Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape Their Slave Girls?

By Bassam Zawadi.

Reblogged from Call to Monotheism

There are those who argue that since Islam permits Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with their slave girls, this then means that they also have the right to rape them.

This is absurd. The right to have sex with a woman does not necessarily imply that one has the right to rape her as well. To say that a Muslim man has the right to rape his slave girl is like saying that a man has the right to rape his wife; which is not true. Refer to this article.

Rape in Islam is completely forbidden. See this and this.

Imam Maalik said:

In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta’, Volume 2, page 734)

Imam Al Shaafi’i said:

“If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse.” (Imam Al Shaafi’i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)

Notice that both of these top classical scholars have stated that a man is to be punished for raping a slave girl. Of course this not our ultimate proof that Islam forbids rape, but this is to show that the early classical scholars surely did not understand Islam to be teaching it.

In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:

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

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

Do these critics who raise these arguments know Islam better than Umar ibn al Khattab?

We anticipate what our opponents might say in response. They will say that the scholars whom I just cited and the story of Umar ibn Al Khattab only refer to someone who raped a slave girl who did not belong to him, however one may rape the slave girl that is his property. Even though the story in Sunan Al Bayhaqi makes it clear that the man had sex with the girl after possessing her, we will accept this response only for the sake of argument.

It is nonsense to suggest that one could rape the slave girl he possesses because the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned us that we must take good care of those under our authority:

“There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.” (Saheeh Bukhari no. 6731; Saheeh Muslim, no. 142)

‘Umar ibn al-Ahwas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that he heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say during his Farewell Pilgrimage:

“Verily, you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you. As for your rights over your women, they are that they should not allow anyone to sit on your beds whom you dislike, or allow anyone into your houses whom you dislike. Verily, their rights over you are that you should treat them well with regard to their clothing and food.” (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1163, and Ibn Maajah, 1851).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that we shouldn’t harm slaves:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29

Narrated Al-Ma’rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, “I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names.” The Prophet said to me, ‘O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that our slaves are like our siblings. Who would rape his own sister?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade causing physical harm to slaves:

Saheeh Muslim

Book 015, Number 4082:

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.

Book 015, Number 4086

Abu Mas’ud al-Badri reported: “I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas’ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas’ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas’ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas’ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future.

If the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade slapping and whipping slaves then it’s unthinkable that he would have permitted raping them. It just makes no sense.

Thus, our argument is as follows:

– The Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited causing harm to and oppressing those under our authority.

– Rape is causing harm to someone and is considered a form of oppression

– If the critic says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made an exception to this general prohibition by allowing one to rape his slave girl, the burden of proof is upon him to show evidence for this exception.

– If he is not able to show evidence for this exception then we must assume that the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) general command is upheld, thus proving that Islam forbids one to rape his slave girl.

Critics would reply back and say that it’s unthinkable that slave girls back then would hae willingly consented to having sex with their Muslim captors who just killed their family members. They would usually point to the specific example of Banu Al-Mustaliq.

The narration states:

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

Here the critic’s argument goes something like this:

– The Islamic traditions show that Muslims had sex with their slave girls

– According to my subjective logic it is inconceivable that slave girls would consent to having sex with the captors that just killed members from their tribe

– In conclusion, the Islamic traditions show that Muslims raped their slave girls
These critics are ignorant of history, for slave girls did consent to having sex with their captors back in the past.
John McClintock said:

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

Matthew B. Schwartz said:

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

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

The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.

The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero “attracts” the women. (Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, “The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women” [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)

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

One might object to the fact that the above authors are only speaking about the Israelite era. However, that is really not a good response. The point I am trying to make is that the idea of the possibility of slave girls willingly having sex with their captors is not absurd. Thus, one is required to provide proof that those slave girls who had sex with their Muslim captors did not consent. This is especially due to the fact that 1) It was possible for slave girls back in the past to consent to having sex with their captors and 2) Muslims were prohibited from harming their slave girls.

If the critic says that not all of the slave girls felt this way and there were bound to be some who didn’t want to have sex, I would agree with him. However, how does this prove that the Muslims raped their slave girls? How does the critic know whether the Muslim back then actually raped the slave girl who was unwilling to have sex with him? Isn’t it possible that if he saw her unwilling he would have sold to her to another Muslim at a cheaper price? Or he would have purchased another slave girl who was willing to have sex with him? Or he would have waited for her to consent, for by that time he would have treated her very nicely and convinced her that Islam is true and that it was her tribe’s fault for starting the battle, etc. Yes these things are possible.

How does the critic know that none of these things happened? What is his proof that the Muslims raped their slave girls?

The narration doesn’t show:

– How many Muslim captors decided to go through with having sex with the slave girls?

– How many women actually ended up having sex with their Muslim captors?

Most importantly, whether any slave girls were raped

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

He cannot and I challenge him to.

Another narration that the critics appeals to is this:

Sunan Abu Dawud

Volume 2, Number 2150

Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.

The critics would argue that no slave girl would consent to having sexual intercourse in the presence of her husband.
However, this is a completely false translation of the hadith. The words “in the presence of” are no where to be found in the Arabic text.

The full Arabic text (found here) states:

[Arabic text not showing in the article – and the link is faulty]

If the reader does not know how to read Arabic, let him bring someone who does and ask him whether he can point out to him the words “in the presence of”. He won’t be able to. The translation in Saheeh Muslim seems more accurate:

Saheeh Muslim

Book 008, Number 3432:

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:” And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i. e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).

So here we see that the Muslim soldiers were feeling uncomfortable with engaging in sexual intercourse with women who were already married. However, the verse was revealed saying that it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with slave girls even if they are married.

Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 4:24 cites several of the companions and second generation Muslims stating that the marriage of a woman is annulled after she has been captured and made a slave.

Imam Nawawi in his commentary on this hadith states:

It (i.e. to come to own a slave girl) annuls the marriage between her and her disbeliever husband. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa’, Bab: Jawaaz Wati’ Al Missbiyyah Ba’d Al Istibraa’ wa en Kaana laha Zawj Infasakh, Commentary on Hadith no. 2643, Source)

Thus, we see that in the eyes of Islam this marriage becomes invalid (some opinions like that of the Hanafi school state other conditions required for the annulment to occur). The critic would definitely argue back stating “what gives your religion the right?” but that is not the point of discussion. This is an external critique of Islam and the basis for this discussion really isn’t about this topic in particular but about whether Islam really is true and whether this is God’s decree. To debate the specifics is just useless. The Muslim sees this decree to be internally consistent and submits to God’s law that states that action x results in a divorce.

One might shout out to the Christian as well, “What gives your Bible the right to declare a woman an adulteress if she happened to marry a man who divorced her by not following the proper procedures (Matthew 5:2)?” The Christian really has nothing to say except the fact that he believes that this is God’s decree and submits to it. He believes that God has the power and right to determine how divorce should take place (e.g. what conditions are valid for divorce) and submits to them. Well, the Muslim says the same thing in this regard.

Imam Nawawi goes on to say:

And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi’i and who agreed with him from amongst the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have no religious book cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they convert to Islam first. As long as they are following their religion they are forbidden to approach. These slave girls (i.e. in the particular narration) are idol worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it must be interpreted as implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice but to interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best. (Ibid)

So here we see that a great number of scholars have argued that just as Muslims are forbidden to marry idol worshippers, they are forbidden as well from engaging in sexual intercourse with idol worshipping slave girls. In order to engage in the sexual act, the Muslim must wait for the slave girl to convert to Islam and in Islam there is no shred of evidence whatsoever that the Muslim can force or compel his slave girl to convert to Islam.

We see cases in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) where slave girls willingly prefer to accept Islam over returning to their tribe due to recognizing the truth of Islam and injustice of their own tribe for provoking the Muslims to war. The most famous case being that of Safiyyah, one of the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Furthermore, when analyzing the particular story mentioned in the hadith we see that no rape could have reasonably taken place.

Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri states:

The Enemy’s March and their Encampment at Awtas
When Malik bin ‘Awf – the general leader – decided to march and fight the Muslims, he made his countrypeople take their wealth, women and children with them to Awtas – which is a valley in Hawazin land and is quite near Hunain. It differs from Hunain in its being adjacent to Dhi-Al-Majaz which is around ten miles from Makkah in ‘Arafat’s direction. [Fath Al-Bari 8/27,42]

The War-experienced Man wrongs the Leader’s Judgement
As soon as they had camped in Awtas, people crowded round Malik. The old sane Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was well-known as a war-experienced man, and who was among those who gathered round Malik, asked: “What valley are we in?” “In Awtas,” they said. “What a good course it is for horses! It is neither a sharp pointed height nor a loosed soiled plain. What? Why do I hear camels’ growling, the donkeys’ braying, the children’s cries and the sheep bleating?” asked Duraid. They said: “Malik bin ‘Awf had made people bring their women, properties and children with them.” So he called Malik and asked him what made him do such a thing. Malik said that his aim was to have everybody’s family and properties around them so that they fight fiercely to protect them.” “I swear by Allâh that you are nothing but a shepherd,” answered Duraid, “Do you believe that there is anything whatsoever, can stand in the way of a defeated one or stop him from fleeing? If you win the battle you avail nothing but a man with a sword and a spear; but if you lose you will bring disgrace on your people and properties,” then he resumed his talk and went on wondering about some septs and their leaders. “O Malik, thrusting the distinguished people of Hawazin into the battlefield will avail you nothing. Raise them up to where they can be safe. Then make the young people mount their horses and fight. If you win, those whom you tarried will follow you, but if you were the loser it would be a loss of a battle, but your kinsmen, people and properties would not be lost.” (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): The Third Stage, Source)

So here we see that it was the disbeliever’s fault for bringing their own women and children to the battle field. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not interested in invading their lands and taking their women as it would be made clear as we read on:

A similar battalion of horsemen pursued the idolaters who threaded the track to Nakhlah and caught up with Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was killed by Rabi’a bin Rafi’. After collecting the booty, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] left for Ta’if to face the greatest number of the defeated idolaters. The booty was six thousand captives, twenty four thousand camels; over forty thousand sheep and four thousand silver ounces.

So here we see that the Muslims were victorious and obtained an impressive amount of war booty.

Continuing on:

The Distribution of the Booty at Al-Ji’ranah
Upon returning and lifting the siege in Ta’if, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had stayed over ten nights at Al-Ji’ranah before starting to distribute the booty. Distribution delay was due to the Prophet’s hope that Hawazin’s delegation might arrive and announce their repentance and consequently reclaim their loss. Seeing that none of them arrived, he started dividing the booty so as to calm down the tribes’ chiefs and the celebrities of Makkah. The first to receive booty and the ones who obtained the greatest number of shares were the people who had recently embraced Islam.
Notice this crucial point. The Prophet (peace be upon him) intentionally delayed distributing the booty because he wanted the Hawazin to come back and surrender and then collect their lost war booty.

Notice how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not eager to keep the women and have his men rape them as some critics allege.

What happens next is amazing:
Arrival of the Hawazin Delegation
Hawazin’s delegation arrived a Muslims just after the distribution of spoils. They were fourteen men headed by Zuhair bin Sard. The Messenger’s foster uncle was one of them. They asked him to bestow upon them some of the wealth and spoils. They uttered so touching words that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said to them: “You surely see who are with me. The most desirable speech to me is the most truthful. Which is dearer to you, your wealth or your women and children?” They replied: “Nothing whatsoever compares with kinship.” Then when I perform the noon prayer, stand up and say: “We intercede with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to exhort the believers, and we intercede with the believers to exhort the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to forego the captives of our people fallen to their lot.” So when the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] performed the noon prayer, they stood up and said what they had been told to say. The Messenger [pbuh], then, said: “As for what belongs to me and to the children of Abdul Muttalib, you may consider them, from now on, yours. And I will ask my folksmen to give back theirs.” Upon hearing that the Emigrants and the Helpers said: “What belongs to us is, from now on, offered to the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh].” But Al-Aqra’ bin Habis said, “We will grant none of what belongs to me and to Bani Tamim,”; so did ‘Uyaina bin Hisn, who said: “As for me and Bani Fazarah, I say ‘No’.” Al-‘Abbas bin Mirdas also refused and said: “No” for Bani Saleem and him. His people, however, said otherwise: “Whatever spoils belong to us we offer to the Messenger of Allâh ([pbuh].)” “You have undermined my position.” Said Al-‘Abbas bin Mirdas spontaneously. Then the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: “These people have come to you as Muslims. For this I have already tarried the distribution of the booty. Besides, I have granted them a fair option but they refused to have anything other than their women and children. Therefore he who has some of theirs and will prefer willingly to give them back, let them do. But those who favours to keep what he owns to himself, let them grant them back too, and he will be given as a recompense six times as much from the first booty that Allâh may provide us.” People then said, “We will willingly offer them all for the sake of the Messenger of Allâh.” The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: “But in this way we are not able to find out who is content and who is not. So go back and we will be waiting for your chiefs to convey to us your decisions.” All of them gave back the women and children. The only one who refused to comply with the Messenger’s desire was ‘Uyaina bin Hisn. He refused to let an old woman of theirs go back at first. Later on he let her go back. The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] gave every captive a garment as a gift.
Just look at the mercy of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Indeed, this is the true definition of the word “mercy”. Mercy is only real when one is in power to not be merciful yet willingly decides to be, just as we see the Prophet (peace be upon him) do in this situation (and many other situations as well).

So here we see that the Muslims weren’t raping savages, but merciful human beings.

Thus, for this particular narration we can conclude that:

– Muslims are not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with idol worshippers unless they convert to Islam first and once they have converted to Islam it would make their consenting to sexual intercourse much easier.

– There is no evidence of any ill treatment of the slave girls by the Muslim soldiers.

– There is no evidence of any slave girls engaging in sexual intercourse with any Muslim soldier. The Muslims might have returned them back to their tribe before they had the chance to.

– There is no evidence of any Muslim soldier raping his slave girl.

– Even if there is evidence, there is no evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of it.

The Islamic critic would also appeal to the following narration, which states:

Jami At-Tirmidhi 1137 – Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: “We practiced Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” . . . Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus), while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.”

He would argue that this narration shows that one could engage in coitus interruptus without the permission of his slave girl, which means that he could rape her.

The first and most important thing to note is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t say that, Imam Maalik said that. The Prophet (peace be upon him) is our final authority.

Imam Maalik’s reasoning was that the free woman has the right to have a child. The man doesn’t have the right to forbid his wife from having a child, thus he must ask her permission before doing azl. However, if the Muslim gets his slave girl pregnant, she ceases to become his slave girl and he must marry her. The Muslim therefore, doesn’t have to ask for her permission to do azl when they make consensual sex.

Again, where is the rape? Even if Imam Malik said that you can rape her (which he didn’t), he is not my final authority, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is. So what evidence did Imam Maalik use then from the Qur’an and Sunnah to justify his statement that one can rape his slave girl (which he didn’t say, it’s only for the sake of argument)?

The critic might reply back and say that the fact that the man has a “right” to have sex with his slave girl indicates that the man is permitted to do “all it takes” to take his rights.

Even if we say that it is his right, it is his right just like how it is his right to receive obedience from his children. Just like how it is his right to get inheritance if his father passes away.

Now is the critic seriously trying to argue that Islam would permit a man to physically abuse his children if they didn’t give him his right of respect? Is he also trying to say that he can physically abuse and harm his sister if she were to try and steal some of his inheritance money?

In Islam, one of the rights that a Muslim has over his brother is to be visited when he is sick and to be greeted with peace. If my Muslim brother does not greet me with peace or visit me when I am sick, does that mean that I can physically abuse him until he does, so that “he gives me my right”?

It seems like this is what he is saying if he were to be consistent. According to this logic, if the Qur’an says someone is entitled to something or has a right to something that means that the person can do whatever he wants – even if it was forbidden – in order to obtain that right.

This is something absolutely ridiculous, which no Muslim scholar in antiquity has stated. I am really speechless and don’t really know how to reply back to such a laughable argument.

Plus, this could also work against the Christian. I can argue that the Bible states that the man has the right to have sex with his wife, thus if she refuses then he can hurt her! The Christian would reply back and say that he can’t hurt his wife because there are other verses that state that he can’t do so and this is exactly what we have shown in this article in regards to the slave girl.

Conclusion

Islam forbids one to harm those under his authority. Since rape is considered a form of harm that would mean that rape is forbidden. We have also seen that history shows that slave girls in the past did consent to having sex with their captors; hence we must keep our subjective emotions aside and agree with this objective fact. In light of this fact, there is nothing absurd in believing that the Muslims did not rape their slave girls especially since they were forbidden from doing so. And even if some of the Muslims back then did rape their slave girls, this would only show that they committed a sinful act and not that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of such behavior. In conclusion, Islam does not permit the Muslim man to rape his slave girl.

 

 



Categories: Bible, Hadith, History, Islam, Islamophobia, Quotation, Quran

142 replies

  1. Thanks for sharing Paul☺ another supplementary article that provides some additional insights!

    http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/09/no-rape-slave-women-islam.html?m=1

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I think that Umar ordered the stoning for adultery since the person was probably married and had intercourse with a not legitimately taken slave.

    But in the other quotes it is seen that forcing to intercourse is not allowed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Most Christian missionaries are hypocrites when they criticize Islam for it’s laws on slavery. 1 In
      Islamic Law Muslim men are permitted to have sexual relationships with their female slaves. In
      reponse to this Islamic Law we hear from the Christian Missionaries statements like “…Would you
      join a religion that permitted men to have sex with their slave-girls ? …” or “…Muhammad is a
      false and evil prophet since he permitted men to have sexual relationships with their female
      slaves…”. In order to discredit Islam some more they even argue that Islamic law allows men to
      rape their female slaves [ or captives ] . However not a single authentic hadith or verse from the
      Holy Qur’an states that men are allowed to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves
      by force. Contrary authentic hadith and Quranic verses cancel out sexual abuse or rape of female
      slaves 2. Most Christian missionaries however ignore hadith and quranic verses that do not suit
      their “evangelical” agenda. For this reason we shall confront them in this paperwork with their
      own Bible.

      http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi1xqv4msPNAhWMj5QKHXULB6QQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answering-christianity.com%2Fkarim%2FKarim_-_articles_islamic_answers_-_part_3%2FBiblical%2520law%2520permits%2520rape%2520of%2520female%2520captives.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG6KzQltaipc2zpUsmG8ifwZVJnPw

      Liked by 2 people

    • Nadir you said in another thread that woman who where married and taken as captives had their marriages dissolved. Was this consensual?

      Like

    • Bobby I assume you re being sacrcastic. The answer is obviously ‘No’. And your next point is what?

      Like

    • Paul thanks for answering my question and no actually I was not being sarcastic. Kind of strange that captive woman are divorced against their own will and yet Muslims some how think that any sexual contact with these slave woman will be consensual.

      If the sex is to be consensual then why forcibly divorce them, why not let them consent or divorce of their own free will?

      Next point, as I understand it Muslim wives can not refuse sex to their husbands. Unless its do to illness or menstruation. But if they are healthy and not menstruating they can not refuse sex to their husbands.

      So a unbelieving slave woman who is forcibly divorced with out her consent can refuse sex to her Muslim slaver owner but a believing Muslim wife can not.

      Like

    • My understanding is that she is not divorced but that the marriage to her pagan husband is annulled

      Like

    • Paul thank you for making a distinction with out a difference. So let me put in annulled for divorced.

      Kind of strange that captive woman gave their marriages annulled against their own will, and yet Muslims some how think that any sexual contact with these slave woman will be consensual.

      If the sex is to be consensual then why forcibly annul their marriages, why not let them consent to having their marriages annulled of their own free will?

      Next point, as I understand it Muslim wives can not refuse sex to their husbands. Unless its do to illness or menstruation. But if they are healthy and not menstruating they can not refuse sex to their husbands.

      So a unbelieving slave woman who is forcibly annulled with out her consent can refuse sex to her Muslim slaver owner but a believing Muslim wife can not?

      Like

    • So mr that’s wrong, what does the bible say about captive Married Women? What does the bible do to them??

      Like

  3. Bassam ! We need that guy to return in debating christians! Where has he been ?

    Like

    • Bassam has been busy debating some modernist idiots. I don’t agree with Bassam’s theology but he is very good at debating non-Muslims.

      Like

  4. And in the bible, you may not be allowed to rape slave girls but you can severe beat them, so long as you don’t beat them to death.

    Like

  5. And once a woman becomes a slave she is never allowed to ask for her freedom, even if the master is brutal

    Like

  6. Since Muslims must emulate Muhammad, may I assume that all the Muslims commenting here would happily have sex with slave girls and have slave girls.

    Like

    • And since for christians, jesus is the best example, we can assume all the christians commenting here agree that slavery should NEVER have been abolished,
      1 timothy. So all you american christians who’s great, great, great great grandaddy’s were slaves need to go back into slavery, and all the christians whoes ancestors were slave masters need to should find themselves some good christian slaves?

      Like

    • So paulus what were your ancestors? What do you have to go back to? Are you the lucky white one or the really, really unlucky black christian????

      When are we going to see you promote the biblical teaching of slavery? And this time it’s in the nt, so you can’t claim ‘new covenant’!!

      So come on, don’t deflect and answer this??

      Like

    • No answer paulas??? Slave or slave master????!! Which you gonna be, dude???

      Like

  7. ‘Since Muslims must emulate Muhammad’

    this is incorrect. There are many ways we cannot emulate the prophet. He was a 7th century Arab most Muslims are not Arab: we are not Heads of State; we can only have a max of 4 wives; we are not prophets; we can’t pray and fast to the lengths that he did etc.

    Half of the population are women. They are not required to copy the ways of men.

    Islam tends to the abolition of slavery – there are many Quranic injunctions to facilitate the freedom of slaves – unlike the NT where there are none whatsoever.

    Slavery is not part of the deen. Islam functions perfectly well without it.

    Do you agree with the NT command that slaves should obey their masters even when they are cruel?

    Why does your bible not encourage the freedom of slaves?

    Liked by 2 people

  8. paulas and crew, are you not meant to follow the example of jusus in the bible? Why do you believe in abolition of slavery? jesus in the bible never encouraged it? In fact he endorsed it?

    1 timothy 6: 1-5. In this verse jesus actively promotes slaves remaining slaves! He wants them to ‘honour ‘ their masters so that they do not ‘blaspheme’! Wow, according to the bible demanding ones freedom from slavery is soooo bad its equated with blaspheming against the lamb god???

    Like

    • Silly.

      The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
      because he has anointed me
      to proclaim good news to the poor.
      He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
      and recovery of sight for the blind,
      to set the oppressed free,

      Thank. You. Jesus!

      On the other hand, your profit……

      “There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)”

      Showed his compassion by trading two black slaves for a white one. LOL!!

      Like

  9. If anybody does not believe in slavery then he’s gone against the teachings of the bible ‘… Whoever teaches otherwise does not agree with our lord jesus.’ 1 timothy 6: 1-5.

    Like

  10. Man, the trolls really enjoy this topic!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Nice try at deflection D!

    The above just shows the bipolar nature of the jesus the lamb god!! Lol!!

    Lets see what he promotes in 1Timothy 6: 1-5

    ‘ Let all those who are under the yoke of Slavery regard their masters as worthy Of All Honour , so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful, rather they must serve them all the more , since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise Does Not Agree With Our Lord Jesus’

    So basically, slaves obey your masters , especially the christian ones, and anyone who teaches otherwise is going AGAINST the teaching of split personality disorder jesus the lamb-god

    Like

  12. Hey nabeel querishi, ( i know you come on this blog secretly!!!) , your not white, so sorry man, you need to find a white master. I know, how about wood? (Hey david, i know you’re on here too)? David man, you lucked out!! You can be the master!! Well i look forward to seeing you guys reintroducing slavery!

    Like

  13. And D, your just selectively quoting bible verses that make your religion look good and ignoring all the others! Right back at ya!

    Hey muslins! We need to tell the world what the bible says about slavery! How about a debate, which book promotes slavery, the bible or the Quran????

    Btw, what would sammy boy have to become? Slave or master??? I’m confused, as he’s middle eastern?? Anyone have any ideas???

    Like

  14. Oh right D, now we don’t take 1 timothy 6: 1-5, literally!! Nice try! Isn’t this the word of god to you? How come jesus didn’t realise this is wrong and his followers in 2016 would have to say that this does not mean what it actually sats it means!!!!

    No D, you have to be consistent, and condemn this horrific teaching in 1 timothy, if you do that we can move on!

    The above verse, clearly promotes the abolishing of slavery with Blasphemy!! Answer this charge! And no don’t bring in bad actions of muslims!!

    Right back at ya

    Boom, boom

    Like

    • Jacob

      Still not prepares to address the problem of slavery in islam’s past, present, and all likelihood, future? And stop embarrassing yourself by quoting timothy, you’re making yourself look silly.

      Like

    • No, D,
      Going to slave markets is your duty as a christian, according to your scripture, you have to reintroduce slavery, otherwise you are committing blasphemy. The only way you can get away with it if you condemn this verse in the NT!!! So go ahead and condemn. If not then happy slave hunting!! 😜

      Like

  15. Jesus 4 slavery!! LOL. We should be seeing these placards, if their were real christians who went back to their sources!!

    Wrong again D!! I’m quoting 1 timothy and it clearly promotes slavery. The only way it does not is if you put your christian spin on it!!! But no, you don’t allow for context with the Quran and Hadith, So Right Back At Ya!!!!

    You know the famous christian mantra, ‘what would jesus do?’

    Well…..

    What would jesus do…..reintroduce slavery!!!!!

    LOL.

    Anyway, now that i have shown the christians hypocrisy, got to go!

    Like

    • “Anyway, now that i have shown the christians hypocrisy, got to go!”

      Right, don’t want to miss the next slave market!

      Like

  16. Lol D there is nothing you have presented so far that our articles have not refuted or addressed already!.. you obviously haven’t read or learnt anything yet! .. keep posting your repetitive bogus presumptions D you are very entertaining mate😉

    Liked by 1 person

  17. No, Muslims men are not allowed to rape anyone, including captives…but christian men are! Lets see what the bible says:

    ‘Lo, a day shall come FROM THE LORD when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against jerusalem for battle, the city shall be taken,houses plundered, WOMEN RAVISHED, half the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city’

    Zachariah. 14: 1-2

    In this verse jesus, who is Lord, directly commands the rape or ravish of women. No mention of marriage first???

    So mr that’s wrong, ken, D and crew, how do you defend this filth????

    Rape is Clearly sanctioned here. Are you going to condemn jesus for commanding this?

    As a Muslim i declare the Almighty God free from the filth ascribed to him in the bible! And declare that Prophet Jesus and All the Prophets of The Almighty, including Prophet Mohammed ( peace be upon all of them), would Never command/allow rape.

    Like

    • Rape is never sanctioned. Zechariah 14 is a prophesy of what will happen to Jerusalem. God allows bad things to happen – wars, poverty, famine, rapes, murders, etc. But God never approves of evil.

      “God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all” – 1 John 1:5
      “O God, your eyes are too pure to look upon evil” – Habakkuk 1:13

      “God, who cannot lie” – Titus 1:2
      God is not able to lie. Hebrews 6:18

      God is not able to sin or do evil or lie.

      Like

    • But God sanctions/commands the genocide of innocent women, children and babies in 1 Samuel 15 and many other places.

      I call that evil.

      You justify it.

      Sick.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. And lets dispel the myth that a man can’t have more than one woman in the bible:

    ‘They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be A DAMSEL OR TWO FOR EACH MAN, spoils of dyed cloth as Sisara’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. ‘

    Judges 5:30

    How does this ‘damsel or two for each man’ work?
    Does he marry both of them, or just one of them? Do both of them self mutilate by shaving the hair or only one of them???

    Like

  19. How’s neil the tanakh observing messianic ebionite going to defend rape????

    Like

  20. How’s the slave hunting going D???

    As a good christian, who believes in the NT, you know you have to reintroduce this practice, otherwise your committing blasphemy according to 1 timothy?

    Like

  21. What is the basis for discriminating between the law in respect to slaves as opposed to free women? The koran doesn’t do this. It is clear why Zawadi goes fishing in the hadiths but completely ignores what the koran has to say on this.

    4 v 24:

    Muhsin Khan

    Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

    As for Paul he also says:

    Colossians 4 v 1:

    Fellow Workers

    Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

    Colossians 3

    22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

    25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

    If the master does wrong he will be punished. If not in this life then in the next.

    There are degrees of slavery and cruelty. Slavery does not always follow the worst-case scenario. If so it can be endured to glorify Jesus who made himself a servant and suffered injustice.

    Like

  22. “One might shout out to the Christian as well, “What gives your Bible the right to declare a woman an adulteress if she happened to marry a man who divorced her by not following the proper procedures (Matthew 5:2)?” The Christian really has nothing to say except the fact that he believes that this is God’s decree and submits to it. He believes that God has the power and right to determine how divorce should take place (e.g. what conditions are valid for divorce) and submits to them. Well, the Muslim says the same thing in this regard.”

    What’s this incoherent nonsense from Zawadi?

    Like

  23. Well done madmanna! You’ve been consistant in your beliefs by just admitting slavery is good!!! Because that’s what the bible does!!

    You said: slavery should be ‘endured to glorify jesus..’
    Oh my Good God!!! You’re kidding me!! To glorify jesus people should put up with slavery!!!! What kind of sick religion do you follow!! If a muslim had said this, christians would be frothing at the mouth!!!!

    There is nothing like this in the Quran ‘to glorify God, become a slave! The Quran has multiple verses encouraging the freeing of slaves, not keeping them in bondage!!

    But you are right, being a slave and being a slave master is an act of worship in the bible, because getting rid of slavery is blasphemy!!!

    Happy slave hunting!!

    Now the rest if you bible believing chistians come out of the slavery endorsement closet and do the same.

    Like

  24. “Oh my Good God!!! You’re kidding me!! To glorify jesus people should put up with slavery!!!! What kind of sick religion do you follow!! If a muslim had said this, christians would be frothing at the mouth!!!!”

    I reply:

    This only refers to Christians, not to men in general. It is not an endorsement of slavery.

    There are mild forms of slavery which Christians can endure to glorify Christ.

    Like

  25. Apostasy laws are a form of slavery. Arranged marriage is a form of slavery. Does Islam condemn these?

    Child marriage is a form of slavery? Does Islam condemn this?

    Like

    • Arranged marriages not not the norm in Islam. Child marriages are obviously not permitted

      Like

    • The bible endorses death for apostasy. I’ll give you the verses later.
      And all the christian churches, catholic and protestant carried out this ruling. If your a baptist, the most famous case is of calvin, who burnt at the stake, michael servetus. Do you condemn calvin?

      Secularism bashed christians into their so called humanity and outlawed apostasy laws.

      Liked by 1 person

    • madman picks and chooses what to believe in the Bible it seems

      Like

    • Apostasy laws are Islamic and they are totally just.

      The girl has to give consent to marriage. There is no arranged marriage without consent.
      The girl has to be old enough to give the consent.

      Like

    • Nadir wrote… Apostasy laws are Islamic and they are totally just.

      Funny that’s just what ISIS Muslims say

      Like

  26. Madmanna. I agree it applies to christians, one group are slaves and the other masters and this has to remain until jesus returns. So it was wrong for the abolitionists to over rule slavery? As a believing christian you believe this, right?

    Like

  27. Forced marriages are prohibited in islam.
    Define arranged marriage and child marriage?

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Time to break my fast soon. I’ll see you all later.
    Peace.

    Like

  29. No ken, you’re being inconsistent and playing with wording of the text of zacharia 14.

    It clearly states a day will come ‘from the lord’ .
    God is sanctioning this day of rape and pillage.

    It’s horrific that God in the bible sanctions rape, that’s why you’re trying to spin it!!

    And what about 1 timothy, ken, are you going to follow the injunctions of your bible and advocate for slavery? As slavery is part of christianity and to say otherwise is blasphemy! Madmanna gets it. She believes slavery can glorify jesus.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Nope; Zechariah 14 is a prophesy about the future about what will happen. God never approves of sin, but He allows it. All things, even sin, are under the permission of God – as you are also obligated to believe in Islam. God’ Sovereignty over all things.

    ! Timothy does not approve of slavery – no where does the NT approve of it. It just says don’t lead a rebellion and don’t be a vigilante.

    Eventually, as western society became more Christian, slavery was done away with. Wilburforce in England was a great person who led the movement to end the slave trade. (along with Granville Sharp and lord Shaftsbury.

    Like

  31. Decree of God. (Chapter 3 of the London Baptist Confession of Faith- 1689; and also the same as the Westminster Confession of Faith – 1646)

    God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

    ( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )

    Like

  32. 8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
    9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
    11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

    1 Timothy 1:8-11

    Revelation 18 is about judgement on Babylon, and one of their sins was kidnapping and then enslaving people and selling people.
    (verse 13)

    So the NT is actually against kidnapping people and enslaving them. But slavery already existed in evil societies like Roman and Greek society; but it also did not encourage political rebellion through violence, etc. – the way was through patient suffering and witnessing to the truth and love of God and eventually the society changed so that slavery was done away with.

    the slavery in the OT was more like indentured servitude (like people migrating to a different country and working in low paying manual labor type jobs) – people voluntarily agreed to work in hard labor to get them out of a crisis situation from war, famine, poverty, debt, a natural disaster.

    American slavery was wrong; and Greco-Roman slavery was wrong; but Hebrew slavery (indentured servitude) was a different thing.

    Like

  33. Kenny ken ken.. we are engaging on the topic of Biblical and Quranic texts and textual traditions and comparisons in reference to women as captives in the context of warfare! ..lol… your repetitive nonsense has not engaged or addreased the detrimental biblical texts and contextual traditions that have been presented for your serious consideration and direct counter response!… neither have acknowledged the refutations that have dismantled your false ignorant lies about Islam promoting rape of women…it seems your mistaking the Quranic texts and contextual traditions with the Biblical perspective as clearly illustrated in the articles presented… now either directly engage the evidence presented on the outset of this thread or go take sowing lessons and amuse yourself elsewhere!☺

    Like

    • Some Muslims here were brining up Zechariah 14 and 1 Timothy and saying that God approves of slavery, and commands rape, etc.

      I answered those charges thoroughly.

      As for Bassam Zawadi’s article, I read it through; but it is long and I understand that that is one way for Muslims to defend those difficult passages. The passages in the Qur’an “whom your right hand possess” and the Hadith are still very ugly and shocking, no matter who Zawadi spins them and justifies them.

      Islam still promotes having sex with captured concubines.

      It seems that Yasir Qadhi even admits this in his lecture and one of the phrases in the title is “sex maids” – and if one listens carefully, Qadhi admits that all or most of the
      Abassids
      and
      Uthmaniye (Ottomans) are descendants of the children of concubines or “sex-maids” – meaning that the men of conquered areas were mostly killed and the Muslim warriors took the women as their “sex maids” .

      that is very immoral. It seems that Islam conquered areas, killed most of the men, and took the women as sex-slaves. There were small “Dhimmi” communities of poor Christians and Jews, but the economic hardship of the jiziye tax and being second class citizens caused most to eventually convert to Islam and Islam just won those areas by brute force. That history should trouble honest Muslims.

      Like

  34. Looks like Paul got tired doing all that Moral Gymnastics. Maybe another Muslim would like to step up and address my points. Jason? Nadir? Intellect? Omar? Burhan? Any of you up for the challenge?

    Kind of strange that captive woman gave their marriages annulled against their own will, and yet Muslims some how think that any sexual contact with these slave woman will be consensual.

    If the sex is to be consensual then why forcibly annul their marriages, why not let them consent to having their marriages annulled of their own free will?

    Next point, as I understand it Muslim wives can not refuse sex to their husbands. Unless its do to illness or menstruation. But if they are healthy and not menstruating they can not refuse sex to their husbands.

    So a unbelieving slave woman who is forcibly annulled with out her consent can refuse sex to her Muslim slaver owner but a believing Muslim wife can not?

    Like

    • I already told you that this was about a specific situation where the marriages where annulled. The husbands were not with them.
      And you have not read or watched any of the responses.

      Here is one about this verse:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/06/23/what-happened-to-the-captive-women-in-awtas-incident/

      I will repeat something once again: A Muslim who says that a woman can be forced to intercourse is an apostate and has to be killed. A non-Muslims who says that Islam allows forced sex is to be killed for insulting Islam.

      Like

    • Nadir, you are into killing big time aren’t you?

      “to be killed for insulting Islam” – did you take your medication today? I’m sick of idiots like you who give Islam a bad name.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Bobby I think you are conflating two different issues.
      On the one hand, rape of free or slave is not permitted as has been show already. Rapists are severely punished in shariah.
      A free married Muslim woman is expected to be available to satisfy her husbands sexual needs. But he cannot force himself upon her. I would imagine that if she refused without good reason indefinitely that would be grounds for a divorce.
      A concubine married to a polytheist has her marriage annulled when she is made captive as a result of war. That was how matters stood in the pre-modern world.
      But today it is not *required* that women taken in battle be married off to the victor. The circumstances of todays world are different.
      It goes without saying that I am not a scholar and this is just my personal opinion.

      Like

    • Nadir is probably a troll pretending to be an extremist Muslim. Or maybe Nadir is really an extremist Muslim. If the latter, I bet he’s from the UK.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Paul why do you keep saying “RAPE” when you know perfectly well THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RAPE in Islam. NO legal definition its not in your lexicon. Quit borrowing from civilized western world views.

      Source….

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/08/19/1810/

      Nadir saying this the “eternal Quran” is dealing with a specific situation does nothing to address my points.

      It just causes another problem. Which is it is in the ETERNAL Quran that Muslim men can have sex with slave woman. This is Halal, this is permisible. Are you now saying that Muslims are going to make haram what allah made for you to be halal?

      Paul getting back to you, think about what you are saying. A polytheist slave woman has more rights than a Married Muslima LOL

      See where this Moral Gymnastics leads you. You just go from one absurdity to another.

      Like

    • Robert you are just wrong. Of course rape is known of and condemned in the Shariah. Right from the easiest times this had been stated very clearly by the scholars.

      You have not been reading my posts it seems.

      Like

    • Paul no I”m not wrong. Obviously you have not been reading your own posts.

      “Classical Islamic law defined what we would call “rape” as a coercive form of illicit sex or fornication (zinā). ”

      See no such thing as RAPE, its not even in Islamic lexicons, its just a form of ZENA.

      And in the case of Slave woman it is just PROPERTY Damage not even ZENA.

      My source your own BLOG

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/08/19/1810/

      Like

    • Bobby your hate filled rants against Islam lead you to made silly statements.

      Your quote refutes your position. Coercive illicit sex = rape. It’s just semantics.

      Like

    • I said that I am against rape and I basically said that those from IS who legalize rape should be killed. Why am I an extremist?

      And if I was a non-Muslim troll why should I say that rape is not allowed in Islam?

      Like

    • Muslims and yes even Christians stop using the word RAPE when refering to what Muslims do to woman.

      It is either a form of ZIna, if it involves Muslima’s or it is just PROPERTY DAMAGE when it comes to Slave woman.

      Nadir, I never said you were an extremist do to your views on PROPERTY DAMAGE To slave woman. I said that you have the same view on apostasy that ISIS has.

      Like

    • That’s Right’s argument is that even though the concept of rape exists in Islam (which it does under the category of coerced zina in classical Islamic Law), since it doesn’t exist under a specific category called ‘rape’ therefore rape doesn’t really exist in Islam. Only an online troll can make such an idiotic argument.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kmak, yes indeed. Bobby has totally lost his reason. But there again anyone who is a Trump fan is a bit mad

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kmak is there such a thing as ZIna with your wife? Or property Damage with your wife?

      Like

    • That’s right.
      Same as it ever was. You pretend to ask a genuine question.
      When you get an answer, you get a fit of lolling and trolling, insist on your fixed ideas.
      You show the same block-headed fundamentalist attitude as “Nadir”.

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Burhanudin

      You should not try to compromise people you do not agree with by comparing them to stupid rednecks.

      Like

    • Paul, Kmack, Burhan, and Nadr.

      Putting your Ad Homs’s aside. Can any of you answer my qustion

      Can you commit Zina, or Property Damage with your wife?

      Like

    • That’s right.
      Do you really still expect to be taken seriously? You seem even more stupid than I thought.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Robert aka Radical Moderate is a well known troll and hater. He comes from that Christian fascist wing of American politics that is seeing a resurgence under Trump.

      Like

    • Burhan I guess has realized he has been check mated. So far only Nadir is still on the board although he is doing his best to move his queen, he is almost out of lateral moves

      Like

    • Troll: Kmak is there such a thing as ZIna with your wife? Or property Damage with your wife?

      In principle, there cannot be Zina with one’s wife to the extent she upholds the marriage contract. However, hirabah is possible.

      Like

    • Kmac what is hirabah?

      Like

    • Kmak I looked up the word and the only thing I got was piracy or “unlawful warfare”. So you can do ethat on you wife? Please explain what you mean

      Like

    • Troll: Kmac what is hirabah?

      My ass.

      Like

    • Lol

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kmak yes what is “hirabah” a word you used. Do you know the definition of said word? Or are you just making up gibberish now?

      I looked it up found a word that means “Piracy” or “Unlawful Warfare”

      Can you do that on your wife? What a strange religion you have.

      Like

  35. All these things have been explained already by many people including myself in direct response to you in the last few days. So I doubt that you want to understand anything and I think someone who supports Trump is not able to understand much anyway.

    Raping is forcing someone to intercourse. This forcing is an offence in any case. It is not property damage but harming a person. So this is the first sin.
    If the raped person is not married to the rapist or his slave the offence of fornication Zina is added to the first offence. It is not fornication to rape one’s wife or slave but it is still the offence of harming.
    A wife is sinful for refusing intercourse but it cannot be forced upon her. The same goes for a slave.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nadir wrote..

      Raping is forcing someone to intercourse. This forcing is an offence in any case. It is not property damage but harming a person. So this is the first sin.

      My Response: STOP BORROWING FROM THE CIVILIZED WORLD VIEW. It is property damage when it comes to a slave.

      The second notable difference is the pointed attention to the volitional state of free women in acts of zinā and the frequent lack of attention to the volitional state of slavewomen in acts of ghasb. For the jurists, sexual usurpation of a slavewoman was a form of property damage that required financial compensation to her owner for depreciation. The consent or coercion of the slavewoman to the act, while important for determining whether or not she should get the ḥadd punishment, was irrelevant to assessing depreciation.

      Source THIS BLOG

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/08/19/1810/

      Now answer my question “Can you commit ZINA or Property Damage on your wife”?

      Like

    • In Islam ‘slaves’ (not the right word really) are to be treated like brothers and sisters, and must not be abused. They are human beings.

      The New Testament says slaves must put up with abuse from their owners even when they are cruel.

      Like

    • STOP BORROWING FROM THE CIVILIZED WORLD VIEW.

      Bobby, you are absolutely mental. Unbelievable.

      Liked by 1 person

    • he is a troll and hater. We must pity him.

      Like

  36. For me this topic is done.

    Let us talk about apostasy laws. I say that an apostate from Islam is to be killed. This is the classical Islamic position agreed upon by all schools: Sunni, Salafi, Shiah, Mu’tazilah.

    Like

    • And Nadir lays down his Queen for Check mate.

      Is there anyone else left?

      Like

    • Yes there is Bobby: your local mental health professional should be able to help you..

      Like

    • Nadir, we are not living in the classical Islam era.

      Like

    • I say that an apostate from Islam is to be killed. This is the classical Islamic position agreed upon by all schools: Sunni, Salafi, Shiah, Mu’tazilah.

      Which proves the moral superiority of the New Testament over the Qur’an and Islam.

      If you try to bring an OT verse on this, the answer is that there is no more theocratic Israel – it was abolished in 70 AD when God sovereignly brought the Romans to war and judge apostate Israel.

      Christians have always understood the law of Moses in 3 parts:
      1. The Moral law – tells us what is right and wrong and still applicable.
      2. The ceremonial laws, food laws – abrogated and changed by the NT.
      3. the Civil laws relating to Israel as a political country, including punishments and feasts, etc. – abrogated by the NT.

      Matthew 21:43-45
      Jesus said, “the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you . . . ”
      The Pharisees understood that Jesus was talking about them.

      The NT new covenant era onward allowed freedom of thought and religion and when someone apostatized the NT prescribes ex-communication from the church (1 Cor. chapter 5, for adultery, etc. – the apostle does not prescribe the death penalty), but no physical punishments or penalties.

      Like

    • Ken,

      killing apostates and other “unbelievers” by Christians was a non-biblical invention like the trinity?

      Or do you accept the justification of let’s say the spanish inquisition as rooted in biblical truths?

      Like

    • dude less keep the discussion on topic.

      Like

    • Nadir, this is completely off topic. End of.

      Like

  37. Mr that’s so wrong
    Since you are frothing at the mouth regarding the married captive women in the Quran. And you’re so upset this these marriages are annulled. Why don’t you tell us the biblical treatment of Married captive women?

    The bible doesn’t annul such marriages. That’s such a terrible injustice!!! What the bible does is Massacre the married captives, in front of the virgin girls. Oh yes, that’s sooooo much better.

    What happened, was eesuus not civilised at this point in time?! Did he need the 21st century to teach him moral values??

    Your hate filled mind and soul do not allow you to see the hypocrisy in your loony rantings on this post!!

    Like

    • Jacob the bible orders the Israelite’s to MAKE THEM THEIR WIVES.
      Islam says you can have sex with them outside of marriage to your four wives and don’t have to make them your wife.

      The Bible says that they are to be freed woman once they are made a wife.
      Islam says they remain slaves and can be sold to another.

      See the difference?

      Like

    • The Bible says that slaves must endure abuse from their masters even when they are “cruel” to them. Do you consider this to be spiritually enlightened or morally backward

      Like

    • Paul clearly the bible is morally superior in all things when it comes to the Quran.

      I will play with you. SHow me the verse that says “CRUEL”

      Like

    • The Bible explicitly targets the genocide of innocent women, children and babies. See just one example in 1 Samuel 15. There are NO commandments to commit genocide in the Quran. Your moral compass is clearly broken. Sad.

      ‘You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you–not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.’

      1 Peter 2:18 NLT

      Like

    • Thank you Paul for quoting the word of GOD, in 1 Peter. See how morally superior Gods word is to your Quran.

      Because as it says
      “But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

      Unlike the Quran that teaches you to be rebellious, adulterous, murderous, and cruel. Islam teaches you to be the cruel master.

      Like

    • 1 Peter does not claim to be ‘the word of GOD’ so you fail before you even make your point lol.

      So why would your loving god wish to see his dear children treated “cruelly” by a slave master?

      How would you feel if your mother or sister or daughter joined a religion which said that their god ordered them to put up with cruel punishment (anal rape?, physical abuse? beating? humiliation? molestation?) because the religion said it was “commendable”?

      Be honest Bobby…

      Like

    • Paul Willams wrote…

      “1 Peter does not claim to be ‘the word of GOD’ so you fail before you even make your point lol. ”

      My Response: If that is your criteria it is u who have failed. Since there are many verses in the Quran that
      do not say “The word of God” So that Quran all of a sudden got very small.

      Paul Williams wrote…”So why would your loving god wish to see his dear children treated “cruelly” by a slave master?”

      My response: Why do you conclude that this is the wish and desire of God? This is not the wish and desire of God that his people are treated cruelly by Muslims and non Muslims. Thats the desire of your god that his people treat others cruelty.

      Yes we live in a fallen world with wicked sinful Muslims and wicked sinful non Muslims that is a fact.
      And yes wicked sinful Muslims and wicked sinful non Muslim will treat
      Christians and others cruelly that is a fact. But these things like Islam are only temporary and will be destroyed.

      All suffering and sinful wicked Muslims and others will be destroyed Come Lord Jesus come Quickly.

      All things are to the glory of God, it is not the suffering that glorifies him but it is his overcoming it that is to the Glory of God.

      See thats anther difference, there is a reasons for suffering, its not just a “test” as it is in Islam.

      Paul wrote…

      How would you feel if your mother or sister or daughter joined a religion which said that their god ordered them to put up
      with cruel punishment (anal rape?, physical abuse? beating? humiliation? molestation?) because the religion said it was “commendable”?

      Be honest Bobby…

      My response: Wow Paul Anal Rape? What is it with Muslims and anal rape? It seems like a constant theme. Just watch David woods latest video. He is always being threatened wth Anal Rape. Sounds like your fantasizing here.

      But to get to your question, how do I feel about some of my family accepting Christ. WONDERFUL, JUBILANT, PRAISE GOD JESUS CHRIST. How do I feel about some of may family rejecting Christ. I feel horrible and I pray that they will repent soon.

      Like

    • ‘1 Peter does not claim to be ‘the word of GOD’ so you fail before you even make your point lol. ‘

      This is correct. Did 1 Peer know he was writing the ‘word of GOD’ when he wrote this letter? He does not say that he is. So your belief that he is, is groundless. The Quran by way of contrast says it is a Revelation from God in many places. Peter says it no where. I quote the actual Word of God. You rely on the fallible words of men. So fail once more lol.

      Don’t run away. You did not answer my question. So I ask you again:

      ‘How would you feel if your mother or sister or daughter joined a religion which said that their god ordered them to put up
      with cruel punishment (anal rape?, physical abuse? beating? humiliation? molestation?) because the religion said it was “commendable”?

      that is what your holy book commands slaves MUST endure:

      ‘You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you–not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are CRUEL.’

      Like

    • Paul Wrote…

      Don’t run away. You did not answer my question. So I ask you again:

      ‘How would you feel if your mother or sister or daughter joined a religion which said that their god ordered them to put up
      with cruel punishment (anal rape?, physical abuse? beating? humiliation? molestation?) because the religion said it was “commendable”?

      My response….
      Wow sounds like your salavating with the thought of Anal raping Christians. But putting your perverse sexual fantasies aside I did answer you.

      Your question is … ‘How would you feel if your mother or sister or daughter joined a religion which said that their god ordered them to put up with cruel punishment (anal rape?, physical abuse? beating? humiliation? molestation?) because the religion said it was “commendable”?. ”

      My answer “how do I feel about some of my family accepting Christ. WONDERFUL, JUBILANT, PRAISE GOD JESUS CHRIST”

      Like

    • LOL silly Bobby

      so your mother/sister/daughter joined your religion where the god ordered them to put up with cruel punishments such as anal rape, physical abuse, beating, humiliation molestation,

      and you said:

      “WONDERFUL, JUBILANT, PRAISE GOD JESUS CHRIST”

      You are one SICK looser LOL!

      Like

    • @That’s right

      How do you rape a male if not anally?

      Like

    • lets not go there Nadir…

      Like

    • Paul wrote…You are one SICK looser LOL!

      Wow this coming from the man who thinks its ok to annul marriages so Muslims can have sex with slaves with out marrying them.
      This coming from the man who has a thing for anal raping Christians.

      Yes Paul I am silly (for the cross is foolishness to the unbeliever)
      And yes Paul I am sick but I have the one physician how can cure me,Jesus Christ
      And yes Paul I am a looser for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but loose his very soul.

      See the difference Paul is that you are taught by your book to inflict pain and suffering on othres, we are taught to bear the pain and suffering from others.

      I know I am sick and in need of a physician, you think that you are healthy when in fact you are lost and dying.

      I pray for you sir that you will be as foolish as I am and cling to the cross, so you can get the medicine from our one physician who is Jesus Christ so you too can loose the entire world but save your very soul in Christ Jesus.

      Like

    • Nadr Wrote…
      “How do you rape a male if not anally?”

      Paul Williams wrote…”lets not go there Nadir… ”

      My response to Paul, to late he already did.

      My response to Nadr,
      I don’t know never thought about raping anyone much less a male. But evidently you think about it a lot.

      Like

  38. Typo, jeesuus, not eesuus!!

    Like

  39. Mr that’s so wrong

    In your case, sir, one cannot reason with bigotry!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wow Jacob called me a bigot. This name calling coming from a man who thinks it is moral to 1. Have more then one wife. 2 capture woman forcibly annul their marriages to their husbands, then have sex with them, never marrying them and keeping them as slaves.

      Yup I”m proud to be a bigot then lol

      Like

  40. Oh mr soooo that’s wrong!!!

    No darling, the bible only allows ‘ marriage’ to captive who are VIRGIN! So tell me how are the married captives ‘virgins’. I guess they could be if the hubby’s hadn’t yet broken their hymens through penal penetration! And how would these humane christian soldiers know whether the ladies in question were virgins or not, hmmmmm???

    The big question is, what happens to the married captives, according to 1 timothy???? Every single one of them is murdered! Along with all their husbands. Therefore, 1 timothy solves the marriage contract problem by KILLING them all.

    Wow, what moral superiority! All US soldiers currently meddling in the rest of the world, should adopt this amazing teaching!

    Like

  41. Burhaddin1 wrote:

    killing apostates and other “unbelievers” by Christians was a non-biblical invention like the trinity?

    in later Christianity, after Theodosius made Christianity the official state religion and punishments of pagans and Jews (which was wrong in itself) – that was all non-Biblical and wrong.

    Or do you accept the justification of let’s say the spanish inquisition as rooted in biblical truths?

    the Spanish Inquisition was unjust and evil and wrong. That was Roman Catholicism.

    Like

  42. I timothy makes it absolutely clear the women captives saved for the good soldiers are those that ‘have not lain with a man’ i.e. Virgins, i.e. , those whose vaginas have not been penetrated by a penis. So, if one of the soldiers found out after marriage on the wedding night that infact the virgin had been lying and there had been prior activity by another penis, what then???? Does he have to kill her? Because remember, 1 timothy, requirement of a penis free vagina is the express command of jesus!!!

    Hmmm…interesting moral dilemma. I’ll let mr so wrong get back to me on that.

    Like

  43. I Timothy 1:8-11 clearly condemns kidnapping people and enslaving them. and it affirms the moral law of God and teaches that the gospel and law are in accordance with one another, when one interprets and uses them properly.

    8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
    9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
    11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

    Like

  44. “‘You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you–not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.”

    The NLT is a loose paraphrase which gives the wrong translation here.

    The word is froward in the KJV or in modern terminology unreasonable. To be unreasonable does not necessarily involve physical violence. It is not imperative that violence or peversity is involved in this context.

    The law of Moses protects servants from violence. So the slaves should be protected by the law of the land.

    In the KJV the word cruel occurs only once in the whole of the NT in Hebrews 11 v 36. It is inserted there for meaning but not found in the greek text itself.

    Thus there is no foundation for arguing that Paul said slavemasters should be allowed to gorge themselves on cruelty to glorify God.

    Englishman’s Concordance
    Strong’s Greek: 4646. σκολιός (skolios) — 4 Occurrences
    Luke 3:5 Adj-NNP
    GRK: ἔσται τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθείαν
    NAS: WILL BE BROUGHT LOW; THE CROOKED WILL BECOME
    KJV: and the crooked shall be made
    INT: will become the crooked into straight

    Acts 2:40 Adj-GFS
    GRK: γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης
    NAS: from this perverse generation!
    KJV: from this untoward generation.
    INT: generation perverse this

    Philippians 2:15 Adj-GFS
    GRK: μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης
    NAS: in the midst of a crooked and perverse
    KJV: in the midst of a crooked and perverse
    INT: in [the] midst of a generation crooked and perverted

    1 Peter 2:18 Adj-DMP
    GRK: καὶ τοῖς σκολιοῖς
    NAS: to those who are unreasonable.
    KJV: but also to the froward.
    INT: also to the unreasonable

    Jacob said: “So it was wrong for the abolitionists to over rule slavery? As a believing christian you believe this, right?”

    I reply:

    No, because there is one law for all in the OT. So, for example, the slave also has the right to be fruitful and multiply and rest on the sabbath day as all the others in the land.

    Deuteronomy 24 v 17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge: 18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

    19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. 20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

    21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

    Like

  45. Brother, Paul
    I hope to open the comment again in this
    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/06/27/response-to-ismaeel-abu-adams-video-by-shk-abdullah-bun-hamid-ali-converted2islam/

    There’s a big point which must be written.
    Thank you

    Like

  46. @Paul’s Pal & all christians who copy from David Wood’s site.
    (Deut 21:11-14) has nothing to do with marriage .
    Satanic Christians have been always playing with the translations.

    If the (Deut 21:11-14) had anything with marriage, why would God command that Israeli man to (release )that captive woman and not (divorce) her?

    We read in (Deut 21:14) “But if you marry her and she does not please you, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her”
    Why would God command that man not to SELL her ? Wasn’t that the normal situation when a husband divorces her wife? Why was there a need to instruct that man?
    Then, what kind of (Humiliation) that man did for that woman?

    If we read the Hebrew text, we will find the answer.
    The term which is used in Hebrew is (עִנִּיתָֽהּ׃)!!
    Guess what?
    The same term (עִנִּיתָֽהּ׃) has been used in Genesis 34:2 in the story of Dinah which has been translated to (Rape).
    The term in Hebrew is pronounced as (anah). in Arabic is (anna)

    I’m an Arabic man, and I know how that term is used. It’s used to describe any act which has been done by FORCE.

    Note (Deut21:11-14) has nothing to do with Marriage. Baal could be used as (husband). However, it means the (owner) in Arabic and Hebrew.

    Like

  47. I agree that Islam probably does not advocate or encourage Muslim men to rape their slave girls and that some Christian apologists do exaggerate when they make these claims. This is not to say that Muslim men have never raped slave girls because some did.
    However, from reading this post I have not to my knowledge seen a single quote from the Quran about this matter. Since the Quran is or should be the top authority on Islamic issues, what does the Quran have to say about this issue?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: