Support NeoGAF

[Sijil]

Clerics and Ayatollahs who have spent and dedicated their entire lives studying Islamic law, history and jurisprudence publicly condemn ISIS and declare them unislamic yet we get people around here who cherry pick Quranic verses out of context and unverified Hadiths and claim to be more knowledgeable about Islam than people like Ayatollah Sistani or the Azhar school. Laughable and pathetic at best.

FYI, the thousands who have died fighting ISIS aren't westerners, not atheists, Christians or Jews or keyboard warriors thousands of miles away. They're Muslims, both Shia and Sunni motivated by their faith to rid it from ISIS.

 

[Interceptor]

Replace Warlord with messenger of God and you may yet understand why he takes this stuff seriously.

As to why he should take this messenger of God more seriously than others, we'd have to allow for religious discourse to take place. Which I think you find so terrible, and yet here you are. Taking part in religious discourse.

Oh i understand why he takes it so seriously. Its really not that hard to grasp. Believing in some divine authority makes you - the believer - something special. A basic human desire. To feel valued, to be important. Even better, believing in this special deity makes you not only important, it makes you the very best, the chosen one. It justifies everything you do because its all gods plan. Inshallah. This is a dangerous mindset and yeah, thats why im here. In 2016. A shame.

Clerics..

And yet here we are, again, in 2016, where young educated people put their faith in fucking clerics. What the hell went wrong in the last years?

 

[beast786]

Are you trolling me? Where did you talk about rules about the *making* of new slaves of prisoners of war?

All you keep doing is talk about whether you are allowed to have sex with slaves.

Do you even know why slavery pretty much died away in the Islamic world?

Separate to that, even people who know little about Hadiths can tell Isil don't give a rat's arse about Islamic theology - given the report in the op. It takes two seconds to Google why, but here you are muddying the waters for your own crusade.

What is baffling is I have been answering your questions as you keep moving the goal post with hadith when asked. In return I get bunch of Ad hominem attack as if that will make your argument as stronger. You have provided nothing from hadith or quran to back up anything.... But to remind you. Lets look back at our conversation.

Does the Quran/hadeeth say Muslims can burn to death slave girls for refusing to have sex with them?

Here is your question and a direct answere below

So you are more concern about the burning part but not the raping of sex slaves?

Then to your happiness I don't think the burning way of killing your sex slaves is mention. I am sure that made those live sex slaves that are captives and rape make themself feel whole lot better

My post directly answered your question. And mention the exact argument which I have been consistent about sex boody slavery

Let's be clear. You were defending ISIS - making it seem like the op story had strong scholarly support for ISIS's actions.

And now you're retracting your statement. At least than we know you are honest. Still, you obfuscate where you should make clear.

Are you allowed to enslave a free man/women?

Wait.. whaaa... I answered your question but Somehow now i have retracted my statment (Which I have no idea what part or what), you then randomly to distract accuse me of defending ISIS (LMFAO). Add to all that, now you asked me a 2nd question "Are you allowed to enslave a free man/women?"..

I think you're quoting the wrong person or you're completely misinterpreting his posts. He wasn't defending ISIS, but he is putting responsibility in some part at the feet of the ideology they have tweaked.

To a point where people like above can clearly see how YOU are misinterpreting. My argument has been consistent through out...

No. I did not defend Isis . Saying Isis act of women sex slavery is following and motivated via Islamic scripture is not defending Isis .

If you read my response that is exactly what I am debating. There is no retraction or obfuscate.

Of course yes on allowing to enslave free women . Do you think sex booty slaves was by choice? . There are Hadith on buying selling slaves.

Now again. I directly answered your question, you cant get any direct than that. In response to answering two of your question. I now asked you a first question...

He sounded like a crooked lawyer arguing a very weak case. When you remove all the mud, he has no case here.

Now look at your response to the other poster about our conversation. Again typical ad hominem attack (crooked lawyer) blah blah again, no content in your argument just name calling and tipsy spinning. Even though I clearly easily directly answered your question.

Lol. Ok

You made some great valid points

I should make absolute statement like you instead of quoting Quran and Hadith. My bad

Are you sure about this?

Even you realized here I answered your question directly. So you went Are your sure route.. And not answering the single question I asked your

Of course. What kind of question is it?

Unless you are gonna say that they were captured in war booty. Hence they are not "free women" ?allowed to be sex slave ?

Which is exactly what Isis is doing . Capturing this girls as booty of war.

Do you agree that Islamic scripture allows sex slavery?

Again , I answered your question definitively, and directly. Then again, I repeated the single question I asked you.

Can you point toward hadeeths/quran explicitly stating that you may take prisoners of war as slaves?

Here beside ignoring my single question. You asked me a third question. This time you wanted a proof of a hadith for " you may take prisoners of war as slaves?"

Abu Sa'id 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 period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 8:3432


You forgot to answer my question

Now I answered your question with the hadith (whom your right hands possess =slave), and for the 4th time i reminded you havent answered a single question of min. While agian, i answered it directly with a hadith prisoner of war and slaves

You're talking about sexual consent. Stop messing with me and talk about rules governing the making of slaves.

Are you incapable of straying off the script of stuff you read on jihadwatch?

Wait what ... lol "you are talking about sexual consent"... and talk about " rules governing the making of slaves""? the hadith clearly talk about battle, captive women and slaves which was your ORGINAL QUESTION " you may take prisoners of war as slaves?"... you wanted a hadith. I gave you hadith but shit. You moved the goal post and want rules of making slaves. After that you again when in ad homionem attack on some jihad watch crap. Yet agian ignored my single question..

Stop messing with you. I have answered all your question about slaves from war captives question with a Hadith. And you didn't answer a single question I asked. I provided you with Hadith and now your argument is using some fallacy about jihad watch.

Are sex slave permitted via Islamic scripture as quoted in Quran and Hadith .

I answered all your question directly . Without you answering a single question of mine. All you do is dance around, change question while i keep answering.

I give up. Come back to me when you can actually quote from the hadith about the rules governing the making of slaves out of prisoners of war.

And you give up... holy moe shit..

Did Moe took slaves, Did move have sex and let others have sex with those slaves, did moe allowed sex with them slaves girls even though there husbands were alive .

I did . I damn posted right under your question . And thanks again for not answering my question

....

 

[beast786]

Zakir Naik, a famous scholar? Prime example of idiocy of simply googling something and swinging it into your favour. Zakir Naik isnt a scholar, hes preecher and a debater who is well versed in Abrahamic literatures. His train of thought is through wahabism.



And this brings me to my point on page 2, which I clearly stated, people who practice Islam for decades still gather more knowledge to better themselves. yet we have people here who rely on "shaykh google" to think they can find answers without having the balls or audacity to actually approach a school of thought and get a real perspective on the matter. Its a dangerous path and is the exact logic and ideology that fuels ISIS, by picking whatever they want willy nilly, and swaying it for their twisted ideology. What qualifies a randomer to simply google a quote and say "look, islams XYZ". Its sheer arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity, and would
be rediculed in person if such debate was to happen with a renouned scholar such as Shaykh Hamza Yousaf or Peer Saqib Shami, or Sheikh al Yaqoubi, as an example. If you think isolating yourself and reading Quran and Hadith makes you (or anyone) versed in Islam, then that level of ideology is the same as trying to debate someone who is a heart surgeon and has practiced his profession for years, verses a person who just has learnt a book about heart surgery back to front, and quotes from it. If you dont have a 'madhab' to follow which has been established shortly after the time of Prophet, then you are lost even before you have started.

If you dont care what people "consensus" is about, then, why did you try and find a "scholar" Zakir Naik to sway your opinion? Clearly you do care about peoples perspective that only suits you, therefore making you a hypocrite.

Scholars have spent years refuting Al Queda and ISIS, and have multitude of scholars prior to 911 who have written books, seerah, taught fiqh, fatwas, amongst god knows how many other encyclopedia worth of information and extraction from the quran to streamline
the actual knowledge of the quran, and the thought pattern of what Jihad really is. No one here has read the book of "Refuting ISIS" by Sheikh Al Yaqoubi or other books for that matter, but have got an egotistical approach to think they know Islam by using google. What a joke.

So let me get this straight. You emphasis that the sheik you follow are the true meaning of islam. And any other interpenetration is googly . So allah with mohammad want us to depend on sheik a human for true meaning of islam and let him responsible for our future. Even though in quran he states... Quran 54:17 " And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?", So , for the sake of your argument. I will take your stance and say allah got it wrong it is actually very complicated book and even with support of hadith I just am an idiot and cant grasp simple stuff.

So , lets do this again.

You know what tasfir is correct. So lets stick with islamic tradition of interpenetration of quran and classic tafir. Lets pick Tafsir ibn Kathir. Well known as probably the most authentic tafsir as he utilizes the hadith to add context to every verse of quran.

So lets say what he says about having slaves and the hadith etc.

Quran 33:50




Book Tafsir Ibn Kathir Juz’ 22 (Part 22): Al-Azhab 31 To Ya-Sin 27

Translation of 33:50 (page 77 of his book)

" (those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,)means, " the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you'. He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham' un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al Qibityyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be beace; they were both among the prisoners, may Allah be pleased with them

Quran 33:50

Yusuf Ali: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


So are slavery and sex with slave women even though you captured there husbands, brothers who are still alive legal in islam?

 

[Casimir]

There is plenty more to say here. You're making it look like there is persecution of Muslims happening for no reason at all. Like the Yazidis they were just trying to live their lives and then suddenly, just like with ISIS they were attacked. This is very far from the truth.

The point of my entire post and the inclusion of that portion was showing that war crimes, which is why ISIS needs to be stopped, are committed by humans regardless of what religion they identify with or lack thereof and the hypocrisy of posters who hold the two Abrahamic faiths to different standards. There are literally portions of the post that already deal with your contention, so no you are not pointing out anything more to say.

ictims of the backlash caused by the coup but to compare the situation with the Yazidis to make some 'Christians are just as bad' is very misleading. The same with Rwanda. Did anyone in Rwanda start a 'Christian State Of The Thousand Hills', did thousands of Christians worldwide travel to Rwanda to join the holy war ? Did terror attacks worldwide happen when foreign forces intervened by angry Christians on behalf of their religious brothers ?

Now I'm repeating myself for the third time, but I used Christians as an illustrative example because the majority of posters here are from western (historically christian) cultures and because the three (including Judaism) are basically the same religion.

 

[Ashes]

Ashes:
Does the Quran/hadeeth say Muslims can burn to death slave girls for refusing to have sex with them?

Beast: Then to your happiness I don't think the burning way of killing your sex slaves is mention.

----
So we both agree that ISIS are wrong here. This is the point of the thread. Burning those slaves are wrong.
We'll get to the raping part later; but to get to the raping, we need to talk about the slavery part. You're reading of slavery in islam is shallow by they way. I only realised that afterwards.
...
Ashes: you're retracting your statement.
..
like I said, you were retracting your statement. You showed no evidence that justified the burning to death of sex slaves. Instead, what you did was talk about sex slavery etc. How do you not comprehend this? are you honestly not trolling me? We can discuss sex slavery later. but we need to talk about slavery first.
...
Ashes: Are you allowed to enslave a free man/women?
...
beast: Of course yes on allowing to enslave free women.
...
Ashes: Are you sure about this?
...
Let's be clear. I went back and read your post. I know Muslim authors and non-muslim authors who agree on the difficulty of honestly finding such things. You have to dive deep into scholars notes and know a lot of hadeeths inside out to then go out on a limb and say, your opinion is this and that. Even then, your authority is very limited. Saudi Arabia for example has slavery on its books if only hypothetically. If i recall correctly, it's almost impossible in the modern age to be a legitimate slave.

Now I know you don't know this, purely from the hadiths you quoted. And you know what? Actually you won't believe anything I say, so I will right now go and google this and see what I can find.

In fact, slavery was never endorsed by Islamic texts; rather it was something inherited from pre-Islamic cultures (pre-600s) that needed to be voluntarily and gradually weeded out of society through manumission, which was highly encouraged (Chapters 24:32-33 & 16:71). Islamic texts list a plethora of avenues to free slaves, as it was seen as a highly virtuous act. It’s difficult to find any references on how to make slaves out of people; rather the focus is always on ending slavery.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ather-than-isis-or-islamophobes-a6875446.html
This is a layman explanation of the hadiths/quran stance.
So again I repeat:
Ashes: Are you allowed to enslave a free man/women?
Beast: Of course. What kind of question is it?
Ashes: Are you sure about this?
...
See anybody who knows this area well, and I've argued with people who know this area, and I have spoken to people who know more about this than my self, even critics of Islam, they won't ask: what kind of question is it? Because they know the point I'm driving home.
You only highlight your ignorance.
...
Ashes: Can you point toward hadeeths/quran explicitly stating that you may take prisoners of war as slaves?
...
beast: Abu Sa'id 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 period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 8:3432
...

Where in that hadith is the regulation about capturing slaves? That hadith is about whether you can have sex with slaves. Man even the quran quote you cited is exactly about sexual consent.

Did muslims historically capture slaves in battle? Is that what you are trying to show? They did this in the old days so we can do that now, with no need for context then or taking note of the history that followed? That's not how islamic scholars work. Not even the wahhabi scholars who I'm not very fond of do this when it comes to slavery.

...

I mean they are other ways of countering what you said about ISIS and Quran apparently validating what they did.
...
btw I mean no offence, but people like you like to plaster walls of texts all the time, so am I forever going to be running circles, if I answer every question. So just ask one question at time. Yes, I say this after a wall of text, but this is an exception.

 

[SpecialAgentZ]

Goddammit, I can't help but have bad thoughts about the scumbags who did this. First the killing of 50+ innocents in Orlando and now i got to knew about this. Man, this week started with hell. Im enraged. I desire the worst for those killers. Damn... What a week.
What's wrong with those people, man? Ffs, there's not even a little bit of empathy in their world?