Raping non-muslim... Legal in Islam?

[Eden]

You mean if a fly entered your big castle then to kill that fly it is okay to burn down your whole castle?

And what happened to the slogans of “resist not evil” and “turn the other cheak”? Where and when these slagons are to be applied? Do you mean these are to applied in Heaven?

---

At the time, the President had a very difficult choice to make. He made the decision to drop the bombs believing that a lot more lives would have been lost if Japan were invaded instead of using the bomb. It was the Japanese who were the aggressors in WWII.

 

[Eden]

Wikipedia and the Mufti:

"The Mufti’s knowledge about the holocaust while living in Nazi Germany has been debated with the Mufti himself denying any such knowledge after the war. Testimony presented at the Nuremberg trials, however, accused the Mufti of not only having knowledge about the holocaust but of also actively encouraging the initiation of extermination programs against European Jews. Adolf Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified during his war crimes trial in 1946 that … “The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan… He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Magazine_cover_Vienna_Illustrated.jpg

The Mufti salutes his Bosnian Muslim recruits into the SS Waffen and other units.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

 

[janG]

The point of this thread is RAPE and ADULTERY committed and allowed by Mohammed. The issue is NOT slavery or Hitler (who said he was doing Satan’s work) or anything else. When God handed down the 10 Commandments, He said Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. In the law of Moses, it is SIN for a man to have sex with a slave he is not MARRIED to. If a man wanted to have sex with a woman who was a captive/slave, there was a process of mourning and cleansing she had to go through and then he had to MARRY her BEFORE any sex. If he later divorced her, he could not sell her as a slave. She had the same rights as any Jewish wife. Jesus said even lusting after someone other than your spouse is adultery.

The fact of the matter is Mohammed had sex with women he was not married to. That is ADULTERY since he already had wives. Even if he didn’t have wives, it would have been adultery if the woman was married and fornication if neither of them were married to others. He also had forced sex with his captives. That is RAPE any way you slice it. You can duck it and dodge it and try to twist it and excuse it all you want, but Mohammed broke the laws God handed down THOUSANDS of years earlier and which God’s people already knew. So it is totally incorrect to claim this was the “practice of the world.” NO, it was the practice of the people who did not know God’s laws!!! The people who knew God’s laws already knew it was adultery and rape and seriously sinful and against God. The issue is not owning slaves, the issue is Mohammed’s sexual sins! He was an adulterer and rapist. This is not conjecture based on “modern” thinking, it is based on the 10 commandments and the law of MOSES!! The man clearly committed horrible sins and what he says in the Koran DOES NOT confirm what God had commanded before. In fact, it throws away God’s laws that had already been in effect for thousands of years. What part of this aren’t you understanding?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

St. Augustine’s wife was what, 11?

Talk about a double standard. The whole of christendom practiced young marriage until very recently. That you find this objectionable only proves that norms of marriage change with the wind, and that there’s no connection to ancient revelations in today’s judgments about them.

Don’t I love it when Muslims make fools of themselves by committing tu quoque. They just can’t help themselves. Heheh.

 

[inJESUS]

Thanks for the warning.

BTW: How were you able to figure out he was using those other names? It’d be nice to know in advance before replying to whatever new name he back with.

Thanks and God Bless!

because he uses the same arguments over and over again

 

[inJESUS]

The point of this thread is RAPE and ADULTERY committed and allowed by Mohammed. The issue is NOT slavery or Hitler (who said he was doing Satan’s work) or anything else. When God handed down the 10 Commandments, He said Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. In the law of Moses, it is SIN for a man to have sex with a slave he is not MARRIED to. If a man wanted to have sex with a woman who was a captive/slave, there was a process of mourning and cleansing she had to go through and then he had to MARRY her BEFORE any sex. If he later divorced her, he could not sell her as a slave. She had the same rights as any Jewish wife. Jesus said even lusting after someone other than your spouse is adultery.

The fact of the matter is Mohammed had sex with women he was not married to. That is ADULTERY since he already had wives. Even if he didn’t have wives, it would have been adultery if the woman was married and fornication if neither of them were married to others. He also had forced sex with his captives. That is RAPE any way you slice it. You can duck it and dodge it and try to twist it and excuse it all you want, but Mohammed broke the laws God handed down THOUSANDS of years earlier and which God’s people already knew. So it is totally incorrect to claim this was the “practice of the world.” NO, it was the practice of the people who did not know God’s laws!!! The people who knew God’s laws already knew it was adultery and rape and seriously sinful and against God. The issue is not owning slaves, the issue is Mohammed’s sexual sins! He was an adulterer and rapist. This is not conjecture based on “modern” thinking, it is based on the 10 commandments and the law of MOSES!! The man clearly committed horrible sins and what he says in the Koran DOES NOT confirm what God had commanded before. In fact, it throws away God’s laws that had already been in effect for thousands of years. What part of this aren’t you understanding?

good summary

by the way, Eden, don’t waste your time on Nathann sis, he is a Pakistani who has it with the “white” infidel crusader west. And Hitler to him will always represent Catholicism, even if you show him how much that murderer estimated Muhammad.After that, he’ll requote shaving between the legs and throwing dung useless to explain to sucha Muslim what a metaphore is. So why feed a troll? better invest your time with something useful instead of answering his digressions as a means to avoid your questions.

In Christ

 

[Denise_Shae]

because he uses the same arguments over and over again

Ahh, I should have known.
But then again, all the arguments I’ve been seeing around here are starting to look the same… and old.

Thanks, and God Bless!

 

[Eden]

good summary

by the way, Eden, don’t waste your time on Nathann sis, he is a Pakistani who has it with the “white” infidel crusader west. And Hitler to him will always represent Catholicism, even if you show him how much that murderer estimated Muhammad.After that, he’ll requote shaving between the legs and throwing dung useless to explain to sucha Muslim what a metaphore is. So why feed a troll? better invest your time with something useful instead of answering his digressions as a means to avoid your questions.

In Christ

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Denise_Shae]

good summary

by the way, Eden, don’t waste your time on Nathann sis, he is a Pakistani who has it with the “white” infidel crusader west. And Hitler to him will always represent Catholicism, even if you show him how much that murderer estimated Muhammad.After that, he’ll requote shaving between the legs and throwing dung useless to explain to sucha Muslim what a metaphore is. So why feed a troll? better invest your time with something useful instead of answering his digressions as a means to avoid your questions.

In Christ

Okay, what am I missing, here? I saw that quote several posts back.
Something is definitely over my head.

And what’s “tu quoque”?

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[inJESUS]

Okay, what am I missing, here? I saw that quote several posts back.
Something is definitely over my head.

And what’s “tu quoque”?

Thanks and God Bless!

this is what am talking about

whenever he comes to this forum ( banned already like 6 times), he starts tu quoque. When he got no answer, he quotes these same metaphores thinking that God literally did them or as he thinks, will do them to his people ( he thinks it’s for the future).

So you ask him about Muhammad raping his slaves, and he quotes these metaphores

you ask about Muhammad’s sexual privileges, and he quotes them again

a troll

Eden, you welcome

 

[inJESUS]

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation

 

[Denise_Shae]

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation

Thanks for this thorough explanation!
He’s been “tu quoqueing” on this entire thread. (sorry; can’t conjugate Latin verbs. Only English and French)
Since this topic is on “Non-Catholic Religions” and not the “Apologetics” Forum, all we needed was a simple yes or no with regards to the raping of Non-Muslim women.

This is why I love listening to John Martignoni. He makes one stick to the main issue. (This must drive Apologists nuts, from time to time)
He won’t let anybody distract him or go off topic.

Come to think of it, my kids do that to me. Especially my 20 y/o son. I can always see it coming, because he gets this gleam in his eyes; so I’m prepared for it.

Anyway, I guess we’ll never get a straight answer to the initial question.

Thanks again for the info.

God Bless!

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Hitler said it was great to kill jews.

christian who executed his orderes where happy as they blamed Jews for leading to the killing of their God. The bible says so .

Now does Christianity call for eradication of jews ???

Untrue. “The Jews” didn’t kill Jesus. The bible is clear that those men who condemned him were hypocrits who had abandoned true Jewish worship. Antisemitism is not biblical.

Read the following about those men who accused and condemned Jesus:

Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

How else did these men transgress the laws of God?

Lev 21:10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

Mat 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Certainly, a High Priest should’ve known that God’s law says this. So why did he rend his clothes?

Because they were apostate Jews!

 

[nathann]

inJESUS,

This post is not for you because you failed to answer.

Rodrigo,

Since this is a Catholic forum and you are hired/invited by Catholics to defend their Catholicism because you are not a Catholic and Catholics are not good enough to defend their faith because Catholicism is irrational and illogical; so here is a question.

In Catholics’ Douay Rheims Bible it says:

20 In that day the Lord shall shave with a razor that is hired by them that are beyond the river, by the king of the Assyrians, the head and the hairs of the feet, and the whole beard. --Isaiah 7:20

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=7&l=20&f=s#x

But same verse in the New American Bible of same Catholic Church now says:

20 On that day the LORD shall shave with the razor hired from across the River (with the king of Assyria) the head, and the hair between the legs. It shall also shave off the beard. – Isaiah 7:20 (New American Bible of Catholics)

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah7.htm

My question is does:

the hairs of the feet = the hair between the legs?

If not then from where did the New American Bible of the Catholics got the idea of the hair between the legs?

And why Catholics’ God will shave the hair between the legs of male/female Catholics or even hairs of the feet? Is Catholic God a barber?

And what purpose shaving act serves?

.

 

[thistle]

inJESUS,

This post is not for you because you failed to answer.

Rodrigo,

Since this is a Catholic forum and you are hired/invited by Catholics to defend their Catholicism because you are not a Catholic and Catholics are not good enough to defend their faith because Catholicism is irrational and illogical; so here is a question.

In Catholics’ Douay Rheims Bible it says:

But same verse in the New American Bible of same Catholic Church now says:

My question is does:

the hairs of the feet = the hair between the legs?

If not then from where did the New American Bible of the Catholics got the idea of the hair between the legs?

And why Catholics’ God will shave the hair between the legs of male/female Catholics or even hairs of the feet? Is Catholic God a barber?

And what purpose shaving act serves?

.

Why don’t you just disappear from these forums and go bug people on another site.

 

[kellie]

In Catholics’ Douay Rheims Bible it says:

20 In that day the Lord shall shave with a razor that is hired by them that are beyond the river, by the king of the Assyrians, the head and the hairs of the feet, and the whole beard. --Isaiah 7:20

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&…h=7&l=20&f=s#x

But same verse in the New American Bible of same Catholic Church now says:

20 On that day the LORD shall shave with the razor hired from across the River (with the king of Assyria) the head, and the hair between the legs. It shall also shave off the beard. – Isaiah 7:20 (New American Bible of Catholics)

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah7.htm

My question is does:

the hairs of the feet = the hair between the legs?

If not then from where did the New American Bible of the Catholics got the idea of the hair between the legs?

And why Catholics’ God will shave the hair between the legs of male/female Catholics or even hairs of the feet? Is Catholic God a barber?

And what purpose shaving act serves?

.

It appears as if nathann does not know how to copy and paste properly, for if one goes to that link he has pasted to the New American Bible, and if one looks at that passage from Isaiah, one will see there is a footnote, that nathann seems to have lost in his “CTRL C, CTRL V” process.

Here is the passage with footnote from that website he used.

20
9 On that day the LORD shall shave with the razor hired from across the River (with the king of Assyria) the head, and the hair between the legs. It shall also shave off the beard.

9 [20] God will use the Assyrians from across the River (the Euphrates) as his instrument (razor) to inflict disgrace and suffering upon his people.
usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah7.htm

So nathann as you can see after reading that web site that you pasted, the Bible is speaking figuratively, and God is not a barber

 

[Sufi]

Once again Sufi. The First Christians were worshipers of Jesus. People would justnot get martyred for the heck of it. And please show youe evidence that the First Christians were not worshipers of God. Prove it.

Thanks and God Bless,
Jonfan

Hey Jonfan. Your statement is not true. Not even in the Bible as it is today can you show me a verse where someone worshipped Jesus alahi salaam. Jesus alayhi salaam never said to worship him either. And a verse in the current Bible as it is today can not proove that either. The first Christians were Muslims. Like real Christians today are Muslims, like I’m a Christian, a follower of Jesus alayhisalaam, a true Muslim and they and I joined not any one with Allah subhana wa ta’ala, just like Abraham ahayhi salaam.

There is no proove that the first Christaians were not worshippers of Jesus, alayhi salaam. So how can I show you? Your statement is derived from un educated people - that the first (Nasranis)Christians were Jesus alayhisalaam worshippers.

All the same, can you show me that the first followers of Jesus alayhisalaam were Jesus alayhusalaam worshippers? People like Joseph, Mary etc?

 

[Sufi]

Sufi do you understand who God is?do you have all the answers about God? the answer is no right? so why not leave the idea of God alltogether since there are things you do not grasp? very poor argument am afraid and the Bible has an answer to these reasons you mentioned but it’s my own feeling you were never Christian anyway because your reasons smell of Islamic background

Anyway and back to topic, it’d be necessary to quote from Sira Nabawiyya and Ahadith about Muhammad and his sex slaves; this will answer many questions. I do not remember the hadith, but Muhammad killed the family and husband of a certain woman, and had sex with her THE SAME DAY, breaking his OWN LAW that says the woman must wait 3 months or so.

Quote the hadith. Or I’ll call you a liar, and here are some links to help you find out who I am so that you can stop assuming. Making you look really silly, because a hand full of people here know my whole life story,

search.msn.com/results.aspx?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=saladin+ahmid

www.myspace.com/salahdin

www.muslimspace.com/salahdin

www.muslimspace.com/saladin

Now the next time you try to smell me, you can smell correct.
Take care!

 

[Sufi]

Hi Sufi,

I don’t know much about Islam, so please don’t think I’m being sarcastic; but would you please define the difference between “Slaves in Islam” and “being a slave in the early days of the establishment of America”?
(That is; if it’s not straying from the topic)

I’d really appreciate it.

Thanks and Peace

Hi there nice person. My birth name was Dennis and two of my sisters who died at very young age, I named one Denise.

It’s ok to be sarcastic with me. I’m sarcastic sometimes myself. So don’t worry about being sarcastic. I take many things lightly.

A slave in Islam has rights. Many rights similar to their Masters. If you are West Indian or know any one from the West Indies, they can tell you about a certain people called ‘HELPERS’ a Helper is what we Americans would consider a maid or such, like Florence from The Jeffersons. This is what a slave was like in Islam. Just someone to do the extra duties around the house. They ate the same foods the Masters ate, sleep in the same homes, not discriminated against by their race, they are allowed to marry the same women, allowed to be FULLY freed, if bought by someone etc.

A slave in America was someone who was considered lower than their Master, not allowed to read or educate them selves, Black, Indian or Spanish decent, ate the left overs, ate the worst parts of the meat; the tail, the back, the feet etc.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Sufi,
Please don’t insult our intelligence. A maid is not a slave.

In Islam, a slave is the property of his/her master. A maid is an employee and belongs to nobody else.

In Islam, a slave is available for the sexual pleasure of her master. A maid isn’t.

In Islam, a slave doesn’t eat the same food as her master - where did you get that idea?

In Islam, a slave can be bought and sold at any time. A maid cannot be bought and sold.

In Islam, a slave may buy his/her freedom - but with what money?

In Islam, if a master decides to renege on freeing his/her slave all he/she has to do is a religious penance, say vow to give up meat for a day. And that is sufficient to dishonor any vow to any slave.

In Islam, slaves were/are treated worst than animals but you wouldn’t know that, would you?