Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

_______________________
fudgy wrote:There has been some confusion regarding Muslim men allowed to have sex with their slaves.
No confusion at all. If you want to confuse yourself, you may but Muslim men can have sex with their slave-women. It is divinely sanctioned.
fudgy wrote:Many commentators agree that this is true and has its basis in the Hadith.
Its basis is in the Quran and Ahadith.
fudgy wrote:However, just because a opinion is popular does not make it a correct one!
It is not the question of being popular. If your book and endorsing sources say “Yes”, you have no way out of it other than approving it.
fudgy wrote:Fornication is fornication and being unfaithful is being unfaithful irrespective of doing it with a free women or doing it with a slave.
I agree;
fudgy wrote:Let us take a look at the story of a Prophet who has been sold into slavery.
Darn…, this story bores me up really because I have gone through it many times. The prophet you mention was purchased by Aziz (according to Quran) a noble man (or some say he was then king of a part in Egypt.) Joseph was handsome so Aziz’s wife tried to lure him. The slave preserved his loyalty to his master and did not cheat him. He did not commit the evil act of cheating and being ungrateful to his master.

That’s all, and please do not bring this story again especially in bolded oversized letters.
fudgy wrote:Allah prohibited a Prophet from doing such stuff,
It is not Allah who prohibited it. Being loyal to masters and not bonking their wives was the existing rules for slaves. Joseph did not break this rule.
fudgy wrote:do you think he will allow us to do such stuff? Look how Prophet Joseph is saying that he would rather go to prison than to commit fornication and such indecency.
If you become slave of an Arab master in Saudi Arabia, you are not allowed to have sex with his wife or wives. If you do, then your head would be the price you will pay for it.

Because Allah did not allow male slaves to bonk their master’s wives. Prophet Joseph observed this rule.

But we are discussing Muslim men having sex with their slave-women. What the hell Joseph’s story has to do with this? Are you stupid?
fudgy wrote:The only place where there might be a slight hint of Muslims allowed to have sex with their slaves is mentioned in 23:5-6.
Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, Quran 23:6

The following verse is actually best translated by Jew/Agnostic who has later embraced Islam namely Muhammad Asad.
The most ambiguous translation of Quran belongs to this man. I hate referring him.
fudgy wrote:Now, I do not usually bring any commentators or hadith to prove my point. It is evident that these verses never talks about allowing sex outside of marriage even with slaves; such notions are contradictory to the basics of Islam.
Drool… you appeals to a misleading authority my dear Muslim. Asad is not a recognized Muslim scholar. He was merely a convert who lost himself in the deserts of pre-oil Arabia. I must admit the guy had awesome writing skills. His “The road to Mecca” is an excellent read.
fudgy wrote: [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]
This is the most apologetic translation of the verse. Very convenient for Asad and Muslim apologists to distort the verses of Quran to their likings..!!
fudgy wrote:And here is his commentary:
Spoiler! :
M Asad wrote:[Lit., “or those whom their right hands possess” (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw (“or”) denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Quran itself (see 4: 3, 24, 25 and 24: 32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Quran applies the term ‘‘believers” to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj (“spouses”), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of “their female slaves’’; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4: 24 - namely, “those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note on 4: 24) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who “rightfully possess” one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative (“or”) but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase “in other words” or “that is”, thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, “save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]”, etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25: 62 - ‘‘for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., “or”], has the will to be grateful”.)]
Asad explanation is far more superior to the one that I could have given you. Indeed, why did most of the translators translated the term "spouses" to "wives"?
This Asad is an opportunist at best. I say this because most often in his translation, he has referred Al-Razi’s Quran commentary. But here he drops Al-Razi and all classic commentators to bring up his anomalous version. Very much opportunistic indeed.

fudgy wrote: Let us look at another verses 24:32-33:
Spoiler! :
And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),
Read these verses carefully do you see Allah telling us that if we cannot marry we should remain chaste except those whom we posses through our right hand??? No!
Check the verse in Arabic you ignorant. “Wa Ankihoo” does not mean “Marry”. Its exact meaning is “Marry Off”. Allah is telling masters to marry off their freemen and their slave-men and women.
fudgy wrote: Does Allah say that if you cannot find a way to get married then go find yourself a slave??
Allah should not say it because a person who can not afford to marry can not pay for a slave-woman. Allah knew it well;

Purchasing a slave-woman and giving dowry to a woman to marry her, both requires financial means.
fudgy wrote: No! As I have said such notions are contradictory to the basics of Islam.
You are right. As “You have said” and not "As Islam’s authentic sources say". You can have your say but that can not find a way to Islamic Sharia if you do not corroborate to your tradition.

Silly boy…,
fudgy wrote: In the end, sex with slaves are simply fabrications of such men who sought to use religion as a means to spread their personal desires.
Your prophet had a concubine named Maria. His only son Ibrahim (who died in infancy) was born in that slave-woman. I don’t need hadiths to prove it because there is hint for it in Quran Surah Tahrim. See:

And when the prophet confided to some (of) his wives an information, so when she informed with it (others) and God made it apparent on (to) him, he made some of it known and he opposed from some, so when he informed her with it, she said: "Who informed you (of) this?" He said: "The knowledgeable, the experienced informed me.". [Quran: 66:3]

Don’t touch any Tafsir, don’t quote from Hadith books. Tell me what is that information your prophet confided from his wives? What is that little secret?

Can you?
fudgy wrote: Sexually abusing one's slave is an evil act which relates to nothing but immodestly and indecency!
That is why Islam is such a crappy religion…yuckit;

Anything else?

KF

User avatar
Cassie
Posts: 2523
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Cassie wrote: Rubbish. The people saying she made an error were the ladies of the city, not Allah.

Waqala niswatun fee almadeenati imraatu alAAazeezi turawidu fataha AAan nafsihi qad shaghafaha hubban inna lanaraha fee dalalin mubeenin

Don't forget 70-30 and 23-6.
That is correct, the entire rest of the sentence is quoting what the women of the city were saying, and MassaStoryTella, fudgy butt, and BahgRat are lying yet again. It never seems to end with these people. If need be, they'll lie till their last breath.
One characteristic of Muslims is that they lack integrity. They lie to themselves as easily as they lie to others - so long as they are 'protecting' their god. Pathetic.

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

_____________________________
fudgy wrote:See if sex with RHP was really allowed then I don't see the reason for RHP to seek permission when you are in state of undress!
Verse 24:58 is meant for all believers including men and women. Right hand possessions contain male-slaves too. And they have to seek permission to enter while their women masters are undressing.

It does not help your case. I think parvez mushtaq brought it to prove "Right Hand Possession" means Slaves. That's all.

Next,

KF

fudgy
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

Khalil, actually Asad is very good! Why did the other translator translated "spouses" to "wives"?

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

sum wrote:Hello AhmedBahgat

While you are investigating what I presented to you, can tell us if you regard forced sex with anybody as always unacceptable?

sum
a\I am not investigating the crap you presented, it is not worth my time

and yes the Quran condemns the raping of anyone, i.e. the Quran condemns forced sex

fudgy
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

KhaliL FarieL wrote:_____________________________
fudgy wrote:See if sex with RHP was really allowed then I don't see the reason for RHP to seek permission when you are in state of undress!
Verse 24:58 is meant for all believers including men and women. Right hand possessions contain male-slaves too. And they have to seek permission to enter while their women masters are undressing.

It does not help your case. I think parvez mushtaq brought it to prove "Right Hand Possession" means Slaves. That's all.

Next,

KF
Khalil you are too much. That still does not change the fact that it also contain female slaves and they have to seek permission to enter while their men masters are undressing! And since here you are claiming that believers are indeed both men and women it further enforces Asad's claim on 23:6.

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

___________________________
fudgy wrote:Khalil, actually Asad is very good! Why did the other translator translated "spouses" to "wives"?

Yousuf Ali's is the best in this case. See:

Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame[23:6 (Y. Ali)]

Asad is not the best of translators. Sometimes his notes are helpful. That's all;

Regards
KF

fudgy
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

KhaliL FarieL wrote:___________________________
fudgy wrote:Khalil, actually Asad is very good! Why did the other translator translated "spouses" to "wives"?

Yousuf Ali's is the best in this case. See:

Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame[23:6 (Y. Ali)]

Asad is not the best of translators. Sometimes his notes are helpful. That's all;

Regards
KF
Yusuf Ali's translation at times is very hard for me to understand. The word is "spouses" and also relates to "believers" Asad made an excellent case.

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

fudgy wrote:
Spoiler! :
KhaliL FarieL wrote:_____________________________
fudgy wrote:See if sex with RHP was really allowed then I don't see the reason for RHP to seek permission when you are in state of undress!
Verse 24:58 is meant for all believers including men and women. Right hand possessions contain male-slaves too. And they have to seek permission to enter while their women masters are undressing.

It does not help your case. I think parvez mushtaq brought it to prove "Right Hand Possession" means Slaves. That's all.

Next,

KF
Khalil you are too much. That still does not change the fact that it also contain female slaves and they have to seek permission to enter while their men masters are undressing! And since here you are claiming that believers are indeed both men and women it further enforces Asad's claim on 23:6.
I am too much..? On what..?

Al-Wahidi gives the context of the verse as found in Tafsir Zamaqshari:

Said ibn ‘Abbas: “The Messenger of Allah, Allah sent a boy from the Helpers, called Mudlij ibn ‘Amr, to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab after noon to summon him. When he entered in, he saw ‘Umar in a state which the latter disliked to be seen in. And so he said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of Allah, I wish that Allah, exalted is He, give us some commands and prohibitions regarding asking permission before entering’. And so Allah revealed this verse”.

The above is one. But there is another version too:

"This verse was revealed about Asma’ bint Marthid. She had a slave-boy who was quite old and he happened to enter in on her one day at a time in which she disliked him to enter in on her. She went to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and said: ‘Our servants and slaves enter in on us and find us in states in which we dislike them to see us’. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed this verse”.[Asbabul Nuzul]

A "Male Slave" is common in both accounts.

Next,

KF

fudgy
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Verse 24:58 is meant for all believers including men and women. Right hand possessions contain male-slaves too. And they

I am too much..? On what..?

Al-Wahidi gives the context of the verse as found in Tafsir Zamaqshari:

Said ibn ‘Abbas: “The Messenger of Allah, Allah sent a boy from the Helpers, called Mudlij ibn ‘Amr, to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab after noon to summon him. When he entered in, he saw ‘Umar in a state which the latter disliked to be seen in. And so he said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of Allah, I wish that Allah, exalted is He, give us some commands and prohibitions regarding asking permission before entering’. And so Allah revealed this verse”.

The above is one. But there is another version too:

"This verse was revealed about Asma’ bint Marthid. She had a slave-boy who was quite old and he happened to enter in on her one day at a time in which she disliked him to enter in on her. She went to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and said: ‘Our servants and slaves enter in on us and find us in states in which we dislike them to see us’. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed this verse”.[Asbabul Nuzul]

A "Male Slave" is common in both accounts.

Next,

KF
Khalil this still does not deny what the verse actually says which is simply slaves--both male and female.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by yeezevee »

Khalil this still does not deny what the verse actually says which is simply slaves--both male and female.
But War Mongering Muslim brutes of that time or even now can not go and screw Ugly looking male slaves., but they did do it to female slaves and pearly boys..

You guys talk rubbish., Why even a word LIKE "SLAVE" has to come from the mouth of God? what is this Allah/God is as an ass hole looking for slaves..

Stupid book silly people..
yeezevee

User avatar
Cassie
Posts: 2523
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

The Muslim god must be barbaric to permit slavery.

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

______________________________
fudgy wrote:
KhaliL FarieL wrote:A "Male Slave" is common in both accounts.
Khalil this still does not deny what the verse actually says which is simply slaves--both male and female.
Is it thus how you comprehend? I bolded it in my post. "Right Hand Possession" in the verse 24:58 can be "Males only" as we see a "Male slave" in both accounts. For more details I will have to go through all available Tafasir on the net. I just checked "Kashaf" of Zamaqshari after you are coming up with the above.

In any case, this does not mean a prohibition for male masters to have sex with their slave-women.

KF

sum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by sum »

Hello AhmedBahgat

Your quote -
yes the Quran condemns the raping of anyone, i.e. the Quran condemns forced sex

This does not specifically answer my question in which I asked you if you find forced sex with anybody as always unacceptable. You have given your understanding of the Koran but I was looking for your own opinion.

I think that you ought to investigate what I presented because this is the current Islamic ruling on forced sex with one`s wife. It qualifies this by adding that "because she is in your control". The right hand possessions are also in your control and so it is more than reasonable to have the same ruling of forced sex being permissible regarding right hand possessions.

If you disagree with forced sex then you are disagreeing with current Islam. If current Islam permits forced sex with one`s wife then it is totally unacceptable and it should raise the alarm bells for muslims. They will now have to come to terms with the fact that Islam is evil and should be rejected. We have no need or requirement for these unacceptable facets of Islam. Wake up, AhmedBahgat, as you are giving your support to this evil oppressive cult. Reject Islam and adopt the Golden Rule while you find another god, should you want one.

sum

fudgy
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

Time for Fudgy to get some rest. looks like pests of FFI are back. YZV has been emptied from Fudgy's bin.

User avatar
Cassie
Posts: 2523
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

If you had integrity and a conscience, you'd see just how barbaric and evil your god is, fudgy.

fudgy
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

KhaliL FarieL wrote:______________________________
fudgy wrote:
KhaliL FarieL wrote:A "Male Slave" is common in both accounts.
Khalil this still does not deny what the verse actually says which is simply slaves--both male and female.
Is it thus how you comprehend? I bolded it in my post. "Right Hand Possession" in the verse 24:58 can be "Males only" as we see a "Male slave" in both accounts. For more details I will have to go through all available Tafasir on the net. I just checked "Kashaf" of Zamaqshari after you are coming up with the above.

In any case, this does not mean a prohibition for male masters to have sex with their slave-women.

KF
lol Khalil you are full of excuses. It does not say male slaves only. And also in 23:6 its "spouses."

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

_________________
fudgy wrote: lol Khalil you are full of excuses. It does not say male slaves. And also in 23:6 its "spouses."
You are talking against your conscience fudgy; You know you lost the case way earlier. All you do now amount to self-deception. But how far..??

Quranic verses, Ahadith, Tafasir and 1400 years of Islamic history attest to the fact sex slavery is allowed in Islam. See how it went with Omar the second Caliph of Islam. These are historical accounts which you can not deny:

With the conquest of Iraq and Syria, Iraqi and Syrian women became available to the Muslims. Attracted by the beauty of these women, the Muslims divorced their Arab wives. That created a social crisis which led to sexual laxity. Umar accordingly ordered that marriages with foreign ladies should be permitted under exceptional circumstances. Hudhaifa was the administrator of al Madina and he married a Christian beauty of Iraq. When this was brought to the notice of Umar he required Hudhaifa to divorce the Christian beauty, Hudhaifa said that he would not comply with the order unless he was told whether his marriage was unlawful or else; the Caliph referred to the authority under which he wanted him (Hudhaifa) to divorce his legally wedded wife. Umar wrote to say that the marriage he had contracted was not unlawful, but he had been advised to divorce the Christian beauty as it was bound to adversely affect the interests of Arab ladies. Moreover if the Muslims married non-Muslim ladies merely for their beauty that would encourage sexual laxity. Thereupon Hudhaifa divorced his Christian wife.

Besides four lawful wives Islam permitted any man to take over any number of slave girls to bed. These slave girls were to be the property of the Master and he could sell them any time. With the extension in conquests the number of available slave girls increased and Umar felt that this would promote sexual laxity. He ordered that Umm ul Walad that is such slave girls who bore children to their masters would stand emancipated. This had the effect that such women could no longer be treated as concubines and were to be given the status of regular wives or divorced when they could, as free women, marry other persons.


http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Arti ... tm#Slavery

The above online source is Islamic;

KF

fudgy
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

LOL. see how is silent on "spouses. " Asad simply slam dunked those who thinks its ok to have sex with slaves. Its evident that such notions are nothing but man made crap.

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

fudgy wrote:LOL. see how is silent on "spouses. " Asad simply slam dunked those who thinks its ok to have sex with slaves. Its evident that such notions are nothing but man made crap.
Listen you ignoramus:

I brought Yusuf Ali's translation in which a term similar to "spouses" is used. Once again for your Quran infested brain:

23:6 (Y. Ali) Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame

Replace the part I underlined with "Spouses". Does that make your case? How exactly?

Muhammad Asad manipulated the verse by mistranslating it. I am NOT accusing him for using the word "Spouses" but he turned a blind eye on the Arabic أوْ = "OR" in the verse. I am bringing it in Arabic for knowledgeable Muslims to see:
إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ

The underlined part is read as "OU" which can be translated to "OR" in English. Asad conveniently omitted it.

And listen, I can not continue this playschool-level chatting...

KF
Last edited by KhaliL on Sat May 02, 2009 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply