Islam: Sex slave?

[Angelos]

Our depiction of prophets is the best in Quran, nothing dirty like your old edition, old wine (OT). Quran has described Lot correctly. You just tried to object to something. That was your mistake.

If you really regard that incomplete and contradictory description of prophets in your religion perfect, I must refer to the notion of relativity. I wish you good luck with that. However, this does not change the fact that the scribes of the Koran mostly (even sometimes mistakenly!) copied the narratives of the Old Testament while trying to manipulate the prophets of the Tanakh.

I know the Mosaic law means nothing to you. You (Christians) have disowned that law which Jesus came to fulfil. Jesus followed that law but you on some pretext got rid of it because it was a difficult job.

You are making vain efforts to make me a liar so as to prove your argument. You cannot know better than me if the Law means something or nothing to me. I see that you are not different from the writers of the Koran, who supposed to know the Bible better than Jews and Christians, but demonstrated through mistakes their limited and faulty knowledge.

They mean nothing, about curtains and gold and pots and pans. Surely that increases the size of the bible. If you do not put your new wine (NT) with the old wine (OT) then your bible becomes very small. And if the extra material (letters and epistles) are taken out of the NT then your bible becomes even more smaller in size. Then remain the only four gospels. They are not four really. They are just one and same thing. Hardly any spiritual matter in them.
So your using the extra material of the OT describing the draperies etc. is to increase teh size of your bible.

Now you are talking about the size of the Bible? LOL. Dear planten, your post is not even worth a reply since it is born of your fantasies. Why the need to discard the epistles and the revelation as extra? Who are you to declare some parts of the New Testament as worthless extra?

If we apply your weird test about the size of the scripture to Islam, your Koran will surely have few pages since it is a book with many surahs repeating the same narratives in different and even contradictory forms. Mohammad and his wives take up too much room in the Koran, which has nothing to do with spirituality. Even the depiction of heaven and hell in the Koran are highly materialistic.

Again your funny ideas. First the matter of unreal son (Jesus). Now the bridegroom (Jesus) married to the bride (Church). Who would believe you? In that way you can say anything and everything irrational. All supposed mysteries.

The husband and the wife (i.e Jesus and the church) musthave met and produced some children. But there is no need to ask you for anything.

Now I definitely think that you are a joker whose main job is to test our patience. There is no matter of unreal son in Christianity since we believe that Jesus is TRULY the Son of God. The basement of your arguments is not solid rock, but beach sand.

I should have guessed that you would associate the bridegroom metaphor with sexuality as a natural result of your scripture that promises virgins to Muslim men in heaven. What else can I expect from the believers of a book that relegates every Christian tenet (even Jesus’ title “Son of God”) to sexuality?

I had asked you to please bring something from your book. Do not advocate for the book (NT). But you had nothing from the book. There was no allegation. I was only asking to prove by the book.

InJESUS has already quoted from the NT. I shall not be surprised to hear you discard that citation as extra material. Our answers will keep falling on deaf ears because your prejudice has made you blind. Both deaf and blind!’

I did not question that at all. But Joseph was not her real husband. Or he was a namesake husband. That is again unreal husband. So everything you have is unreal. Jesus the son is also unreal. Everybody knows it.

Fallacies have become your true friends for sure! Joseph was Mary’s real husband since they were truly married. It is irrational to consider Joseph Mary’s fake husband. Marriage was real although it did not necessitate sexual intercourse.

You are supposing things. I am not accusing Mary at all. But you are creating a situation for her. Quran has described all (and more than bible) about Mary. You have nothing in the bible. You people have a long geneology of Joseph the carpentar in the bible to prove something. But in the end it all shows that gene business is just for show. It has nothing to do with Jesus. Because Jesus is not the son of Joseph the carpentar. So what use was that geneology? You Angelos have lot of problems at hand in your own system. So please turns your guns to your own system and leave islam alone. Thanks.

What kind of a situation am I creating for Mary?? The Koran has described something about Mary owing to the narratives plagiarised from the apocryphal literature of the second century. Nevertheless, your Koran says nothing about Mary while narrating Jesus’ prophetic mission and His adversaries’ plots to kill Him.

Besides, the narratives about Mary in Surah 3 and 19 are apparently contradictory as a result of adoption from different sources.

The gene business has significance in that Jesus is related to the Davidic line as the true Messiah through Mary’s marriage. Joseph does not have to be Jesus’ biological father to make Him the Messiah. Matthew calls Jesus Abraham’s and David’s son although everyone (except you!) knows that Jesus was the biological son of neither Abraham nor David.

Eastern or western, it does not matter to me. Surely the eastern must be different to the western church. And the northern may be different to the southern church. You have such systems. In Islam there is no east or west.

Sorry, you Muslims have only south because your idol (stone god) is in the south. Since when has Islam had one single sect and denomination? Since when have the followers of Ali been united to the followers of Yezid? Am I missing something?

The relation of Jesus with God as a son and Father is unreal, complicated, metaphorical, symbolic only. You can have it. But please do not preach it.

Please stop repeating your personal and faulty interpretation of basic Christian tenets as truth. You have no right to slander my faith even when you lose ground and get angry.

I again say that NT has no law. There is nothing about marraige and divorce except a line or two in the whole gospels. There is nothing about marrying only one wife. There is no direct advice about that in the bible. That is the topic being discussed now because you people have blamed Islam for bigamy. You have started it.

You are back into the zone of making weird statements. You simply do not know that metaphors can be related to reality or that indirect explanations or inferences are not untrue. We have mental abilities to think and figure certain things out.

I asked you to bring something about Monogamy from your bible. You had nothing except a few unrelated words. You see your religious weakness?

Nope, what I can only see is your weakness to understand a few significant verses in the NT.

I also told you that even Joseph had two wives. But you went into death business. Then I asked you to show me from the bible that a man can marry (Remarry) if his first wife has died. You could not show anything from your book allowing you that.

Do not leave your sentence incomplete or else what you say will be misleading. I must remind you once more that Joseph did NOT (negative marker) have two wives AT THE SAME TIME. Read inJESUS’ reply and come back to see me.

You are trying to make your own religion. You cannot do that in religious discussion or debate. I still want to know why Joseph the carpentar (The father of Jesus) remarried. The answer is simple but you cannot see it.

You sound like talking into a mirror now!

People can remarry when they lose their spouse. It is so simple. You cannot see it because this simple truth debunks all your theories in a second.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You have unmarried fathers too. But then you say it is not according to the topic.

You have sons of concubines.

Their fathers are married.

But not to their mothers.

And Islam allows this.

 

[inJESUS]

I’d like to see that. Got a video link?

yes there is but since i cannot open videos on my pc and hence might not give you the correct link, i’d suggest you ask the poster Sam777 to provide the link that shows this episode of right hand possessions where the Al-azhar sheikh left the show in anger because Sam watches that channel.

 

[Raul_Black]

I read this whole thread with care and interest. Would like to read to the end.
But as far:

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. 1 Cor 8

Are these Jesus words (teachings/instructions of Jesus)?
I too will do a research on it. But in the meantime, the poster may reply with his (or her) exact knowledge.

 

[inJESUS]

I’d like to see that. Got a video link?

here’s a review of the episode:

The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”

The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.”

sorry for not being able to provide the video.

 

[inJESUS]

I read this whole thread with care and interest. Would like to read to the end.
But as far:

Are these Jesus words (teachings/instructions of Jesus)?
I too will do a research on it. But in the meantime, the poster may reply with his (or her) exact knowledge.

i quoted the NT.

 

[inJESUS]

Malakat El yameen 2: Basma ends the program with anger

yes the title describes the episode. Sam777 can help you more since i can;t open youtube.

 

[inJESUS]

yes indeed the cameramen focused on the empty chair and Basma was criticizing how the sheikh withdrew from the episode. By the way, Basma took off her veil after this episode…she couldn;t handle the “morality” of the topic and said publically the 2 sheikh are hesitant to talk about this topic in Islam…actually it was scandalous. Thank you for the links!

 

[Raul_Black]

i quoted the NT.

But whose words are these? God of NT, Jesus or ?

 

[Vladi]

women that are considering marriage to a muslim man, need to know that he belongs to a religion that allows this.

even if he loves only you at this moment, you might have to share him with several other women in the future.

having to share your husband with another wife is bad enough, but the thought that one of these women sharing the bed should be called a possession is utterly repulsive. one man 5 women.

or are his right hand possessions plural? can he have more than one sex slave?

very, very disturbing.

why would any woman marry into that?

thank you for posting this. hopefully it will knock some sense into our female muslim readers.

You would be amazed how many women trade their miniskirt for the burka.

 

[inJESUS]

But whose words are these? God of NT, Jesus or ?

are you Muslim? these are the words of the apostle Paul inspired by our Lord Jesus to preach alongside His apostles.

 

[inJESUS]

these mistakes are exclusive to Muslims because of the Quranic misrepresentations but I hope am wrong …i mean, it’s tiring to keep correcting Muhammad’s mistakes.

 

[inJESUS]

indeed…you got it right because they were not answering her questions, they were trying their best to avoid morality questions of this topic, and she was frustrated by their attitude…one of them even tried to chant the verse, thinking she will be impressed by the recitation and stop her questions but she is cleverer than that…the sheikh did not leave for no reason…

 

[Raul_Black]

Because it is clearly evident from the Old and New Testaments that God oh Old Testament is HEAVILY (if not TOTALLY) DIFFERENT from the God of writers of New Testament.

 

[Contrabass101]

Communism is as much of a religion as national socialism or Islam or Christianity.
Mao’s little red bible
The Red star not the cross
Song of national unity in place of hymns
Red square parades, =pomp and dogma
Deity worship, a picture of Stalin on every fireplace
Creeds, The party is the sheild of the state…etc.

Wouldn’t most Baseball or Football teams fall under your extremely broad definition of religion? Not to mention political parties?

And wouldn’t many Eastern religions fail on several of these points? For instance lacking hymns, dogma, deity and creeds?

 

[inJESUS]

Not only did Muhammad allow for himself and his followers sex slaves, but he gave himself more proviledges in terms of marriages and even prohibited his wives from marrying after his death…he can take his asopted son’s wive and any woman who gives herself to him but no one can touch his women even after his death…he can marry Zeinab because Zaid was not his biological son but only spiriatually his son so sleeping with her is good, yet men cannot marry any of his harem since they are spiritual mothers of believers…i don’t understand how can anyone buy that these are divine orders.

 

[Raul_Black]

Paul taught because of Jesus. Read what Peter says…actually, try to start reading the NT as a start

Okay, I just read (actually re-read after a long time) the chapter you qouted from. And these words of same Paul are causing more confusion now:

35
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.
36
13 14 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.
37
The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.
38
So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

(1corinthians 7)

Here, the words ‘his virgin’ is beyond my comprehension.

 

[inJESUS]

they were to either become wives or be freed. In Islam they are NOT legal wives even if they have some rights…even Basma the Muslima (or ex) used the word “sex-slaves”.

 

[inJESUS]

Here, the words ‘his virgin’ is beyond my comprehension.

Paul is talking abut a father and his daughter.

If you notice, we are talking about sex slaves in Islam and not the NT. Kindly open a new thread because i will refrain from answering you since Muslims always digress instead of answering questions.

 

[inJESUS]

the sheikh admitted it is still part of the law.