Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Offensive Jihad Under Infallible Imam Only?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

It is one of the well known critiques levied against us that it essentially condones rape of female captives, even if already married.

I know we do not accept Sunni sources, but Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of this has a narration in the footnote, that during one expidition, some Muslims felt uncomfortable about sleeping with captives who had husbands already, the narration claims this verse was revealed in response to it.

I understand that I just asked if sexual relations between the Muslims and his captive are supposed to be consented or not.

Share this post


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

I understand that I just asked if sexual relations between the Muslims and his captive are supposed to be consented or not.

Well like you said, it is not very PC. But I kind of doubt it would be needed seeing as they would essentially belong to another. Again not PC but even marital rape is not really seen as a thing in Islamic law. I know in United Kingdom case law it was only established in 1991.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

So please enlighten us on your convenient Quranist take on 4:24

 

The Qur'an deals with topics and their effects, there is absolutely no principle that merely regulating a fact of society equals endorsement of the practice. When the Qur'an does give an order relating to captured persons it stipulates two options, one is to free them or two ransom them as a condition of release.

Regulating alchohol doesn't mean the Qur'an implicitly allows it for example. It is a fact of society and is dealt with accordingly.

There are ZERO verses that say you can enslave a woman. There are ZERO verses that say you can initiate slavery in general. 

The Qur'an allows self defense as every single nation on Earth and consequences of war are on the aggressor. 

If a captured aggressor consents to marry their captor , what is the problem? 

the problem is when you approach the Quranic commands with an animalistic mind and believe it calls for pillaging and raping.

women and men have sex as a matter of nature, it doesn't mean one can go around raping anyone they meet. Even non Islamic primitive societies regulate the act of sex.

 

 

Edited by Fink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fink said:

The Qur'an deals with topics and their effects, there is absolutely no principle that merely regulating a fact of society equals endorsement of the practice. When the Qur'an does give an order relating to captured persons it stipulates two options, one is to free them or two ransom them as a condition of release.

Regulating alchohol doesn't mean the Qur'an implicitly allows it for example. It is a fact of society and is dealt with accordingly.

There are ZERO verses that say you can enslave a woman. There are ZERO verses that say you can initiate slavery in general. 

The Qur'an allows self defense as every single nation on Earth and consequences of war are on the aggressor. 

If a captured aggressor consents to marry their captor , what is the problem? 

the problem is when you approach the Quranic commands with an animalistic mind and believe it calls for pillaging and raping.

 

 

tumblr_inline_o1ob4rOpZA1qlgi1f_540.gif

So much sugarcoating.

Why did some of our Imams (عليه السلام) after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) have slaves if according to you, they are ordered to free them or ransom them? How did they even get them?

Also a captured person "consenting" to marry their captor can be argued to be Stockholm syndrome, you really think they have much of a choice? Or simply choosing a better option as opposed to being a slave.

Like I said, slavery as with offensive jihad is not permitted in the time of Ghayba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

tumblr_inline_o1ob4rOpZA1qlgi1f_540.gif

So much sugarcoating.

Why did some of our Imams (عليه السلام) after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) have slaves if according to you, they are ordered to free them or ransom them? How did they even get them?

Also a captured person "consenting" to marry their captor can be argued to be Stockholm syndrome, you really think they have much of a choice? Or simply choosing a better option as opposed to being a slave.

Like I said, slavery as with offensive jihad is not permitted in the time of Ghayba.

You're mixing general slavery with captured persons in war. I've already discussed both types many times and I keep having to repeat myself. They are two different things.

Slavery was a system in place before Islam and was regulated after Islam. You're asking why the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had slaves,  I already answered that when I explained why slavery was not abolished explicitly, and gave you an example of what would happen to them in referencing African Americans who were freed on paper.

 The Prophet like everyone else dealt with this social system in place.

I don't care much about this thing called ghayba as I have no such concept in my religion. There is also no such thing as offensive Jihad. They made that up like they invented many other things in Islam.

 

Edited by Fink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Well like you said, it is not very PC. But I kind of doubt it would be needed seeing as they would essentially belong to another. Again not PC but even marital rape is not really seen as a thing in Islamic law. I know in United Kingdom case law it was only established in 1991.

Well maybe if this is not politically correct you could explain more about that in mp ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says be kind to women, I don't think rape falls under that category. You sick men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fink said:

You're mixing general slavery with captured persons in war.

No you rhetorically asked what the problem was if "captured aggressors" consenting to marrying their captors in your post about slavery. I'm just addressing what you said.

11 minutes ago, Fink said:

 You're asking why the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had slaves, 

Well I asked specifically why the Imams had them after the time of the Prophet. Furthermore, I am not arguing Islam encourages slavery, you seem to think I am. My point is that whether you want to ignore it or not, it is allowed. Just as it is allowed to be with a slave who is married, (as married women are prohibited to us).

As such it is hypocritical to call offensive jihad a "sick idea", when you as a Quranist, are permitted to have a slave

11 minutes ago, Fink said:

I don't care much about this thing called ghayba as I have no such concept in my religion.

 

.Well I believe in the Ghayb as per the 2nd chapter, 2nd verse.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is

I strongly believe Islam sought to end slavery. The God of the Qur'an clearly dislikes the practice. 

Human inequities won't end just because a blanket ban came from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). So things are dealt with accordingly within capacity of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fink said:

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says be kind to women, I don't think rape falls under that category. You sick men.

A bit off topic but what about

(4:34:29)
wa-iḍ'ribūhunna
and [finally] strike them.

This doesn't seem to "kind"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At which point does a captive become a slave? I suppose that's when laws pertaining to slavery are imposed.

I remember Nakshawani reading about the topic "Sex Slaves" a couple years back, which spawned quite the debate on Shiachat. One theme of the thread (and actually put forth by a student of Hawza) is the lens through which we see slavery in the 21st century, opposed to the historic definition and practise of slavery. There is some discussion on consent, a term/concept that didn't apparently exist at the time.  

There are rulings from al-Khoie that one doesn't even have to do nikah prior to sexual intercourse with a slave. Then there's concepts such as Tahleel, whereby a master can allow another exclusive use of his slave for sex. :ko:

Here's the thread: 

I personally limit myself from discussing such a distressing topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...