Raping non-muslim... Legal in Islam?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ssejllenrad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sufi said:
Please provide proof with ayat and sunnah. I’m not going to continually make this statement over and over again. You guys seem to judge Islam by what people do and not what the book says. I wonder what would happen to me if I did this with you?

Rachel Molly would ban me right?
Click to expand...
Televised Hate Speech from the Mosques
teachkidspeace.org/doc142.php

Saudi Textbooks Still Teach Hate, Group Says
The Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House has studied some of the textbooks currently in use in Saudi public schools, from grades one through 12. Nina Shea, the center’s director, says the texts do not comport with what Saudi officials have been saying.

The textbooks “reflect an ideology of hatred against the other, against Christians, Jews other Muslims, for instance, Shiites and the majority Sunni Muslims and all others who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi doctrine,” Shea says.

The center’s report cites numerous examples. It quotes a fourth-grade text as telling students to “love for the sake of God and to hate for the sake of God.” The report says that textbooks instruct students that Christians and Jews are “apes and pigs” and warns students not to “greet,” “befriend” or “respect” non-believers.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5426633

A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government’s statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the “monotheists”) and unbelievers (the “polytheists” and “infidels”).

This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to “spread the faith.”

Freedom House knows this because Ali al-Ahmed, a Saudi dissident who runs the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs , gave us a dozen of the current, purportedly cleaned-up Saudi Ministry of Education religion textbooks. The copies he obtained were not provided by the government, but by teachers, administrators and families with children in Saudi schools, who slipped them out one by one.

Some of our sources are Shiites and Sunnis from non-Wahhabi traditions – people condemned as “polytheistic” or “deviant” or “bad” in these texts – others are simply frustrated that these books do so little to prepare young students for the modern world.

We then had the texts translated separately by two independent, fluent Arabic speakers.

Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state’s political ideology; it is also a key area of Saudi education in which students are taught the interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism (a movement founded 250 years ago by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) that is reflected in these textbooks.

Scholars estimate that within the Saudi public school curriculum, Islamic studies make up a quarter to a third of students’ weekly classroom hours in lower and middle school, plus several hours each week in high school. Educators who question or dissent from the official interpretation of Islam can face severe reprisals. In November 2005, a Saudi teacher who made positive statements about Jews and the New Testament was fired and sentenced to 750 lashes and a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned after public and international protests.)

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html

Human rights activists were shocked to discover that imans at some of Cairo’s leading mosques were preaching against two of their most prominent colleagues – and that the driving force behind these organised sermons of hate appeared to be an Egyptian government ministry.
indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/1/egypt-state-hand-seen-behind-mosque-hate-spe.shtml
 
uni said:
What was Hagar to Abraham?
Click to expand...
From the Douay-Rheims Bible (Online)

Book Of Genesis - Chapter 16

(Abram marrieth Agar, who bringeth forth Ismael.)
1 Now Sarai the wife of Abram, had brought forth no children; but having a handmaid, an Egyptian, named Agar, 2 She said to her husband: Behold, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: go in unto my handmaid, it may be I may have children of her at least. And when he agreed to her request, 3 She took Agar the Egyptian her handmaid, ten years after they first dwelt in the land of Chanaan, and gave her to her husband to wife. 4 And he went in to her. But she, perceiving that she was with child, despised her mistress. 5 And Sarai said to Abram: Thou dost unjustly with me: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom, and she perceiving herself to be with child, despiseth me. The Lord judge between me and thee.
Click to expand...
Note: 3 “To wife”… Plurality of wives, though contrary to the primitive institution of marriage, Gen. 2. 24, was by divine dispensation allowed to the patriarchs: which allowance seems to have continued during the time of the law of Moses. But Christ our Lord reduced marriage to its primitive institution. Matt. 19.
Click to expand...
God Bless!
 
Is rape legal in Islam? Historically, yes. And it is still being practiced today as part of jihad:

Robert Spencer lays out the connection between rape and jihad:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15206

The rather carnal attitude of early Muslims:
http://www.hraicjk.org/rape_and_islam.html

And a Muslim Imam admits:

“On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, “Bismillahi Allahu Akbar” are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become “Halaal” and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes “Halaal” merely through ‘possession’ which substitutes for the slaughtering.”

“In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.”

“In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony.”

“The First World War in 1914 was a clear reflection of the evils involved in setting captive women free to roars about in a strange society with strange surroundings. During that war, German and English women prisoners on either side were set free to roam the streets with no-one to feed them. The result was obvious that they resorted to other unrefined and uncivilised methods of income on the streets. Thus, it is evident that the Islamic treatment of women prisoners of war was conducive towards better social relations and led to the refinement of their overall social lives.”

“One question that still remains is whether slavery still legally prevails anywhere in the Islamic world and whether it can be successfully implemented in this age. Well, there is no prevalence of lawful slavery in the Islamic world today and it would be difficult to implement it because of the stringent conditions attached to it. Firstly, the prisoners have to be captured in ‘Jihaad’ in the true sense of the word. Then again, If true ‘Jihaad’ did break out somewhere, there are still a number of other laws and conditions to abide by which are far too stringent for any Islamic country in the world to abide by in this time and age when people’s personal gains and whims and desire are being given preference to over Islamic Law. According to Islamic Law, captive female prisoners are also part and parcel of the booty. One fifth of the booty has to be first distributed to the needy, orphans, etc. The remaining four-fifths should then be distributed among the soldiers who participated in the war. The distribution can only take effect after the booty is brought into Islamic territory. The Ameerul-Mu’mineen (Head of the Islamic State) remains the guardian of the female prisoners until he allocates them to the soldiers. Only after a soldier has been allotted a slave girl, and made the owner of her, will she become his lawful possession. After she spends a period called ‘Istibraa’, which is the elapse of one menstrual period, It becomes permissible for her owner to have relations with her. After possession of the slave too there are a number of other laws that affect the master and slave. There is hardly any Islamic country today that can abide to all these conditions, with the result that it is quite difficult to implement slavery in this time and age.”

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=5482
 
dosdog said:
Televised Hate Speech from the Mosques
teachkidspeace.org/doc142.php

Saudi Textbooks Still Teach Hate, Group Says
The Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House has studied some of the textbooks currently in use in Saudi public schools, from grades one through 12. Nina Shea, the center’s director, says the texts do not comport with what Saudi officials have been saying.

The textbooks “reflect an ideology of hatred against the other, against Christians, Jews other Muslims, for instance, Shiites and the majority Sunni Muslims and all others who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi doctrine,” Shea says.

The center’s report cites numerous examples. It quotes a fourth-grade text as telling students to “love for the sake of God and to hate for the sake of God.” The report says that textbooks instruct students that Christians and Jews are “apes and pigs” and warns students not to “greet,” “befriend” or “respect” non-believers.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5426633

A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government’s statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the “monotheists”) and unbelievers (the “polytheists” and “infidels”).

This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to “spread the faith.”

Freedom House knows this because Ali al-Ahmed, a Saudi dissident who runs the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs , gave us a dozen of the current, purportedly cleaned-up Saudi Ministry of Education religion textbooks. The copies he obtained were not provided by the government, but by teachers, administrators and families with children in Saudi schools, who slipped them out one by one.

Some of our sources are Shiites and Sunnis from non-Wahhabi traditions – people condemned as “polytheistic” or “deviant” or “bad” in these texts – others are simply frustrated that these books do so little to prepare young students for the modern world.

We then had the texts translated separately by two independent, fluent Arabic speakers.

Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state’s political ideology; it is also a key area of Saudi education in which students are taught the interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism (a movement founded 250 years ago by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) that is reflected in these textbooks.

Scholars estimate that within the Saudi public school curriculum, Islamic studies make up a quarter to a third of students’ weekly classroom hours in lower and middle school, plus several hours each week in high school. Educators who question or dissent from the official interpretation of Islam can face severe reprisals. In November 2005, a Saudi teacher who made positive statements about Jews and the New Testament was fired and sentenced to 750 lashes and a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned after public and international protests.)

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html

Human rights activists were shocked to discover that imans at some of Cairo’s leading mosques were preaching against two of their most prominent colleagues – and that the driving force behind these organised sermons of hate appeared to be an Egyptian government ministry.
indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/1/egypt-state-hand-seen-behind-mosque-hate-spe.shtml
Click to expand...
I’m no physician, but can one actually survive 750 lashes?
If not, what would be the point in adding a prison term to such a sentense, if the teacher wasn’t pardoned?
BTW: I’m not being sarcastic, here. I just don’t understand.

God Bless!
 
nathann said:
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?

.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
Rodrigo, where is the hadith that talks about this:

Muhammad had a female captive named Rayhanna bint Zayd who was of the Jewish Qurayza tribe. After Muhammad committed genocide on the Qurayza for supposedly allying themselves with the Meccans, even though the Qurayza refused to help the Meccans after the Battle of the Trench, he tooks some captives, including the beautiful Rayhanna and kept her as his concubine after she refused to convert to Islam

thx 🙂
 
Rayhana’s story and that of the B. Qurayza are found in at-Tabari’s history and Ibn Ishaq. Bits and pieces of the story can be gleaned from the hadiths.

Tabari VIII:38 “The Prophet selected for himself from among the Jewish women of the Qurayza, Rayhanah bt. Amr. She became his concubine. When he predeceased her, she was still in his possession. When the Messenger of Allah took her as a captive, she showed herself averse to Islam and insisted on Judaism.”

Ishaq:466 “The Apostle [taking first dibs] chose one of the Jewish women for himself. Her name was Rayhana. She remained with him until she died, in his power. The Apostle proposed to marry her and put the veil on her but she said, ‘Leave me under your power, for that will be easier. She showed a repugnance towards Islam when she was captured.”

Ishaq:468 “Allah brought down the People of the Scripture Book. I forced the Qurayza from their homes and cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you took captive. You killed their men and enslaved their women and children. And I caused you to inherit their land, their dwellings, and their property. Allah can do all things.’”

Only one woman of the Jews was killed because she had killed a Muslim warrior by flinging a grinding stone upon him. A few elements of the enemy embraced Islam and their lives, wealth and children were spared. As for the spoils of the war, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) divided them, after putting a fifth aside, in accordance with Allâh’s injunctions. Three shares went to the horseman and one to the infantry fighter. Women captives were sent to Najd to be bartered with horses and weaponry. For himself, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) selected Rehana bint ‘Amr bin Khanaqah, manumitted and married her in the year 6 Hijri. She died shortly after the farewell pilgrimage and
was buried in Al-Baqi‘… {Reference: ar-Raheem al-Makhtum by Mubarakpuri pg.144}
 
thx Rodrigo…so the guy killed all of her tribe then took her and had intercourse with…did he have intercourse the same day?
 
It is not known when he first had sex with her but I don’t think it matters as she was under his power and couldn’t very well refuse his sexual advances.
 
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
It is not known when he first had sex with her but I don’t think it matters as she was under his power and couldn’t very well refuse his sexual advances.
Click to expand...
well who on earth would accept to have intercourse with the assassin of her tribe and husband. This is called rape.
 
Nah… it just goes to show what a lover Muhammad was - women whose husbands, fathers, brothers, cousins, and friends he just beheaded immediately ‘fall in mad love with him.’
 
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
Nah… it just goes to show what a lover Muhammad was - women whose husbands, fathers, brothers, cousins, and friends he just beheaded immediately ‘fall in mad love with him.’
Click to expand...
though i pitty the lives of these women but :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: to the way you put it.
 
nathann said:
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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?
Click to expand...
And your point is?

Have you read the following sidenote too in the New American Bible to the verse 20 of Isaiah 7?
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.
Click to expand...
IMO, according to Catholic Church, their God will inflict his disgrace and suffering upon his people by using Assyrians who are from across the Euphrates. In other words God is going to put his gun on the shoulders of Assyrians to shoot his own people. Why? Probably he is scared of his own people or have no courage to inflict his disgrace like a man or he wants to deceive his own people by misusing Assyrians because when his own people see Assyrians are inflicting disgrace and sufferings on them they may think it is the Assyrians who are disgracefull. But who infact is disgracefull, only God knows and ofcourse it is Christian Catholic God himself who is inflicting his disgrace and sufferings on his own people.

So atleast who have read the Catholic Bible (NAB) will not be deceived by the Christian God’s act of misusing Assyrians as an instrument to inflict his disgusting disgrace and sufferings.

But don’t ask me what shaving the hair between the legs of Catholic Christians has to do with inflicting his disgrace and sufferings. Because I did not inspire the writer of Isaiah 7 to write what you read in the New American Bible.

But if you had used your brain more, you could have asked, are Assyrians not among the Catholic God’s people? If they are, then how Catholic God will inflict his disgrace and sufferings on the very Assyrains while using them as razor to inflict his disgrace and sufferings on his people.

Then if you use your intellectual power more, you could easily have asked, what this disgrace and sufferings has to do with Christian God? Isn’t Christian God supposed to be Loving One?
If they say, after Jesus, their God change his attitude and not anymore disgracefull then what will happen to Adolf Hitler?

But I think you should wait until Rodrigo Bivar replies to your post before asking further.
 
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
What question am I suppose to answer?
Click to expand...
Good question.

I think what Nathan is asking you is how dare Christian Catholic God will act like that (i.e., by shaving the hair between your legs, i.e. genitals and heads and beards etc.) yet remained/called a Loving God?

Probably Nathan seems to be a Protestant or have been reading corrupted KJV Bible or perhaps the Message Bible which says 'the Master (God) will shave the genitals…" which leave his own people shamed and denuded.

Bivar, have you read The Message Bible and CEV Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top