Does Quran Sanction Rape?

[Cassie]

Phew! Aussie girls rejoice!

Aussie and Brits gals are yuck. Easily owned by Iranian, Turkish, Lebenese.

And this opinion of yours proves what about your religion?

[Cassie]

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.

So? I didn't say it was the same verse. I'm saying that 33-50 refers to wives AND ma malakat aymanikum - as separate categories. Asad lied by construing OR to mean the same thing.

You can say, "apples or pears" - to mean different categories. Or you can say, "teachers or educators" - to mean the same category.

However, when you have AND as well - it means that they must be different categories. In this case, we have 23-6, 70-30 and 33-50 referring to "wives" AND/OR "ma malakat aymanukum" - which can only mean that they are different categories. If Asad had integrity, he wouldn't cherry-pick his verses to fit his opinion. Everyone else can see this, I'm sure.

[KhaliL]

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.

Your glorious Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad translated the "وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ " in 33:50 as "Those whom their right hands may possess".

O PROPHET! Behold, We have made lawful to thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowers, as well as those whom thy right hand has come to possess from among the captives of war whom God has bestowed upon thee. And [We have made lawful to thee] the daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with thee [to Yathrib]; and any believing woman who offers herself freely to the Prophet and whom the Prophet might be willing to wed: [this latter being but] a privilege for thee, and not for other believers - [seeing that] We have already made known what We have enjoined upon them with regard to their wives and those whom their right hands may possess. [And] in order that thou be not burdened with [undue] anxiety - for God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace –[Quran:33:50 (Asad)]

Right in here but he freakin mistranslated both 23:6 and 70:30.

Muslim apologists are such a dishonest bunch...

KF

[Aksel Ankersen]

Your glorious Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad translated the "وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ " in 33:50 as "Those whom their right hands may possess".

Sorry to correct you on such a minor point but the text you post actually says: "and those whom their right hands may possess"

Also, the rasm in 33:50 is وما ملكت يمينك which is singular 2nd person rather than plural as in 23:6, which I guess is the verse you meant.

[Aksel Ankersen]

Phew! Aussie girls rejoice!

Aussie and Brits gals are yuck.

You mustn't have met many Aussie and Brit gals, is all I can say.

[Aksel Ankersen]

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”.)]

Muhammad Asad's explanation relies also on his translation of 4:24, but his interpretation is silly and empty of sense. This is what Sura an-Nisa ayah 23 & 24 actually say:

You are forbidden to marry your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, nieces, your foster-mothers, your foster-sisters, your mothers-in-law, your step-daughters whom you have brought up and with whose mothers you have had carnal relations. It would not be a sin to marry her if you did not have carnal relations with her mother. You are forbidden to marry the wives of your own sons and to marry two sisters at the same time without any adverse affect to the such relations of the past. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise.

Muhammad Asad want's to translate the underlined text (الا ماملكت ايمانكم ) as "other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]" essentially he is saying "you can't be married except to those women you are lawfully married with". Duh! It's not hard to see that he mistranslated this and he uses his own mistranslation to prove his point about ma malakat aymanukum.

[MastaBlaster]

You said you dated with a woman named Cassandra who was Swedish .Honestly tell me didnt she dump you

as far as i can remember, i didnt get dumped by a western girl and i always found a common pattern with them: whining about how western men are sissies. sorry guys, this is how we do it as the song goes. ask the resident chick, cassie.
im not saying muslim girls are that much harder to get than western, you just need to make more effort and take the time with them, but the only times i got dissed was by them. in general they smell players from far and the percentage among them that fall for players tricks is small, in my experience.
here you go, i just confessed my main weakness in regards to religion: badly canalized lust.

[debunker]

Aksel said to fudgy:

You mustn't have met many Aussie and Brit gals, is all I can say.

Well, here's one gorgeous brit girl:

[debunker]

@ Masta

do you know that fornication is one of Islam's greatest sins? It has been warned against numerous many times in the Quran... and you question my faith, huh?

[KhaliL]

Your glorious Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad translated the "وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ " in 33:50 as "Those whom their right hands may possess".

Sorry to correct you on such a minor point but the text you post actually says: "and those whom their right hands may possess"

Also, the rasm in 33:50 is وما ملكت يمينك which is singular 2nd person rather than plural as in 23:6, which I guess is the verse you meant.

Thank you Aksel, It was a mistake. I missed وَ

KF

[hamid]

@ Masta

do you know that fornication is one of Islam's greatest sins? It has been warned against numerous many times in the Quran... and you question my faith, huh?

He is only bragging to taunt people. No true Muslim indulges in fornication.

[winston]

Didn't Mohammed have extra-marital sex and permit his gangsters to do the same with their 'war booty'?

[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”.)]

Muhammad Asad's explanation relies also on his translation of 4:24, but his interpretation is silly and empty of sense. This is what Sura an-Nisa ayah 23 & 24 actually say:

You are forbidden to marry your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, nieces, your foster-mothers, your foster-sisters, your mothers-in-law, your step-daughters whom you have brought up and with whose mothers you have had carnal relations. It would not be a sin to marry her if you did not have carnal relations with her mother. You are forbidden to marry the wives of your own sons and to marry two sisters at the same time without any adverse affect to the such relations of the past. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise.

Muhammad Asad want's to translate the underlined text (الا ماملكت ايمانكم ) as "other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]" essentially he is saying "you can't be married except to those women you are lawfully married with". Duh! It's not hard to see that he mistranslated this and he uses his own mistranslation to prove his point about ma malakat aymanukum.

Hello,
I do not see anything wrong with his translations. 4:24 simply says that right hand possessions are only lawful given that you take them in honest wedlock and not fornication(ie sex outside of marriage) ergo sex outside of marriage is not there and prohibited.

[fudgy]

@debunker she is an actress yet still the Iranian women destroys her.

[fudgy]

Phew! Aussie girls rejoice!

Aussie and Brits gals are yuck.

You mustn't have met many Aussie and Brit gals, is all I can say.

lol. I believe Czechs are the best in Europe not counting Turkish.

[MastaBlaster]

Well, here's one gorgeous brit girl

lol mr jehovah witness muslim. so you even gonna dispute us muslims when we compare our women to western girls.

do you know that fornication is one of Islam's greatest sins?

but mr jehovah witness muslim, you've been disputing us muslims and distorting our quran to promote the idea that islam condones fornication and rape all through this thread, and to no avail.

also how come you stfu after i brought the topic of the unitarians vs JW in the other thread? unitarians are like JW repellent hahaha

[Cassie]

Hello,
I do not see anything wrong with his translations. 4:24 simply says that right hand possessions are only lawful given that you take them in honest wedlock and not fornication(ie sex outside of marriage) ergo sex outside of marriage is not there and prohibited.

Think about it, MB. How can it be honest wedlock when the slave girls were already married. The verse says, "You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls."

What does that tell you? Your slave-girls are already married.

[fudgy]

I always thought Haifa was Christian. Anyway, she is not that pretty. Lol yes debunker would dispute on our women too.

[fudgy]

Well, here's one gorgeous brit girl

lol mr jehovah witness muslim. so you even gonna dispute us muslims when we compare our women to western girls.

do you know that fornication is one of Islam's greatest sins?

but mr jehovah witness muslim, you've been disputing us muslims and distorting our quran to promote the idea that islam condones fornication and rape all through this thread, and to no avail.

also how come you stfu after i brought the topic of the unitarians vs JW in the other thread? unitarians are like JW repellent hahaha

No wonder why he said he would want to send 80% of Muslims to outer space.

[debunker]

Fudgy said:

I always thought Haifa was Christian. Anyway, she is not that pretty. Lol yes debunker would dispute on our women too.

What now? I shown a beautiful Arab woman who's a Muslim slut. That's why you deny she's beautiful? Ok, here's another beautiful Arab woman who is NOT a slut, but she's Christian. I hope you won't deny her beauty just because she's Christian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGfPyUVhOZc (I'm especially fascinated @ 2:00)