|
|
| Muhammad (PBUH) and the Female captives |
Posted by : silasenemy
Post Date : May 22, 2010 03:17:30 PM |
Moderators : wahs yulclatip
|
|
| this is an article by silas |
Posted by :
silasenemy |
| May 22, 2010 03:17:30 PM |
Location :
mc |
MUHAMMAD AND THE FEMALE CAPTIVES
by Silas
INTRODUCTION
Muhammad and his followers fought many battles. Some were offensive some were defensive. Following a victory the Muslims would take captives, or prisoners of war. Muhammad would usually distribute the captives, both male and female, as slaves to his soldiers. Islam provides some basic rights to its slaves but these rights are limited. Naturally, the rights or demands of the slave owner were greater than those of the slaves.
Female slaves were used for primarily for work. But they also provided another service to their male masters ....
The material I present is detailed but it needs to be provided to document support from all Islamic sources.
Here is the source material I use.
1) The Quran - N.J. Dawood's translation.
2) The Hadith collection of Bukhari. This collection of stories / traditions is the second most important set of books in Islam. It follows the Quran.
3) The Hadith collection of Muslim, (third most important set of writings).
4) The Hadith collection of Abu Dawud.
5) The biography of Muhammad, known as "Sirat Rasulallah", written by Ibn Ishaq, and translated by A. Guillaume as "The Life of Muhammad", (the most authentic biography of Muhammad’s life).
6) The biographical material found in Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes). This was translated by S. Moinul Haq.
7) The History of Tabari. This 39 volume set is almost finished being translated by a collection of both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars.
FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."
This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.
FROM THE QURAN - 23:5,6
"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..."
Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.
FROM THE QURAN - 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. (Muhammad Pickthall's English translation of the Quran).
This verse is one verse out of a long passage dealing with who Muslim men can marry or have sexual relations with. The phrase "captives whom your right hand possess", means the slave girls Muslim men own.
Note also that this passage deals with more than just marriage. In Sahih Muslim volume 2, #3432, the background context for this Quranic verse is given. It relates to the events at Autus, and it permitted the Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.
FROM THE QURAN - 33:50
"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."
This verse is for Muhammad. Supposedly, God allows Muhammad to have sex with his slave girls.
These verses establish that it was permissible for Muslim men to have sex with female slaves.
ISLAMIC EXAMPLES OF MUSLIM MEN HAVING SEX WITH THEIR FEMALE SLAVES.
Muhammad had sex with a slave girl named Mariyam. He probably also had sex with another slave girl of his - Rayhana.
Mariyam was a Christian slave girl and she was given to Muhammad as a gift by the governor of Egypt. Muhammad got her pregnant and she gave birth to a son. Afterwards Muhammad married her. The son died 18 months later.
Here is the reference. NOTE: Words in [ ] type brackets are mine
In the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", mention is made of Mariyah. On page 151, it says
"He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir."
The note for the word "handmaid" says "Handmaids gained the status of wedded wives if they bore children. They were called "umm walad" and became free.
This story is also supported by Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194. Here is the quote: (my words are in ( ) parenthesis).
"He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."
The note (845) on this says, "That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet's wives, but he did not marry her."
We see that Muhammad had sex with his female slave without marrying her, that it was legal in Islam for Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves. They were after all, the Muslim man's property. Although the slave girls had some human rights, when it came to satisfying their master's desires they had to comply.
Let's examine some background material found in the Hadith's of Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud, and in the Sirat literature of Ibn Ishaq's - "Sirat Rasulallah", and Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir". Note that both Sirat works were written BEFORE the Hadith, but they do not supersede the Hadith or Quran in authenticity according to Muslim scholars.
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI - VOLUME 3, #432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence."
(also refer to Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI - VOLUME 9, #506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection".
Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Said saying that the prophet said, "No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.""
(also ref. Bukhari 5:459).
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI - VOLUME 5, #637:
Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."
The note for 637 explains that Buraida hated Ali for taking from the Khumus, and Buraida thought that was not good.
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371
Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432
Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).
FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24].
The note on this Hadith says that "After the distribution of the spoils of war a man may have intercourse with the female slave after passing one menstrual period, if she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant one should wait till she delivers the child. This is the view held by Malik, al-Shafi and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifah holds that if both the husband and wife are captivated together, their marriage tie still continues; they will not be separated. According to the majority of scholars, they will be separated. Al-Awzai maintains that their marriage tie will continue till they remain part of the spoils of war. If a man buys them, he may separate them if he desires, and cohabit with the female slave after one menstrual period.
FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, #2167:
Muhaririz said: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse), Abu Said said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: "Can we draw the penis when the apostle of Allah is among us before asking him about it?" So we asked him about it. He said, "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.""
The note on 2167 says: "This means that the Companions wanted to have intercourse with the slave girls, but they were afraid of conception. In case they were pregnant and gave birth to a child they could not be sold as it was prohibited that a slave mother should be sold. So they withdrew the penis while having intercourse with them. By this they meant to sell the slave girls and obtain the ransom."
COMMENT ON HADITH
All of these Hadith relate to Muslim soldiers having sexual relations with newly captured female slaves. In some cases the women's husbands were still alive. After a battle, the captured women and children were divided between the Muslim soldiers as "booty", or spoils of war.
In Bukhari Volume 5 #637, it is shown that Ali had sex with one of the females before the distribution of "Khumus" occurred. This "Khumus" was 1/5 of the war booty to be used by Muhammad and his family, (Ali was Muhammad's son-in-law), and be used and distributed to the poor and needy. Here, Khalid, himself a member of Muhammad's family, took part of the Khumus prior to the distribution. That is why Buraida hated him in this case. Note that Muhammad supported Ali in this. There was no reproof at all. If anything, Muhammad thought Ali deserved more!
Here is the point: Muslim men were allowed to use female slaves for sex. If the slave was not pregnant she could be sold at a slave market. This is what Muhammad’s soldiers intended to do.
CORROBORATING MATERIAL FROM THE SIRAT LITERATURE
Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, "Sirat Rasulallah", is the most reliable extent biography of Muhammad available today. It corroborates the events with the Mustaliq on pages 490 and 493. This event took place just before Aisha was accused of having sexual relations with another man.
It also corroborates the events at Autas on pages 574-576. This event took place just after the initial battle of Hunain.
Ibn Sa'd corroborates the events at Autas (Awtus) on pages 187, 188. He notes that 6000 slaves were taken.
ANALYSIS
The Hadith I quoted show that:
1) The Muslim men were out in the field, and took female captives following a battle.
2) They were divided up between the men and the men were very horny. They were without their wives who were back home.
3) So, the men prepared to have sex with the females, out on the field, away from home, and asked Muhammad about coitus interruptus. They didn't want to get the females pregnant because they wanted to later sell the female slaves for money. Had they gotten them pregnant the Muslim men would be forced to be responsible for the children.
4) Marriage wasn't required to have sex with the females. Listen to the men's own words.... "we were interested in their prices", i.e., they wanted to sell them. No Muslim man would marry a women intending to sell her later. That is not what "nikah" - marriage was all about. These men wanted to have sex with their slaves, enjoy them, and they later sell them.
5) And if you note what Ali did, - had sex with a female before the "human booty" was divided up between the Muslim soldiers. Muhammad allowed him to do this.
What does all of this boil down to? Muslim men were allowed to have intercourse with their female slaves after the slaves had had one menstrual period. The reason for waiting one menstrual cycle was to insure that the female slaves were not already pregnant prior to being captured.
In some cases, the female slave's husbands were also captives and it was still legal for the Muslim men to have sex with the female captives. Muhammad received a "revelation" allowing the Muslim men to have sex with the female slaves while there were still married to their captive husbands. A note on the Hadith says that according to Islam, when the married couple is captured, their marriage is automatically annulled!
Muslims did not need to marry the female slave or give her any type of dowry in order to have sex with her.
Muslims did not need to have the female slave's permission to have intercourse with her. She was his property, (as was noted by Tabari), and thus, as property, the Muslim owner had an Allah-given right to have intercourse with her if he desired. I have yet to find one Quranic verse or Hadith that says that the female's slave's permission was required. All Hadith and Quranic verses that pertain to Muslim men having intercourse with female slaves always put the option on the slave-owning man, whether he wants it or not. The slaves were not given a choice.
THE MUSLIM MEN WERE RAPING THEIR FEMALE SLAVES AND MUHAMMAD ALLOWED IT!
Think about it from the women's point of view. A battle is fought and her side lost. Many of the husbands, fathers, and sons are now dead. Some have been captured. The women and children are also taken as captives. Imagine the horror of the females. Family members dead, homes and possessions are now gone, they are in the total power of their captors.
The captives are distributed amongst the Muslim men as slaves, husband and wife captives are separated. As soon as a female has her menstrual cycle her owner appears. He has been separated from his wife for a while out on the field of battle, sexually hungry, and he proceeds to have sex with his female slave.
Do you think that this female slave willingly has intercourse with him? Is that her wish? She has just experienced one of the most horrible events in her life, - the destruction of her tribe and family, the taking of her possessions, and being made someone's slave, and now she willing consents to have sex with the very men who brought this disaster upon her!? Of course not! What women would look upon with loving eyes the men that brought destruction upon her family and tribe!
Would Jesus Christ allow soldiers to rape female slaves?
What would the world say if Israel allowed its soldiers to take Palestinian females prisoner and rape with them? There would be a horrible outcry!
Examine the events in Kosovo and Bosnia. Here the same situation occurred. The Muslims were defeated by the Serbs and some Serbs raped Muslims. It is a horrible crime and we all condemn it. But if we examine what Muhammad allowed his soldiers to do we see that their actions are identical. Muhammad's standards were no better and actually worse than Serbs who raped Muslim women. It is worse because Muhammad gave it religious sanction and validity for all Muslim men.
The Japanese did this to the Chinese, Korean and Filipino women during WWII. The Germans did likewise to the Russian women. In a similar way the Muslim soldiers only waited a few weeks to do likewise to their female captives.
Muhammad and his soldiers treated these female slaves just like the Japanese did to their female captives. Much has been written condemning the treatment of black slaves in the West: how much more should a man who claimed to be a prophet of God be condemned for these acts?
DISCUSSION
Some attention needs to be paid to the Quranic term used here for slave. I’m told that the Quranic classical Arabic reads 'ma malakat aymanukum'.
Let's examine a fuller definition of this term. Starting with the Encyclopedia of Islam, Published by E.J. Brill, Vol. 1, page 24 under the word 'abd', it says:
"Abd is the ordinary word for 'slave' in Arabic of all periods, more particularly for "male slave", "female slave" being ama. On the other hand, the Quran frequently uses the term "rakaba", literally "neck, nape of the neck", and still more frequently, the periphrasis "ma malakat aymanukum - "that which your (their) right hand possesses".
So, the Quran uses the phrase "that which your right hand possesses" as a term for slave.
Moving to the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, we find similar. Under "mamluk" it says:
"The term (mamluk) owes its origin probably to the current phrase of the Quran ma malakat aimanukum - "what your right hand possesses", a general designation of slaves without specialization of gender."
Referencing Hughes Dictionary of Islam, page 596 on slavery, it says:
"The term generally used in the Quran for slaves is "ma malakat aimanukum", - "that which your right hand possesses."
There is no doubt that 'right hand possesses' is a phrase used to describe a slave, whether newly captured or not.
Some Muslims may feel that I have taken the Quran and Hadith out of context. Here is supporting material from famous Islamic scholars.
SUPPORT FROM ISLAMIC SCHOLARS ALLOWING MUSLIM MEN TO HAVE SEX WITH FEMALE SLAVES
1) Dr. Abdul Latif, from Al-Azhar writes "The second reason (to take slaves) is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for the owner." [Taken from "You Ask, Islam Answers, page 51,52].
2) The great Islamic scholar Ibn Timmiya wrote:
"The one who owns the mother also owns her children. Being the master of the mother makes him the owner of her children whether they were born to a husband or they were illegitimate children. Therefore, the master has the right to have sexual intercourse with the daughters of his maid slave because they are the daughters of his property, provided he does not sleep with the mother at the same time"...Vol. 35, page 54.
3) I also want to note that Umar, the 2nd Caliph also committed what seems to be rape of a female slave. From Ibn Sa'd, volume 2, Page 438 "A slave girl passed by me who attracted me, and I cohabited with her while I was fasting".
In effect, during his fast, he noticed an attractive slave girl. He used her sexually. There is no mention of her being his "wife". There is no mention that he ever "married" her. She looked good, and he took her.
QUESTIONS
1) Do Muslims really understand how brutal a man Muhammad was? He willingly allowed those women to be raped! Why do Muslims follow such a man if they know he did such evil actions?
2) Do Muslims in this day and age adhere to this barbaric act? Would they allow the rape non-Muslim slaves in the Muslim world today? Even in Mecca in 1960 there were black slave markets in operation.
3) Why do non-Muslim standards exceed those of a man who claimed to be God's final messenger? If Muhammad were really the final prophet, why were his standards to poor? Why did he allow, even support such, abusive actions? Wouldn't we call a man who did this a criminal today?
SUMMARY
So, all three main sources of Islam - the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sirat all support Muslim men, including Muhammad, having sex with female slaves. Also, both prior and present Islamic scholars also declare that Muslim men can have sex with female slaves.
These verses from the Quran and Hadith prove that Muhammad allowed his men to do to female slaves what essentially amounts to as RAPE. No true prophet of God would willing allow this. The icing on the cake is that Muhammad claimed to receive "revelations" from Allah permitting this. One has to ask what kind of god Muhammad really worshipped.
APPENDIX 1: A MUSLIM’S ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE RAPE BASED UPON DEUTERONOMY
A Muslim seeking to justify Muhammad’s evil actions implies that God allowed the rape of female slaves in the Old Testament. He asks the following question:
”So what do you think the God of the Bible is telling you here........and since you believe Jesus to be God he is also telling you this:” [Deut 21:10 – 14]
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Here is the same passage from the NIV.
DT 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
RESPONSE
The answer to the question: “What is God telling His people to do?”
It is obvious that God is speaking to His people about marriage to a woman who was captured as a slave. And kindness, protection and marriage is the context of the passage.
Looking at the passage there is not even the hint of a rape. In fact, just the opposite is given. When a woman who is not a Jew is made a captive, and the Israelite falls in love with her because of her beauty, he is not allowed to touch her for those 30 days so that she may mourn the loss of her family and country. The intention of this law is to protect her against any rude passion on the part of the man (i.e., rape), and give her time to get used to the Jewish culture and begin to learn an affection for the man. This law provided protection from her against rape. This is not to be simply a thing of passion, but of true love and care. It is a compassionate law for this foreign woman taken in war. Remember this woman was a Gentile, and as such was not expected to have the covenant protection as a Jewish woman would have been. But this law is giving her that protection. She is to be given the status of a woman in Israel and is not to be regarded as a slave, or simply as contraband from the battle. She was to be treated with dignity.
Now the question comes at verse 13 where at the end of the 30 days the man is then allowed to go into her (i.e., have intercourse)...but as a wife. Is this verse suggesting rape? Not at all. It is upholding the normal sexual union permitted a man and a wife.
M.G. Kline (perhaps one of the leading Old Testament theologians of the last century) commented on Deut. 21:10-14:
This first of three stipulations concerned with the authority of the head of the household (cf. vv. 15-21) deals with the limits of the husband's authority over his wife. The case of a captive woman (vv. 10,11; cf. 20:14; contrast 7:3) is used as a case in point for establishing the rights of the wife, perhaps because the principle would obviously apply, a fortiori in the case of an Israelite wife. On the purificatory acts of verses 12b, 13a, which signified removal from captive-slave status, compare Lev. 14:8; Num. 8:7.
On the month's mourning, see Num 20:29 and Deut 34:8. this period would provide for the achieving of inward composure for beginning a new life, as well as for an appropriate expression of filial piety. 14. Thou shalt not sell her. A wife might not be reduced to slave status, not even the wife who had been raised from slave status. ...then thou shalt let her go whither she will. The severance of the marriage relationship is mention here only incidentally to the statement of the main principle that a man's authority did not extend to the right of reducing his wife to a slave. This dissolution of the marriage would have
to be accomplished according to the laws of divorce in the theocracy (cf. Deut. 24:1-4). Not the divorce was mandatory, but the granting of freedom in case the man should determine to divorce his wife according to the permission granted by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts (cf. Matt 19:8). [Wycliff Bible Commentary (London: Oliphants, Ltd., 1963), p. 184].
Then Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz (late chief rabbi of the British Empire) has said this: "A female war-captive was not to be made a concubine till after an interval of a month. The bitter moments of the captive's first grief had to be respected. She must not subsequently be sold or treated as a slave. 12. bring her home. This law inculcates thoughtfulness and forbearance under circumstances in which the warrior, elated by victory, might deem himself at liberty to act as he pleased (Driver). 'After the countless rapes of conquered women with which recent history has made us so painfully familiar, it is like hearing soft music to read of the warrior's duty to the enemy woman, of the necessary marriage with its set ritual and its due delay. And the Legislator proceeds to trace the course of the husband's duty in the event of the conquered alien woman failing to bring him the expected delight. 'Then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her'" (Zangwill)....13. she shall be thy wife. And enjoy the full rights and duties of a Jewish wife; Exodus xxi, 10.14. no delight in her, i.e. no longer any delight in her. The Rabbis deemed such a marriage a concession to human weakness, as a preventive against worse manifestations of the unbridled passions of man...humbled her. Dishonored her." [Pentateuch & Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J H Hertz (London: The Soncino Press Limited, 1960), p. 840.]
The question of allowed rape seems to me is not what the traditional Jewish understanding. You have to comprehend what the Heb. text says. The Hebrew for the verb "dishonor" (NIV) in v. 14 is `inah, which can mean sexual abuse. But it is used in v. 14 to describe a subsequent time, as seen in Hebrew wehayah ("and when it will happen"), which begins v. 14, when he refuses to continue to be her husband but to send her away. In that case, he can no longer treat her as a captive. The act "going into her" (v. 13) after 30 days was to become her husband.
Additional Judaistic references are found in these:
Deuteronomy [Devarim] the traditional Hebrew text with the new JPS translation / commentary by Jeffrey H. Tigay.
Studies in Devarim (Deuteronomy) by Nehama Leibowitz ; translated and adapted from the Hebrew by Aryeh Newman.
Sifre:a Tannaitic commentary on the book of Deuteronomy translated from the Hebrew with introduction and notes by Reuven Hammer.
The main point of this text is the compassion the Lord has on the foreign woman taken in battle. The man is not allowed to rape her, but to treat her with all the respect a wife of the covenant is due. If a Muslim reads this as rape, then he must be reading his own cultural bias into it. But that is not the Biblical understanding of a woman. What this text is saying is that even in battle, a woman was not to be raped by a Jew. If he really wanted her --- he had to marry her. And even then, he had to wait a month to let the passion wear off, and for her to get used to the new culture she was about to be committed to, and to mourn for her own father. The context of the passage is very clear, it is very easy. How has he dishonored her if he sends her away? Not because he raped her, but because she has been cast away, discarded as unwanted. Divorce was an embarrassing thing (even as it was in this country 50 years ago).
COMPARISON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT VS. ISLAM’S TREATMENT OF FEMALE SLAVES
Let’s compare the two cases. This will show clearly Islam’s brutal system. Below are two Hadith – one with provides the context of a Quranic verse.
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371
Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interrupts)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432
Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to and end).
COMPARISON
1M) Muslims were allowed to take female captives / slaves.
1J) Israelites were allowed to take female captives / slaves.
2M) Muslim men had to wait until the female had her first period, then they could rape the female slaves – a right recognized in Islam because the slave was the man’s property: this is stated in Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194. Here is the quote: (my words are in ( ) parenthesis).
"He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."
2J) Israelite men had to wait an entire month before they could marry the woman.
3M) Muslim men did not have to allow the woman a time to mourn.
3J) Israelite men had to give the woman a month to mourn.
4M) Muslim men did not have to marry the slave in order to have sex with her.
4J) Israelite men had to marry the slave in order to have sex with her. This marriage gave the woman full rights as a free woman. And, in the event of a divorce, she had complete freedom.
5M) Muslim men could use the slave for sex, then later sell her to another owner who could use her for sex, and so on.
5J) Israelite men could not sell the woman they married as a slave.
6M) Muslim men had the option, but was not obligated to marry or free her. He was not obligated to change her status of slave.
6J) Israelite men “purified” their prospective wives as cleansed from slavery’s status. |
|
|
| CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN |
Posted by :
nlkhalid |
| May 27, 2010 07:15:34 AM |
Location :
tihamaland |
CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN…
Whoever wrote this piece is neither just to his intelligence nor to his religion among the more than 2,000 Christian denominations whichever he prescribes to. I don’t believe he is ignorant; he is just trying to tarnish Islam knowing very well that he was being unreasonably mean.
He cannot compare what transcribed 1,400 years ago and today because if he does: he knew for sure that Muslims did not incinerate/starved 6 million Jews...Christians did and in Bosnia; 40,000 Muslim women were raped (not to mention the more than 100,000 Muslim slaughtered) by Serbian Christians and some of them were impregnated. President Milosevic openly declared that he did what he did to the Muslims in the name of Christian Europe.
In the Inquisition...the church burned to the stake more than 3 million innocent people some of them were great men of science who dared speak their minds against the ignorance of the church.
In the Crusade...Muslim men, women and children were slaughtered without mercy by the crusading Christians compared to Sallah Al Din’s (Saladin) show of mercy after he re-conquered Jerusalem. The fact that Christians thrived in the Holy Land and Christian Landmarks are still standing owe it to the Muslims and this is the kind of gratitude they want to repay the Muslims with not to mention the millions of the dead and dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan by the “coalition of the willing” Christians.
The Caliph of Islam did not only spare the life of the Christians; he repaired the damage inflicted by the war to the churches from the state coffers. He brought back the Jews driven out by the crusaders and cleared the Wailing Wall (Jews place of worship) that the Christians turned into a garbage dump.
The big time slave traders of the modern era were European Christians who brought slaves (many of them were Muslims [read “Roots” by Alex Haley]) from Africa to the New World to work the plantations and to say that Christian traders and slave owners did not rape their slaves is naive. One of USA’s founding presidents kept a slave girl as mistress.
The prophet lived in a time when man was as savage as the desert that he calls home. If you (at the time) swim the red sea from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa...you will find men that were even more savage (head hunters and cannibals). The prophet lived according to the prevailing traditions of his people and at the time, your war booty is your (trophy) property and to do away with it is to live (as we say today) outside of the box. In other words...if you have sex with what your right hand possess; it is what was expected of you and if you don’t; your slave girl/woman will think that she is not good enough for you. She will be unhappy...common sense. It was the norm and if you have captives; the vanquished expected that you take their women and to refuse would be an insult to the tribe. It would imply that their women are not good enough. It is a warrior’s code that if you lose/died in battle...you lose everything including your woman, your tribe or your kingdom. It was a time when a man would beg the chieftain of the village to sleep and impregnate his wife so he can have a son/daughter from the ruling clan...a child he can be proud of.
When the prophet advised his companions that they may or may not practice “coitus interruptus” with their wives or bondwomen; he was referring to fate as in…those who are fated by God to be born will be born.
Funny that the author cited the bible in moral comparison to the Qur’an probably thinking that all Muslims are ignorant of the Bible...a book of pornography where fathers impregnated their daughters, prostitutes entertained whole armies and Jews slaughtered and plundered villages sparing no one not even fowls and donkeys except the virgins (how do you determine if a woman is virgin?) setting aside 36 virgins for their god.
The Qur’an was revealed to the prophet over the last 23 years of his life. It was not handed to him in a silver platter but on a need to know bases in response to daily questions of his existence…a reason why Muslims should not freeze Islam to the time of the Prophet. Questions then are 1,400 years different from the questions of life today.
When you read the life of the prophet…you will not fail to notice how hard he tried to abolish slavery in subtle manner in order not to offend the prevailing traditions of the time.
Aside from Bilal; the black slave he bought from his oppressive owner that he set free…you will notice that every time someone came to the Prophet asking how he can atone for a sin/misconduct or for whatever crime committed; the prophet's most common prescribed atonement was to BUY A SLAVE AND SET HIM FREE.
BIBLE:
Hagar, the mother of Ishmael was a bondwoman and because Sarah, the wife of Abraham was barren…Abraham slept with her and bore him a son; Ishmael. Abraham so loved Hagar (slave woman) and their son that he spent most of his time with them. It made Sarah (Abraham’s wife) so jealous…she had Hagar and her son driven out of her household.
The story of Hagar and Ishmael is one of the most touching story ever told in the Bible.
Genesis 21:13
13And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
14And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
15And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
16And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow shot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.
17And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
19And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
20And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
(I challenge the author of the above to give me one; not two or three prophets but one that according to the Bible was guided by God in person as he grew up aside from prophet Ishmael and you know why…from his generation will come GOD’S CHOSEN ONE…)
MY CHOSEN ONE…
Isaiah 42:1 “Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one whom I delight; I will put my spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nation. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the street. A bruised reed he will not break and smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on Earth. In his law, the Islands will put their hope…Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; Let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Selah sing for joy. Let them shout from the mountaintops; let them give glory to the Lord and proclaim his praise in the Islands. The Lord will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior he will stir up his zeal, with a shout, he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies.”
Isaiah 42 above is a brief prophetic biography of a prophet coming from Arabia. Early Muslims were persecuted in Mecca but the prophet was a non-violent man. He endured the cruelties of the idol worshipping pagans in Arabia. Friends and relatives were murdered. He was even stoned in one place but he endured it all. He sent his followers to Abyssinia to seek protection under a Christian king. Thirteen years later, he had to escape to Medina. Only after he received a word from God to fight back and proclaim justice to the world did he marshal the Muslim armies from one victory to another. The great empires of the time succumbed one after another to Islam’s rising “EMPIRE OF FAITH” exactly as foretold by Isaiah in 42:13 - “The Lord will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior he will stir up his zeal, with a shout he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies.”
The shouts at the mountaintops (Muslim’s call to prayer) where the sons of Kedar live echoed through all the corners of the planet. In the standard version of the Bible, Isaiah 42 is entitled; “A NEW SONG FOR THE LORD” which is the recitation of the Holy Qur’an that was revealed to the prophet.
[The key word in the above prophecy is “Kedar.” Christians consider Isaiah 42 as referring to Jesus which is obviously not because this prophecy refers to the generations of Kedar; Ishmael’s second son from whom the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was descended.]
KEDAR: (COPY PASTE FROM THE BIBLE
DICTIONARY)
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Dark-skinned, the second son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13).
It is the name for the nomadic tribes of Arabs, the Bedouins generally (Isaiah 21:16; 42:11; 60:7; Jeremiah 2:10; Ezek. 27:21), who dwelt in the north-west of Arabia. They lived in black hair-tents (Cant. 1:5). To "dwell in the tents of Kedar" was to be cut off from the worship of the true God (Psalm 120:5). The Kedarites suffered at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 49:28, 29). |
|
|
| Re : CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN |
Posted by :
Guest |
| May 27, 2010 02:22:39 PM |
Location :
MSU |
|
Very well said and well researched, Nlkhalid. I wanted to write my own reaction to the post of silasenemy but you said it all. |
|
|
| Re : CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN |
Posted by :
Lansa |
| May 27, 2010 06:28:28 PM |
Location :
Luzon, Phil. |
|
Before anybody go any further on the topic posted by Silasenemy, please be reminded that it was not Silasenemy's brainchild. It was Silas'es. I wish to make this clear first lest we may be barking up the wrong tree. So Silas is the culprit! Thanks & Salaam! |
|
|
| Re : CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN |
Posted by :
Guest |
| May 27, 2010 11:35:34 PM |
Location :
MSU |
|
Of course, we know. He posted that article upon request by Nlkhalid in the chat box. |
|
|
| Re : CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN |
Posted by :
may |
| May 30, 2010 02:56:22 PM |
Location :
arabian gulf |
i do not have the chance to absorb everything but I do agree Nkhalid responded well.
Other religions are doing their best to make people turn away from Islam; funny, coz what is happening is the other way around.
Somehow, it is better to know what they are thinking, so we can improve our knowledge in our religion Al-islam.
“Telling lies about me is not like telling lies about anyone else. Whoever tells lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1229. It was also narrated by Muslim in the Introduction to his Saheeh, without the phrase “Telling lies about me is not like telling lies about anyone else.”
One should ask himself, why is it that there are part of their Bible that is not befitting for teenagers to read, due to its malicious contents, unlike the glorious Qur-an that is being memorized by Muslim around the world from approximate age of 7yrs to 90 yrs old.
It is obvious he spent time researching all about Islam but have no time to read his Bible otherwise he will be ashamed to write all his allegations. |
|
|
| Re : CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN |
Posted by :
Guest |
| May 30, 2010 08:01:24 PM |
Location :
Israel |
|
Funny but interesting folks! Every writer reveals his wisdom and/or ignorance. |
|
|
| Re : CAPTIVES AND BONDWOMEN |
Posted by :
Guest |
| May 31, 2010 05:32:55 PM |
Location :
Denmark |
|
SILASENEMY, you are surely of the Brotherhood. Keep it up! |
|
|
| BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
nlkhalid |
| June 02, 2010 04:13:22 PM |
Location :
tihamaland |
Hilarious (Biblical satire) e-mail copy/paste from surfingtheapocalypse.net
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
This letter was said to be sent to Dr. Laura in 2000 in response to the conservative talk show host's bigotry and intolerance directed toward gay men and women, contending such bigotry is okay because it's in the Bible! A few years later Schlessinger changed her religion from an Orthodox Jew to a Evangelical Christian.
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan. |
|
|
| Re : BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
Guest |
| June 03, 2010 07:14:12 AM |
Location :
jeddah |
The Bible is revised many times by men, it is why there are lots of errors. How would an intelligent individual base his religion on such kind of book?
Is there ..."a Book that has no doubt in it"...(Al-baqarah-verse 2)except the Qur'an?
We Muslims must be proud of being honored by Allah to be a part of Ummah of Muhammad SAW & residents of Al-Jannah, in the Akhira, InshaAllah. Ameen... |
|
|
| Re : BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
Guest |
| June 05, 2010 06:56:53 PM |
Location :
Pantaw A Marug |
|
Hehe... Very well said. |
|
|
| Re : BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
may |
| June 06, 2010 04:13:36 AM |
Location :
arabian gulf |
Bart Ehrmann said" a copy of the copy of the copy of the copy..." how many times was it copied? how authentic would that be?
you can goggle his book:Misquoting Jesus
or
pls,check: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397006836098752165#docid=5545009691527182498 |
|
|
| Re : BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
nlkhalid |
| June 06, 2010 07:51:28 PM |
Location :
tihamaland |
Revised edition...not ‘copy’ is the right term to describe the differences among Bibles used by different Christian denominations. Copy can be exactly the same with only typographical errors but to revise means to change. Another term used to refer to these Bibles is “different version” meaning another interpretation. The original message is forever lost to the Christians because the bible is continuously revised and edited with new versions coming out of print meaning I can make my own version of the Bible and recruit followers. If I am a gifted speaker; I can become Manalo (Iglesia), Velarde or Eddie Villanueva and many more so-called Evangelists with different version of the Bible.
Thank you May for the “google video.” It is long but real interesting and enlightening to watch. |
|
|
| Re : BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
may |
| June 06, 2010 10:45:37 PM |
Location :
arabian gulf |
Not @ all Sir. If you google him, there are more for you to read & watch. He became agnostic after finding out the deception; he is one step away to the Truth-Al-Islam.
Anyway, that is how he described the actions being made. That resulted to what the Christians consider as holy??? :) |
|
|
| Re : BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
nlkhalid |
| June 07, 2010 03:36:40 AM |
Location :
tihamaland |
WOW! I just finished watching “Misquoting Jesus” on youtube by Bart Ehrman.
I’m sorry May...you were referring to the copy of copy of copy of the Gospels (lecture of Bart Ehrman) not the bible per se.
It is better to watch it on Youtube because it is divided into 10 minutes parts. Those who are interested can log-in to youtube and type inside the search box Bart Ehrman and click search. |
|
|
| Re : BIBLICAL SATTIRE |
Posted by :
may |
| June 07, 2010 02:00:59 PM |
Location :
arabian gulf |
No harm done Sir, “baseet”…
It’s nice to know, though that people cares to know the Truth.
Perhaps some of us wish to watch a topic in title: Answering Bart Erhman.
Believe me guys it is worth listening too.
Heres the link: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=answering+bart+erhman&aq=f |
|
|
|
|
