Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Enlightened Follower

Irrefutable evidence Islam is against rape

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Even in Quran, it is written in very explicitly that "which your right hand possesses" about women who were bought or were POWs. "Right hand possesses" meant that you possesses them legally and having sexual intercourse without "Aqd" is "illegal". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

Even in Quran, it is written in very explicitly that "which your right hand possesses" about women who were bought or were POWs. "Right hand possesses" meant that you possesses them legally and having sexual intercourse without "Aqd" is "illegal". 

It is allowed intercourse with those whom your right hand possesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E.L King said:

It is allowed intercourse with those whom your right hand possesses.

Yeah but first we should be aware what right hand possesses means and it means to have them in "legal relationship" in the form of "Nikah".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Yeah but first we should be aware what right hand possesses means and it means to have them in "legal relationship" in the form of "Nikah".

Yes but you do not have to marry them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

·[4:3] And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

Marry only one or that your right hand possesses. So, marriage is there brother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[4:24] And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

[4:24] And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise

I believe you are reading the Verse wrong my beloved brother. If you read the Ayah before it, it is speaking about women with whom marriage/intercourse is haram with (sisters, aunts etc...). 

And then this Verse is saying that is haram with you to have intercourse with already married except slave-girls as they can be married but taken into captive but still are halal for you to have intercourse with.

Another Verse proving there is a difference between marriage and right hand posseses is this:

 

“Who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame: But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors.” [The Holy Qur’an, al-Muminun 23:5-7]

As you can see, the Ayah is saying there are two types of people a man can have intercourse with.

1) Who he is in a marriage bond with

2) Those who his right hand posseses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

·[4:3] And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

Marry only one or that your right hand possesses. So, marriage is there brother. 

Thank you my dear brother.

The Verse is not saying to marry them, it is saying to take slave-girls.

This is what Allamah Tabataba'i says;

That is, slave-girls. If a man is afraid that he will not do justice between many wives, then he should marry only one; and if he wants more, then he should take slave-girls, because they are not entitled to division of nights.

Obviously, the provision of the alternative - taking the slave girls - does not mean that one may misbehave with, or do injustice to them; Allah does not like the unjust, nor is He unjust to His servants. It only means that it is easier to maintain justice with them because they are not included in the rule of division of nights. This very reason shows that this clause refers to taking, and living with them by virtue of possession, not by marriage; the matter of marrying them has been described later in the verse: And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens... (4:25).

http://m.almizan.org/tafsir/4-2-6/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

[4:24] And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise

 

Allama Tabatabai says:

Nevertheless, it seems a bit difficult to say that it is 'marriage' which is implied by the word, 'forbidden', because of the exceptional clause coming later: except those whom your right hands possess. Sexual intercourse with one's slave women is lawful without marriage. Therefore, it would seem more appropriate if prohibition is taken to refer to sexual intercourse, and not to marriage alone, as will be explained later. The same is the implication of the words: that you seek (them) by means of your wealth ..., as will be described afterwards. Thus the fact emerges that the implied word after 'forbidden' is cohabitation, or another similar word, not marriage. Allah has avoided mentioning it explicitly, because the divine speech refrains from such words and maintains a high moral decorum.

http://m.almizan.org/tafsir/4-23-28/

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Thank you my dear brother.

The Verse is not saying to marry them, it is saying to take slave-girls.

This is what Allamah Tabataba'i says;

 

 

What if you have a slave girl and you release her and she marries to another person and since there is no marriage,  there is no Iddah and if she is pregnant and neither you nor she knows what will happen if child is born from it from whom will the child inherit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reasoning for which marriage has to be in place and if you read that Allah SWT prohibits from fornication and therefore it leads to that if there is no "Nikah" it is fornication Bro because you don't have right to divorce her and if you free her she is not entitled to iddah? Am I right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

What if you have a slave girl and you release her and she marries to another person and since there is no marriage,  there is no Iddah and if she is pregnant and neither you nor she knows what will happen if child is born from it from whom will the child inherit? 

This is a question I do not have an answer to my dear bro. I suggest you contact the fuqaha for that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sindbad05 said:

This is the reasoning for which marriage has to be in place and if you read that Allah SWT prohibits from fornication and therefore it leads to that if there is no "Nikah" it is fornication Bro because you don't have right to divorce her and if you free her she is not entitled to iddah? Am I right? 

Sorry I didn't understand this question dear bro. 

I said that having intercourse is allowed with two groups in the case of a man.

With his wife and with his slave-girl. Other than those two it is fornication. As Allamah Tabatabai said in his Tafsir, intercourse is allowed with women without marriage.

And as Surat Al-Mu'minun has done, by saying that intercourse is allowed with those we have a marriage bond with AND with those our right hand posseses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E.L King said:

Sorry I didn't understand this question dear bro. 

I said that having intercourse is allowed with two groups in the case of a man.

With his wife and with his slave-girl. Other than those two it is fornication. As Allamah Tabatabai said in his Tafsir, intercourse is allowed with women without marriage.

And as Surat Al-Mu'minun has done, by saying that intercourse is allowed with those we have a marriage bond with AND with those our right hand posseses.

Right hand possesses are also in Nikah but do not have equal rights. Do you know that Imam Ali a.s says there are two talaq for slave girl and three for independent wife. So, there is "Nikah".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Right hand possesses are also in Nikah but do not have equal rights. Do you know that Imam Ali a.s says there are two talaq for slave girl and three for independent wife. So, there is "Nikah".

Did you read what Allama Tabatabai said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Allama says even if the slave-girl is married to another man, her master can have intercourse with her.

Quote

Consequently, the exceptional clause, "except those whom your right hands possess", will exclude one's married slave girl from this prohibition. It has been narrated in traditions that the master of a married slave woman may take away that woman from her husband, keep her untouched for the prescribed term, then have sexual relation with her, and thereafter return her to her husband.

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Right hand possesses are also in Nikah but do not have equal rights. Do you know that Imam Ali a.s says there are two talaq for slave girl and three for independent wife. So, there is "Nikah".

My brother "right hand posseses" is an exceptional clause not included within marriage.

Read what the Allama says as I have highlighted that.

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E.L King said:

As you can see, the Ayah is saying there are two types of people a man can have intercourse with.

1) Who he is in a marriage bond with

2) Those who his right hand posseses

Then one can question here "Is Islam against slavery?"

If one cannot do justice with two wives, he is advised to marry one & buy slave girls for his sexual satisfaction? Is this the case brother? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • «ظَهَرَ ٱلْفَسَادُ فِي ٱلْبَرِّ وَٱلْبَحْرِ ¨ahara alfas¡du filbarri walba¦ri “Corruption has appeared in the land and the sea بِمَا كَسَبَتْ ايْدِي ٱلنَّاسِ.» bim¡ kasabat ayd¢ alnn¡si on account of what the hands of men have wrought.” فَاظْهِرِ ٱللَّهُمَّ لَنَا وَلِيَّكَ fa'a¨hir all¡humma lan¡ waliyyaka So, O Allah, (please) show us Your vicegerent,   http://www.duas.org/ahad.htm
    • Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5108651/American-mercenaries-torturing-Saudi-princes.html#ixzz4zFCVug9P 
        This may or may not be true. But I think it does make sense that the initial round-up of the billionaires was done by a foreign agency and not Saudis. The simple reason being that if Saudis had been involved someone would have tipped off the currents guests of the Carlton Ritz. IMHO.
    • We human beings are open systems, we need continuous interaction with environment to survive. The environment of space is not suitable for us, hence it seems impossible that we would evolve such organs which help us to survive up there. We are built to live on earth, that is the truth, we must remember that fact. And we should also remember the fact that everything has a fate, including this whole universe. So if we start planning to leave earth now, we would need to plan to leave the milky way galaxy afterwards.... 

        
    • I personally dont own a car. I have a driving licence but I am not brave enough to drive. When I took part in driving classes I really liked driving and I thought that my driving was very good but when the instructor told me that I was not good in half-clutch driving, I somewhat lost my confidence. Even once I got in my father's car and started driving but I forgot to release the parking brake and so I drove with much difficulty because the brake was unreleased. Then when I returned and parked the car, I found out my mistake!
    • SCIENCE alone is insufficient.
      It can only determine truth in the Physical. It can only determine truth about an observable phenomenon. But with SCIENCE came Technology. Technology has made it so easy to look up information that there is no reason to think or have to do work. There is no emphasis on REASON anymore! We are becoming slaves to the materialistic system.  But Pure Reason is also insufficient. 
      Aristotle was one of the great champions of pure reason in ancient Greece. He believed heavy objects fall faster than light ones. And since Aristotle believed it and Aristotle was an authority on such matters, it remained the accepted wisdom for over a thousand years until Galileo decided to test the proposition. 
      As it turns out, heavy objects fall at the same rate as light objects (discounting wind resistance). So Aristotle was wrong and it took a single well designed experiment to overturn a thousand years of received wisdom.  Every object on this planet, independent of size, experiences the same (Constant acceleration) gravitational acceleration so all falling objects have the same acceleration.  That is what Galileo did. That was the part that was missing from pure reason. That is the part that science adds. 
      *
×