Response to Isma’eel Abu Adam’s Video by Shk Abdullah bun Hamid Ali [converted2islam]

Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, founder of the Lamppost Education Initiative and the Director of the Islamic Law program at Zaytuna College, provides a thoughtful response.

For more information on this subject please see the following articles:

What Happened To The Captive Women In Awtas Incident?
What Happened To The Captive Women In Awtas Incident?

On physical relations with slave-women in Islam:
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/09/no-rape-slave-women-islam.html?m=1

Does Islam permit Muslim men to rape their slave girls?
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=slave+rape&x=0&y=0

Are Muslims Allowed to Rape Slave Women? No.
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/ae-muslims-allowed-to-rape-slave-women.html



Categories: Hadith, Islam, Islamophobia, Quran

91 replies

  1. The Shaykh makes an insightful point-that it was normative for slave women to have sexual relations with their masters in ancient times, and this normativity extended to women captured in battles as well. Given the low position of women in general as well as the possibility of becoming spoils of war, it is highly likely women back then were far more mentally prepared for what would follow in the event they ended up as captives. Of course, what was normative back then is no longer normative today and so we should ostracize anyone who take verses out of their historical context in order to satisfy his own base desires.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Given the low position of women in general as well as the possibility of becoming spoils of war, it is highly likely women back then were far more mentally prepared for what would follow in the event they ended up as captives.”

      Absolutely disgraceful.

      Like

    • I agree. Things were very disgraceful back then.

      Like

    • So why emulate your profit if you know his actions were disgraceful – even back then?

      Like

    • Because emulating Muhammad (saw) is spiritually more fulfilling than going by the opinions of some random troll in the internet such as yourself D?

      Like

    • Well good luck on your next caravan raid and please don’t rape the female captives – these days they are not as mentally prepared as they were in the profit’s day. As you say, back then, women knew what they had coming to them and they took it on the chin – which you think justifies your profit’s actions. LOL!!!

      Like

    • So instead of abolishing an inhumane practice and elevating the status of slave women, which Muslims always boast is what their profit went around doing, Muhammad decided to not only indulge and descend into the filth and sexual immorality prevalent during his day, but also chose to enshrine such filth in a revelation that is supposed be relevant for all peoples at all times! And yet this is the same Muhammad who abolished adoption, a rather humane practice, and this is the same Muhammad who is supposed to be a role model for other Muslims to emulate due to his supposed sublime moral character!

      Yep you have convinced us that Muhammad’s enshrining the filthy and inhumane practice of raping captive slave women whose husbands are still alive in his “holy” book is morally acceptable and unobjectionable, just because there were other perverts who were doing it at Muhammad’s time.

      No wonder the majority of your converts end up leaving Islam like convert2islam.

      Like

    • Masterfully put brother D!

      Like

    • Williams, I think there is a typo in Kmak’s post. What he meant to say is that following Muhammad is sexually more fulfilling to one’s depraved, lustful nature than trusting in God’s Spirit to give one the power to control one’s lustful desires and transform one’s lowly nature, as we find in the case of brother D from the internet. So you may want to edit his post.

      Like

    • Poor Sam Shamoun. Too embroiled in his own uneducated, shitty existence to come up with an argument that doesn’t go beyond the confines of cheap internet polemics. The funny thing is, you’ve been at this enterprise for over a decade and at the end of the day you and your writings are no more a piece of shit than when you started out. Meanwhile, I’ve had the opportunity to pursue a doctorate degree, read specialized works, travel to different countries and in general lead an enriching life, Alhamdolillah.

      I don’t understand an uneducated, insecure lowlife like you to understand context. If it weren’t for the internet, I wonder how much shittier your existence would have been.

      As for D, he’s just a kid who is new to the world of internet debates.

      Like

    • Kmak

      LOL!!

      A kid? Fine that you think that – but sadly for you, a kid has called you out on your despicable attempt to justify your profit’s behaviour by saying that, one, everyone at the time was doing it, and two, the women would have expected it and been prepared. And your profit is cleared of all charges!

      For someone who claims moral and spiritual sophistication, your moral compass seems to be located somewhere in the deepest recesses of a pig’s anus – and not even a cute and cuddly pig.

      The real moral issue has flown completely over your brainwashed head and you are too full of profit that you have no idea that there is even a moral issue at all. Please keep it up, you are helping to apostatize muslims from your profit revering faith.

      Like

    • So how old are you really D? I’m in my 30s if you are wondering.

      Let me break it down for you. You and your troll buddies are asserting that Islam promotes rape of female captives. Muslims have argued that there is no injunction in the Quran and Hadith that permits Muslim men to rape captives. Permissibility of sex is not the same as license to rape. You could argue that captive women wouldn’t want to have sex with their captors but as I pointed out the historical reality makes that highly unlikely in which case the charge of rape is once again undermined.

      Can you enlighten me on the methodology you are employing to (1) define Islam and then (2) propose that Islam so defined permits rape?

      Thanks

      Like

    • Kmak

      “Permissibility of sex is not the same as license to rape. You could argue that captive women wouldn’t want to have sex with their captors but as I pointed out the historical reality makes that highly unlikely in which case the charge of rape is once again undermined.”

      LOL!!!

      Only a moral monster would claim that women taken in war by men who had murdered their families would be open and willing to having sex with their captives.

      Your profit made it okay to rape female captives so of course you have to justify it. It shows how little regard islam has for women, and how it even debases the noble tendencies of men.

      DO you admit that your profit should not be emulated? That he ordered and permitted things – in the name of your god – that are not objectively moral?

      And why are you so obsessed with my age? I hope it has nothing to do with emulating your profit’s actions with the banu qurayza – should I consider shaving my pubes and the hair on my legs?

      Like

    • This is true. But the essential point is that intercourse has to be consensual. As long as it is consensual it will also be acceptable for today.

      Like

    • Here we go !..filthy sammy decided to throw in his 2 cent bogus comment without keeping up to date with the reputations that have dismantled his false presumptions… Sam here is some filth to satisfy your appetite 😉

      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

      Like

    • Brother D, what you are seeing is the same vile, wicked, immoral, murdering spirit of Muhammad manifesting through the venom and filth of Kmak. So don’t be surprised he is fill of hate and would be perfectly ok with his profit having married women raped at will simply because they happen to be their property which they took by plunder and murder.

      In fact, let me show you how wicked this young child is by asking him the following questions and watch him further manifest.

      KMAK, please tell us if you would have been ok with Muhammad and his companions attacking your village and taking your mother, your wives, your sisters and your daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are still alive.

      Now D, watch Kmak go into a satanic frenzy.

      Like

    • Poor D. Too young, emotional and plain stupid to be discussing such a sensitive, albeit important, issue. There there.

      Like

    • @Paul’s Pal

      I can answer this very easily. We have already explained that intercourse with slaves is always consensual. So nobody can be forced to it.

      But regarding the rest of things I would not have a problem if this happened to my tribe. The reason for this would have been disbelief and as a Muslim I believe that disbelief is a crime. An infidel is not innocent.

      Like

    • Shamoun, you are an ueducated piece of shit. You should know your pathetic place and stop making demands on highly educated people such as myself.

      Also, your disturbing obsession with attacking the Prophet (saw) at evey turn is bordering on fetish. You are an even sicker piece of crap than I thought.

      Like

    • OK THAT’S ENOUGHT DUDES.

      ANYMORE ABUSIVE COMMENTS FORM ANYONE WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT.

      Like

    • Thank you Willams for being fair. However, if you read carefully I haven’t been abusive but rather spoken forthright about these Muslims who cannot help but spew out such venom and hate-filled assaults against people who do not buy their excuses to justify the gross immoral teachings of Muhammad.

      With that said, this is directed to Omar. Only someone demented like you would appeal to Karim’s sham piece which failed to refute my article here: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

      And only a demented soul like you would think that an appeal to the Torah to justify what your profit did in having married captive women raped at will and then sold off as chattel is sound argumentation. I am not surprised that you didn’t contrast the filth of Quran 4:24,

      Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. Y. Ali

      Especially as implemented by Muhammad’s sexually craved jihadists:

      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

      Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah 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 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. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

      With the following passage from the Torah,

      “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      Since this Law which predates your Quran by over 2,000 years exposes how wicked and immoral your profit was in his treatment of captive women.

      Here we see that, instead of permitting men to rape captive women, the Holy Bible forces the Israelites to marry them if they wanted to have sex with them, and then letting them go free in case of a divorce. This means that the Holy Bible is actually dignifying these women by not allowing them to be treated the way Allah and his “messenger” had them treated, namely like animals. Now this is a command which predates the Quran by approximately 2200 years!

      To say that such an injunction was truly shocking and revolutionary for that time period would be a wild understatement, just as the following commentaries illustrate:

      “The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful.” (Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2002], Volume 6b, p. 475)

      “Throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, captive women of vanquished peoples were assumed to be the due sexual prerogative of the victors. This law exceptionally seeks to provide for the human rights of the woman who falls into this predicament… the verb ‘inah is also sometimes used for rape, and its employment here astringently suggests that the sexual exploitation of a captive woman, even in a legally sanctioned arrangement of concubinage, is equivalent to rape.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary [W. W. Norton & Company, 2008], p. 982)

      “The instructions given for the treatment of female captives in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 take it for granted that a conquering army have the right to dispose of the conquered population in any way that it wishes. It is hard for those coming from a different cultural context to see this as anything other than appalling, but this approach would have been unquestioned within the ancient Near East, and we have to see these instructions within that setting. What is remarkable is that although the woman may have had no choice in the matter–the soldier who fancied her has every right to make her this wife–nevertheless her identity as a human being is at least to some extent recognized. She is not to be thrown into the new situation but must be allowed time to mourn for her parents and her past life… Within these oppressive situations the laws are geared to provide at least a level of protection for the women involved… Women who were bought as wives or captured in war and taken as wives could not be sold as slaves or even neglected (Ex 21.11; Deut 21.14).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2002], pp. 100, 102)

      “The space given for weeping is not primarily a period of mourning (though it is perhaps to be assumed that the woman’s father has died in the herem; 20:13, 15). Rather, it is given in compassionate consideration of the large adjustment she must make, and the accompanying trauma. It is an acknowledgment, too, that her former life is ended and a new life is to begin (cf. Ps. 45:10). The hints of compassion breaking through the brutality of the age reflect an awareness of divine compassion, however limited by the thought climate of the times.” (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary), [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI 1992], p. 189)

      Now let me put you on the spot by having you answer the same question that Kmak was too scared and ashamed to answer. Please tell us if you would have been ok with Muhammad and his companions attacking your village and taking your mother, your wives, your sisters and your daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are still alive.

      Like

    • oh sammy sam sam… your bogus article has not engaged or addessed the specific issue of women being captives of warfare as illustrated in Karims article.. lolol…you have dismantled nothing sammy..

      Your ‘refutation’ has failed to directy engage Karims references in relation to women being captives in warfare… here is some more desert for your consideration lolo

      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

      here is another desert that dismantkes your false presumptions in your article

      https://callingchristians.com/2013/02/12/the-bible-demands-that-rape-victims-marry-rapists/

      https://callingchristians.com/2012/08/04/refutation-a-would-be-seducer-gets-owned-and-humbled/

      😉

      Like

    • Omar, let me call out your bluff. Since you think that Karim’s trash actually refuted my article care to show your face in my paltalk room sometime this week and bring up Karim’s arguments against me so we see how well his arguments stand up against cross examination and refutation? We will also see how well you do in defending your prophet’s sanctioning the raping of captive women, even married ones. So give me a time when you can put me in my place and defend the filth and immorality of your “holy” book.

      Like

  2. The Responses are Muslims trying to justify the clear verses.

    If it gives you guys some kind of “peace”; well, it still does not pass the smell test.

    The passages in the Qur’an “whom your right hand possess” and the Hadith are still very ugly and shocking, no matter how Zawadi and the Shaykh above 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.

    Has anyone listened to Yasir Qadhi’s lecture here and see the problems?

    Like

  3. For all christians who are happy for what happened to Ismael,

    I think Christianity and by its nature has been always based on (Hypocrisy).
    During the time of Pagan Rome, They praised the iconic creed and the images of God.
    During the time when the imperialisms was the trend, they praised the conquering the world and violence.
    During the time when the Slavery was the trend, they prised & encouraged the slavery. In fact, they justified it by using their bible
    During the time of this age, they define their bible by “morality” according to the definition of the morality in this time!
    The irony here, that christians have been always talking about (the tribulation ) which supposedly would happen of their followers ! What kind of tribulation would you have if you think any kind of “morality” is fine and Good depending in the age that you live in ?!
    What can we expect from people belive that the pagan Romans are rulers from God! (Roman 13)?!

    Ismael said ” I don’t think that is from God because it’s not moral” ! OK, by which method did he define the “morality”? by (Western values ) today?

    I will not be surprised if the main accusation against Islam made by christians would be that Islam doesn’t allow for gays marriage! Just wait when gays marriage will be christianized and a trend in the churches !

    Liked by 1 person

    • Here is another gent trying to wax eloquent. Let me put holes through your charade here and ask you the following questions. Your answers (or lack thereof) will provide answers to the questions you raised here regarding morality and where are we deriving it from. Please tell us if you would have been ok for Muhammad and his companions attacking your village and taking your mother, your wives, your sisters and your daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are still alive. Once you answer I will take it from there.

      Like

    • Omar, only someone demented like you would appeal to Karim’s sham piece which failed to refute my article here: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

      And only a demented soul like you would think that an appeal to the Torah to justify what your profit did in having married captive women raped at will and then sold off as chattel is sound argumentation. I am not surprised that you didn’t contrast the filth of Quran 4:24,

      Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. Y. Ali

      Especially as implemented by Muhammad’s sexually craved jihadists:

      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

      Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah 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 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. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

      With the following passage from the Torah,

      “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      Since this Law which predates your Quran by over 2,000 years exposes how wicked and immoral your profit was in his treatment of captive women.

      Here we see that, instead of permitting men to rape captive women, the Holy Bible forces the Israelites to marry them if they wanted to have sex with them, and then letting them go free in case of a divorce. This means that the Holy Bible is actually dignifying these women by not allowing them to be treated the way Allah and his “messenger” had them treated, namely like animals. Now this is a command which predates the Quran by approximately 2200 years!

      To say that such an injunction was truly shocking and revolutionary for that time period would be a wild understatement, just as the following commentaries illustrate:

      “The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful.” (Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2002], Volume 6b, p. 475)

      “Throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, captive women of vanquished peoples were assumed to be the due sexual prerogative of the victors. This law exceptionally seeks to provide for the human rights of the woman who falls into this predicament… the verb ‘inah is also sometimes used for rape, and its employment here astringently suggests that the sexual exploitation of a captive woman, even in a legally sanctioned arrangement of concubinage, is equivalent to rape.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary [W. W. Norton & Company, 2008], p. 982)

      “The instructions given for the treatment of female captives in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 take it for granted that a conquering army have the right to dispose of the conquered population in any way that it wishes. It is hard for those coming from a different cultural context to see this as anything other than appalling, but this approach would have been unquestioned within the ancient Near East, and we have to see these instructions within that setting. What is remarkable is that although the woman may have had no choice in the matter–the soldier who fancied her has every right to make her this wife–nevertheless her identity as a human being is at least to some extent recognized. She is not to be thrown into the new situation but must be allowed time to mourn for her parents and her past life… Within these oppressive situations the laws are geared to provide at least a level of protection for the women involved… Women who were bought as wives or captured in war and taken as wives could not be sold as slaves or even neglected (Ex 21.11; Deut 21.14).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2002], pp. 100, 102)

      “The space given for weeping is not primarily a period of mourning (though it is perhaps to be assumed that the woman’s father has died in the herem; 20:13, 15). Rather, it is given in compassionate consideration of the large adjustment she must make, and the accompanying trauma. It is an acknowledgment, too, that her former life is ended and a new life is to begin (cf. Ps. 45:10). The hints of compassion breaking through the brutality of the age reflect an awareness of divine compassion, however limited by the thought climate of the times.” (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary), [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI 1992], p. 189)

      Now let me put you on the spot by having you answer the same question that Kmak was too scared and ashamed to answer. Please tell us if you would have been ok with Muhammad and his companions attacking your village and taking your mother, your wives, your sisters and your daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are still alive.

      Like

    • oh sammy sam sam… your bogus article has not engaged or addessed the specific issue of women being captives of warfare as illustrated in Karims article.. lolol…you have dismantled nothing sammy..

      Your ‘refutation’ has failed to directy engage Karims references in relation to women being captives in warfare… here is some more desert for your consideration lolo

      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

      here is another desert that dismantkes your false presumptions in your article

      https://callingchristians.com/2013/02/12/the-bible-demands-that-rape-victims-marry-rapists/

      https://callingchristians.com/2012/08/04/refutation-a-would-be-seducer-gets-owned-and-humbled/

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Paul’s Pal
      Are you a christian? From there I’ll answer you.

      Like

    • @Paul’s Pal I Assure you that your answers after that will be based on hypocrisy. Just wait. 🙂

      Like

    • yeah sammy..wait til we discuss your preexisting jesus as the Son of God in the OT..lolol😅

      Like

    • Abdullah my religion is irrelevant to your prophet raping married women like your mother, wife etc. so stop your tap dance and answer question since attacking the Bible does nothing to justify your prophet’s filth which is still being put into practice by Muslims till this very day.

      Like

    • answer Abdullah sammy lpl…your religion is totally relevant since your bogus christological peeexisting jesus prescribed the ‘divine’ biblical notions of raping married women like your mother, wife etc. so stop doing star jumps and answer his question since attacking the quran does nothing to justify your biblical laws presribed by preexisting jesus’ filth!!! ☺

      Like

    • @Paul’s Pal
      I’ve told you! 🙂 the Hypocrisy will be the theme for your answer.
      Listen mr hypocrite ,
      If you would be OK that your mother, sisters, and daughters got raped by israelites because their God had given them that right to do so for establishing their own state so that your god can come in the flesh to preach about love, why would I have a problem about your example? Especially that your God and by his perfect law allows to do that. In fact, he allowed to sell your own daughter to be slave . She doesn’t need to be captured by a prophet of God and his companions!
      What about if she got raped? It’s OK! She just had to marry that man who raped her forever.
      I’m sure that you have no problem for that law since “The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple”

      Moreover, I’m sure that you would be more pleased if the Pagan romans raped your mother, sisters,and dauthers since ” the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.” In fact ,that happened many times in that era.
      What was the teaching of your prophet( Paul) about that? It’s to shut your mouth because ” rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer”
      In fact, christians went beyond their own scripture, and they invented a new meaning for the “morality”
      such as Selling their wifes
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling_%28English_custom%29

      As you have perfect law of God, we have too!
      Oh wait a minute! We have some differences
      In Islam, Not only cannot captives women be raped, but also they have the right to be free by the system of (Muktabah)
      If you slap that captive women, you have to release her.

      By the way, I’ve not learned dance yet since we don’t dance as kind of “worshiping” as you do in your churches. 🙂

      Like

    • lolo i can still jump into the breakdance helicopter move on the kitchen floor!!😅

      Like

    • Hello sammy!!.. are you bashing your head on your keyboard right now!?… lol.. dont take it out on your family mate…lol…Please tell us sammy if you would have been ok with Moses and his companions as Comanded by Jesus the preexisting Son of God to attack your village and killing your mother, killing your wive, killing your sons and talking your virgin sisters and your virgin daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are all ruthlessly executed !!😉?

      Like

    • Abdullah, you got the Bible confused with the filth of your prophet and his god. First, NOWHERE DOES IT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE THAT A MAN CAN DO WHAT YOUR PROPHET DID, namely, attack villages, towns etc., steal married women and rape them at will, and then sell them off. You can blame that filth on your prophet. Here is what the Bible actually says:

      “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      Since this Law which predates your Quran by over 2,000 years exposes how wicked and immoral your profit was in his treatment of captive women.

      Here we see that, instead of permitting men to rape captive women, the Holy Bible forces the Israelites to marry them if they wanted to have sex with them, and then letting them go free in case of a divorce. This means that the Holy Bible is actually dignifying these women by not allowing them to be treated the way Allah and his “messenger” had them treated, namely like animals. Now this is a command which predates the Quran by approximately 2200 years!

      To say that such an injunction was truly shocking and revolutionary for that time period would be a wild understatement, just as the following commentaries illustrate:

      “The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful.” (Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2002], Volume 6b, p. 475)

      “Throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, captive women of vanquished peoples were assumed to be the due sexual prerogative of the victors. This law exceptionally seeks to provide for the human rights of the woman who falls into this predicament… the verb ‘inah is also sometimes used for rape, and its employment here astringently suggests that the sexual exploitation of a captive woman, even in a legally sanctioned arrangement of concubinage, is equivalent to rape.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary [W. W. Norton & Company, 2008], p. 982)

      “The instructions given for the treatment of female captives in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 take it for granted that a conquering army have the right to dispose of the conquered population in any way that it wishes. It is hard for those coming from a different cultural context to see this as anything other than appalling, but this approach would have been unquestioned within the ancient Near East, and we have to see these instructions within that setting. What is remarkable is that although the woman may have had no choice in the matter–the soldier who fancied her has every right to make her this wife–nevertheless her identity as a human being is at least to some extent recognized. She is not to be thrown into the new situation but must be allowed time to mourn for her parents and her past life… Within these oppressive situations the laws are geared to provide at least a level of protection for the women involved… Women who were bought as wives or captured in war and taken as wives could not be sold as slaves or even neglected (Ex 21.11; Deut 21.14).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2002], pp. 100, 102)

      “The space given for weeping is not primarily a period of mourning (though it is perhaps to be assumed that the woman’s father has died in the herem; 20:13, 15). Rather, it is given in compassionate consideration of the large adjustment she must make, and the accompanying trauma. It is an acknowledgment, too, that her former life is ended and a new life is to begin (cf. Ps. 45:10). The hints of compassion breaking through the brutality of the age reflect an awareness of divine compassion, however limited by the thought climate of the times.” (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary), [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI 1992], p. 189)

      You could only wish and hope for such teaching to be found in your “holy” book instead of the filth that your profit brought.

      Second, if a Roman soldier were to rape your mother, sisters, wives, daughters etc. then blame the satan you worship as god because according to your profit ALL OF THIS FILTH AND EVIL IS ORDAINED BY HIM!

      The so-called sound ahadith report that Muhammad taught that Allah has predestined the amount of adultery a person must necessarily commit:

      Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
      I did not see anything so resembling minor sins as what Abu Huraira said from the Prophet, who said, “Allah has written for the son of Adam his INEVITABLE share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not: The adultery of the eye is the looking (at something which is sinful to look at), and the adultery of the tongue is to utter (what it is unlawful to utter), and the innerself wishes and longs for (adultery) and the private parts turn that into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 609)

      Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he OF NECESSITY MUST COMMIT (or there would be no escape from it). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421; see also Number 6422)

      Thus, according to your profit, all the rape, orgies, adulteries which people commit are actually Allah’s will! Therefore, the Romans and Muhammad’s jihadi thugs were only carrying out the very sexual filth which their god had predestined for them!

      Unfortunately for you, your problems are just beginning.

      As if Islam’s teachings couldn’t get any more morally repugnant, Allah goes ahead and permits his followers to pay women to marry them temporarily for the sole purpose of gratifying their sexual desires. This is typically referred to as “pleasure marriages” (zawaj al-mut’a).

      According to the Muslim expositors, the following passage:

      O you who believe! Make not unlawful the Taiyibat (all that is good as regards foods, things, deeds, beliefs, persons, etc.) which Allah has made lawful to you, and transgress not. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors. S. 5:87 Hilali-Khan

      Was “revealed” to condone the practice of marrying women for a short period of time:

      Narrated Abdullah:
      We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139)

      Narrated Abdullah:
      We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: — ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)

      Pay attention to the fact that, instead of teaching his men abstinence and self-control, Muhammad actually goes ahead and encourages his band of murdering thugs to find women to have sex with!

      Sadly, there were instances in which women actually got pregnant through such unions:

      Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, “Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant by him.” Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, “This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it!” (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.18.42)

      Certain traditions claim that Muhammad abrogated this form of prostitution:

      Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa’: While we were in an army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.” Salama bin Al-Akwa’ said: Allah’s Apostle’s said, “If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so.” I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: ‘Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, “The Mut’a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52)

      However, there are other narrations which claim that Muslims continued to observe temporary marriages until the caliphate of Umar b. al-Khattab:

      Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248)

      Even sadder, and more shamefully, is the fact that the Shiite sect of Islam continues to observe this practice till this day. They even attempt to use the Sunni sources themselves to establish that this morally repugnant form of prostitution is still permissible since Muhammad and his followers never abrogated it! For the details and arguments we recommend the following online booklet.

      Suffice it to say, such a practice is nothing more than prostitution and it is an outright insult to even label this filth as marriage.

      To now help keep a shameless taqiyyist like yourself honest and consistent, and in order to make sure you see just how truly perverted and shameful these practices are, I challenge you to answer the following questions instead of doing your tap dance routine.

      How would you feel if a fellow believer came up to him and asked to marry one of your womenfolk, perhaps your sister, daughter, cousin, aunt, divorced or widowed mother etc., for a short period of time?

      Would you have no problem handing his women over to such a man or would you be all too eager to allow someone to treat his female relatives this way?

      How would you react if this happened repeatedly, e.g. on more than one occasion your womenfolk married men for a sum of money and for a short period of time?

      Do you really want us to believe that you would have absolutely no problem with such marriages?

      Wouldn’t you agree that it is utterly shameful to even call this marriage since deep down inside you know that this is nothing more than prostitution?

      Moreover, would you be absolutely thrilled at the idea of Muslims attacking your village or city, enslaving your wives and/or sister(s) and having sex with them before selling them off like chattel?

      So thank Allah for predestining governments like Rome to rape your women folk!

      Third, NOWHERE DOES PAUL EVEN BEGIN TO SUGGEST THAT WE OBEY THE GOVERNMENT IN EVERY THING IT ORDAINS! That is again your perversion of the Bible since you can’t help but read it as if it were the Quran. The Bible is quite clear, we only obey authorities in cases where doing so doesn’t lead us to disobeying God. However, we are to obey God over against any ruler if their commands result in having to break one of God’s commands:

      “Then they called them and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot help but declare what we have seen and heard.'” Acts 4:18-20

      “When they had brought them, they stood them before the Sanhedrin. And the high priest questioned them, saying, ‘Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? Yet now you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring on us this Man’s blood.’ Peter and the other apostles answered, ‘WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging on a tree. God exalted this Man to His right hand to be a Ruler and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. We are His witnesses to these words, as is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.'” Acts 5:27-32

      Even the passage from Paul which you shamelessly butchered clearly says that WE ARE NOT DO EVIL, BUT GOOD, which means that God DID NOT ORDAIN ROME OR ANY OTHER RULING AUTHORITY TO DO TO EVIL AGAINST PEOPLE, BUT TO GOOD AND MAINTAIN ORDER:

      “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Rulers are not a terror TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO EVIL WORKS Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? DO WHAT IS GOOD, and you will have praise from him, for he is the servant of God for your good. But if you do WHAT IS EVIL, BE AFRAiD, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God, an avenger TO EXECUTE WRATH UPON HIM WHO PRACTICES EVIL. So it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are God’s servants, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, respect to whom respect is due, fear to whom fear is due, and honor to whom honor is due.” Romans 13:1-7

      Paul’s words are clear to those who are not blind like you who follow a false profit whose immorality you seek to justify. God appointed all governing authorities TO DO AND ENFORCE GOOD, NOT EVIL. This therefore proves THAT IT IS NOT GOD’S WILL when these authorities to do what is evil, NOR DOES SUCH EVIL PLEASE HIM. You got the true God confused with your Allah at this point.

      Now that I obliterated your smokescreens, let me call out your bluff as well. Since Omar doesn’t have the guts to come to my paltalk room to defend his filth maybe you can prove to be man enough to take his place so we can see what I will do to you for twisting the bible and justifying the filth of your profit.

      So give me a time and date when you can show up in my room. I won’t be holding my breath.

      Like

    • sammy, you got the Bible confused with the filth of your preexisting Son god. First, NOWHERE DOES IT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE QURAN THAT A MAN CAN KILL WOMEN CHILDREN’ AS YOUR god son DID, namely, attack villages, towns etc., steal married women and rape them at will, and then sell them off. You can blame that filth on your false preexisting son god. furthermore Here is what the Bible actually teaches:

      https://callingchristians.com/2013/02/12/the-bible-demands-that-rape-victims-marry-rapists/

      https://callingchristians.com/2012/08/04/refutation-a-would-be-seducer-gets-owned-and-humbled/

      your a joke sammy😅

      Like

    • answer the question sammy boy!!😉

      Hello sammy!!.. are you bashing your head on your keyboard right now!?… lol.. dont take it out on your family mate…lol…Please tell us sammy if you would have been ok with Moses and his companions as Comanded by Jesus the preexisting Son of God to attack your village and killing your mother, killing your wive, killing your sons and talking your virgin sisters and your virgin daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are all ruthlessly executed !!😉????

      Liked by 1 person

    • omar

      “First, NOWHERE DOES IT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE QURAN THAT A MAN CAN KILL WOMEN CHILDREN’ AS YOUR god son DID”

      Islam calls for the killing of anyone who apostatizes – including women, and the stoning to death of women who commit adultery.

      And don’t get me started on islam and children – child thieves have parts or all of their hand cut off, and your profit had sex with a nine-year old.

      Don’t tell me this was the “norm for the time” since it only proves that your profit’s moral behaviour have no value beyond the 7th century. Just for the record, having sex with children causes untold psychological damage, and horrific physical damage.

      Young girls experience immense pain from intercourse and have severe internal damage to their organs that is often permanent. It is no coincidence that Aisha could never have kids – it is likely that her reproductive organs were too badly damaged by having sex with a fully-grown man. I don’t view that as a good example of behaviour.

      Do you omar? Do you think that having sex with a 9-year-old is a good example to follow?

      Furthermore, as recently as 2009, several islamic countries, including sharia heavens like Iran and saudi, were regularly executing juveniles as part of their sharia code.

      Go figure – why is it that even muslims can’t seem to interpret their own religion correctly even though it is supposed to be simple and clear? Going around killing women and children in the belief that their god wants it.

      Oh and this…..

      http://www.rferl.org/content/under-black-flag-un-children-islamic-state/26747119.html

      Like

  4. sam please illustrate the holes on your head as reflected in your ignorant comments😉

    Like

  5. Working through differential equations is intellectually more rewarding than engaging Shamoun. Of course, differential equations is just another big boy word to our academically and mentally challenged troll.

    Like

    • Heck, reading the contents at the back of a shampoo bottle while I take a dump is more intellectually rewarding than a Shamoun article.

      Like

    • sammy needs to read this article that engages and refutes some of his bogus points for his consideration

      https://callingchristians.com/2012/08/04/refutation-a-would-be-seducer-gets-owned-and-humbled/

      Like

    • Furthermore, according to Sam’s gross Christological polytheism the preexisting Jesus commanded Moses to ruthlessly : “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl.who.has.never.slept.with.a.man.”
      Num 31:17-18!.. Sammy sam sam… throwing misinformation and obscurity of context in reference to the Quran only reflects your hatred that emanates from your self inflicted misguidance.. May Allah cure you during this blessed month..ameen!☺

      Like

    • Omar, let me call out your bluff. Since you think that Karim’s trash actually refuted my article care to show your face in my paltalk room sometime this week and bring up Karim’s arguments against me so we see how well his arguments stand up against cross examination and refutation? We will also see how well you do in defending your prophet’s sanctioning the raping of captive women, even married ones. So give me a time when you can put me in my place and defend the filth and immorality of your “holy” book.

      Like

    • Only a sick twisted perverted would so badly misread Numbers 31:17-18 to think that it even comes close to teaching the filth and immorality found in Q. 4:24: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/pedophilia.htm

      Now care to come to my paltalk room and debate me on this passage as well so we see how well you do with your shameless butchering of the Bible? Like I said, give me a time when you can do so.

      Like

    • Please tell us sammy if you would have been ok with Moses and his companions as Comanded by Jesus the preexisting Son of God to attack your village and killing your mother, killing your wive, killing your sons and talking your virgin sisters and your virgin daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are all ruthlessly executed !!😉?

      Like

    • oh sammy sam sam i have read your outdated article long time ago that still does not directly engage with all the articles presented here that you obviously have not compreheded yet lolol… here is one of them..

      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

      lolol

      Like

    • oh sam not only Karims clear refutation of your bogus articles but also the other articles that expose your twisted lies that emanates from your self inflicted musguidances… mate its Ramadan at the moment wont waste my time with you now but ill let you know when i can cross reference your brain and demonstrate what a bogus misguided person you truly are… 😉

      Like

    • hello sammy:

      And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:34

      And we utterly destroyed them, … utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:6

      And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2

      And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16

      Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15

      But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

      And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

      So smote all the country … he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

      Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

      😲

      Like

    • You are starting to bore me with your nonsense. Enjoy: http://answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm

      Here is another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieIn6vyg3Rc

      Now that I just obliterated your smokescreens give me a time and date when you can show up in paltalk room so we can see how well you do defending the filth and immorality of your “holy” book versus the Bible.

      Like

    • oh my goodness sammy lol..another outdated narrow perspective bogus article that talks about Duet 13 that again has refuted nothing.. your addressing a totally separate issue that is irrelevant to the points of contention and articles presented in this thread..again clearly illustrating you have no grasped or understood anything presented here sammy which also tells me you would be a waste of time debating since your only debating and obliterating your own misguised lies and deceit lol…😂

      Like

    • it is crystal clear that we can see you have failed in defending the filth and immorality of your “holy” book versus the Quran… your christological poltheistic belief in the pre-existing son god that ordered the genocides of your book has left you wondering in maze of error lol..😁

      Like

    • sammy boy the flawed gross bible war ideology doesn’t even come close to the just war ethics and principles articulated in the Quranic teachings that includes the issue of women as captives of war etc…

      so please tell us sammy if you would have been ok with Moses and his companions as Comanded by Jesus the preexisting Son of God to attack your village and killing your mother, killing your wive, killing your sons and talking your virgin sisters and your virgin daughters as captives and then having sex with them while your father, brothers-in-law and sons-in-law are all ruthlessly executed !!😉?

      Like

  6. I’m surprised this thread is still going on. Let’s settle this once and for all. Mainstream Islam is what the majority Muslims make it out to be. The majority Muslims are opposed to rape. Therefore, rape is not a part of Islam.

    When Shamoun and other highly uneducated trolls engage Muslims, they conceptualize an entity called Islam that exists out there in the world, separately from Muslims and which can be objectively experienced and measured/studied by anyone. So tell me Shamoun, where is this thing called Islam that is above the Muslim experience? Is it tangible and if so what are its physical properties? Is it intangible and if so how does one experience it and how do you even know it exists?

    One could say Islam is Quran and Hadith. But the Quran and Hadith are just books. What is it about these books that give them the quality of being ‘Islam’? Why is Islam just Quran and Hadith and not the 5 daily prayers or Zakat, etc.and again, what is it about these actions that give them the quality of being ‘Islam’?

    When you can’t even properly measure Islam, it is incredibly idiotic to assert that it promotes rape. Then again, Sam Shamoun’s highest level of education is a GED. Of course, one we reduce Islam to what the vast majority of Muslims make it out to be, then it is certainly not true that Islam permits rape.

    Liked by 1 person

    • To cut a long story short the question we need to consider is-why shouldn’t Muslims have the last say on Islam?

      Like

    • Your god and your profit have no say in what “muslims make it out to be”?

      Like

    • Sure. In Muhammad’s own words, Islam is ‘To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly, to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat), and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan’.

      I don’t see any references to rape in there. Now back to the question, why shouldn’t Muslims have the last say on Islam?

      Liked by 2 people

    • You forgot, “fight those who do not believe in allah”, and “forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands”, both, incidentally in mohammed’s own words.

      Who better to have the last say on islam than the first and most exemplary muslim? Is your word greater than that of your profit?

      Like

    • I agree. Since Muhammad (saw) did not equate those verses with rape, therefore Islam doesn’t permit rape.

      Like

    • Those who may be targeted for rape should have the last word on what rape is, not the perpetrators. Muslim opinion is irrelevant.

      Like

    • Okay. But we are not debating on who has the last day on what rape is. Idiot.

      Like

    • A glimmer of moral fibre, but only a glimmer. LOL!!!

      Neither the Nazis nor Soviet communists equated their actions in which millions died with murder, so there you go.

      Islamic logic at its best. You need a deprogramming.

      Like

    • So it is settled. Muslims have the last say on Islam. Muslims say women can’t be coerced into sex. Therefore, Islam does not permit rape. Finally, D is an idiot but not as big an idiot as Shamoun

      Like

    • Speaking of idiots – you agree that islam has a moral standard similar to nazism and soviet styles communism in that all three define moral transgression to avoid culpability for objectively immoral behaviour?

      Like

    • D: you agree that islam has a moral standard similar to nazism and soviet styles communism

      Not at all. I do agree that you’re an idiot though. I think we can all agree on that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • kmak

      You think that situations where women captured during conquest can be forced into sex with their captors is not forcible rape…because your profit says so even though it is objectively rapey. That is as unthinking as it gets.

      Like

  7. Shamoun: Only a sick twisted perverted would so badly misread Numbers 31:17-18 to think that it even comes close to teaching the filth and immorality found in Q. 4:24

    Can you tell me what makes Numbers 31.17-18 morally superior to Q 4.24? Specifically, I would like to know how the boys, men and non-virgin women belonging to a defeated enemy nation would fare better under Numbers 31 than under Surah 4.24. Is it safe to assume that given the choice between Numbers 31 and Q4.24 (along with the possibility of ransom) that a subjugated nation would prefer the biblical injunction?

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sam Shamoun

      You said;
      Shamoun: Only a sick twisted perverted would so badly misread Numbers 31:17-18 to think that it even comes close to teaching the filth and immorality found in Q. 4:24

      I say;
      That is your wishful thinking for always supporting your worse commands from the Bible and commanded by your lord Jesus Christ and insulting yourself. Some Christians have become wish and stopped doing that. Dr. James White is advocating that. You Sam Shamoun, Wood, Nabeel etc. do not have your ministries like Dr. White so you have to lie and insult Islam at all cost and get your pay.

      You Sam Shamoun stupid, idiot and ugly human being like satan. Your ugly face and big stomach with sins says it all.

      Paul Williams, please it is Sam Shamoun who always starts insults and he must get it back because this site is a MUSLIM site and he cannot get his way by insulting us. His deal with us is null and void because he cannot find any anything wrong in Islam except to insult and get his pay.

      Sam Shamoun, your lord Jesus Christ did not heal your big stomach with is the size of 2 pregnant women and I think your lord Jesus Christ is cheating you. Your lord Jesus Christ, Sam Shamoun does not love you and he came down this earth to love you but you are still suffering with big stomach and it means your lord Jesus Christ’s coming down is in vain

      Thanks.

      Like

    • oh dear… i think we should close this thread n topic..getting too nasty now..

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m at work at the moment but I will review the tread when I get home and close it if necessary

      Like

  8. lol next topic!☺…..

    Like

  9. Talk about Nazism. In the last century the Jews in Germany were accused of being morally degraded, not being able to fit into the “civilized western culture”. Because of their “barbaric” ancient scriptures they had to follow…

    Sounds familiar?

    If the likes of “D” and “That’s right” Shamoun etc. had some intelligence and decency left they could imagine what slippery road they are on with their hate-driven propaganda.

    Like

    • Unfortunately, Shamoun is about as decent as he is educated which is to say not much. I also suspect he has developed a fetish for attacking the Prophet (saw) which is not unlikely given that he is already bipolar. Truly a pathetic specimen.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      That’s a false equivalence. Just because the nazis – whom kmak suggests have a similar ethical process to islam – got it wrong about the jews, does not mean that the same charge is false when leveled at islam.

      Besides, there is no dearth of muslims who agree that islamic law, religious practice, and politics are incompatible with civilized western culture.

      Like

  10. broke my fast with delicious samosas this evening!.. absolutely delicious ☺

    Like

  11. Scam-Moon is a typical missionary like his Lord Paul who sanctions Christians like him to lie and deceive non-Christians to further Christianity:

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/28/1-corinthians-9-apostle-pauls-missionary-deception-taqiyya/

    Like

  12. Scam-Moon, the Bible sanctions pre-pubescent marriages/rape:

    Jubilee Bible 2000 – “But all the FEMALE CHILDREN that have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for YOURSELVES.” – Numbers 31:18

    “yourselves” here means ‘sexually’:

    Shaye J. D. Cohen who is a renowned Professor writes that the word lachem (yourselves) used in the verse is meant sexually:

    “Moses enjoins upon the returning warriors to kill their Midianite female captives who have lain with a man, but ‘spare for yourselves every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man’; WE MAY BE SURE THAT ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ MEANS THAT THE WARRIORS MAY ‘USE’ THEIR VIRGIN CAPTIVES SEXUALLY.52 The law in numbers differs from the law in Deuteronomy- perhaps the most significant distinction is that the law in Deuteronomy does not care whether the captive is a virgin or not- but it too permits Israelite warrior to marry (or ‘marry) a foreign woman.”

    In the same page, in footnote 52, Professor Shaye J.D. Cohen goes further on the verse, he writes:

    “I do not know why the new Jewish version omits ‘for yourselves’; the Hebrew lakhem is unambiguous. That the intent of ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ IS SEXUAL OR MATRIMONIAL IS OBVIOUS; the passage is correctly understood by Rabbi Simeon Yohai in the Sifrei ad loc (177 212H).” (The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties By Shaye J. D. Cohen [chapter 8] page 255 – 2560

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/14/bible-does-numbers-3118-sanction-pre-pubescent-marriages-child-marriage-2/

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Further rape in the Bible.

    Scam-Moon the usual tactic of his doesn’t give a true picture in regards to Deuteronomy 21;10-14. Typical of him to hide and deceive readers. The women in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 were raped in the Bible:

    Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
    10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE (Laqach) her to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

    There it is in clear words the woman was raped. Sham-Moon loves defending rape verses.

    If Scam-Moon is not happy with the GNT version, even when we consult Biblical scholars on the word “Anah” for the verse, they all agree it refers to RAPE:

    According to the Book: ‘The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’, the Hebrew word ‘Anah’ means:

    1. OT.-A. As a verb. 1. Sexual Intercourse. Heb. ‘ana’ is used in Gen. 34:2 of Shechem’s RAPE of Dinah. Ezekiel condemns the men of Jerusalem who ‘humble’ (ana) women ‘unclean in their impurity’ (22:10). The verb is thus a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Dt. 21:14; 22:24, 29) and is frequently equivalent to RAPE (Jgs. 19:24; 20:5; 2S. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11). [2]

    Biblical Scholar K. Renato Lings also echoes similar words in regards to the verse:

    “The verb ‘anah’ is deployed in some parts of the HB to describe seduction, SEXUAL ASSAULT, or RAPE-LIKE scenarios. On account of its primary meaning ‘oppress’ or ‘humiliate’, sexual aggression is regarded as an act of humiliation. In genesis 34:2, for instance, Shechem saw Jacob’s daughter Dinah and took her, lay with her and ‘humiliated’ or ‘debased’ her.” [3]

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/12/does-deuteronomy-2110-14-condemn-rape-or-does-it-sanction-rape-forced-marriage/

    Like

  14. Actually, my dear Christian fundamentalist missionary brothers, if you are right, please remember, your Jesus, the Perfect Being, is responsible for evil Muhammad and evil Islam, yuck.

    He created it after all. As he created evil (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, Ezek. 20.:25-26, Judges 9:3, 1 Sam. 16:23, 18:10).

    Liked by 1 person

  15. THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: