Does Allah annul the marriage of captive women?

[sum]

The Koran permits muslims to have sex with right hand possessions - captive women. At the same time, sex with married women was not permitted but some of the captive women were married. There was no restriction mentioned in the verse 4:24 which allowed sex with the captives.

Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Abu Dawud (2150) - "The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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 Qur’anic verse: (Qur'an 4:24) 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur'an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432)

It is very clear indeed that married captive women are subject to sex by their muslim captors.

Allah(it is really Muhammad) either permits fornication, adultery or zina with captive married women as per Koran 4:24, or, Allah annuls their marriages in order to permit the muslim captors to have sex with the married women and so avoid the sins of fornication, adultery or zina.

I hope that Ghaith will enlighten us on this matter and whether he approves of verse 4:24.

sum

[darth]

How can he disapprove the verse? He is allah's slave, is he not?

There is no "annulment" in the verse. The verse does not say that their previous marriage is annulled. On the other hand, it acknowledges the marriage of the captives - "all married women are forbidden except the right hand possessions". This implies that married women who are "right hand possessions"/slave/captives" are all halal.

[sum]

Hello darth

Quote -
Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled

The early muslims seem to think that the marriages were annulled. Perhaps they were privy to a bit more info than you or I. Perhaps they are putting into print what muslims are lead to believe and have practiced since the time of Muhammad. One has to ask how Allah(Muhammad) justified Koran 4:24 other than simply permitting the carnal acts of the randy muslims to keep the muslims happy. Whatever Muhammad wanted Allah permitted. Koran 4:24 is another example of Muhammad and his mercenaries breaking the social norms with Allah`s permission and blessing.

sum

[ringmaster]

We are really splitting terminlogical hairs here. It doesn't really matter whether or not muslims think that the marriages are annulled. The fact is that the koran allows sex with captive women, whether they are married or not.

In civilized societies we call that rape.

May allah burn in hell.

[sum]

Hello ringmaster

You are quite right about the splitting of terminological hairs. However, one of the reasons for this thread is to show that, yet again, there is another revelation of convenience in order to please the randy muslim mercenaries. Before this revelation, having sex with married women was a sin and so Muhammad - sorry, Allah - had to think up a way of getting around this problem. The answer was simple. Annul the marriages. The captive women were then only regarded as unmarried slaves and as such were now available for sex on muslim demand.

These situational revelations are a complete giveaway. It could not be more clear that Muhammad was making it all up in order to satisfy his own desires even if they would be breaking the accepted norms of society. Of course his mercenaries would be included in the benefits of the situational revelations because Muhammad needed to keep the troops happy in order to get them to fight for his cult.

sum

[ringmaster]

Hello ringmaster

You are quite right about the splitting of terminological hairs. However, one of the reasons for this thread is to show that, yet again, there is another revelation of convenience in order to please the randy muslim mercenaries. Before this revelation, having sex with married women was a sin and so Muhammad - sorry, Allah - had to think up a way of getting around this problem. The answer was simple. Annul the marriages. The captive women were then only regarded as unmarried slaves and as such were now available for sex on muslim demand.

These situational revelations are a complete giveaway. It could not be more clear that Muhammad was making it all up in order to satisfy his own desires even if they would be breaking the accepted norms of society. Of course his mercenaries would be included in the benefits of the situational revelations because Muhammad needed to keep the troops happy in order to get them to fight for his cult.

sum

Hello sum:

We must remember that all of the “revelations” in the koran are “situational”. This is true in the earlier and more peaceful Mecca verses that were “revealed” at a time when manwhore Mo was not powerful, and therefore preached a more peaceful and tolerant message.

As circumstances changed more to manwhore Mo’s advantage, “revelations” sallied forth to justify whatever he did.

This brings to mind the volume of crap that Mesmorial fed us in his attempts to whitewash sura 9-29. Much of what he used were earlier (chronologically earlier that is) verses that were in fact contradictions (but which he tried to peddle as being “complimentary”). This also explains his desperate and foolhardy attempts to persuade us that there is no abrogation within the koran.

Now he is trying to tell us that sura 9 is not a law-giving sura. No doubt he would try to say the same about sura 4.

An Arabic-speaking Egyptian Christian told me that the Arabic word used in these verses is “nikah”, which the translators put into English as “marriage”. He told me that “nikah” really means “f.uck”, so that in the original Arabic, verse 4-24 is not talking about marriage at all. It’s all about fornication with captive women & whores.

I wonder if anybody in this forum could comment on that.

[sum]

Hello ringmaster

I wonder if Ghaith will step forward and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

I have long maintained that Islam is a man-made, self-perpetuating malignant psychiatric disorder. I have also maintained that the mind is a product of the anatomy and physiology of the brain which in turn is only a flesh and blood computer. When muslim children are programmed their minds/brain/computer can only function according to its programme. This is one reason why no-matter what you present to the muslims it just bounces off and makes no impression simply because their programmed brain is literally unable to process what you present. They have been made into a different strain of humanity.

sum

[paxi christi]

Hello ringmaster

You are quite right about the splitting of terminological hairs. However, one of the reasons for this thread is to show that, yet again, there is another revelation of convenience in order to please the randy muslim mercenaries. Before this revelation, having sex with married women was a sin and so Muhammad - sorry, Allah - had to think up a way of getting around this problem. The answer was simple. Annul the marriages. The captive women were then only regarded as unmarried slaves and as such were now available for sex on muslim demand.

These situational revelations are a complete giveaway. It could not be more clear that Muhammad was making it all up in order to satisfy his own desires even if they would be breaking the accepted norms of society. Of course his mercenaries would be included in the benefits of the situational revelations because Muhammad needed to keep the troops happy in order to get them to fight for his cult.

sum

Hello sum:

We must remember that all of the “revelations” in the koran are “situational”. This is true in the earlier and more peaceful Mecca verses that were “revealed” at a time when manwhore Mo was not powerful, and therefore preached a more peaceful and tolerant message.

As circumstances changed more to manwhore Mo’s advantage, “revelations” sallied forth to justify whatever he did.

This brings to mind the volume of crap that Mesmorial fed us in his attempts to whitewash sura 9-29. Much of what he used were earlier (chronologically earlier that is) verses that were in fact contradictions (but which he tried to peddle as being “complimentary”). This also explains his desperate and foolhardy attempts to persuade us that there is no abrogation within the koran.

Now he is trying to tell us that sura 9 is not a law-giving sura. No doubt he would try to say the same about sura 4.

An Arabic-speaking Egyptian Christian told me that the Arabic word used in these verses is “nikah”, which the translators put into English as “marriage”. He told me that “nikah” really means “f.uck”, so that in the original Arabic, verse 4-24 is not talking about marriage at all. It’s all about fornication with captive women & whores.

I wonder if anybody in this forum could comment on that.

ring master have a look at this if you will................

There is a word in Arabic that correctly translates “marriage.” It is “zawag.”

“Nikah” implies that the emphasis in the relationship between a man and his wife solely sexual. This degrades marriage. It is another proof about how Islam looks down on marriage and the role women play in it. It enforces the Islamic concept that a wife's primary role in Islam is that of a sex object, created to satisfy the husband’s sexual appetites. On the other hand, marriage in the Christian tradition is a union between a husband and his wife based on mutual love, respect and equality. It is two people of the opposite sex becoming one, not just for sex, but to be the nucleus for a family that shares ALL of life’s challenges. While sex is an important part of marriage, it is tragic to consider it primary. Marriage is a life-long relationship that supposed to lovingly endure beyond the perimeters of sex.

“And, Allah knows best,” as the Muslims would say.

This is the how the word has generally been used in the Quran except in the verse that says, “Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of (N)” Sura 4: 6. In that instance it pertains to the age of puberty. The Shafia and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence assert that the word nikah when used as a fact conveys that sexual intercourse has occurred. And when used as a figure of speech it denotes marriage. The reason for this variance is because it is offensive to mention the word “intercourse,” so a metonymic word is used to substitute it

good read from this source............. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nikah.shtml

[paxi christi]

what are peoples thoughts on this?

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

I felt the above story was a manifest injustice. Muhammad condoned a man killing a pregnant mother and his own unborn child just because he said that she insulted him!

(Arabs used to sleep with their maid slaves. Quran perpetuates this tradition Q.33: 52 “It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.” Muhammad himself slept with Mariyah the maid slave of Hafsa his wife without marrying her.)

Forgiving someone for killing another human being just because he said she insulted Muhammad is unacceptable. What if that man was lying to escape punishment? What does this story say about Muhammad’s sense of Justice? During the past 1400 years, imagine how many husbands escaped punishment for killing their innocent wives by accusing them of blaspheming the prophet of God and this Hadith has made them get away with it.

[ringmaster]

Hello ringmaster

I wonder if Ghaith will step forward and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

I have long maintained that Islam is a man-made, self-perpetuating malignant psychiatric disorder. I have also maintained that the mind is a product of the anatomy and physiology of the brain which in turn is only a flesh and blood computer. When muslim children are programmed their minds/brain/computer can only function according to its programme. This is one reason why no-matter what you present to the muslims it just bounces off and makes no impression simply because their programmed brain is literally unable to process what you present. They have been made into a different strain of humanity.

sum

I suggest you listen to the link that is on this site on how sharia law is encroaching upon life in the UK. The speaker maintains, quite correctly, that it is warfare in the sense that it is trying to exert political control.

That brings to mind a comment I made in another thread. At the end of the day, there is only one thing any society needs to understand about muslims, and that is how to beat the crap out of them.

Reforming them is hopeless. It may be possible to reform the odd one (like iffo, who early came across as a muslim who had his doubts), but taking their “umma” as a whole, it is impossible. This has been shown time and again in history, and it is really only the Spanish in 1492 who have fully come to terms with that reality.

I am not interested in reforming muslims or muslim societies. I am only interested in preserving the integrity of our secular societies.

[ringmaster]

Hello ringmaster

You are quite right about the splitting of terminological hairs. However, one of the reasons for this thread is to show that, yet again, there is another revelation of convenience in order to please the randy muslim mercenaries. Before this revelation, having sex with married women was a sin and so Muhammad - sorry, Allah - had to think up a way of getting around this problem. The answer was simple. Annul the marriages. The captive women were then only regarded as unmarried slaves and as such were now available for sex on muslim demand.

These situational revelations are a complete giveaway. It could not be more clear that Muhammad was making it all up in order to satisfy his own desires even if they would be breaking the accepted norms of society. Of course his mercenaries would be included in the benefits of the situational revelations because Muhammad needed to keep the troops happy in order to get them to fight for his cult.

sum

Hello sum:

We must remember that all of the “revelations” in the koran are “situational”. This is true in the earlier and more peaceful Mecca verses that were “revealed” at a time when manwhore Mo was not powerful, and therefore preached a more peaceful and tolerant message.

As circumstances changed more to manwhore Mo’s advantage, “revelations” sallied forth to justify whatever he did.

This brings to mind the volume of crap that Mesmorial fed us in his attempts to whitewash sura 9-29. Much of what he used were earlier (chronologically earlier that is) verses that were in fact contradictions (but which he tried to peddle as being “complimentary”). This also explains his desperate and foolhardy attempts to persuade us that there is no abrogation within the koran.

Now he is trying to tell us that sura 9 is not a law-giving sura. No doubt he would try to say the same about sura 4.

An Arabic-speaking Egyptian Christian told me that the Arabic word used in these verses is “nikah”, which the translators put into English as “marriage”. He told me that “nikah” really means “f.uck”, so that in the original Arabic, verse 4-24 is not talking about marriage at all. It’s all about fornication with captive women & whores.

I wonder if anybody in this forum could comment on that.

ring master have a look at this if you will................

There is a word in Arabic that correctly translates “marriage.” It is “zawag.”

“Nikah” implies that the emphasis in the relationship between a man and his wife solely sexual. This degrades marriage. It is another proof about how Islam looks down on marriage and the role women play in it. It enforces the Islamic concept that a wife's primary role in Islam is that of a sex object, created to satisfy the husband’s sexual appetites. On the other hand, marriage in the Christian tradition is a union between a husband and his wife based on mutual love, respect and equality. It is two people of the opposite sex becoming one, not just for sex, but to be the nucleus for a family that shares ALL of life’s challenges. While sex is an important part of marriage, it is tragic to consider it primary. Marriage is a life-long relationship that supposed to lovingly endure beyond the perimeters of sex.

“And, Allah knows best,” as the Muslims would say.

This is the how the word has generally been used in the Quran except in the verse that says, “Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of (N)” Sura 4: 6. In that instance it pertains to the age of puberty. The Shafia and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence assert that the word nikah when used as a fact conveys that sexual intercourse has occurred. And when used as a figure of speech it denotes marriage. The reason for this variance is because it is offensive to mention the word “intercourse,” so a metonymic word is used to substitute it

good read from this source............. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nikah.shtml

I was aware of that Arabic word “zawag”. My Egyptian acquaintance told me about it.

The link you provided pretty much confirms the accuracy of what he said.

[sum]

Hello ringmaster

I had listened to the link and it describes perfectly what is happening. I have previously posed the question in the forum as to why all Western governments are frightened to upset the muslims but all I get in response is "oil".

Do the governments actually recognise the fact that Islam is at war with the non-muslim world? If they do, then they act as though they are in denial. Perhaps they are just playing for time until they retire on a good pension and leave the mess for the next generation of politicians to sort out. Perhaps they really do not understand the seriousness of the situation. It might be that they are not in denial but are too afraid to tackle the problem. George Galloway was elected because he pandered to the muslims and said that he supported the Palestinians. I believe that the converse could apply. If any political party stood up and made clear that they would stop muslim immigration and the building of mosques they would romp home.

It is only a matter of time until the indigenous non-muslim population reacts to the Islamic problem and a full scale civil war breaks out. If the politicians will not address the Islamic problem then the public will have no option but to take matters into their own hands.

Winston Churchill wrote:
If you will not fight for right when you can easily without bloodshed; if you will not fight when victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

We are heading towards stage three. It would not surprise me, if sometime in the future, the public turned violent towards the Quizling politicians.

David Cameron said that the the main duty of Government is to maintain the security and safety of the nation. What has he done? Absolutely nothing at all. He has ignored the problem.

sum

[ringmaster]

..............

I had listened to the link and it describes perfectly what is happening. I have previously posed the question in the forum as to why all Western governments are frightened to upset the muslims but all I get in response is "oil".

Yes...and that is why we should, as I have suggested, simply occupy Saudi oilfields and confiscate their oil. Afghanistan was a waste of time and resources. Keep a missile pointed at Mecca and confiscate their economic means of waging jihad.

We should confiscate the wealth they have in the west too.

[Fernando]

I don't think pandering to Muslims in the West (UK anyway) is about oil, it's because of the "colonial guilt" and slavery beloved of the left wing. Somehow, the left has managed to impose its blinkers pretty well universally. As a result, few people know that the Arabs/Muslims were a great imperial power and supplied African slaves for the American trade besides having vast numbers of slaves their own - including many Europeans.

[ringmaster]

I don't think pandering to Muslims in the West (UK anyway) is about oil, it's because of the "colonial guilt" and slavery beloved of the left wing. Somehow, the left has managed to impose its blinkers pretty well universally. As a result, few people know that the Arabs/Muslims were a great imperial power and supplied African slaves for the American trade besides having vast numbers of slaves their own - including many Europeans.

Insofar as the left is concerned, I think it's because left wing ideology is essentially totalitarian, and lefties are attracted to ideologies that take away individual thought from its adherents.

[Jimi]

It is clear Allah made it easy for believers to have their way with captive women. What is the question here? According to Islam law one cannot make a law prohibiting sex with captive women. Why do we need to go any further.

Islam corrupts even the non believer. I remember when I first learned the Islam and rape/sex with slave/captive thing. I was shocked. My jaw hit the floor. Today nothing in Islam shocks me. I have become sort of numb to it. It does not supprize or shock me in the least. Of course Muslims can rape women. So what? We know this.

[sum]

Hello Jimi

You are correct but the purpose of this thread is to draw the attention of the forum visitors to the fact that Islam annuls the captive women`s marriage by quoting the legitimate Islamic and Koranic guidance that authorises the rape and annullment of the captive non-muslim women. Many people will not be aware of this.

It needs to be spelled out to all who visit this site.

sum

[Connedbymo+co]

Hello Jimi

You are correct but the purpose of this thread is to draw the attention of the forum visitors to the fact that Islam annuls the captive women`s marriage by quoting the legitimate Islamic and Koranic guidance that authorises the rape and annullment of the captive non-muslim women. Many people will not be aware of this.

It needs to be spelled out to all who visit this site.

sum

This hadeeth may be useful:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran 4:. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 8:3432

[sum]

Hello Connedbymo+co

Your post -
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran 4:. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 8:3432

This hadith supports the one that I posted - Abu Dawud (2150)

sum

[darth]

4.24 does not specify that the captive needs to be divorced first, nor does it specify any iddat period. The hadith may tell what people did then, because all said and done, arabs seem to have been a honorable people before mo. So the idea of having sex with a woman when her husband was still alive may have repulsed them.
But the question is - would it be "haram" for a muslim to have sex with a married right hand possession? Nope, it is quite halal. Quran has the last word after all. In the eyes of the quran, the marital status of a right hand possession is irrelevant in the islamic scheme of things.

Also, ask what is a divorce in islam? It is something that is given by the man only. What is a iddat period in islam if the man has not issued a divorce? If the woman is simply staying separately, it does not imply that she is divorced (from islamic point of view) as the man has not issued the talaq. Since there is no hadith that states that the prisoner of war was first divorced by husband, by islamic law there has been no divorce and the quran recognizes the marriage status as current (hence the words all married women except right hand possessions are forbidden). Iddat period, in this case can only be to determine that the captive is not pregnant (that is also not necessary as per the quran, but I am sure the master may have wanted to make sure)