Both the far right & Christian missionaries just don’t get it

Screen Shot 2017-08-10 at 22.58.42

Advertisements


Categories: Islam, Islamophobia, Utterly idiotic, White nationalism

29 replies

  1. Mad, bad and annoying to know.

    Like

  2. The far right will probably never “get it.” While, even if some Christian Missionaries do understand that Islam does not permit such crimes, they will pretend as if they don’t in order to take advantage of the confusion and use it as an excuse to portray Islam as a malevolent religion which does not morally equate with Christianity.

    Christian Missionaries who aim to “win souls for Christ” through deception, are not being Christ-like, nor will souls be maintained for God through deception, since the truth always becomes manifest (thanks to people like Paul Williams and many others who speak the truth and a word of correction).

    Like

  3. Don’t get it, don’t want it. If ignorance is bliss, why do these yahoos always seem so upset all the time 😂

    Like

  4. The koran explicitly states that captive women, obviously non-muslims, are lawful for sex. No limitations are given.

    In the hadith Mohammed explicitly allows jihadis to commit adultery with captive women out of pure lust.

    Like

    • Erasmus: the Koran explicitly states…

      Did the groomers say they were inspired by the Quran to do what they did?

      Like

    • “In the hadith Mohammed explicitly allows jihadis to commit adultery with captive women out of pure lust.”

      quote :
      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.”

      erasmus, what is this?

      Liked by 1 person

    • so a hebrew went out hunting beautiful captive KNOWING full well that if she does not make him happy , he can drop her.

      now when she was dropped she would have to

      1. try to wash clothes to make money
      2. prostitute her self

      3. live like a poor woman and die

      4. the husand who let her go can never marry her again .

      if she was known to be spoil of war, she would already have a reputation.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. “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)”

    Wishful thinking and window-dressing by Bassam Zawadi.

    He also tries to argue in his article that you cannot harm your slave and rape would be a form of this. This is also a lame duck argument.

    Like

  6. Mohammed never said the slave cannot be punished if it does not function as desired.

    If you are harming the slave by punishing it for non-compliance with your wishes this is not condemned by any hadith.

    Punishing the slave for refusing sex would not be considered a wrongful act by Mohammed.

    Like

  7. ““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.”
    erasmus, what is this?”

    “so a hebrew went out hunting beautiful captive KNOWING full well that if she does not make him happy , he can drop her.
    now when she was dropped she would have to
    1. try to wash clothes to make money
    2. prostitute her self
    3. live like a poor woman and die
    4. the husand who let her go can never marry her again .
    if she was known to be spoil of war, she would already have a reputation.”

    “Deut 21 v 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

    I reply:

    Firstly she could not be divorced at whim, which is the case if she was under Sharia. There would have to be some ground of divorce IAW Deut 24:

    1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

    Secondly, she can return to her father’s house from whence she came. Then she can seek a marriage partner the same as any divorced person.

    Thirdly, the Israelite has no license to hunt for captives as is the case with Jihadis under Sharia.

    The taking of the land was a temporary judgement situation which does not make hunting for slaves and booty permanently lawful and mandatory, as under Sharia. If the enemy surrendered without a fight no captives were taken. The surrendered community would have to pay tribute.

    Fourthly, the divorced woman is a free woman and has freedom of movement and choice. Under Sharia she would simply remain a captive and imprisoned sex slave.

    Under Sharia she would not have been married in the first place as it makes no sense under Sharia for a Muslim to marry his sex slave. If he did he would not gain any more rights over the woman than he already possesses as her slavemaster.

    “4. the husand who let her go can never marry her again .”

    That depends on whether she marries again. If she doesn’t he can take her back. As is the case with any divorced person. If both of them do not remarry they can come back together again. That is my understanding, without looking in to it further.

    “Humbled” means that she has lost her virginity.

    Like

    • you are a confirmed idiot. how could she have a father when her family was killed off ?

      “Secondly, she can return to her father’s house from whence she came”

      She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month

      and he doesn’t even have to marry the woman, she could get raped at whim.

      Like

    • “The taking of the land was a temporary judgement situation which does not make hunting for slaves and booty permanently lawful and mandatory, as under Sharia. If the enemy surrendered without a fight no captives were taken. The surrendered community would have to pay tribute.”

      this is all smokescreen man. remember what you said earlier ,

      “…commit adultery with captive women out of pure lust.”

      yhwhs soldiers would go out with the knowledge that beautiful women could be taken, raped and released if the woman is not satisfying.

      “If she doesn’t he can take her back. As is the case with any divorced person. If both of them do not remarry they can come back together again. ”

      why would he marry again a captive he does not find satisfying?

      Like

  8. “and bewail her father and her mother a full month: ”

    doesn’t necessarily mean that they are dead. That’s not necessarily the case.

    “and he doesn’t even have to marry the woman, she could get raped at whim.”

    Projecting Sharia on to the bible?

    Like

    • quote :
      “Commentators frequently understand the purpose of this law as a prohibition against RAPE on the battlefield. It is UNLIKELY THAT THIS WAS THE AIM OF THE LAW. We have argued that the law should not be translated to read: ‘If you desire her, then you shall marry her.’ Rather, the man’s desire to marry the woman is part of the protasis. The law has to do with a case where a man wishes to marry a foreign captive; it then provides a means for him to do so. Moreover, the law is concerned with what happens within the household, not what happens on the battlefield. All of the actions commanded by the law take place within the household. Finally, such a prohibition would not be keeping with the tenor of Deut 20:14 which instructs the soldiers PLUNDER THE WIVES and children of the ENEMIES: ‘DEVOUR THE SPOIL OF YOUR ENEMES.’ …
      It is not possible to say whether DEUT 21:10-13 had yet a third purpose, that is, to protect the captive woman by providing her with marital status. Presumably male and female captives were brought back to serve as SLAVES. Did the law intend to prohibit a man from having sexual relations with a captive female slave whom he did not marry? We have already suggested that the phrase … belongs to the protasis rather than to the apodosis. That being the case, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW WHICH PROHIBITS THE MAN FROM ENGAGING IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE WOMAN WITHOUT MARRYING HER. Rather, the law simply sets forth a procedure for marrying the woman, should that be what the man chooses. The motive clause given IN 21:14 …, ‘because you have had your way with her,’ is problematic. The verb …, here translated ‘you have had your with her,’ is used of sexual intercourse twelve times in the Hebrew Bible. In none of these instances (with the possible exception of our passage) does it refer to legally sanctioned sexuality.

      Like

    • “doesn’t necessarily mean that they are dead. That’s not necessarily the case.”

      When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

      10When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13and 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.

      Like

  9. Spare me your “scholars” opinions.

    Only idiots need scholars 🙂

    Like

  10. “you are a confirmed idiot. how could she have a father when her family was killed off ? ”

    You are a confirmed idiot to assume that this must always be the case 🙂

    Is your bias affecting your ability to thing straight?

    Like

  11. “When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”

    That’s if they don’t surrender, idiot. And the females you idiot?

    Like

    • you said ,

      ““Secondly, she can return to her father’s house from whence she came”

      first of all the hebrew child of yhwh gets her to shave herself. hebrew wants her to get purified from her previous self, but you want her to go back to her father ?

      in the situation of non- surrender , her father would be killed and her mother killed in battle. so where would this captive go once she is not satisfying enough?

      Like

    • “Secondly, she can return to her father’s house from whence she came”

      so what was all that mourning business? one mourns for a loss . she mourned for a loss. she lost her parents .

      Like

  12. “so what was all that mourning business? one mourns for a loss . she mourned for a loss. she lost her parents .”

    She could have mourned for the separation from her family. Her mother may survive in the case of non-surrender. It makes no sense to assume that the mourning must always be caused by the loss of both parents because there is no command to put females to death in the case of non-surrender . If you are suddenly separated from your parents with perhaps no hope of seeing them again wouldn’t you have something to mourn?

    People lived in large families or clans in those days so she why could she not go back to her clan? Why do you assume she has to resort to prostitution? All poor people had to be provided for according to the law of Moses. If she was a non-Muslim in a Muslim land she probably wouldn’t have as much luck.

    Like

  13. Ignoramus the coward is defending biblical rape. There is a reason he will not answer my question about his KJV and the “humbling” of women. He knows the answer but he just does not want to say it. But he will still defend such behavior and make excuses for it.

    Like

    • “Her mother may survive in the case of non-surrender.”

      her mother would probably be living in the gutter , she could always go back to her mother because her mother will teach her the way of how to make money

      1. wash clothes
      2. prostitution

      3. how to prepare for death

      “It makes no sense to assume that the mourning must always be caused by the loss of both parents because there is no command to put females to death in the case of non-surrender .”

      her mother could have been killed in battle.

      “If you are suddenly separated from your parents with perhaps no hope of seeing them again wouldn’t you have something to mourn?”

      if you were allowed to visit them , it would make no sense to mourn for them.

      this destroys your initial claim :

      ““Secondly, she can return to her father’s house from whence she came”

      “People lived in large families or clans …”

      give one example in hb where USED property who was RAPED and then released could go back to visit her clan. what if her clan told her to f off?
      what if they themselves were living like peasants?
      they were enslaved.

      “in those days so she why could she not go back to her clan?”

      she got banged by a rapist , she would be welcomed in her clan? the enemy took her honor away .
      she would be used product. dishonored.

      “Why do you assume she has to resort to prostitution? All poor people had to be provided for according to the law of Moses.”

      the hebrew child of yhwh found beautiful woman after his god gave him victory. he found sexy hot woman, took her home, raped her and then did not find her satisfying after numerous rapes.

      he let her go. she would be known as captive. she would be marked property. she would need to attach her self to ANOTHER man, otherwise she would be left without home. she can’t go back to the first because the first did not like her any more. now what is she going to do? her clan are already under the power of her rapists people. what is she going to do? she NEED to

      1. allow her self to be ENSLAVED

      2. wash clothes

      3. PROSTITUTE her self


      If she was a non-Muslim in a Muslim land she probably wouldn’t have as much luck.”

      how come you are a filthy christian hypocrite who ALLOWS hebrew soldier to get away with LUST?
      how come?

      Like

  14. “give one example in hb where USED property who was RAPED and then released could go back to visit her clan. what if her clan told her to f off?
    what if they themselves were living like peasants?
    they were enslaved. ”

    Your scenario doesn’t fit the text. If a jihadi had found her she’d be locked away waiting for her turn.

    Why does Allah foam at the mouth if an Israelite gets a pretty chick and they live happy ever after?

    “if you were allowed to visit them , it would make no sense to mourn for them.

    this destroys your initial claim :”

    Yeh sure, all she had to do was hop on the next greyhound bus.

    Like

Please 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: