captures? What kind of woman would be? I cant think of any, maybe the Jews, right? LOL!

Search 4 Truth said...

Oh and before you mention the fornication, it is fornication with believing women,. Muslim women, Because we all know you can rape and have sex with your slaves and captives! Thats the problem you have. You cannot accept that Islam has separate rules for Muslims and kafrte. You can pretty much do as you please with kafre. We are the worst of creatures!

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ إِلاَّ عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ }

except from their spouses, that is, to their spouses, and what [slaves] their right hands possess, that is, concubines, for then they are not blameworthy, in having sexual intercourse with them. Just a preemptive strike before you try and use logical fallacies and false doctrine to justify the immorality, evil, and bigotry of Islam

Nakdimon said...

@ Samatar, thanks for you response and please forvige me for not being patient enough to wait for your reply. I will be responding soon to the revisionist article you pointed me to of Zaatari and your own reply.

thank you for your patience.
Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Ok Samatar,

Thanks for the response and I again apologize for not being patient enough to wait for your answer to my questions.

First of all you already admitted that you accused David falsely of misinterpreting 9:29 to be physical violence rather than pointing to inner struggle or any non-physical form of combat. Thus do you apologize to David in the sight of those that you accused him of misinterpretation?

Secondly, you claim that the context of this verse was not offensive fighting, but rather defensive fighting. And you point to Sami’s article to prove your point. Let me take a moment to dismantle Sami’s claims and demonstrate that this verse was offensive rather than defensive. Let me first use the opportunity to demonstrate how Sami’s outright stupidity is evident by, for the umpth time, misreading the Biblical text to try to establish a parallel with the language of the Quran in a feeble attempt to argue for “Christian double standards”.

Sami quotes from Matthew 10:34 where Yeshua, our Lord, talks about having come to bring a sword, rather than peace. Sami goes to argue that “Christians will interpret this verse saying that sword doesn't actually mean a physical sword, rather it is metaphorical language referring to the tongue, that by the tongue Christians shall spread the truth and crush the lies that have been propagated by satan.“ However, reading this text within its larger context of the entire Gospel and in particular in its immediate context, it is obvious that the only application of sword here is metaphorical, NOT literal physical assault, and fighting satan’s lies is NOT what the Lord Yeshua means. This is what his saying in Matthew 10:34 means:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

(see next post)

Nakdimon said...

See unlike the obscure Quran, the Bible has this tendency to elaborate and explain itself. This “sword” talks about enmity between even the closest relations, i.e. family members. The Gospel would divide families because of the fact that a son would accept Yeshua as the Lord and Messiah of Israel while his father would deny that. Yeshua, our Lord. exhorts those to keep faith and not be stirred by the hostile attitude of even family members by saying “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”, using the very parallel (members of the household) demonstrating he would stand between father/son, mother/daughter, etc. And given the repeated exhortations NOT to use physical violence or repay evil with evil, one is simply forced to interpret the word “sword” in Matthew 10:34 as being a figure of speech rather than an indication of family members slaughtering each other in the name of Yeshua, our Lord. The Quran contains no such language and is almost always (if not always) very clear that when it talks about “fighting” it refers to physical violence, not a figure of speech! Now to Sami’s case for the non-offensive nature of S. 9:29.

Sami takes his refuge in recent revisionist sources such as Maududi and al-Mubarakpuri. Since they are resent contemporary writers, what is their source for their commentaries? However, Ibn Kathir gives us a different approach, as David has already explained many times, that the Muslims attacked the Christians based on Surah 9:29 because they sought booty, because they had banned all the pagans from the Ka’aba. An approach that is attested to by Al Tabari:

Tabari IX:82 The Messenger sent Khalid out to collect taxes with an army of 400 and ordered him to invite people to Islam before he fought them. If they were to respond and submit, he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunna of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them.

Keep in mind this was how people would be “invited” to Islam. It was either respond to the call or be fought! This is how Muhammad went about his business. So to say that the context of 9:29 was a peaceful calling to Islam that was met with violence is absurd. It was “come to Islam or else…”. Refusing to become Muslim obviously was reason for Muhammad to attack those that rejected his invitation.

(see next post)

Nakdimon said...

The total irony is that you claim that you don’t agree with Ibn Kathir about fighting the Jews and Christians until they are killed for not paying jizya. But when I ask you what should be done with Jews and Christians if they refuse to pay the jizya your solution is to fight them until they pay it. Well, then you DO agree with Ibn Kathir, because the whole point of fighting the Jews and Christians is because they don’t pay, eventually the fighting will lead to casualties, won’t it?

You then point me to an article of Bassam Zawadi, but what does that have to do with 9:29? One of the articles is called “state of non-muslims in the Islamic state”. However, 9:29 only has relevance if the Christians Muhammad fought were part of the Islamic state. They were NOT! Hence this command is an offensive one, not a defensive one. There was no threat from the Christians. They paid Muhammad no mind at all. It was Muhammad who singled them out and threatened them. “Accept Islam and you will be safe” is not a declaration of peace. Why should someone outside of the Islamic state pay Jizya anyway?

Modern age Muslims tend to dismiss these sources such as Ibn Kathir, Tabari or Ibn Ishaq, because they paint Muhammad in a not so appealing fashion as modern day Muslims would want. Instead they will revisit and edit Muhammad’s accounts. For example: Sami claims the following: “back then it was an international ruling and law that simple messengers carrying messages to other rulers would not be targeted or killed”. Does Sami have any historical reference to such an international ruling? Since, I’m not aware of this. If so, what is the source? If not, why does he say this?

Nakdimon

Derek Adams said...

Samatar in case you didn't already know, I took the time to go through Zaatari's link, one point at a time:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/quran-929-and-zaatari-and-samatar.html

Make sure to address the fact that this wasn't a "defensive" war at all.

Evelyn said...

I would like to comment on what Samatar said. Quote:

"I would believe that they were raped for sure. Although, I could not be certain, all signs would indicate that they were raped. However, It would also depend partly on who the group is in reality. If lets say that it was a group of people who had moral values, and had high regards for slaves, and believed that slaves should be treated fairly."

I would like to ask him the following:
- What would make you believe that they were 'raped for sure', specially when there's no evidence that they were or were not. Your 'subjective' logic as your fellow apologetic like to put it?

"It would also depend partly on who the group is in reality."

Are you suggesting that your wife, daughter or sister would consent to having sex with a particular group based on their morality? Would you ever accept that your wife would consent to have sex with an alien man just because he was highly moral?

"If lets say that it was a group of people who had moral values, and had high regards for slaves, and believed that slaves should be treated fairly."

I find it quite interesting that you speak of morality, and hence I would like to ask you some questions.

The Muslim army were commanded to slay all males who had reached puberty and take all women as captives - I can't find the exact quote of the narration, but I remember it had something to do with Mu'adh and how his decision coincided with Allaah's.

Now let me ask you this question, if your wife saw you and her son, father and brother being slaughtered by a group of men - would she consider them moral & have high regards for the slaves and thus consent to have sex with them? What would your logic and reasoning suggest in light of absence of any evidence to the effect whether or not they were raped, given the group of men spoke highly of slaves?

About your assertion that a concubine can refuse sex with her master, I suggest that you re-study your religion. A sex slave cannot refuse sex with her master, and he has unfettered right to her body and sexual enjoyment. I will post a detailed response shortly.

On the claim that slave women are automatically free when they're pregnant and married, this is wrong and a lie. I suggest you read the following article before spreading lies: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/128160

To conclude, I am Muslim who has severe doubts regarding the credibility of my religion. I am not afraid to ask questions and challenge certain legislation in Islam. All you Muslims have done is lie and lie over and over again. I am not affiliated with any religion, for the record.