I’ve herd in the news that the Abu Sayyaf (A radical muslim group here in the Philippines) said that they have the right to rape and kill their non-muslim hostages because the Quran says so… Is this really in the Quran? It’s hard to believe since they are extremists who said so…
Rape per se is not mentioned in the Quran, and as such no sanction is prescribed against this crime. However, it is mentioned in the hadiths.
What non-Muslims regard as rape is not regarded by Muslims as anything immoral or illegal since Muhammad did allowed sexual intercourse with “Malak-ul-Yameen” or ‘right-hand-possessions’. This ‘right-hand-possession’ is usually taken to mean a slave. These slaves cannot be Muslims, if taken captive in war, or purchased. However a slave who converts to Islam will still remain a slave - to prevent self-emancipation through conversion.
What Abu Sayaf is saying is that it is permissible under strict Islamic law for a Muslim to take slaves and to have sex with them. It is not considered rape in Islam.
It is only recently that slavery was outlawed in Islamic countries, as late as 1967 in Saudi Arabia, and that, too, was under pressure by Western countries. Some claim with much evidence that slavery still exists in places like Sudan. Slavery is still known in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East, though not in the open.
So one would have to say that there is Quranic justification for the Abu Sayaf claim. This is according to Sharia law:
Shafi Law 9.13
Where a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact that of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled. Reference: 'Umdat al-Salik wa 'Uddat al-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper) by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri) p. 604. faithfreedom.org/Articles/AbulKasem50519.htm
Muhammed gave permission for this therefore it must be okay. This is where you start to see the real problems in Islam. The morality is based on what he did back in the 7th century.
Hitler said it was great to kill jews.
christian who executed his orderes where happy as they blamed Jews for leading to the killing of their God. The bible says so .
Now does Christianity call for eradication of jews ???
Islam doesnt allow rape. Plain and simple.
Do you mind responding to the points raised in post no. 2 above? I’d be interested in a Moslem response to that.
meedo, I don’t remember Jesus saying to kill Jews. But I know Muhammed killed a whole tribe of them. Back to rape. Do you deny that after one of his battles Muhammed gave his men permission to violate the women?
why is it that Muslims always point out to Hitler? Hitler was no Christian…he did not hate Jews because they crucified Jesus, neither did he consider dogs worthier than Arabs because Arabs crucified Jesus. The Church lost hundreds of priest during Hitler’s regime.
Lets see here: Its ok to rape non muslims but if you rape a Muslim she gets to be stoned to death . Wow a win win here.
Most Muslims practically worship Hitler anyway, because of the fact that he killed so many Jews. They only keep trying to use it as a counterpoint to Christianity because they know that in our sense of morals we see him as such a despicable figure. How ironic is that?
whatis more Ironical is that Hitler liked Muhammad.
The Bible says the same thing.
Normally people who commit adultery are to be executed (Leviticus 20:10), but if a man takes a female slave in this manner, all he has to do is offer up a ram as sacrifice and he is forgiven.(Leviticus 19:20-22)
Of course, that leaves open the question as to how slaves are to be acquired. I suppose the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda could be expected to offer up justification for enslaving others.
Leviticus does not prove Islam does not condone the rape of female non-Muslim slaves. It has nothing to do with Islam. The logical fallacy of tu quoque is not a good way to argue.
Christians have seldom followed Leviticus to the letter.
Dale, by Jesus’ time Jews did not stone adulterers. When Muhammed asked a Jewish Rabbi about it the Rabbi tried to cover the verse. He knew the kind of man he was dealing with and didn’t want to give him the excuse. Jews simply did not do that anymore. Christians followed them in that.
In today’s world Christians don’t stone adulterers. When was the last time you went to your town square and saw that happening? Maybe you still have slavery in your area, but we can’t buy them here. In fact it was Christian abolitionists who worked to end slavery. You can see stoning though in enlightened Muslim countries every friday after prayer. At chop chop square in Riyad you get a front row seat as a foreigner. You should try it sometime. Don’t get to close though. Blood is hard to get out.
Funny thing is the morality taught by Jesus transcends the centuries. Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek etc. is just as relevant today as 2000 years ago.
On the other hand, Muhammad’s brand of morality seems rather ‘quaint’, if not downright barbaric.
Maybe it’s just me. I’m just not seeing the virtues of the sublime morality of rape and sex-slavery.
Hey look…a Muslim answers the question, yet the accusations and bashing go on.
Reading Rodrigo Bivar and Cestusdei to learn about Islam is like reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” to learn about Judaism.
How did the Muslim (I presume Meedo) answer the question?
He merely said without evidence that Islam does not permit rape. Such glib remarks are evidence of nothing.
I already said that Islam does not consider sexual intercourse with a female captive to be rape. According to strict Islamic law rape is a crime only against a Muslimah, not against a female captive, a right-hand-possession who is the legal property of a Muslim slave-owner and as such he is permitted to have sex with her.
In the West, we would consider forcing a female captive to have sexual intercourse to be rape. But not in Islam which has defined the problem away.
Do you want to see the theological evidence? Read this link. If you have any queries I will be more than happy to oblige.
Even if this were a valid form of argumentation (which it’s not), condemnation of an act is implicit when a punishment is proscribed. The Bible assigns a punishment, therefore the Bible condemns the act. Because the Bible condemns the act, your argument fails (a second time). It is irrelevant as to whether you think the punishment should be more severe; the only relevant fact is that there is any punishment at all.
What is the punishment under Sharia law for raping a non-Muslim?
Thanks for the clearing up guys…
So the Abu Sayyaf seem to be kinda telling the truth…
I beleieve the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a work of fiction that is purely invented as a form of propaganda… The one’s that Rodrigo Bivar, Cestusdei, and many others say seem to have credible sources. Check the links. I don’t think the very racist document that lead to the holocaust should be compared to many of these people’s posts. If they are wrong then I’ll be happy and willing to read your debunking of their statements. Rememeber, things are more believable if they have logical arguments backing them up…
I wont refute anything because there is nothing to refute. people make up accusations and ask muslims to refute them.
I am sure many people here are a minority among catholics. I have met many wonderful catholics who give great example about their faith by tolerance and good manners. Not Just trying to bash somebody elses religion just because it doesnt agree with what others believe.
All the best ,
Hey meedo, thanks for continuing to post here. I wouldn’t have the tenacity…
Now I don’t agree with everything (well, hardly anything) posted by Mr. Pro, but seriously, meedo did say it was not condoned. What country legally permits rape of non-muslims by muslims? Name one…