Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
Cassie
Posts: 2523
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

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.
Funny how a Muslimah can show her genitals to her male slaves, according to fudgy. Is that what happens in Muslim families? Your women show their genitals to adult males who are not their husbands? :roflmao:

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

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
Image

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by skynightblaze »

Cassie wrote:
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.
Funny how a Muslimah can show her genitals to her male slaves, according to fudgy. Is that what happens in Muslim families? Your women show their genitals to adult males who are not their husbands? :roflmao:
Ask Fudgy to name the country . I will book a flight to that country today itself :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

Lol Asad did not omit it. he made an excellent case out of what it really means. See below:
[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”.)]

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

fudgy wrote:Lol Asad did not omit it. he made an excellent case out of what it really means. See below:
[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 constructed what is known as the 'false dichotomy'. He says that since it is inconceivable that ma malakat aymanukum means both male and female slaves, he goes on to claim that they are those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock].

This is false because 70-30 says wives AND right hand possessions. This means that they cannot be the same category of people. Asad ignored this because, like you fudgy, he has no integrity.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

skynightblaze wrote: Ask Fudgy to name the country . I will book a flight to that country today itself :lol:
Pal stay in India. Such women are for Muslims only.
Image

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

Anyway, I have made my case. Khalil asked me to bring a scholar and I did. Finally a Muslim scholar has a brain namely Muhammad Asad.

Peace,
Nabil

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

fudgy wrote:dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.
Liar. One has 'or' - which Asad based his argument on. The other has 'and' - which refutes him.

Try to grow a little integrity, fudgy. Ignoring verses that are inconvenient to you is dishonest.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by KhaliL »

fudgy wrote:Lol Asad did not omit it. he made an excellent case out of what it really means. See below:
[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 is a charlatan and you are his dumb follower..

Where did Asad use "OR" in his translation? See how he manipulated it:

23:6 (Asad) [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]: [3] for then, behold, they are free of all blame,

Where did this charlatan get the phrase "rightfully possess through wedlock" from..? And why should it be repeated again after mentioning “spouses”?

Stupid, “spouse” mean what Asad says as “marriage partner". Why did god say "spouses at first and go on to interpret the obvious as “those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock?” Is Quran meant for dumb people like you who can not understand when god says "Spouses.."?

KF

User avatar
MastaBlaster
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:35 pm

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by MastaBlaster »

Cassie wrote:
fudgy wrote:dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.
Liar. One has 'or' - which Asad based his argument on. The other has 'and' - which refutes him.

Try to grow a little integrity, fudgy. Ignoring verses that are inconvenient to you is dishonest.
both 70:30 and 23:6 use أوْ"or", miss lonely lady.
fudgy, this cassie wants a muslim boyfriend, are you interested i can hook you up.
omaewamu SHINDEIRU

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

The ma malakat aymanukum must be female because in ayat 24-31, when the Quran is talking about Muslimahs owning slaves, the phrase is ma malakat aymanuhunna. Note the gender change.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by skynightblaze »

MastaBlaster wrote:
Cassie wrote:
fudgy wrote:dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.
Liar. One has 'or' - which Asad based his argument on. The other has 'and' - which refutes him.

Try to grow a little integrity, fudgy. Ignoring verses that are inconvenient to you is dishonest.
both 70:30 and 23:6 use أوْ"or", miss lonely lady.
fudgy, this cassie wants a muslim boyfriend, are you interested i can hook you up.

You said you dated with a woman named Cassandra who was Swedish .Honestly tell me didnt she dump you because you didnt take bath daily and had a beard inflicted with lice as per the sunnah of your great prophet?
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

MastaBlaster wrote:
Cassie wrote:
fudgy wrote:dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.
Liar. One has 'or' - which Asad based his argument on. The other has 'and' - which refutes him.

Try to grow a little integrity, fudgy. Ignoring verses that are inconvenient to you is dishonest.
both 70:30 and 23:6 use أوْ"or", miss lonely lady.
fudgy, this cassie wants a muslim boyfriend, are you interested i can hook you up.
Sorry, got the wrong verse. Try 33-50.

Why are you Muslims so obsessed with getting girlfriends? Is it because you're all losers with bad breath and lousy attitudes? No White woman in her right mind would want a bar of you. You all have the capital L tattooed to your foreheads. Try growing up and acting like men, for a change, instead of little boys. You're only making Muslims look.... immature.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

Cassie wrote:
fudgy wrote:dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.
Liar. One has 'or' - which Asad based his argument on. The other has 'and' - which refutes him.

Try to grow a little integrity, fudgy. Ignoring verses that are inconvenient to you is dishonest.
dum bum cassie both verse has the exact same construction. You have been life dismissed. Good Bye.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

fudgy wrote:
Cassie wrote:
fudgy wrote:dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.
Liar. One has 'or' - which Asad based his argument on. The other has 'and' - which refutes him.

Try to grow a little integrity, fudgy. Ignoring verses that are inconvenient to you is dishonest.
dum bum cassie both verse has the exact same construction. You have been life dismissed. Good Bye.
I just told you I got the wrong verse. Try 33-50 which uses "and" while 23-6 uses "or". It busts Asad's argument. If you had integrity, you'd admit when you make a mistake - just like I did - when I apologized for getting the verse number wrong. Unfortunately, for you and your loser buddy Masterbater, my proposition still holds.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

MastaBlaster wrote:
Cassie wrote:
fudgy wrote:dum bum Cassie 70:30 has the same construction as 23:6. You have been life dismissed for the second time.
Liar. One has 'or' - which Asad based his argument on. The other has 'and' - which refutes him.

Try to grow a little integrity, fudgy. Ignoring verses that are inconvenient to you is dishonest.
both 70:30 and 23:6 use أوْ"or", miss lonely lady.
fudgy, this cassie wants a muslim boyfriend, are you interested i can hook you up.
lol bro I passed with this old hag. I prefer middle eastern ladies.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by Cassie »

Phew! Aussie girls rejoice! :roflmao:

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

Cassie wrote:Phew! Aussie girls rejoice! :roflmao:
Aussie and Brits gals are yuck. Easily owned by Iranian, Turkish, Lebenese.

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

Re: Does Quran Sanction Rape?

Post by fudgy »

Cassie wrote: I just told you I got the wrong verse. Try 33-50 which uses "and" while 23-6 uses "or". It busts Asad's argument. If you had integrity, you'd admit when you make a mistake - just like I did - when I apologized for getting the verse number wrong. Unfortunately, for you and your loser buddy Masterbater, my proposition still holds.
Thats a complete different verse. And no it does not bust his argument. He explained 33:50 very well too.

Post Reply