Islam is anti women

[CabinInTheForest]

The oppression of women that Islam advocates is not only disturbing, but is direct contrast with everything that Christian civilization stands for when it comes to the rights of women.

The Quran

A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like

Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status

A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . .

A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.

A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man and then this second man divorces her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry

Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war]

A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.

A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense.

Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. Islam supports peadophilia.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.

Mohammed had an 8 year old wife (peadophilia).

Although in the Quran he would limit his followers to having four wives, Mohammed himself took more than four wives and concubines.

It also poses a logical problem for Muslims. Because the Quran in Sura 4:3 forbids the taking of more than four wives, to have taken any more would have been sinful for Muhammad.

LIST OF MOHAMMED WIVES

1.Khadija 12. Hend
2. Sawda 13. Asma (of Saba)
3. Aesha 14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
4. Omm Salama 15. Habla
5. Halsa 16. Asma (of Noman)
6. Zaynab (of Jahsh) 17. Mary (the Christian)
7. Jowayriyi 18. Rayhana
8. Omm Habiba 19. Omm Sharik
9. Safiya 20. Maymuna
10. Maymuna (of Hareth) 21. Zaynab (a third one)
11. Fatema 22. Khawla
12. Hend
13. Asma (of Saba)
14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
15. Habla
16. Asma (of Noman)
17. Mary (the Christian)
18. Rayhana
19. Omm Sharik
20. Maymuna
21. Zaynab (a third one)
22. Khawla

The first 16 women were wives. Numbers 17 and 18 were slaves or concubines.

The last four women were neither wives or slaves but devout Muslim women who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.

Aesha was only eight or nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, she was still playing with her dolls. This facet of Muhammad's sexual appetite is particularly distressing to christians and hindus.

This aspect of Muhammad's personal life is something that many scholars pass over once again because they do not want to hurt the feelings of Muslims. Yet, history cannot be rewritten to avoid confronting the facts that Muhammad had unnatural desires for little girls. Islam and Mohammed is immoral.

[Fatihah]

The verse mentions sexual desire with a slave, but no where does it say "outside of marriage"

->

Are Muslims, according to your version of Islam, allowed to marry female slaves and consider them and refer to them as slaves after marriage?

Response: Not at all

The verses refer to slaves and wives, making an undeniable distinction between the two.
Slaves can't be wives at the same time and vice versa, according to your own words above.
Therefore, the verses aren't limited to the confines of marriage - i.e. to wives.

Simple, undeniable logic.

If you persist in saying that sex with slaves is zina (i.e. that zina isn't in fact sex with others than wives and "right-hand possessions", as the Quran clearly implies), then you are saying the Quran contradicts itself.

I have no problem with that.

Choose wisely, for these are your only two options.

Please quote the verses and tell us your own interpretation of what they are "actually saying" when they are talking about lust being only permissible with wives and slaves.

-Woland

Response: Yet we can clearly see that there is no contradiction, but just a desperate attempt to portray islam as degrading as your ideology. For no where in the qur'an does it say that wives are slaves, so there can't possibly be a contradiction. And since the qur'an clearly states sex outside of marriage is condemned, then the verses permitting sex with captives clearly refer to marriage.

Simple, undeniable logic.

[TheWayIsOne]

Hello TheWayIsOne,

Is the goal here to arrive at the truth or is it just to insult and defame a religion?

The goal is not to insult a religion but to examine its sacred texts, which are allegedly dictated by a divine entity.

My contention, which is corroborated by several scholars, is that Muslims are allowed to have sex with their wives and with their "right-hand possessions" i.e. slaves, and that this is made clear by the verses which I provided to Fatihah.

Do you disagree?

-Woland

I do not disagree that it was permissible to have relations with a slave. However, to say that Islam calls to sex with slaves is very misleading. The entire issue has to be understood in light of where the world was at that time, 1500 years ago. Please refer to my first post in this thread.

Briefly, slavery was something that existed in all known parts of the world at the time. Islam's approach was to abolish slavery not all at once which may have not really been possible, but rather by encouraging the freeing of slaves in general, making the freeing of slaves obligatory in some situations, and prohibiting new enslavement of any free person. For those people that still remained as slaves a code of conduct was established for just and fair treatment, this can elaborated on upon request.

Furthermore, Islam prohibited forcing a slave to sexual relations, not with oneself or with any other person which would be a form of prostitution, historical reading on the subject makes it clear that using slaves as prostitutes was common practice in all major nations of the time including the Romans and Greeks.

For followers of Christianity or Judaism, passages and texts are evident for that which Islam is being blamed here. One example that I quoted earlier,
"Bid the slaves to be submissive to their masters and give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory…� (Titus 2:9) This seems to indicate that the slave must fully submit to their master regardless of the situation. This would seem to be worse than the reality of what Islam teaches with regards to slaves.

Wouldn't you also agree that scripture has to be understood using intellect and wisdom? Just as I don't believe Christianity would currently call to slavery despite many scriptural occurrences, neither does Islam call to slavery now that it has been abolished and is no longer accepted. Rather Islam came with a methodology to end slavery 1500 years ago, while slavery was only recently abolished in the west.

I hope our dialog is beneficial, if the response remains 'see Islam says have sex with slave girls' then obviously we don't have the intention of benefiting or moving forward.

[Wyvern]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that there is no contradiction, but just a desperate attempt to portray islam as degrading as your ideology. For no where in the qur'an does it say that wives are slaves, so there can't possibly be a contradiction. And since the qur'an clearly states sex outside of marriage is condemned, then the verses permitting sex with captives clearly refer to marriage.

Lets see if I understand what you are saying.

Sex outside of marriage is illegal in islam

Wives are not slaves because the koran does not say they are

The verse in the koran which permits sex with captives refers to marriage

This confuses me, if wives are not slaves but the verse which allows sex with captives is referring to marriage then does it not follow that one of the persons in the marriage is a captive and since you have already stated that the wife is not a slave then it follows that it is then the husband that is a captive if what you write is true.

I also think that you and The Way need to get together, he is a muslim(I assume) and he says that having sex with a slave is permitted while you say the opposite, which is true?

[Wyvern]

Wouldn't you also agree that scripture has to be understood using intellect and wisdom? Just as I don't believe Christianity would currently call to slavery despite many scriptural occurrences, neither does Islam call to slavery now that it has been abolished and is no longer accepted. Rather Islam came with a methodology to end slavery 1500 years ago, while slavery was only recently abolished in the west.

Actually slavery is still alive and well in the arab world especially in North Africa.

[Fatihah]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that there is no contradiction, but just a desperate attempt to portray islam as degrading as your ideology. For no where in the qur'an does it say that wives are slaves, so there can't possibly be a contradiction. And since the qur'an clearly states sex outside of marriage is condemned, then the verses permitting sex with captives clearly refer to marriage.

Lets see if I understand what you are saying.

Sex outside of marriage is illegal in islam

Wives are not slaves because the koran does not say they are

The verse in the koran which permits sex with captives refers to marriage

This confuses me, if wives are not slaves but the verse which allows sex with captives is referring to marriage then does it not follow that one of the persons in the marriage is a captive and since you have already stated that the wife is not a slave then it follows that it is then the husband that is a captive if what you write is true.

I also think that you and The Way need to get together, he is a muslim(I assume) and he says that having sex with a slave is permitted while you say the opposite, which is true?

Response: Captives and slaves are two different things. Islam abolished slavery. Captives however were women taken as prisoners for participating in wars against the muslims. When captured, they are to be treated with respect and kindness. However, they lose their freedom to do as they please az punishment for war against muslims. Yet through the compassion that muslims showed to the captives, it was very likely that the women would embrace islam and marry their master. In this case, a woman is to be freed once married.[/i]

[Wyvern]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that there is no contradiction, but just a desperate attempt to portray islam as degrading as your ideology. For no where in the qur'an does it say that wives are slaves, so there can't possibly be a contradiction. And since the qur'an clearly states sex outside of marriage is condemned, then the verses permitting sex with captives clearly refer to marriage.

Lets see if I understand what you are saying.

Sex outside of marriage is illegal in islam

Wives are not slaves because the koran does not say they are

The verse in the koran which permits sex with captives refers to marriage

This confuses me, if wives are not slaves but the verse which allows sex with captives is referring to marriage then does it not follow that one of the persons in the marriage is a captive and since you have already stated that the wife is not a slave then it follows that it is then the husband that is a captive if what you write is true.

I also think that you and The Way need to get together, he is a muslim(I assume) and he says that having sex with a slave is permitted while you say the opposite, which is true?

Response: Captives and slaves are two different things. Islam abolished slavery. Captives however were women taken as prisoners for participating in wars against the muslims. When captured, they are to be treated with respect and kindness. However, they lose their freedom to do as they please az punishment for war against muslims. Yet through the compassion that muslims showed to the captives, it was very likely that the women would embrace islam and marry their master. In this case, a woman is to be freed once married.[/i]

I have a problem though the koran says to restrain your carnal desires except with your wives and slave girls. If a woman is freed once they get married then how is it the koran says it is okay to have sex with slave girls while at the same time you say sex outside of marriage is illegal in islam. How can these men have sex with a slave but it is not allowed to have sex outside of marriage and once a slave marries they are freed.

[Fatihah]

Response: Yet we can clearly see that there is no contradiction, but just a desperate attempt to portray islam as degrading as your ideology. For no where in the qur'an does it say that wives are slaves, so there can't possibly be a contradiction. And since the qur'an clearly states sex outside of marriage is condemned, then the verses permitting sex with captives clearly refer to marriage.

Lets see if I understand what you are saying.

Sex outside of marriage is illegal in islam

Wives are not slaves because the koran does not say they are

The verse in the koran which permits sex with captives refers to marriage

This confuses me, if wives are not slaves but the verse which allows sex with captives is referring to marriage then does it not follow that one of the persons in the marriage is a captive and since you have already stated that the wife is not a slave then it follows that it is then the husband that is a captive if what you write is true.

I also think that you and The Way need to get together, he is a muslim(I assume) and he says that having sex with a slave is permitted while you say the opposite, which is true?

Response: Captives and slaves are two different things. Islam abolished slavery. Captives however were women taken as prisoners for participating in wars against the muslims. When captured, they are to be treated with respect and kindness. However, they lose their freedom to do as they please az punishment for war against muslims. Yet through the compassion that muslims showed to the captives, it was very likely that the women would embrace islam and marry their master. In this case, a woman is to be freed once married.[/i]

I have a problem though the koran says to restrain your carnal desires except with your wives and slave girls. If a woman is freed once they get married then how is it the koran says it is okay to have sex with slave girls while at the same time you say sex outside of marriage is illegal in islam. How can these men have sex with a slave but it is not allowed to have sex outside of marriage and once a slave marries they are freed.

Response: It is not technically the qur'an which says that but rather the translation of the qur'an in which you've read. When reading one's translation, you should also read there commentary. For the best way to know what a person means by their translation is through their own commentary. But I must also add that some commentary and translations are not not fully correct.

The literal meaning of the verse is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In this translation, we see nothing about slaves or captives at all. However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed. I agree, a better translation would have been better. But they chose to translate it that way. But as stated earlier, the correct translation is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In short, a captive is freed once they are married. They do not remain captives or slaves and sexual relations takes place after marriage.

[Woland]

The literal meaning of the verse is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In this translation, we see nothing about slaves or captives at all. However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed. I agree, a better translation would have been better. But they chose to translate it that way. But as stated earlier, the correct translation is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In short, a captive is freed once they are married. They do not remain captives or slaves and sexual relations takes place after marriage.

Let me get this straight.

The way you are trying to excuse Islam of being anti-women is by saying that a verse in the Quran says "the spouses that you rightfully possess" and not "the slaves that you rightfully possess"?

At any rate, please give evidence for your claim that the verse "actually" means spouses when the most widely accepted translations use an expression that clearly means slaves. "Right-hand possessions" = slaves acquired in wars. Show me a serious scholar who denies this with evidence to support his case.

However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim of yours that the widely accepted translators who use the words slaves or captives "actually" were reffering to "future spouses which are now your slaves", and that this is explained in their commentary, or withdraw the claim.

Besides, the Quran certainly doesn't say "that you rightfully possessed" but "that you rightfully possess".

Show us any evidence for your (so far) unsupported and endless claims, please.

There is no way you can make sense of the verses in the Quran with your explanation that it refers to wives...and wives. It just brings up more contradictions and incoherences. Again, the verses draw a clear disctinction between wives and slaves.

At any rate, Muhammad himself had at least one concubine.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... cubine.htm

There goes the "sex outside of marriage is forbidden" theory, by a Muslim's own admission - a Muslim who sources his claims quite well, I might add. I suggest you take the time to read the article. Tell me what you think about it, Fatihah.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

The literal meaning of the verse is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In this translation, we see nothing about slaves or captives at all. However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed. I agree, a better translation would have been better. But they chose to translate it that way. But as stated earlier, the correct translation is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In short, a captive is freed once they are married. They do not remain captives or slaves and sexual relations takes place after marriage.

Let me get this straight.

The way you are trying to excuse Islam of being anti-women is by saying that a verse in the Quran says "the spouses that you rightfully possess" and not "the slaves that you rightfully possess"?

At any rate, please give evidence for your claim that the verse "actually" means spouses when the most widely accepted translations use an expression that clearly means slaves. "Right-hand possessions" = slaves acquired in wars. Show me a serious scholar who denies this with evidence to support his case.

However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed.

I challenge you to substantiate this claim of yours that the widely accepted translators who use the words slaves or captives "actually" were reffering to "future spouses which are now your slaves", and that this is explained in their commentary, or withdraw the claim.

Besides, the Quran certainly doesn't say "that you rightfully possessed" but "that you rightfully possess".

Show us any evidence for your (so far) unsupported and endless claims, please.

There is no way you can make sense of the verses in the Quran with your explanation that it refers to wives...and wives. It just brings up more contradictions and incoherences. Again, the verses draw a clear disctinction between wives and slaves.

At any rate, Muhammad himself had at least one concubine.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... cubine.htm

There goes the "sex outside of marriage is forbidden" theory, by a Muslim's own admission - a Muslim who sources his claims quite well, I might add. I suggest you take the time to read the article. Tell me what you think about it, Fatihah.

-Woland

Response: Here goes another attempt to show islam to be as degrading as your ideology. The fundamental flaw in this attempt though is the fact that you've reduced your arguments to asking me to prove yours, without you first proving it yourself. For it is you who presented translations of Pickthall, Shakir and Ali, not me. And it is you who claims to know what their translations mean. Yet it is you who wants me to provide their commentary? A clear demonstration of bad intent. For if you know the translation and you know it's meaning, then you should know it's commentary. The simple fact that you don't know the commentary of the verse in which you yourself quoted clearly shows that you never intended to know it's meaning, but rather insist on using it to fit your degrading ideology. You want me to prove your quotes? Huh. Hilarious. Funny how non-muslims try so desperately to use the qur'an against a muslim when they themselves have no knowledge of the verses. I mean really, how do you ask for the commentary of translations in which you quoted and claim to know the meaning at the same time. You do make me laugh. I suggest you learn the basic fundamentals of how to debate first. Simply put, I'm not about to bring the commentary of the verses you quoted, especially since we can see your intent. It's your quote. It's your translation of choice. Then it is your responsibility to bring the commentary of your quotes.

(Asking me to bring commentary of your quoted translations which you claim to know. I can't stop laughing).

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

I challenge you once again to substantiate these claims of yours, bolded for convenience.

The literal meaning of the verse is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In this translation, we see nothing about slaves or captives at all. However, some translators use the words "slaves" or ""captives" for their own reasons, which you find in their commentary. And in their own explanation, they themselves say that when referring to sexual relations with slaves, it means after marriage and the slave is freed. I agree, a better translation would have been better. But they chose to translate it that way. But as stated earlier, the correct translation is "spouses that you rightfully possess". In short, a captive is freed once they are married. They do not remain captives or slaves and sexual relations takes place after marriage.

You cannot make endless claims without referencing or otherwise substantiating them, as you've been doing this entire thread.

You mentioned the "real" meaning is (massively) different from the translated word which I "mistakenly" believe to clearly refer to slaves, and said that the commentaries (hopefully, of widely accepted translators and not from random obscure translators) corroborated your account of this. I challenge you to substantiate your claims or withdraw them, according to the rules of the forum.

Also, do you have no comment on the purported fact that Muhammad had a concubine who wasn't his wife? Did you happen to notice how many sources from Muslim scholars corroborate this, and that a Muslim himself is defending this?

Did you notice that TheWayIsOne, a Muslim who posted in this thread, agrees that Islam permitted sex with slaves?

-Woland