Australian Politics Forum

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: concubines
Reply #60 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 5:49pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Gandalf do you agree with Abu that Islam permits sex with slaves as well as wives?

no

That's not the right answer. You tell FD what he demands to hear.

This is his right in a free society, you know - not that you Moslems would know anything about that.

Back to top

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21849
A cat with a view

Re: concubines
Reply #61 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Gandalf do you agree with Abu that Islam permits sex with slaves as well as wives?

no

So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?

"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;..."
Koran 33.50

And the moslem man - IS NOT - permitted to have sex with his female slaves - "those whom your right hands possess"
.

???

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: concubines
Reply #62 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm

Yadda wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:02pm:

So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?

It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.

IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another product of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time. The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: concubines
Reply #63 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:28pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:02pm:

So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?

It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.

IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another product of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time. The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.

And yet they do and consider themselves to be as adherent to Islamic teachings as you no doubt do and can quote scripture and verse as you do.

Back to top

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49264 At my desk.	Re: concubines Reply #64 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:28pm Quote: I have been persuaded by such arguments. What persuaded you?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: concubines
Reply #65 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm

Datalife wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

And yet they do and consider themselves to be as adherent to Islamic teachings as you no doubt do and can quote scripture and verse as you do.

Of course.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

What persuaded you?

The eloquency of the articles I have read, in combination with the gut feeling I have had all along that true islam is not, and never has been, a license for misogyny and exercising men's sick, base desires.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21849
A cat with a view

Re: concubines
Reply #66 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:02pm:

So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?

It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.

The problem that you have gandalf, is that the inerrant Koran - that Allah declares [within teh Koran] that he made to be plainly understood - makes no such distinction.

"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;..."
Koran 33.50

So, such an argument ['the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first'
], is B.S., imo.

Quote:

IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another product of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time. The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.

When it comes to what is 'appropriate' ISLAMIC doctrine, imo, ALL MOSLEMS, are flags in the wind.

i.e.
ISLAMIC scholars have created interpreted a religious philosophy which has become [over a period of many centuries] so ambiguous - that such religious ambiguity 'serves' ISLAM and the moslem well.

i.e.
In this 'political' wind, we moslems will promote this 'immutable' doctrine.

And in another 'political' wind, we will promote another, 'equally legal' 'immutable' doctrine, which better 'flies' in that political wind.

AND IT IS ALL BULL SHITE.

ISLAM......is a false religion, for a false [deceitful] people.

MOSLEMS - 'FLAGS IN THE POLITICAL WIND'
e.g.
A body representing British 'mainstream' moslems, The Muslim Council of Britain
, has declared on its website;

Quote:

Rejecting Terror
Thursday, 11 April 2013

Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible and abhorrent.

There is no theological basis whatsoever for such acts in our faith.

The very meaning of the word 'Islam' is peace.

It [ISLAM] rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewst...
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21849
A cat with a view

Re: concubines
Reply #67 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:51pm

Quote:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:02pm:

So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?

It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.

The problem that you have gandalf, is that the inerrant Koran - that Allah declares [within teh Koran] that he made to be plainly understood - makes no such distinction.

......

So, such an argument ['the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first'
], is B.S., imo.

gandaldf,

If your proposition [above] is true, did Mohammed and his companions, choose to marry all of those captured "excellent Arab women"
, before they 'consummated' their weddings ? Cheesy

Quote:

"We went out with Allah's Messenger"
= = Mohammed was in the company of these men.

"on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women"
= = it was some form of raiding party, where they, 'took captive some excellent Arab women'.

"and we desired them"
= = hmmmm, i wonder what that means?

"for we were suffering from the absence of our wives"
= = ah, in the absence they wives, they desired these women for sex, to satisfy their sexual lust.

"(but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them."
= = in their minds, they sought to sexually 'use' these captive Arab women, and then let their menfolk redeem them.

"So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them"
= = yep, Allah's finest, sought to sexually 'use' these 'excellent' captive Arab women.

Those [above] extracts from the Hadith are cited, with references, here;

Bikeway rapist gets 25 years in jail
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1251431040/8#8

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: concubines
Reply #68 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:58pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

And yet they do and consider themselves to be as adherent to Islamic teachings as you no doubt do and can quote scripture and verse as you do.

Of course.

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

What persuaded you?

The eloquency of the articles I have read, in combination with the gut feeling I have had all along that true islam is not, and never has been, a license for misogyny and exercising men's sick, base desires.

Ahhhhhh the ever elusive true Isam.

Back to top

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: concubines
Reply #69 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:59pm

Yadda wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24

4:25 goes on to make it very clear that you must not take slaves in fornication or as lovers.

I believe the distinction made in 4:22-24 is because former slave wives have slightly different legal status than wives taken from free women (ie the law is more lenient on the former slaves if they commit crime)

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Adamant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1892
Brisbane

Re: concubines
Reply #70 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:03pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another roduct of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time.

Are you inferring that Mo did not "do" slaves?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.

That's pure crap Gandalf. The practise predates "monotheist god bother's" such as your silly self. Look to Mesopotamia for some form of sanity.

Back to top

In real life Gandalf is known as Mr 10%

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49264
At my desk.

Re: concubines
Reply #71 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:08pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

What persuaded you?

The eloquency of the articles I have read, in combination with the gut feeling I have had all along that true islam is not, and never has been, a license for misogyny and exercising men's sick, base desires.

So it had nothing to do with Islamic doctrine?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21849
A cat with a view

Re: concubines
Reply #72 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:20pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:59pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24

4:25 goes on to make it very clear that you must not take slaves in fornication or as lovers.

I believe the distinction made in 4:22-24 is because former slave wives have slightly different legal status than wives taken from free women (ie the law is more lenient on the former slaves if they commit crime)

Quote:

004.025

YUSUFALI: If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

4:25 is referring to a 3rd person, to another man, marrying an owners female slave - presumably, after the sale of this woman to her new owner new husband.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:25pm by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: concubines
Reply #73 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:23pm

Adamant wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:

The practise predates "monotheist god bother's" such as your silly self. Look to Mesopotamia for some form of sanity.

Thats right - thanks for proving my point adamant

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:08pm:

So it had nothing to do with Islamic doctrine?

It has everything to do with islamic doctrine

Yadda wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

4:25 is referring to a 3rd person, to another man, marrying an owners female slave - presumably, after the sale of this woman to her new owner new husband.

4:25 is perfectly consistent with the quranic (and ahadith) themes of the importance and necessity of marriage as a precursor to sexual relations.

Quote:

O young men, if you are able to support a wife then get married. Verily, it restrains the eyes and protects the private parts. Whoever is not able to do so, then he has the duty to fast because it is a means of control. - See more at: http://www.faithinallah.org/does-islam-allow-muslims-to-rape-female-sex-slaves-or-keep-unmarried-concubines/#sthash.pFvavlIb.dpuf

Thats pretty clear - if you want to have sex, get married. And if you are not able to do so, fast in order to control your sexual desires.

It makes no sense to turn this on its head and claim that Quran 4:22-24 is simply pandering to man's base desire to have their way with their sexy maid servants.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49264 At my desk.	Re: concubines Reply #74 - Jun 6^th, 2014 at 8:28pm Quote: It has everything to do with islamic doctrine You said it was based on gut feeling and the eloquence of an article telling you what you want to hear.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged