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]

Response: As I've already mentioned, the qur'an clearly prohibits sexual intercourse outside of marriage,

No.

I've shown that it's acceptable under Islamic jurisprudence, quoting from the Quran and Hadith, to have sex with slaves without any intent to marry. The words of the Quran and Hadith are clear in this matter, and I strongly feel that this is why you do not address the clear texts themselves -or my posts and arguments, for that matter- but prefer to make unsubstantiated triumphalist claims that you are correct.

Substantiate your claims or concede the argument.

For your information, even if the Quran, somewhere else, explicitly states that sex is only within the confines of marriage, it doesn't change anything to the demonstrable and self-evident fact
that the verses and Hadith speak of sex with slaves as being permissible. It would only prove that the Quran (i.e. words from Muhammad, the man) contradicts itself in yet another way, suggesting that it was man-made.

thus sexual intercourse with slave women who are not wives is prohibited.

Can slave women be wives at the same time? You've already said that this isn't the case. Do not run away from addressing the texts which draw clear, unequivocal distinctions between slaves and wives, and permit sex with both.

Therefore, all the text in which you've quoted referring to sexual relations with captive women refer to doing so in the confines of marriage.

As I said, you claimed that slaves could not be wives and remain slaves, and the texts are clearly reffering to sexual intercourse with slaves, not wives.

There is no contradiction, for none of the text in which you've quoted says it's o.k. to have sexual relations outside of marriage.

There are several contradictions, and all of the texts I've quoted suggest that your Allah and his alter ego Muhammad had no problem whatsoever with sex with slaves.

For more information and sources, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_ ... oncubinage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_se ... ith_slaves

Many of the sources in these pages are from Muslims themselves.

See here also, another page by a Muslim which tries to prove that it's alright in the proper context to have sex with slaves - http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/f/Sex_w.slaves.a.women.html

These verses refer to the permissibility of a man for intercourse with his unmarried female slaves without having to marry them. Such an option was not available to women owners of male slaves nor to men owners of married female slaves.

If you want to see something really interesting, take a few minutes and go explore what your Muslim brothers have to say in defense of sex with slaves here -
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthr ... s-in-Islam and in other such forums.

There are PLENTY of places where Muslims, including "scholars", defend the right to have sex with slave girls.

Do you still deny that your own religious texts corroborate this?

You will have to provide more than just claim after claim. It's basic debate etiquette. If you cannot adhere to the rules of the forum, you will be reported.

-Woland

Response: As expected, with all of your bogus interpretations, it is clear that once again you intend on advocating your perverted ideology. None of the texts in which you've quoted states sex outside of marriage. The words "outside of marriage" is no where in the texts, nor anything synonymous to it. Therefore, it can't possibly mean what you say because according to your own evidence, the words don't exist.

Then you insist to whinig and hypocritical tactics, suggesting for me to substantiate my claims while you do the opposite. Such logic is flawed. For it is you who failed to show the words "outside of marriage" while I have clearly shown that the qur'an only allows sex within the confines of marriage. Thus my claim is substantiated. Yours is not. And as always, another non-muslim wishes to make a report because their bogus logic keeps getting debunked and their perverted ideology is losing ground. Very typical. For as shown, the one you should be reporting according to your own standards is you.

But to finally put the nail in the coffin, let's say for the sake of argument that the hadiths do mean that the muslims were allowed sex with slaves. In fact, let's erase the term "for the sake of argument", as I say that the hadith does in fact mean that sex was allowed with female slaves outside of marriage. Even with that said, your claims are still BOGUS. For the qur'an was revealed in intervals (25:32). As such, there are several things in which islam prohibits that you will find allowed in the hadiths. Why? Because there was no revelation to prohibit the acts yet, for the qur'an was revealed piece by piece. So when reading the hadiths concerning sex with slaves, it is not that islam allows it. It's that the verse to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed. I can show you several hadiths in which muslims drink and would go to the masjid drunk and the prophet did nothing. That however changed when Allah revealed the verse prohibiting alcohol.

So in conclusion, the question is what does islam allow. And the answer is clear that islam does not allow sex outside of marriage or sex with slaves. The hadiths in which show that they were allowed is in reference to the fact that the verses to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Really?

Will you ever address the content of my posts instead of posting irrelevant nonsense?

I cannot hide from you that your reluctance to substantiate your endless stream of claims does not reflect well on your position.

Response: As expected, with all of your bogus interpretations, it is clear that once again you intend on advocating your perverted ideology.

You've just insulted a lot of Muslims and Muslim scholars -as well as your alleged prophet and his pious Muslim soldiers- who are happy to admit that Islam permits sex with slaves, but let's put that aside for a moment.

None of the texts in which you've quoted states sex outside of marriage. The words "outside of marriage" is no where in the texts, nor anything synonymous to it. Therefore, it can't possibly mean what you say because according to your own evidence, the words don't exist.

This is such a desperate attempt to deny the obvious that I don't even know what to say, since it doesn't seem like intellectual honesty on your part is on today's menu. The many passages speak of sex with slaves, and you said yourself that wives cannot be slaves at the same time, and that Muslims cannot refer to or treat their wives as slaves. Therefore, it's outside of marriage.

Basic, basic logic.

Then you insist to whinig and hypocritical tactics, suggesting for me to substantiate my claims while you do the opposite. Such logic is flawed.

I've well substantiated my claims with links to articles and several quotes from your own sacred texts which clearly allow for sex with slaves, while you have done nothing except retreat and deny while claiming victory.

Anyone can see this.

For it is you who failed to show the words "outside of marriage" while I have clearly shown that the qur'an only allows sex within the confines of marriage.

You have shown no such thing. You've repeated the claim.

Do you know what a circular argument is?

I challenge you to substantiate this claim of yours that Islam only allows for sex within the confines of marriage. Based on the tactics I've seen on your part so far, you will run away from substantiating your endless claims, quoting my entire post only to reply irrelevant denialist nonsense which doesn't address what is written.

Why?

Because you can't address the arguments without admitting that your words contradict Islam's clear texts.

Thus my claim is substantiated. Yours is not.

Do you even know what "substantiating" means?

You just make baseless claim after baseless claim, running away from the issues endlessly in a comical but not unusual display of Muslim triumphalism.

And as always, another non-muslim wishes to make a report because their bogus logic keeps getting debunked and their perverted ideology is losing ground. Very typical. For as shown, the one you should be reporting according to your own standards is you.

I'm sure that this is why you quote entire posts without ever addressing the arguments therein, and reply with irrelevant nonsense.

But to finally put the nail in the coffin, let's say for the sake of argument that the hadiths do mean that the muslims were allowed sex with slaves. In fact, let's erase the term "for the sake of argument", as I say that the hadith does in fact mean that sex was allowed with female slaves outside of marriage.

I feel something hilarious coming up.

Even with that said, your claims are still BOGUS. For the qur'an was revealed in intervals (25:32). As such, there are several things in which islam prohibits that you will find allowed in the hadiths. Why? Because there was no revelation to prohibit the acts yet, for the qur'an was revealed piece by piece. So when reading the hadiths concerning sex with slaves, it is not that islam allows it. It's that the verse to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed. I can show you several hadiths in which muslims drink and would go to the masjid drunk and the prophet did nothing. That however changed when Allah revealed the verse prohibiting alcohol.

This is the best sophistry you can come up with?

I've shown you the verses in the Quran which condone sexual relationships with slaves. Maybe you need to be reminded of those verses.

023.001
YUSUFALI: The believers must (eventually) win through,-
PICKTHAL: Successful indeed are the believers
SHAKIR: Successful indeed are the believers,

023.002
YUSUFALI: Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
PICKTHAL: Who are humble in their prayers,
SHAKIR: Who are humble in their prayers,

023.003
YUSUFALI: Who avoid vain talk;
PICKTHAL: And who shun vain conversation,
SHAKIR: And who keep aloof from what is vain,

023.004
YUSUFALI: Who are active in deeds of charity;
PICKTHAL: And who are payers of the poor-due;
SHAKIR: And who are givers of poor-rate,

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,
PICKTHAL: And who guard their modesty -
SHAKIR: And who guard their private parts,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
PICKTHAL: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
SHAKIR: Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

Are you really denying that the verse speaks of wives or slaves?

Do you have a basic grasp of reading comprehension in English?
If not, please let us know so that we can explain to you why the verses cannot possibly mean what you want them to mean so that you don't have to admit that your words contradict the Quran.

The verse says that they can have sex with their wives, or slaves.
This is the only logical interpretation of the verse.

Please, run away from addressing it once again and post denialist nonsense while retreating pitifully.
I'm sure that will prove your point.

Here's a bonus verse which you can't explain.

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

Go ahead, tell me that the verse doesn't say that Muslims are allowed carnal desires for their wives and slave girls, it will be entertaining.

So in conclusion, the question is what does islam allow. And the answer is clear that islam does not allow sex outside of marriage or sex with slaves. The hadiths in which show that they were allowed is in reference to the fact that the verses to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed.

This is priceless.

Are you really implying that Muhammad, the "great example for mankind", needed to be told by Allah (who watched his pious Muslim soldiers have sex with innumerable slaves before supposedly saying anything) that sex with slaves was wrong, especially for married men, and that this is why he just told his inquiring soldiers that it didn't matter if they did coitus interruptus or not when they had sex with slaves, and didn't condemn the practice of sex with slaves in the slightest?

It's quite entertaining to watch you dig your own hole with such vigor.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Really?

Will you ever address the content of my posts instead of posting irrelevant nonsense?

I cannot hide from you that your reluctance to substantiate your endless stream of claims does not reflect well on your position.

Response: As expected, with all of your bogus interpretations, it is clear that once again you intend on advocating your perverted ideology.

You've just insulted a lot of Muslims and Muslim scholars -as well as your alleged prophet and his pious Muslim soldiers- who are happy to admit that Islam permits sex with slaves, but let's put that aside for a moment.

None of the texts in which you've quoted states sex outside of marriage. The words "outside of marriage" is no where in the texts, nor anything synonymous to it. Therefore, it can't possibly mean what you say because according to your own evidence, the words don't exist.

This is such a desperate attempt to deny the obvious that I don't even know what to say, since it doesn't seem like intellectual honesty on your part is on today's menu. The many passages speak of sex with slaves, and you said yourself that wives cannot be slaves at the same time, and that Muslims cannot refer to or treat their wives as slaves. Therefore, it's outside of marriage.

Basic, basic logic.

Then you insist to whinig and hypocritical tactics, suggesting for me to substantiate my claims while you do the opposite. Such logic is flawed.

I've well substantiated my claims with links to articles and several quotes from your own sacred texts which clearly allow for sex with slaves, while you have done nothing except retreat and deny while claiming victory.

Anyone can see this.

For it is you who failed to show the words "outside of marriage" while I have clearly shown that the qur'an only allows sex within the confines of marriage.

You have shown no such thing. You've repeated the claim.

Do you know what a circular argument is?

I challenge you to substantiate this claim of yours that Islam only allows for sex within the confines of marriage. Based on the tactics I've seen on your part so far, you will run away from substantiating your endless claims, quoting my entire post only to reply irrelevant denialist nonsense which doesn't address what is written.

Why?

Because you can't address the arguments without admitting that your words contradict Islam's clear texts.

Thus my claim is substantiated. Yours is not.

Do you even know what "substantiating" means?

You just make baseless claim after baseless claim, running away from the issues endlessly in a comical but not unusual display of Muslim triumphalism.

And as always, another non-muslim wishes to make a report because their bogus logic keeps getting debunked and their perverted ideology is losing ground. Very typical. For as shown, the one you should be reporting according to your own standards is you.

I'm sure that this is why you quote entire posts without ever addressing the arguments therein, and reply with irrelevant nonsense.

But to finally put the nail in the coffin, let's say for the sake of argument that the hadiths do mean that the muslims were allowed sex with slaves. In fact, let's erase the term "for the sake of argument", as I say that the hadith does in fact mean that sex was allowed with female slaves outside of marriage.

I feel something hilarious coming up.

Even with that said, your claims are still BOGUS. For the qur'an was revealed in intervals (25:32). As such, there are several things in which islam prohibits that you will find allowed in the hadiths. Why? Because there was no revelation to prohibit the acts yet, for the qur'an was revealed piece by piece. So when reading the hadiths concerning sex with slaves, it is not that islam allows it. It's that the verse to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed. I can show you several hadiths in which muslims drink and would go to the masjid drunk and the prophet did nothing. That however changed when Allah revealed the verse prohibiting alcohol.

This is the best sophistry you can come up with?

I've shown you the verses in the Quran which condone sexual relationships with slaves. Maybe you need to be reminded of those verses.

023.001
YUSUFALI: The believers must (eventually) win through,-
PICKTHAL: Successful indeed are the believers
SHAKIR: Successful indeed are the believers,

023.002
YUSUFALI: Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
PICKTHAL: Who are humble in their prayers,
SHAKIR: Who are humble in their prayers,

023.003
YUSUFALI: Who avoid vain talk;
PICKTHAL: And who shun vain conversation,
SHAKIR: And who keep aloof from what is vain,

023.004
YUSUFALI: Who are active in deeds of charity;
PICKTHAL: And who are payers of the poor-due;
SHAKIR: And who are givers of poor-rate,

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,
PICKTHAL: And who guard their modesty -
SHAKIR: And who guard their private parts,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
PICKTHAL: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
SHAKIR: Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,

Are you really denying that the verse speaks of wives or slaves?

Do you have a basic grasp of reading comprehension in English?
If not, please let us know so that we can explain to you why the verses cannot possibly mean what you want them to mean so that you don't have to admit that your words contradict the Quran.

The verse says that they can have sex with their wives, or slaves.
This is the only logical interpretation of the verse.

Please, run away from addressing it once again and post denialist nonsense while retreating pitifully.
I'm sure that will prove your point.

Here's a bonus verse which you can't explain.

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

Go ahead, tell me that the verse doesn't say that Muslims are allowed carnal desires for their wives and slave girls, it will be entertaining.

So in conclusion, the question is what does islam allow. And the answer is clear that islam does not allow sex outside of marriage or sex with slaves. The hadiths in which show that they were allowed is in reference to the fact that the verses to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed.

This is priceless.

Are you really implying that Muhammad, the "great example for mankind", needed to be told by Allah (who watched his pious Muslim soldiers have sex with innumerable slaves before supposedly saying anything) that sex with slaves was wrong, especially for married men, and that this is why he just told his inquiring soldiers that it didn't matter if they did coitus interruptus or not when they had sex with slaves, and didn't condemn the practice of sex with slaves in the slightest?

It's quite entertaining to watch you dig your own hole with such vigor.

-Woland

Response: Simply amazing. After failing to make sense of your perverted ideology, you try desperately to show islam as degrading as your ideology. Yet you quote texts saying that it means sex outside of marriage when we can clearly see that the words "sex outside of marriage" is not there. A statement clearly can't mean something if the words of the meaning are not there. So once again, you fail to show that islam is as degrading as your ideology which only makes you look shameless, not islam.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Your last post, like the majority of the other ones I've read from you, consisted of obviously evasive tactics and triumphalism, as expected.

I repeat:

1. Show me where the Quran says that only sex with wives is permitted, as you claimed. People are expected to substantiate their claims or withdraw them on this forum. It's basic debating etiquette.

2. Explain how the verses in the Quran could possibly be reffering to sex within marriage when it clearly speaks of sex with slaves or wives, while keeping in mind that you also claimed that Muslims could not refer to their wives as slaves.

Your "but the exact words outside of marriage aren't there, therefore I'm right" excuse is laughable and reeks of intellectual dishonesty, as the verse makes painfully clear that the sex with slaves could not possibly be within the confines of marriage.

Do you have a basic grasp of reading comprehension? I'm serious. If you don't, I can spend more time explaining to you why the verse cannot be considered to apply only within the confines of marriage.

In my view, your entire "argument" throughout our conversation could be summed up as follows:

"The verses must only speak of sex with wives even if they clearly don't, or Islam would condone sex with slaves, which I find immoral. Since I know Islam is perfectly moral, the verses about sex with slave girls must somehow be confined to marriage since otherwise I would be wrong about Islam, and I'm not."

If you think that this constitutes a valid line of argumentation, I think you should learn the basics of debate, logic, and reason, and try again.

You've provided no evidence for any of your claims, and ample evidence has been provided against them.

-Woland

P.S.: I noticed your avoidance of the implications of your own words whereby Muhammad -the great moral example- needed to be told by Allah that sex with slaves is wrong (especially for married men). It's pretty entertaining to watch your avoidance tactics when you have no valid answer - which, if we are to judge by your performance on this forum, is all the time.

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Your last post, like the majority of the other ones I've read from you, consisted of obviously evasive tactics and triumphalism, as expected.

I repeat:

1. Show me where the Quran says that only sex with wives is permitted, as you claimed. People are expected to substantiate their claims or withdraw them on this forum. It's basic debating etiquette.

2. Explain how the verses in the Quran could possibly be reffering to sex within marriage when it clearly speaks of sex with slaves or wives, while keeping in mind that you also claimed that Muslims could not refer to their wives as slaves.

Your "but the exact words outside of marriage aren't there, therefore I'm right" excuse is laughable and reeks of intellectual dishonesty, as the verse makes painfully clear that the sex with slaves could not possibly be within the confines of marriage.

Do you have a basic grasp of reading comprehension? I'm serious. If you don't, I can spend more time explaining to you why the verse cannot be considered to apply only within the confines of marriage.

In my view, your entire "argument" throughout our conversation could be summed up as follows:

"The verses must only speak of sex with wives even if they clearly don't, or Islam would condone sex with slaves, which I find immoral. Since I know Islam is perfectly moral, the verses about sex with slave girls must somehow be confined to marriage since otherwise I would be wrong about Islam, and I'm not."

If you think that this constitutes a valid line of argumentation, I think you should learn the basics of debate, logic, and reason, and try again.

You've provided no evidence for any of your claims, and ample evidence has been provided against them.

-Woland

P.S.: I noticed your avoidance of the implications of your own words whereby Muhammad -the great moral example- needed to be told by Allah that sex with slaves is wrong (especially for married men). It's pretty entertaining to watch your avoidance tactics when you have no valid answer - which, if we are to judge by your performance on this forum, is all the time.

Response: Once again, you're failure to produce a verse with the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" is further proof of your bogus claims. Then you poke fun of yourself when criticizing one's comprehension of english when you yourself are reading words which are not there. Hilarious. The qur'an clearly states sex is only allowed in the confines of marriage as it clearly states that adultery is forbidden in islam (17:32). But you still insist in producing your idiotic ideology and think that somehow you're belittling islam. That's hilarious.

Then you try to claim that I stated that Muhammad needed to be told that sex with slaves is wrong which we can see was never stated. Muhammad is a prophet. As such, he does not make decisions on any social matter in islam unless Allah reveals it first. That does not mean that he does not know that it's wrong. He's not in charge. He's just the messenger. Another of your ridiculous claims.

Once again, you fail to show islam is as trifling as your ideology. Making your way of life shameless, not islam.

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

Again, if you lacked a certain intellectual difficiency as a child, that's your business. But don't input your difficiency on others.

Moderator warning.

This would be considered to be a violation of the rules. Please avoid making any negative comments about others.

Response: But it can not be an insult if the poster themself agrees. For the poster themself in post 26 and 29 stated themself that people under the age of 11 are incapable of making reasonable decisions based on hypothetical situations, which would mean that those under 11 have a certain intellectual difficiency, which also means that the poster themself acknowledges that they themself possesed an intellectual difficiency under the age of 11. I simply stated for the poster not to impose their lack of difficiency on me or others. There was no insult.

Please remember that any challenges to moderator actions must be made by PM according to the rules.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

There is a lot of insulting going on in this post. This is becoming a pattern, so I will attempt to be more explicit.
Adding bold to everything that is an unnecessary personal comment would yeild this:

Response: Once again, you're failure to produce a verse with the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" is further proof of your bogus claims. Then you poke fun of yourself when criticizing one's comprehension of english when you yourself are reading words which are not there. Hilarious. The qur'an clearly states sex is only allowed in the confines of marriage as it clearly states that adultery is forbidden in islam (17:32). But you still insist in producing your idiotic ideology and think that somehow you're belittling islam. That's hilarious.

Then you try to claim that I stated that Muhammad needed to be told that sex with slaves is wrong which we can see was never stated. Muhammad is a prophet. As such, he does not make decisions on any social matter in islam unless Allah reveals it first. That does not mean that he does not know that it's wrong. He's not in charge. He's just the messenger. Another of your ridiculous claims.

Once again, you fail to show islam is as trifling as your ideology. Making your way of life shameless, not islam.

All of the bolded text should have been removed (and, if necessary to maintain the thought, replaced with something more polite). If you need suggestions as to how to do this, pm myself or another moderator.
Either way, be sure to post within the rules in the future.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: Once again, you're failure to produce a verse with the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" is further proof of your bogus claims.

You know as well as I do (hopefully) that the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in Islam" don't have to be found literally in the text for it to condone sex outside of marriage - which it clearly does, as I've demonstrated. The verses make a distinction between wives and slaves, and permit sex with both. Muslim scholars of mainstream Hanafi schools of thought agree.

The challenge to show these exact words is fallacious, and I'm certain you know it. It's as if I asked you to show me where the Quran says that "only sex with your wives is allowed" and if you didn't show me these exact words, but showed me another verse conveying the same meaning (which you can't, haven't, and won't, because it doesn't exist), I told you that the verse didn't have those exact words, therefore your claims were "bogus".

This is called intellectual dishonesty.

Then you poke fun of yourself when criticizing one's comprehension of english when you yourself are reading words which are not there. Hilarious.

The meaning is there, and this is undeniable.

You can have sex with slaves.
Slaves can't be wives at the same time.
Therefore, you can have sex with more than just your wives.


Simple logic, don't you agree?

It's no wonder you continuously abstain from addressing the verses I posted. You have no way of showing how the verses could ever be interpreted to be speaking of wives only.

The qur'an clearly states sex is only allowed in the confines of marriage as it clearly states that adultery is forbidden in islam (17:32).

The Quran never even implies that sex is only allowed within the confines of marriage. You are adding meaning to the verse that isn't to be found in the text. That is, unless you want to tell me that the Quran contradicts itself. Feel free to do so.

As I've said and shown previously, sex with slaves is not considered adultery in Islam, as per numerous scholars' opinions and the text itself. You are reading meaning that isn't contained in the verse, perhaps because sex with slaves seems distasteful to you.

Then you try to claim that I stated that Muhammad needed to be told that sex with slaves is wrong which we can see was never stated.

I believe I said "implied". Do you understand the difference between "implied" and "stated"?

You clearly implied, at the very least, that Allah needed to tell Muhammad that sex with non-wives was wrong before he could act on it and reprimand his men who were having sex with slaves.

Out of curiosity, what if I were to show that at least some of the verses/Hadith mentioning slaves came after Muhammad said that "adultery" was haram? Would you admit that your theory of progressive revelation was inadequate in explaining Muhammad's complacency at his the notion that his men were having sex with slaves?

Muhammad is a prophet. As such, he does not make decisions on any social matter in islam unless Allah reveals it first.

You are actually suggesting, once again, that Muhammad, the great moral example, didn't have a strong enough sense of morality to act on his supposed moral knowledge that sex with slaves is wrong by reprimanding his own men, and that this is why he stood idly by as his men had sex with slaves, waiting for Allah to reveal a verse condoning or condemning the act.

This, by itself, debunks the idea of Muhammad as a great example for mankind.

That does not mean that he does not know that it's wrong. He's not in charge. He's just the messenger. Another of your ridiculous claims.

So...he knows it's wrong, and he knows that his own men are doing something wrong, but when asked about the act he doesn't reprimand them in the slightest and indeed condones the practice by saying that it doesn't matter whether or not his men do coitus interruptus, but it doesn't matter because he's not in charge and hasn't been told by Allah that sex with slaves is "officially" wrong (something which Allah never says)? Is this what you are saying?

It would greatly corroborate my notion that Muhammad was not a moral example in the slightest.

I can just see the scene.
Muhammad, after having had his first few "revelations", stumbles upon a group of his men who are brutally beating a woman.
Muhammad: Sorry woman, I cannot help you since Allah hasn't yet told me if it's halal or not to beat you up for [whatever reason these men are beating her up].

If this was the best explanation you could come up with, we can reasonably assert that Islam was founded by someone with a dubious moral compass at best.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: Once again, you're failure to produce a verse with the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" is further proof of your bogus claims.

You know as well as I do (hopefully) that the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in Islam" don't have to be found literally in the text for it to condone sex outside of marriage - which it clearly does, as I've demonstrated. The verses make a distinction between wives and slaves, and permit sex with both. Muslim scholars of mainstream Hanafi schools of thought agree.

The challenge to show these exact words is fallacious, and I'm certain you know it. It's as if I asked you to show me where the Quran says that "only sex with your wives is allowed" and if you didn't show me these exact words, but showed me another verse conveying the same meaning (which you can't, haven't, and won't, because it doesn't exist), I told you that the verse didn't have those exact words, therefore your claims were "bogus".

This is called intellectual dishonesty.

Then you poke fun of yourself when criticizing one's comprehension of english when you yourself are reading words which are not there. Hilarious.

The meaning is there, and this is undeniable.

You can have sex with slaves.
Slaves can't be wives at the same time.
Therefore, you can have sex with more than just your wives.


Simple logic, don't you agree?

It's no wonder you continuously abstain from addressing the verses I posted. You have no way of showing how the verses could ever be interpreted to be speaking of wives only.

The qur'an clearly states sex is only allowed in the confines of marriage as it clearly states that adultery is forbidden in islam (17:32).

The Quran never even implies that sex is only allowed within the confines of marriage. You are adding meaning to the verse that isn't to be found in the text. That is, unless you want to tell me that the Quran contradicts itself. Feel free to do so.

As I've said and shown previously, sex with slaves is not considered adultery in Islam, as per numerous scholars' opinions and the text itself. You are reading meaning that isn't contained in the verse, perhaps because sex with slaves seems distasteful to you.

Then you try to claim that I stated that Muhammad needed to be told that sex with slaves is wrong which we can see was never stated.

I believe I said "implied". Do you understand the difference between "implied" and "stated"?

You clearly implied, at the very least, that Allah needed to tell Muhammad that sex with non-wives was wrong before he could act on it and reprimand his men who were having sex with slaves.

Out of curiosity, what if I were to show that at least some of the verses/Hadith mentioning slaves came after Muhammad said that "adultery" was haram? Would you admit that your theory of progressive revelation was inadequate in explaining Muhammad's complacency at his the notion that his men were having sex with slaves?

Muhammad is a prophet. As such, he does not make decisions on any social matter in islam unless Allah reveals it first.

You are actually suggesting, once again, that Muhammad, the great moral example, didn't have a strong enough sense of morality to act on his supposed moral knowledge that sex with slaves is wrong by reprimanding his own men, and that this is why he stood idly by as his men had sex with slaves, waiting for Allah to reveal a verse condoning or condemning the act.

This, by itself, debunks the idea of Muhammad as a great example for mankind.

That does not mean that he does not know that it's wrong. He's not in charge. He's just the messenger. Another of your ridiculous claims.

So...he knows it's wrong, and he knows that his own men are doing something wrong, but when asked about the act he doesn't reprimand them in the slightest and indeed condones the practice by saying that it doesn't matter whether or not his men do coitus interruptus, but it doesn't matter because he's not in charge and hasn't been told by Allah that sex with slaves is "officially" wrong (something which Allah never says)? Is this what you are saying?

It would greatly corroborate my notion that Muhammad was not a moral example in the slightest.

I can just see the scene.
Muhammad, after having had his first few "revelations", stumbles upon a group of his men who are brutally beating a woman.
Muhammad: Sorry woman, I cannot help you since Allah hasn't yet told me if it's halal or not to beat you up for [whatever reason these men are beating her up].

If this was the best explanation you could come up with, we can reasonably assert that Islam was founded by someone with a dubious moral compass at best.

-Woland

Response: More of the same redundancy. After failing to show islam as degrading as your ideology, you again try the same desperate attempt. You make the ridiculous claim the words "sex outside of marriage is allowed in islam" does not have to be in the text for it to mean so. An apparent example of failing to comprehend english. For I've also stated in the previous post that the words, nor anything synonymous to it exist in the text. But according to your logic, it doesn't have to. Then this also means, according to your logic, that your arguments are false and your ideology is trifling. Now do you say these words? No. Do you say anything synonymous to it? No. But according to your logic, you didn't have to. Thus you're own logic admits that your arguments are false and your ideology is trifling.

But you don't stop there. You say that the fact that the qur'an condemns adultery is not proof that islam only condones sex within marrriage. More nonsense. For if there are only two options concerning sexual relations and one is condemned, then the other is allowed. Basic math. But I guess it's not your strong suit either. Then you claim that the words stating that Muhammad is a prophet, therefore he makes no decisions on social matters in islam unless Allah orders him to means Muhammad is immoral because he didn't speak against sex with slaves. Then based on your own logic, so are you. For you never spoke of rape as being immoral in your whole post. And as your logic goes, since you didn't speak against it, you must condone it. More examples of your degrading ideology, not islam.

[TheWayIsOne]

Is the goal here to arrive at the truth or is it just to insult and defame a religion? If the goal is to understand and question with an open mind and open heart then it would make much more sense to begin with the principles and fundamentals, verify their authenticity and then build an understanding from there, just as a building is built starting with a foundation and pillars before you arrive at details. Without understanding contexts and science of revelation everything afterwards is going to confused and misleading. Its very easy to understand why a person would become upset and have hatred for some of the information that has been presented in this post, it seems unimaginable from our perspective, from our day and age. I would just like give a bit of background information that may help bring some of these details to light.

First of all, slavery was the norm in all societies in the world at that time, it was something that existed and a reality, so lets begin by saying that Islam did not start slavery. Islam began by focusing on changing the behavior of a slave owner rather than abolishing slavery entirely and immediately. There are many verses in the Quran that encourage freeing a slave, they can be quoted upon request. The freeing of slaves is mentioned in the Quran as a deed that atones sins, or just an act of good, also encouraged is for the owner to give the slave the opportunity to earn his or her freedom. Slaves are further refereed to in the Quran as members of the household, as well as encouraging the freeing of slaves Islam also prohibits enslaving people who are free except for the case of captives in war. Many more information can be presented in this regard, the point here is that Islam came at a time when slavery was common and accepted all over the world and it brought steps towards ending slavery. This is similar to the way that Islam brought steps towards ending the use of alcohol and intoxicants. First, there were indications that drinking brings about evil behavior, then it became banned before times of prayer, and finally banned altogether.

Now that slavery is no longer accepted by international norms Islamically no free person can be made a slave, therefore there can be no more slavery as far as Islam is concerned and there is only very limited situation where a person would fall under some but not all of the rulings that were set for slaves and that is a prisoner of war. And these prisoners of war also have to be freed either with ransom or without ransom, they do not remain forever as prisoners of war.

Furthermore, Islam banned using slave women as prostitutes which was a common practice at the time and also banned forcing them into sexual relations if they opposed it. So we can see, these are steps towards ending these practices all together and not the opposite. Also, if a woman which was a slave became pregnant she would have to be given her freedom at that point. This was something unheard of according to the customs of the time. Keep in mind that we are talking about a time when slave women were considered by the Greeks as a commodity, the Romans considered a woman a slave by nature, this was the nature of a woman as far as they were concerned! Slaves existed all throughout the holy bible at the time of Jesus and before. I don't claim to to fully understand the context and don't want to fall into the same behavior of defaming or insulting as I see common but here is one verse for example from the bible “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.

Now we all agree, that the idea of having slaves and this talk of a person having relations with the slaves is unacceptable as far as we are concerned but we have to understand all of this in light of the situation, customs, and norms of that era and we would then see that Islam called to that which is better and more just.

To keep this post somewhat short and hopefully readable and beneficial Islam is not the religion that calls to walking all over women or disrespecting them n any way, shape or form as some would like people to believe. Islam is not the religion that considered women at fault for banishing men from paradise and Islam is the religion that prohibited burying daughters alive.

All Muslims including myself understand that Islam is against slavery and the goal was always to end the system of slavery and way to do so was gradually and in steps. This happened how many years before slavery was abolished in the west?