What Happened To The Woman In Deuteronomy 21:10-14?

Interesting

Discover The Truth

It is often the case among some Christian missionaries to twist and misrepresent the Bible in order to suit their 21st-century worldview. Christian missionaries too embarrassed of certain verses they want to make the Bible adapt to liberal, Secular values. In doing this, they go out of their way to give an alien and deceptive interpretation of verses. One such example is Deuteronomy 21:10-14 claiming that the women that were captured in warfare weren’t raped. But a closer look at the text it tells us that these women were taken forcefully and raped:

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 HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She…

View original post 2,178 more words

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

20 replies

  1. Only the most gullible fool would find your article convincing. LOL.

    The point is to prevent rape, you fool!

    If you rape the captive, you keep her, which means you support her, you are responsible for her under the law, and she has the right of every other israelite.

    The teaching is absolutely clear to anyone with half a brain – they were forbidden from raping, or forcing sex on the women without those women being imparted with rights under mosaic law. So, if you have sex with her, you cannot sell her or treat her poorly. In other words, no casual rape of female captives.

    BY contrat mohammed allowed his soldiers to rape captive and sell them off. (see sura 4:24, sura 33:50).

    Also, from the authentic hadith…..

    SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 9, #506:
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection”

    The point of the above is that muslims were allowed to rape captives, and re-sell them so long as they did not make the women pregnant.

    Another key difference – and you guys keep avoiding the issue – is that muslims are obliged to follow the example of mohammed. He exemplified the rape and selling off of captives, Mosaic law exemplified a heap of responsibility and rights give to captives if you decided to rape them. According to Bukhari above, mohammed gave his soldiers strategies to avoid abiding by the humane law of moses.

    Like

    • Kev your fictional claims have been dismantled already…Br Paul has a page here on his blog dedication toward refuting the same myths you spilled in here lol

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

      Like

    • Omar

      I read that drivel of an article but failed to notice how my argument has been dismantled. Worse still, it makes your legal experts and mohammed’s companions seem far more moral than your prophet.

      In fact, that article was hilarious. By definition slaves and captive slaves cannot give consent, otherwise they wouldn’t be slave and captives. Of course, zawadi ignores the glaring problem of selling them off after raping them.

      Like

    • Surah 4:24 is related to Awtas incindent, we have responded too the claims here:

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

      And:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/19/a-closer-look-at-awtas-incident-in-relation-to-quran-424/

      For your information the verse in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is clear that it sanctions and endorses rape. this is GNT translation:

      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 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 (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      Read, “Forced her to have intercourse”, is RAPE. The biblical scholars quoted also agree that the verse endorses rape.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “If you rape the captive, you keep her, which means you support her, you are responsible for her under the law, and she has the right of every other israelite.”

      where was the support once she was told to f- off?
      don’t use rabbinical law , that was invented AFTER .

      quote

      So, if an Israelite soldier killed a woman’s husband, and found
      her attractive, he was allowed to capture her, give her one month
      to mourn, and then force her to marry him. Moreover, if after
      marrying her, he doesn’t find her satisfying, he’s allowed to divorce
      her and send her away with nothing, just so long as he
      doesn’t sell her for money

      Like

    • so the raped vicitim is released if she was not satisfying after raping her.
      according to the bible a divorced raped victim cannot get married to her rapist again . if no other man wants to marry her. what would she do?

      Like

    • Discover the trut

      You still don’t get it!

      The point is deterrent – if the warrior rapes the captive she becomes his wife and he has social, legal, religious and financial responsibilities, duties, and burdens placed on him. He would not receive a dowry from her family, and so the burden of keeping her would extremely high. The woman would then become fully protected under jewish law and become the equal of every other jewish woman, then the soldier and his society would be obliged to accept her.

      Mohammed taught that hos soldiers can rape female captives and then resell them into slavery but only if they make sure the rape victims aren’t pregnant. That’s as savage as it gets.

      On the one hand yahweh provides a strong deterrent to raping captives, and provides those women who have been taken by soldiers with full rights under jewish law. Mohammed, on the other hand, permits rape and reselling of female captives if his soldiers are careful not to impregnate the victims. This leaves female captives open to multiple rapes by multiple owners.

      Like

    • /////////

      Wow! Remember Copan’s excuse for why divorce was permitted
      in the Law of Moses? Because of the “hardness of men’s hearts,”
      right? Well apparently in Babylon, men had much softer hearts,
      because they were not permitted to divorce a sick woman. In Israel,
      of course, a woman may be divorced for any reason, from
      barrenness, to illness, to ugliness, to burnt toast!

      If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband’s
      house, then he shall compensate her for the
      dowry that she brought with her from her father’s
      house, and she may go. (149)

      Now here’s something you’ll never see in the laws of Moses. A
      woman in Babylon is allowed to request a divorce if it is clear that
      her husband doesn’t want her! And not only that, her husband is
      obligated to compensate her financially, to ensure her well-being

      //////////
      Second, let’s consider the broader legal context here. Why was
      it “redemptive” (in Copan’s word) to issue a certificate of divorce
      to a woman? So that she could prove that she is eligible to be remarried,
      in order to gain financial protection. This isn’t really “redemptive,”
      of course, so much as “protective.” But think about it.
      Why did she need this measure of protection? She needed it precisely
      because the Law of Moses did not permit women to own
      property! Because she couldn’t own property, she needed to be
      attached to a man (either a husband or a father) in order to have a
      place to sleep and eat. So is giving her a certificate of divorce really
      all that “protective”? Hardly. She would still then need to try to
      find some other man to attach herself to. If her father was dead,
      she’d have to find a husband. If her husband divorced her because
      she was barren, or old, or ugly, then good luck finding another
      husband! A certificate of divorce was hardly very effective in protecting
      this poor woman from spiraling down into abject poverty
      and starvation. This was in fact the plight of many such divorcees
      and widows in ancient Israel. You know what a truly “protective”
      measure of legislation would have been? Give women the legal
      right to own property!

      ////////

      greyhound aka kev, what would happen to the woman if the rapist did not find her satisfying ?

      quote :

      For instance, let’s look at the Laws of Eshnunna, a Mesopotamian
      legal code from around 2000 BCE. What do they have to say
      about a man who divorces his wife?

      59: If a man divorces his wife after having made
      her bear children and takes another wife, he shall
      be driven from his house and from whatever he
      owns, but may seek someone who is willing to take
      him in.

      Talk about taking the plight of the divorced woman seriously!
      This makes Jesus look downright lackadaisical. What this law
      does is it functions to provide a considerable disincentive to a
      husband who is contemplating divorcing the mother of his children.
      He can divorce her, but he’ll lose his house and everything
      he owns if he does!

      /////

      When you go out to war against your enemies, and
      Yahweh your God hands them over to you and you
      take them captive, suppose you see among the captives
      a beautiful woman whom you desire and want
      to marry, and so you bring her home to your house:
      she shall shave her head, pare her nails, discard her
      captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a
      full month, mourning for her father and mother; after
      that you may go in to her and be her husband,
      and she shall be your wife. But if you are not satisfied
      with her, you shall let her go free and not sell
      her for money. You must not treat her as a slave,
      since you have dishonored her. (Deut 21:10-14)

      So, if an Israelite soldier killed a woman’s husband, and found
      her attractive, he was allowed to capture her, give her one month
      to mourn, and then force her to marry him. Moreover, if after
      marrying her, he doesn’t find her satisfying, he’s allowed to divorce
      her and send her away with nothing, just so long as he
      doesn’t sell her for money. Copan claims this is legislation that
      “protects” the foreign women.

      First, he claims that it was only the foreign woman who was
      advantaged by this legislation (119). Right! The man who gets an
      attractive wife without having to pay a bride-price most certainly
      didn’t benefit!

      Second, he claims, the fact that he had to wait a month before
      sleeping with her means he wasn’t allowed to be motivated by
      lust. I’ll just quote the actual Bible again and let that be my response:
      “Suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman
      whom you desire and want to marry, and so you bring her home to
      your house. . . . But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her
      go.”

      Third, he claims that the “month of mourning” (Deuteronomy’s
      words) was actually a reflection period for her, or rather, a
      period for transitioning both internally and externally from her
      former religious life. According to Copan, this period was a necessary
      prerequisite to being taken as a wife (119). But no, that’s not
      what the text says at all. It allows her a period of mourning, but

      Copan wants to turn this “mourning” period into a religious conversion
      period. The text says no such thing.

      Finally, I’ll just say that Copan’s treatment of these texts lacks
      authenticity and even a hint of the sense that there’s something
      horribly wrong here morally. He laments that war is necessary—
      fine. But he says in the ancient Near East that was just the way
      things were. Well, it’s a good thing Yahweh was intervening in
      history to improve the way things were! Oh, wait. No, Yahweh
      was perpetuating it. Copan goes to great pains to show that no
      rape of the captive women is in view here. Fine, if by rape he just
      means “spontaneous premarital rape.” But this is so disconnected
      from reality. What do you call it when you kill a woman’s husband,
      forcibly take her captive, and force her to be your wife and
      bear your children? Just because you give her a month to cry in a
      stranger’s house with no loved ones around before making the
      exploitative arrangement “official” with a wedding ceremony
      doesn’t make this any less an act of brutal rape. It’s even more
      brutal than a rape-her-and-leave-her situation, because this is
      lifelong. A lifetime spent being violated by the sweaty man who
      impaled your husband before your children’s eyes. Yahweh’s laws
      are so progressive

      Like

    • kev, that was a deft reply by , wasn’t it?

      Like

    • “On the one hand yahweh provides a strong deterrent to raping captives, and provides those women who have been taken by soldiers with full rights under jewish law.”

      LOL pathetic human worshipper LOL

      Like

    • yhwh corrupt rules :

      in the bible if a soldier captures a young girl, he forcefully marry’ her and then if he is not satisfied with her, lets her go. now since the women would be perceived as a raped woman or “captive” how would she be able to support herself if no other man wants to marry her? according to jewish law the guy who raped her cannot marry her ever again, so what would she do? die in poverty?

      quote :
      Women like that would either have to support themselves by some kind of menial labor like doing laundry (if they were lucky) or prostitution (more likely), sell themselves into slavery or yes, simply starve.

      Like

    • “On the one hand yahweh provides a strong deterrent to raping captives, and provides those women who have been taken by soldiers with full rights under jewish law.”

      Like

    • “Father and Son Rapists Plan to Use the Bible as Their Defense In Court”

      https://trofire.com/2017/01/23/father-son-rapists-plan-use-bible-defense-court/

      I wonder what passage they will use as their defense.

      Like

  2. “The point is deterrent – if the warrior rapes the captive she becomes his wife and he has social, legal, religious and financial responsibilities, duties, and burdens placed on him.”

    ” He would not receive a dowry from her family, and so the burden of keeping her would extremely high.”

    quote :
    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

    just as easily as he forced her to be his wife, he could just as easily let her go if he is not happy with her after raping her.

    ” The woman would then become fully protected under jewish law and become the equal of every other jewish woman, then the soldier and his society would be obliged to accept her.”

    you made up this christian lie. but answer this question. if the man let her go and no other man wanted to marry her, what would she do?
    the woman had to attach herself to another man because the woman couldn’t own a house, property, farm etc etc . so what would she do if she was let go ?

    Like

  3. ” The woman would then become fully protected under jewish law and become the equal of every other jewish woman, then the soldier and his society would be obliged to accept her.”

    notice the amount of lies christians can come out with? one cannot use rabbinical law because according to christians rabbinical law is derived from oral torah and oral torah = corrupt and very late.
    so what does a raped victim do what she has no one else to marry her?
    a raped womans status back then was what?
    the books of the bible are written by different authors who created DIFFERENT laws
    what would happen to the woman who was let go but could not find another man to marry?

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Some deft replies by Kev | Badmanna's Blog

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: