Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> concubines
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

Message started by freediver on Oct 21st, 2008 at 1:24pm

Title: concubines
Post by freediver on Oct 21st, 2008 at 1:24pm
Under what situations does/did Islam permit concubines? Is a concubine regarded as additional or separate to a wife?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 21st, 2008 at 3:36pm

Today there are no situations in which it's permitted.

Yes it is considered seperate to a wife.

Also there is difference of opinion on whether it's actually permitted, as the term used to describe it is not literal. It says "what your right hand possesses".

Also just to keep this in perspective, Muhammad (pbuh) said about slavery:

"one of the three who would have a double reward is a master of a woman-slave who teaches her good manners and educates her in the best possible way and frees her and then marries her."

Also it is a requirement that a servant be given the ability to earn their freedom:

"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them"

Neither the Bible, nor any other system before Islam did anything like this for the emancipation of those in servitude. It is quite clear when reading the Islamic texts, that the trend is towards abolishing slavery. It was something that existed all throughout the world at the time, and abolishing it completely/immediately would've been quite difficult, but Islam was at the forefront of doing it for most of it's history.

I don't think there's a single passage of the Bible that prohibits or even limits or discourages slavery. So in this case, it's quite obvious that Islam is strides ahead, doctrinally, and when it is re-established, hopefully in practice also.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Oct 21st, 2008 at 3:44pm
You appear to be implying that Islam is not timeless.

Why is it not permitted today? What were the situations where it was permitted? You appear to be implying that Muslim men can have sex with all their female slaves.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by sprintcyclist on Oct 21st, 2008 at 4:11pm

"We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Timothy 1:9-11



I seem to recall in the OT slaves were offered their freedom after 7 years. If they voluntarily wanted to stay, they had an earlobe pierced.

Remembering, the OT is for Jews.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 21st, 2008 at 4:23pm

Quote:
You appear to be implying that Islam is not timeless.


Not at all. Shari'ah actually literally means 'constantly replenishing source [of water]', and is suitable and adaptable to all time.


Quote:
Why is it not permitted today?


As I already noted it's a moot point.


Quote:
What were the situations where it was permitted?


This has already been answered.


Quote:
You appear to be implying that Muslim men can have sex with all their female slaves.


Yes, as was the case with the Biblical prophets also, like Abrahm (pbuh) with Hajar (pbuh) and others. It was just part of the lifestyle in those times, like it or not.

sprinnt,


Quote:
I seem to recall in the OT slaves were offered their freedom after 7 years. If they voluntarily wanted to stay, they had an earlobe pierced


Do you have the verse? Also that NT quote doesn't actually say it's forbidden, it just speaks unkindly about those who actually sell slaves. There's many other verses where Jesus (pbuh) supposedly came across people owning slaves and never said anything at all to them, nor rebuked them, nor told them it was forbidden to do so...

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Oct 21st, 2008 at 4:27pm

Quote:
As I already noted it's a moot point.


I'd still like to know why it isn't permitted today. Are you jsut referring to "man's law" rather than Islamic law?


Quote:
This has already been answered.


You said there was a difference of opinion, that's all. Was it basically that all female slaves were fair game? Were there any other situations where it was permitted?

What if a female slave is already married? Is she still fair game?

Also, what status do the children of concubines and slaves have?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by sprintcyclist on Oct 21st, 2008 at 5:34pm

"If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.
And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed.  Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you.  Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.

Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18


Perhaps you would like to reconsider your earlier comment ?
Perhaps ALSO post quotes to support your claim ?
Perhaps keep from diverting topics.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Oct 21st, 2008 at 6:30pm
Perhaps you would like to reconsider your earlier comment ?
Perhaps ALSO post quotes to support your claim ?
Perhaps keep from diverting topics.


He can't do both sprint. Perhaps you should start another thread somewhere to refute his claims, and post a link here.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 21st, 2008 at 9:01pm

sprint,

That's only for fellow Hebrews who are slaves, not for the goyim.

Besides it still permits slavery, just puts a limit on it (and only for fellow Hebrews anyway).

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:38am
Abu we have been discussing Islamic law on things like marriage, polygamy, the punishment for fornication etc for a long time now. The supposed blanket ban on sex outside of marriage came up a number of times. For example, in discussing homosexuality you used it to point out that the punishment for homosexuality is no different to the punishment for fornication. In all this time the issue of concubines never came up. In the women in Islam thread, where I first asked you about sex slaves, you deflected a number of times until I had the wording of the question in a form you approved of. When I did, you refused to answer. When I started a new thread on concubines, you continued to aboid the question.

Do you think it is reasonable for me to conclude that you have been deliberately misleading me? Do you think it is reasonable for me to expect other Muslims to 'lie by omission' in order to hide the truth about their religion? Why are you so keen to hide the truth? Is there anything in Islamic doctrine that is guiding you on the matter?

In the process of becoming a Muslim, when are people told about concubines? Does it only come up when there is a war on?

May Muslims sell their concubines?

I hope you don't blame me for asking question repeatedly and in a number of different forms, as I have found that I tend to miss interesting facts unless I ask each specific question in the most direct manner possible.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by sprintcyclist on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:15am
yes, I have struck the "ask-the-question-in-the-correct-format/syntex-before-I-will-even-remotely-consider-any-answer-you-infidel-scum" attitude too.


Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:44am
Have you been told that your question has already been answered a number of times, then later discovered you were still completely in the dark?


Quote:
Also there is difference of opinion on whether it's actually permitted, as the term used to describe it is not literal. It says "what your right hand possesses".


Do Hadiths or Fatwas clarify the ambiguity?

Are there many Muslims who interpret this even more broadly?

What does it actually say - ie can you give the rest of the sentence?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:12pm
Btw sprint, regarding the 6 year ceiling on slaves, I found a loophole, if you slave out your own daughter to a man, and he doesn't fail to fulfil her 'marital rights', or clothe and feed her, or give her to his son, then he can keep her indefinitely... The 6 year limit is waivered. Handy to know eh?

Exodus 21:7-11 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by sprintcyclist on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:18pm

btw  abu - that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews
that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews that is for jews



Dont you get it ?????????????

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 24th, 2008 at 4:23pm

Yeh, but Jesus (pbuh) is the one who told them to do that right?

So Jews should still be practising this?

Or do you finally accept your own book has abrogated sections also?

Don't you think it was a bit strange of Jesus (pbuh) to allow people to slave out their own daughters for the 'use' of other men though? Doesn't sound in character at all for him... Or was it Dad only who made that rule? Or maybe the spirit?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by sprintcyclist on Oct 24th, 2008 at 5:07pm
I dont know what jews should do. I am not a jew.

The OT is a complete book by itself.
The NT is a complete book by itself

(I am certain I have said this before)

Jesus was after the OT. I'ld imagine it was Daddy.


That's a pretty confusing quote.
Does it mean the woman slave is to be bought back by dad if the slaveowner is unsatisfied ??
A moneyback warranty ?
If the slaveowner buys her for his son, the slaveowner givers her the rights of his own daughter ??

Seems pretty unjust if the slave woman is not to be freed, while the manslave is ?
What do you think ?

Perhaps the slavewoman had no way of supporting herself if let free?
Whereas a manslave would ?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Nov 2nd, 2008 at 10:43pm
I went through the original discussion of sex slaves where Abu and Lestat tried to deflect the issue. I noted all the examples of deflection. Even I was surprised by how long the list turned out to be:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#The_concubine_saga

Title: Re: concubines
Post by sprintcyclist on Nov 2nd, 2008 at 10:54pm

goodness me you are thorough.

:-)

Title: Re: concubines
Post by sprintcyclist on Nov 3rd, 2008 at 7:35pm
bump.

F/Ds link is very good.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by tallowood on Nov 3rd, 2008 at 7:56pm
Too many concubines and adieu internet forums unless propaganda duties can be entrusted to them as well.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Nov 16th, 2008 at 7:44pm
Abu why did you edit my post here and claim that Islam does not permit sex slaves?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226815626

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Nov 16th, 2008 at 9:06pm

Because there's absolutely no concept of "sex slaves" in Islam. This your biased imposition from what you think Islam permits. It has nothing to do with the reality of what Islam does or doesn't permit.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Nov 16th, 2008 at 10:06pm
What's the difference between a concubine and a sex slave?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Nov 17th, 2008 at 5:09am

A sex slave is someone who is captured specifically for having sex with, in any form you like.

A concubine is a maidservant. Like a wife, but not free, everything else is the same. Your obligations to her are exactly the same. She is not a sex slave.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grendel on Nov 17th, 2008 at 5:12am
con⋅cu⋅bine   /ˈkɒŋkyəˌbaɪn, ˈkɒn-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [kong-kyuh-bahyn, kon-] Show IPA Pronunciation  

–noun
1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, esp. one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.
2. (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.
3. (esp. formerly in Muslim societies) a woman residing in a harem and kept, as by a sultan, for sexual purposes.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Nov 17th, 2008 at 8:34am
So she is a slave you can have sex with, but not a sex slave?

Would you mind removing the edit to my post?

It's a bit ironic that you will get offended by the use of the term sex slave instead of concubine, but will happily claim Christianity to be polytheistic, then quote Christian sources that say there is one God, then say you are defering to them on whether Christianity is polytheistic.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Nov 17th, 2008 at 9:28am


Quote:
So she is a slave you can have sex with, but not a sex slave?


That's right, like a knife you can peel potatoes with isn't a potato peeler.

A slave is a slave, that's a different issue, and as several Muslims here have now mentioned to you, slavery was abolished under the last Caliphate anyway. The fact you *can* have, theoretically, marital relations with a slave doesn't mean she's a sex slave, which is someone caputred specifically to have sex with, however the master sees fit.


Quote:
Would you mind removing the edit to my post?


Yes I would mind. The term is incorrect, and implies something that Islam simply does not permit. What you envisage as "sex slave" is nothing to do with the Islamic concept of "Ma malakat aymanakum" being legal to you.


Quote:
It's a bit ironic that you will get offended by the use of the term sex slave instead of concubine


Even the term concubine is not really accurate, but probably the best English term. There is no noun used in the Qur'an to refer to concubines, instead maidservants are merely mentioned as those it's permissible to have marital relations with, through the use of the phrase "Ma malakat aymanakum" (What your right  [hand] possesses).

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Rintrah on Nov 17th, 2008 at 12:22pm

Quote:
Jesus was after the OT. I'ld imagine it was Daddy.


Many Christians say that Christ existed throughout, because to say otherwise would be to attribute change to God.

Most Christian scholars until late in the last millenium saw slavery as completely permissable, though this later on evolved to 'only from war or to prevent them from becoming pagans', this included the more 'liberal' theologians like Las Casas. Mendietta is another important example. Another pertinent example is the sermons of Padre Antonio Vieira, who spoke of the 'two slaveries' in an attempt to justify, biblically, treating your slaves decently. This was a hugely controversial sermon mind you.

Considering that Islam says you should dress your slaves as yourself and provided the framework for the eventual abolition of slavery (through incentives to free slaves and limiting the means of acquisition). On the other hand, Christianity in its historical practice did not speak out against slavery, rather saying that the slave should submit to its master. There was no benefit in freeing slaves, it was not a requirment on the breaking of promises or fasts. There was no framework set up to destroy the institution of slavery, it had to be created by going against established Christian traditions.

I am not equipped for a theological debate on this as I only know of its manifestation historically, but I just thought I would post a pertinant verse from the NT, where Paul says that slaves should follow their masters as though they were following Christ:

Quote:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."


In regards to 'concubines' it goes without saying that to descibe such women as 'sex slaves' would imply that consent was not acheived. In other words that such women were raped. I do not have an answer from a Sheikh on this question (as it is not relevant in a world ostensibly without Halal slaves). But it goes without saying that any sexual act must be consentual, and therefore any characterisation of women as sex slaves will be both inflammatory and false.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grendel on Nov 17th, 2008 at 12:35pm
lol

More muddying of the waters...  ::)

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Nov 17th, 2008 at 3:12pm

Quote:
That's right, like a knife you can peel potatoes with isn't a potato peeler.


OK Abu I edited my post so that it is more in line with your 'reasoning'. I find you find this acceptable:


freediver wrote on Nov 16th, 2008 at 4:07pm:
Abu has used the term 'realistic' to describe Islam, usually in reference to why it ignores, or at least does not focus on things like forgiveness or turning the other cheek, or why it allows certain behaviours like slaves that you can have sex with*. However, such an approach would make religion and law, both divine and secular, pointless. No law is realistic in the sense that everyone obeys it, or in the sense that everyone who breaks it gets punished. Setting such a standard would lead to anarchy. Religious law especially, or morals, are supposed to set the higher ground, not the lower ground, otherwise they become an excuse for evil rather than a call to the divine. I find it hard to understand why a religion that successfully requires it's adherents to pray five times a day and follow many other rituals would consider other moral standards as unrealistic.

I suspect that rather than being unrealistic, concepts such as turning the other cheek were largely left out of Islam because they represent a moral that is extremely difficult to translate into law. Islam does seem to have the same moral standards, as I have seen similar concepts expressed here. (I'm referring to Christianity when I say the 'same' as I don't know to what extent these moral exist in other religions.) It's just that they tend to take a lower priority because they were expressed as morals rather than laws. That is, the law allows the behaviour, but the moral discourages it to some extent. See the debate on replacing morals with rules for more on that aspect: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225960213

The only acceptable way to apply a standard of 'realistic' to law would be to base it not on whether a law would be obeyed, but on whether the enforcement of the law would do more harm than good. This concept is what is at the heart of the current debates over prostitution, drug law, no-fault divorce etc in western countries. Aiming for the high moral ground cannot do harm, even if you do not reach it. It is attempting to maintain the higher moral ground that does all the good.

* Note that saying Islam allows slaves that you can have sex with is not meant to imply that it allows sex slaves, which it clearly does not, and to say it does would obviously be slander.



Quote:
The fact you *can* have, theoretically, marital relations with a slave


You mean sex, outside of marriage?


Quote:
doesn't mean she's a sex slave


Right, she's a slave that you can have sex with. What's the difference again?


Quote:
which is someone caputred specifically to have sex with


I see. So having sex with your slave is like an accident? You are not allowed to get a slave with the intention of having sex with them? It isn't allowed to affect your decisions in any way? If you capture a slave to pick cotton, then disover she is actually really hot so you move her to the bedroom, then she is not a slave?


Quote:
What you envisage as "sex slave" is nothing to do with the Islamic concept of "Ma malakat aymanakum" being legal to you.


So your edit rests not on the correctness of what I said, but on how you think I conceptualise being allowed to have sex with slaves?


Quote:
In regards to 'concubines' it goes without saying that to descibe such women as 'sex slaves' would imply that consent was not acheived.


When women are captured as sexs slaves in modern times (ie forced into work as prostitutes), they generally consent to each individual sexual encounter. Whether a person in such a vulnerable position consents becomes pretty meaningless. That's why consent is not considered an issue for carnal knowledge. Not that I am trying to equate Islamic sex slaves with prostitution rings, I'm just pointing out that the issue of consent loses most of it's meaning when applied to a slave. I did not necessarily mean that consent was not achieved. When I said sex slave I meant exaclty that - a slave you can have sex with. It's doesn't mean she can't cook and clean for you as well.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Feb 5th, 2009 at 10:42am
Can Muslims have sex with male slaves?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 5th, 2009 at 3:40pm

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 1:24pm:
Under what situations does/did Islam permit concubines? Is a concubine regarded as additional or separate to a wife?


During a jihad, all infidel women are considered war 'booty' or spoils of war. Infidel marriages are annulled immediately by the conquest of Islamic forces in a jihad. This means that Islamic marauders can take married women as war booty.

Men may sleep with their wives, and 'that which their right hand possess' meaning their slave women. Infidel women can be taken as war booty, and thus become 'sex slaves.' Of course, if you live in the dar al Harb, arguably all infidel women are war booty, because, in the dar al harb it is your duty to fight and destroy it to make it dar al Islam.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Aussie on Feb 5th, 2009 at 5:37pm
Wasn't there some revelation today about a (Turkish...????) woman recruiting among Muslim populations for young sex slaves, or was I hearing things?




Nah, I got that wrong.  See the next Thread about rapes/suicide bombers.

Sorry.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 5th, 2009 at 7:11pm
Calanen,


Quote:
During a jihad, all infidel women are considered war 'booty' or spoils of war


This is just pure fiction. Those women brought INTO the battle were considered to have been forfeited if the non-believers lost. This was a custom of the pagan Arabs to take their women and their wealth into battle, to show that they 'mean business', and were prepared to risk everything to make sure they won the battle.


Quote:
Of course, if you live in the dar al Harb, arguably all infidel women are war booty


Again pure fiction.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Feb 5th, 2009 at 7:24pm

Quote:
This is just pure fiction. Those women brought INTO the battle were considered to have been forfeited if the non-believers lost. This was a custom of the pagan Arabs to take their women and their wealth into battle, to show that they 'mean business', and were prepared to risk everything to make sure they won the battle.


But that is not the extent of the sex slavery permitted under Islam is it Abu? You always seem to omit nasty details to make Islam seem more politically correct.

Can Muslims have sex with male slaves?

What's the difference between a slave you can have sex with and a sex slave? You seemed to imply above that it all depends on how they were captured and the motivation for capturing them, not whether they ended up as sex slaves. Are you saying that Muslims are not allowed to think about using slaves for sex while war mongering and rounding up the women, only afterwards when they get round to having sex with them?

Do you honestly think that meaningful consent to have sex can be given by a sex slave, and that this therefore means they aren't really a sex slave? Where Islam permits Muslims to have sex with what their right hand possesses, does this mean they must give their sex slaves greater control over whether they have sex than it grants their own wives? Are they supposed to spend more time 'wooing' the female slaves for sexual favours than they are expected to spend on courting wives?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 5th, 2009 at 8:06pm

Quote:
But that is not the extent of the sex slavery permitted under Islam is it Abu?


This question is not even addressed at my response. My response was about the context in which slaves were taken in battle, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of sex.


Quote:
You always seem to omit nasty details to make Islam seem more politically correct.


No, you just have a nasty habit of trying to link things together that aren't really relevant.


Quote:
Can Muslims have sex with male slaves?


No.


Quote:
What's the difference between a slave you can have sex with and a sex slave?


As I asked before, what is the difference between a wife you can have sex with and a sex wife?

Islam didn't say "You can take women as slaves and have sex with them". You MUST consider this in the context in which it was revealed. In pre-Islamic society, people, much like today, used to have sex with anyone they pleased. Islam was revealed and limited it only to those women with whom you have a relationship of protection and care over, ie. your wives and slaves. This was to stamp out the evil practise off getting women pregnant and then leaving them to fend for themselves, and leaving children as virtual orphans, as nobody knew who their fathers were. This is something which again, happens regularly today.

So you are looking at this issue completely upside down. Islam did not come and say "have sex slaves" it merely restricted who you can have sex with. Perhaps it didn't restrict it as much as you'd like, then again, in other cases you'd prefer it didn't restrict as much...

You can argue the case of slavery being wrong, and I might be tempted to indulge you in that debate, but arguing that it didn't restrict who you can have sex with enough is a little rich, especially considering you think Islam is too restrictive regarding sexuality.

And this whole issue comes down to slavery anyway, not sex with slaves. If slavery were permitted in the West today then sex would be permitted with them, as it's permitted with everyone anyway.


Quote:
You seemed to imply above that it all depends on how they were captured and the motivation for capturing them


I did no such thing. Calanen is just trying to scaremonger and claim all Muslims consider non-Muslim women as meat for the taking. This is just nonsense. Taking of 'concubines' only occured on the battlefield, when enemies brought their women into battle. The laws of warfare in that time dictated that anyone caught in war could legally be taken as a slave, as they'd surrendered their freedom in the battle. All empires/nations etc. subscribed to these laws. Today most nations do not, so it is moot anyway.


Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Feb 5th, 2009 at 10:27pm

Quote:
You can argue the case of slavery being wrong, and I might be tempted to indulge you in that debate, but arguing that it didn't restrict who you can have sex with enough is a little rich, especially considering you think Islam is too restrictive regarding sexuality.


I have no problem with a religion having rules about who you cannot have sex with. I do have a problem with a religion or a government that permits sex slaves.


Quote:
I did no such thing. Calanen is just trying to scaremonger and claim all Muslims consider non-Muslim women as meat for the taking.


No I meant just prior to Calanen entering the debate. You seemed to imply above that it all depends on how they were captured and the motivation for capturing them .


Quote:
Taking of 'concubines' only occured on the battlefield, when enemies brought their women into battle.


I thought that the invaders got to take everything - the land, the money, the food, the livestock, the houses. The people, even non-combatants, were left with nothing and given a choice of slavery or destitution in a cruel and unforgiving place. Were they even given the choice individually, or collectively?


Quote:
All empires/nations etc. subscribed to these laws. Today most nations do not, so it is moot anyway.


You keep making this claim about points being moot, but it doesn;t make sense. This is about Islam remember? The timeless ideology that you would like the world to return to.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 1:30am

Quote:
I have no problem with a religion having rules about who you cannot have sex with. I do have a problem with a religion or a government that permits sex slaves


Ok, so your problem is with slavery only. Islam never said "take sex slaves", it merely said "Out of all the people society now permits to have sex with, we're limiting it to these two". In your opinion it should've abolished slavery, which would've then cancelled out one of those two groups... right?


Quote:
I thought that the invaders got to take everything - the land, the money, the food, the livestock, the houses


You thought wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.


Quote:
This is about Islam remember? The timeless ideology that you would like the world to return to.


The ideology is timeless, rules of engagement during warfare are something which a Caliph has some flexibility in according to the standards of his time. Likewise we have rules regarding how to park your camel, doesn't mean in the modern day we don't simply translate it onto today's form of transport (cars). This concept is well known within Islam (ijtihad). In fact the word Shari'ah has the basic meaning of "an endless source [of water]", meaning that it is capable of producing laws and rules for all time periods and situations.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 5:47am

Quote:
Calanen is just trying to scaremonger and claim all Muslims consider non-Muslim women as meat for the taking. This is just nonsense. Taking of 'concubines' only occured on the battlefield, when enemies brought their women into battle. The laws of warfare in that time dictated that anyone caught in war could legally be taken as a slave, as they'd surrendered their freedom in the battle. All empires/nations etc. subscribed to these laws. Today most nations do not, so it is moot anyway.


Got any sources for this view, or is it your own original work?

I find it hard to believe that anyone would have a whole heap of women and children running around the battle field. Or that if they werent on the battlefield, the Muslims said 'Hey, no war booty fellas. We would've raped all these women..however..they were just in the background and not actually ON the battlefield..rules are rules..darn.'

I can spam up the board with references to the contrary as to what you've said. Might be quicker for you to give your references first. Also, Jews are not pagan Arabs, and the muslims certainly took their women as 'war booty.'

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:02am
Just read any book of seerah, you'll see it was the case.

As for the Jews, the specific incident you're referring to was during the Battle of Khandaq (the Trench) when the Pagan Arabs had allied with some Jewish tribes, to surround and destroy the Muslims in Madinah. The Muslims dug a trench around the city, and waited out a month long siege against the gathered "allies". However, one  of the Jewish tribes from within Madinah, who were citizens of the Islamic state of Madinah, committed an act of treason and tried to help the gathered allies against their own state of Madinah. so they had effectively joined the battle by being traitors. For that act of treachery, they were treated in the same manner as the besieging allies outside the city.

Just curious, what's your view on 'fifth column' communities, who help an outside invader to attack and take over a country? Give them sweets and live happily ever after with them, right?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:04am

Quote:
Just curious, what's your view on 'fifth column' communities, who help an outside invader to attack and take over a country? Give them sweets and live happily ever after with them, right?


Any muslims who participate in a jihad against this country as Fifth Columnists, or who assist for example, Malaysia and Indonesia to invade, when captured will be given a fair trial.

And then shot.

But no, there wont be any raping, if its ever up to me. Any troops that rape women, fifth columnists or not should themselves be shot.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:18am

Likewise no Muslim ever raped the women of Banu Qurayzah. This is pure fantasy on your part.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:22am
They were willingly taken as war booty? And Rayhana, 'willingly' went with Mohammed after he killed her husband.

That's what I call 'pure fantasy' habibi.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:57am

It doesn't establish that rape occured.

Come on Mr. Lawyer...

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:05am

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:57am:
It doesn't establish that rape occured.

Come on Mr. Lawyer...


God almighty, I don't have a video camera that was running on that day. But rape obviously occurred. Im not runing a trial brief.

And stop referring to my job, its just annoying. I dont keep saying to you 'Come on Mr Vending Machine Repairman - Coca Cola expects you to fix coin slots better than that' or 'I wouldnt get this guy to repair MY vending machine, no sir...'

It also really doesnt matter once a person's liberty is forfeited as 'war booty', they dont have any rights, and you know it. Trying to push the line that they willingly went with the pillaging Muslims after their men had been killed. There are loads of hadith talking about having these women, who had now become slaves, as sex toys.

So stop all the Bull**** abu. I doubt even Gaybriel is convinced on this on. Although one never knows, paging Gaybriel. I imagine she will say 'Bad things happened on ALL SIDES..its WAR..let's all be friends.' Rape is an integral part of war in Islam. Integral.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Feb 6th, 2009 at 11:22am

Quote:
Islam never said "take sex slaves", it merely said "Out of all the people society now permits to have sex with, we're limiting it to these two".


In other words it permitted sex slaves.


Quote:
You thought wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.


Would you mind explaining it again?


Quote:
This concept is well known within Islam (ijtihad).


What about the closure of the gates of ijtihad? Is that a well known concept?


Quote:
It doesn't establish that rape occured.

Come on Mr. Lawyer...


So this is how you validate your fairytale version of history?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:23pm
Ten years for 'religious' rapist  
By Daniel Sandford
BBC News home affairs correspondent  

For nearly 18 months Khalisadar denied rape, before pleading guilty
An east London Muslim, who was well known for giving religious talks, has been jailed for 10 years for rape.

Abdul Makim Khalisadar pleaded guilty to raping a 27-year-old woman after forcing his way into her home in 2005.

Scotland Yard was originally examining Khalisadar's links to terrorist Kazi Nurur Rahman but the investigation did not lead to a terror arrest.

But DNA taken when the 26 year old was arrested for downloading child abuse images linked him to the rape.

Religious talks

After denying it for almost a year and a half, Khalisadar admitted raping the woman in Whitechapel, east London, in the early hours of 16 October 2005.

On Monday he was jailed for seven and a half years for the rape and two and a half years for perverting the course of justice, to run consecutively.

Khalisadar is unemployed but used to work as an assistant in a primary school teaching English and Maths.

He also worked with an anti-drug-and-violence project in east London's Brick Lane, and was well known for his religious talks.

Seven of Khalisadar's friends who last month admitted conspiracy to pervert the course of justice were each jailed for 12 months.

Belal Ahmed, 24, Tanbir Ahmed, 24, Mohammed Tahar Hussain, 25, Iqbal Hussain-Ali, 25, Tony Autier, 30, Thouhid Ahmed, 24, and Shaherul Islam Khan, 24 - all from East London - admit lying to the police in formal statements.

They claimed Khalisadar was giving a talk at the East London Mosque at the time of the rape.

TV appeal

The victim's ordeal began at around 0330 as she returned to her home.

She was accosted by Khalisadar who forced his way past her as she opened the door.

"I'm going to rape you," he said twice. She said she was pregnant with twins, which was not true but she was trying to stop the assault.

He forced her to perform a sex act, and threatened to kill her when she tried to escape. He held a knife to her throat, saying: "You love your Daddy."

Traces of his semen were found on the victim's body and clothes. She was also left with bruises on her arms, leg and face.

There was an appeal on the BBC's Crimewatch programme but the assault remained unsolved for almost a year.

DNA swab

In the meantime, Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism command was investigating Khalisadar's connection with Rahman, who was convicted in 2006 of trying to buy Uzi sub-machine guns for use by terrorists.

When Khalisadar was taken to a police station and swabbed for DNA, detectives discovered to their surprise that he was the man being sought for the rape.

At first he insisted the sex was consensual, then he concocted an alibi saying he had been giving a talk on repentance at the mosque that night.

It was the middle of Ramadan, and young men would often meet at the mosque through the night before eating their breakfast ahead of sunrise. His friends supported the alibi, but now admit they lied.

The DNA evidence was overwhelming and there was also technical evidence that his phone was used near the victim's flat at the time of the rape.

Eleven charges of possessing photographs of child abuse are not being proceeded with at present.

Khalisadar later admitted raping the 27-year-old.

He claimed a substance he took to help with fasting during Ramadan had made him “hyper.”

The preacher forced his way into her home as she got back from a night out, the court was told.

He threatened to kill her — even after she claimed to be pregnant with twins to put him off, prosecutor Simon Carr said.

Khalisadar also stole a mobile from the house in Whitechapel, East London.

He was caught by DNA. Judge Timothy King blasted his “hypocrisy”.

Imam got 7˝ years for rape and 2˝ for conspiring to pervert justice.

Seven members of East London Mosque admitted perverting justice and got 12 months each.

Burka-clad women in the public gallery yelled abuse at the judge — and one screamed that the victim was a prostitute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7301975.stm

[Now, why would members of the Islamic congregation lie to cover up the rape? Could you imagine convincing seven members of your local church to lie about you breaking into someone's house and raping them? Seems weird doesnt it. Until you know this. Rape is part of your holy obligation as a muslim during a jihad. Raping infidels that is.

Because - what the rapist did was in the best tradition of the Prophet. Raping infidels in the dar al Harb, is not only encouraged but required under Islam. So of course they covered it up. Its not real justice anyway, only sharia is - so lying to our legal system is just no big deal there dhimmis'
]

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:28pm
Kind of strange that they managed to use a meeting at a Mosque as an alibi to escape justice for so long.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:46pm

Quote:
Could you imagine convincing seven members of your local church to lie about you breaking into someone's house and raping them?


Sure. I could even imagine convincing Bishops to move you to a new parish so you could rape even more little boys undiscovered... happens quite regularly in Christianity actually.

Unlike Christianity, Islam has strict laws regarding raped, and if there were an Islamic Caliphate, such people would find out what real justice is.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:07pm

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:46pm:
Sure. I could even imagine convincing Bishops to move you to a new parish so you could rape even more little boys undiscovered... happens quite regularly in Christianity actually.


You know of cases where parishioners were involved in providing alibis for priests, like 7 of them?

Its interesting that you mention Catholicism. It's a new tu quoque reference.

But I will say this - just a little digression - the Catholic church should let priests marry. The real original reason for not letting them marry, was because the Vatican did not like wives getting their hands on church property. That's easily dealt with in the modern age.

I think if you dont let men have sex, they tend to go weird. But Catholic parishes have been ruthless in bringing pedophile priests to justice.

And make no mistake, pedophiles are in all communities. Even Islam. Thats why one of the standing orders for the Taliban is not let young males without facial hair going into the tents of the mujahadeen. Too tempting a target for them to play hide the sausage with it seems.


Quote:
Unlike Christianity, Islam has strict laws regarding raped, and if there were an Islamic Caliphate, such people would find out what real justice is


If they could find four male witnesses to the rape. If not, then they would just stone the women to death for adultery.

Real justice - now that's what I'm talking about right habibi?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:09pm

freediver wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:28pm:
Kind of strange that they managed to use a meeting at a Mosque as an alibi to escape justice for so long.


Not really, as I say, what he was doing was in line with Islamic dictates. You can take infidel women as war booty in the house of war. So where's the problem - he was doing what allah wanted, so of course could muslims should protect him from punishment.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Feb 6th, 2009 at 9:42pm

Quote:
Unlike Christianity, Islam has strict laws regarding raped


Like who you are allowed to rape?


Quote:
and if there were an Islamic Caliphate, such people would find out what real justice is


Assuming they were convicted of course. From what I've seen of the position of women in Islamic society, I doubt it.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:14pm

Quote:
You know of cases where parishioners were involved in providing alibis for priests, like 7 of them?


The heads of the churches themselves protected them!! That's far worse.

The entire church hierarchy has been implicated in covering up, protecting and even giving more opportunities to priests to rape and molest their own congregations and their children.


Quote:
Its interesting that you mention Catholicism. It's a new tu quoque reference.


It's not tu quoque because you invited it you goose..

"Could you imagine convincing seven members of your local church to lie about you breaking into someone's house and raping them?"


Quote:
But I will say this - just a little digression - the Catholic church should let priests marry


But this isn't just limited to the Catholic church, it's occured in many other churches also. How about the head of the evangelicals in the U.S who was arrested for taking drugs with and sodomising a male prostutite??

Even in Australia there's been plenty of cases of Anglican priests (who are permitted to marry) molesting kids. Surprised you haven't heard about it? too busy trying to dig up the few rare cases of Muslims committing sex crimes I guess to notice..

Anglican Church considers future of paedophile priest
Police arrest nine men from Australia's Anglican church in connection with child sex abuse scandal
WA: Anglican Church apologises for child sex abuse


Quote:
But Catholic parishes have been ruthless in bringing pedophile priests to justice.


Some would argue they're been more concerned with protecting the rights of the criminals rather than the victims. Even Australian Bishop Anthony Fisher was quoted as saying: "dwelling crankily on old wounds" about victims of paedophilia in the Catholic church. Ruthless indeed, ruthless to the victims.


Quote:
And make no mistake, pedophiles are in all communities. Even Islam.


So you'd like to claim. I don't doubt there's isolated cases, but there's certainly no entrenched culture of paedophilia as there quite clearly is infesting Christian churches. Anyway if you feel up to it, feel free to bring some evidence.


Quote:
Thats why one of the standing orders for the Taliban is not let young males without facial hair going into the tents of the mujahadeen.


Whatever you reckon.

Also if we look at the paedophilia within the Christian churches, we find that it just goes on and on. Every month there's a new scandal somewhere or aanother. Even in the South Australian Anglican church, after OVER 10 YEARS since the first revelations rocked their church, they were still exposing even more paedophilia:


Quote:
ADELAIDE, May 31 AAP - Some key dates in the child sex abuse controversy engulfing
the Anglican Church in Adelaide:

June 7, 1992: Anglican chaplain at St Peter's College leaves Australia for Bali, a
day after admitting to headmaster he indecently assaulted a student.

Mid-1999: Anglican Church youth worker Robert Brandenburg commits suicide on the day
he was to appear in court on child sex offences.

May 22, 2003: Two clergymen, Rev Don Owers and Rev Andrew King, say they have details
of up to 200 cases of alleged child sex abuse within the Anglican Church's Adelaide diocese
over four ...


This practise is endemic in Christianity and there's no denying it, and it doesn't appear to be getting much better. In all likelihood it infests every level of the Christianity hierarchy, from top to bottom.


Quote:
If they could find four male witnesses to the rape. If not, then they would just stone the women to death for adultery


Since 4 male witnesses is also the requirement for an adultery conviction, then she couldn't be convicted of adultery either.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:25pm
Here's an interesting one regarding the Anglican church, seems even the people they put in charge of getting to the bottom of their infestation of paedophilia himself can't keep his hands off the youngins.


Quote:
Dateline: HOBART, Australia A psychologist who co-authored a report for the Anglican Church about pedophilia within its ranks was jailed for up to two years Thursday for having sex with a 15-year old girl.

The case was a further embarrassment for the Anglican Church which has been under fire in recent months over allegations that clergy and staff at its schools abused children and that senior figures covered up the abuse.

A former Anglican archbishop, Peter Hollingworth, was forced to resign earlier this year as the British queen's representative in Australia over allegations he covered up church abuse in the early 1990s.


Also as mentioned, even the Queen's representative in Australia was part of covering up these abominations. And you are worrying about a few of that Muslim in London's mates providing an alibi for him??

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:56pm
Quote:

Quote:
Thats why one of the standing orders for the Taliban is not let young males without facial hair going into the tents of the mujahadeen.




Quote:
Whatever you reckon.


I posted the orders in another thread you muppet. It was like a week ago.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by soren on Feb 10th, 2009 at 11:50am
Acid attack on boy who 'refused sex with Muslim cleric'

By Massoud Ansari in Karachi
Last Updated: 9:05PM GMT 07 Feb 2004

On his hospital bed last week, 16-year-old Abid Tanoli sat listless and alone, half of his body covered by burns that all but destroyed both his eyes and left his face horribly disfigured.

The teenager talked, with difficulty, of how his life had been destroyed since the fateful day in June 2002 when he refused to have sex with his teacher at a religious school in Pakistan.

The boy was horrifically injured in an acid attack after he rebuffed the Muslim cleric's sexual advances. Now, he has alarmed Pakistan's powerful religious establishment by pressing charges against his alleged assailants.

A teacher at the school, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and two of his friends are in prison awaiting trial for attempted murder and rape. All three deny the charges. A fourth alleged attacker is still at large.
It is the first such case to be brought against a Muslim cleric and threatens to expose a scandal of sex abuse within Pakistan's secretive Islamic schools.

Abid was blinded and maimed in the assault, which he says came shortly after he rejected sexual demands from the Islamic teacher at a madrassa in a crowded, lower middle-class district of Karachi. "He threatened to ruin me for life," Abid recalled, "but I didn't take him seriously. I just stopped going to the madrassa".

Abid, who was 14 at the time, told neither parents nor friends what had happened because, he said, he was ashamed. A few days later, as he played with his brothers and sister at home, he said that his religious teacher - accompanied by three associates - broke into the house, bolted the door and threw acid over him, screaming: "This should be a lesson for your life."

Abid was taken to a public hospital, where doctors told him that he would be scarred for life.

Lawyers and campaigners against sexual abuse of children say that it is not uncommon in Pakistan, especially in the segregated surroundings of the country's estimated 20,000 religious schools, but cases involving members of the clergy are rarely - if ever - exposed.

"They are either hushed up and sorted out within the confines of school, or parents are pressurised not to report the incident to the media as it would give religion a bad name," said Zia Ahmed Awan, the president of Madadgaar, a joint project of LHRLA (Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid) and Unicef, the United Nations children's fund.

Haroon Tanoli, Abid's father, met strong resistance when he tried to take up his son's case with officials at the school. He says that they offered to help him secure a cash payment from the alleged attackers, provided that he did not involve the police. Since then, he has been threatened with harsh consequences for refusing to back down.

"I despise hypocrites who sport huge beards in the name of religion and hinder the passage of justice in the name of Islam," said Mr Tanoli.

"I had a beard, and all my four sons were studying in a madrassa. However, following this incident, the first thing I did was to pull my children out of the madrassa - and shave off my beard."

Even as Abid was receiving treatment, the religious authorities pressed the hospital to discharge him. Mr Tanoli managed to get him admitted to a different hospital, where he is being treated free, although the family cannot afford an operation to save his sight.

Mr Tanoli refuses to back down, despite being offered one million rupees (Ł12,000) by the teacher's relations if he withdraws the charges. He has moved to a secret location for his own safety.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/1453786/Acid-attack-on-boy-who-refused-sex-with-Muslim-cleric.html

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2009 at 4:44pm
Fancy a religious leader being able to flaunt his sexual exploitation of children and assault those who reject his advances in front of their family. Fancy being able to round up four co-religionists to help out with the assault. Then the school tries to cover it all up.

Soren weren't you saying something before about cultures that value reputation vs cultures that value justice? In the west churches will expose child abuse because justice is more important than reputation. Which makes it convenient for people like Abu to attack their reputation and pretend it only happens in the west, especially given the extent of imitimidation Muslim clerics can get away with to have their way with children.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 6th, 2014 at 4:51pm
Gandalf do you agree with Abu that Islam permits sex with slaves as well as wives?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 6th, 2014 at 4:58pm
You answer the question this time, G. Don't you leave FD hanging around waiting.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:45pm

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 4:51pm:
Gandalf do you agree with Abu that Islam permits sex with slaves as well as wives?


no :)

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:49pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 4:51pm:
Gandalf do you agree with Abu that Islam permits sex with slaves as well as wives?


no :)


That's not the right answer. You tell FD what he demands to hear.

This is his right in a free society, you know - not that you Moslems would know anything about that.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Yadda on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 4:51pm:
Gandalf do you agree with Abu that Islam permits sex with slaves as well as wives?


no :)



So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?



"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24


"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;..."
Koran 33.50


And the moslem man - IS NOT - permitted to have sex with his female slaves - "those whom your right hands possess".

???

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:02pm:
So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?


It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.

IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another product of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time. The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Datalife on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:28pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:02pm:
So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?


It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.

IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another product of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time. The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.


And yet they do and consider themselves to be as adherent to Islamic teachings as you no doubt do and can quote scripture and verse as you do. 


Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:28pm

Quote:
I have been persuaded by such arguments.


What persuaded you?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:35pm

Datalife wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:28pm:
And yet they do and consider themselves to be as adherent to Islamic teachings as you no doubt do and can quote scripture and verse as you do. 


Of course.


freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:28pm:
What persuaded you?


The eloquency of the articles I have read, in combination with the gut feeling I have had all along that true islam is not, and never has been, a license for misogyny and exercising men's sick, base desires.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Yadda on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:02pm:
So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?


It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.


The problem that you have gandalf, is that the inerrant Koran - that Allah declares [within teh Koran] that he made to be plainly understood - makes no such distinction.


"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24


"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;..."
Koran 33.50



So, such an argument ['the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first'], is B.S., imo.iQuote:

IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another product of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time. The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.


When it comes to what is 'appropriate' ISLAMIC doctrine, imo, ALL MOSLEMS, are flags in the wind.


i.e.
ISLAMIC scholars have created interpreted a religious philosophy which has become [over a period of many centuries] so ambiguous - that such religious ambiguity 'serves' ISLAM and the moslem well.


i.e.
In this 'political' wind, we moslems will promote this 'immutable' doctrine.

And in another 'political' wind, we will promote another, 'equally legal' 'immutable' doctrine, which better 'flies' in that political wind.


AND IT IS ALL BULL SHITE.

ISLAM......is a false religion, for a false [deceitful] people.








MOSLEMS - 'FLAGS IN THE POLITICAL WIND'
e.g.
A body representing British 'mainstream' moslems, The Muslim Council of Britain, has declared on its website;


Quote:

Rejecting Terror
Thursday, 11 April 2013

Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible and abhorrent.

There is no theological basis whatsoever for such acts in our faith.

The very meaning of the word 'Islam' is peace.

It [ISLAM] rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony.




http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewstemplate&catid=82:mcb-news
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656





Title: Re: concubines
Post by Yadda on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:51pm

Quote:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:02pm:
So the Koran, on that subject, has been mis-interpreted ?


It has been argued that the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first. I have been persuaded by such arguments.

I would link an article if I thought there was any point.


The problem that you have gandalf, is that the inerrant Koran - that Allah declares [within teh Koran] that he made to be plainly understood - makes no such distinction.

......

So, such an argument ['the quran refers only to former slaves whom you had married first'], is B.S., imo.




gandaldf,

If your proposition [above] is true, did Mohammed and his companions, choose to marry all of those captured "excellent Arab women", before they 'consummated' their weddings ?           :D



Quote:

"We went out with Allah's Messenger"
= = Mohammed was in the company of these men.

"on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women" = = it was some form of raiding party, where they, 'took captive some excellent Arab women'.

"and we desired them" = = hmmmm, i wonder what that means?

"for we were suffering from the absence of our wives" = = ah, in the absence they wives, they desired these women for sex, to satisfy their sexual lust.

"(but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them." = = in their minds, they sought to sexually 'use' these captive Arab women, and then let their menfolk redeem them.

"So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them" = = yep, Allah's finest, sought to sexually 'use' these 'excellent' captive Arab women.


Those [above] extracts from the Hadith are cited, with references, here;

Bikeway rapist gets 25 years in jail
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1251431040/8#8



Title: Re: concubines
Post by Datalife on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:58pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Datalife wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:28pm:
And yet they do and consider themselves to be as adherent to Islamic teachings as you no doubt do and can quote scripture and verse as you do. 


Of course.


freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:28pm:
What persuaded you?


The eloquency of the articles I have read, in combination with the gut feeling I have had all along that true islam is not, and never has been, a license for misogyny and exercising men's sick, base desires.


Ahhhhhh the ever elusive true Isam.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:59pm

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:40pm:
"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24



4:25 goes on to make it very clear that you must not take slaves in fornication or as lovers.

I believe the distinction made in 4:22-24 is because former slave wives have slightly different legal status than wives taken from free women (ie the law is more lenient on the former slaves if they commit crime)

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Caliph adamant on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:03pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm:
IMO the argument that muslims have a right to take slaves as they desire is just another roduct of the phoney Islamic orthodoxy created by misogynistic "scholars" during the middle ages - hundreds of years after The Prophet's time.


Are you inferring that Mo did not "do" slaves?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:11pm:
The same men who in their wisdom, decreed other lies such as women must be bundled up in head-to-toe clothing and kept out of sight.




That's pure crap Gandalf. The practise predates "monotheist god bother's" such as your silly self. Look to Mesopotamia for some form of sanity.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:08pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:28pm:
What persuaded you?


The eloquency of the articles I have read, in combination with the gut feeling I have had all along that true islam is not, and never has been, a license for misogyny and exercising men's sick, base desires.


So it had nothing to do with Islamic doctrine?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Yadda on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:20pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:59pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:40pm:
"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24



4:25 goes on to make it very clear that you must not take slaves in fornication or as lovers.

I believe the distinction made in 4:22-24 is because former slave wives have slightly different legal status than wives taken from free women (ie the law is more lenient on the former slaves if they commit crime)





Quote:
004.025

YUSUFALI: If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: 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; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.




4:25 is referring to a 3rd person, to another man, marrying an owners female slave - presumably, after the sale of this woman to her new owner new husband.


Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:23pm

Adamant wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:03pm:
The practise predates "monotheist god bother's" such as your silly self. Look to Mesopotamia for some form of sanity.


Thats right - thanks for proving my point adamant :)


freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:08pm:
So it had nothing to do with Islamic doctrine?


It has everything to do with islamic doctrine


Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 7:20pm:
4:25 is referring to a 3rd person, to another man, marrying an owners female slave - presumably, after the sale of this woman to her new owner new husband.


4:25 is perfectly consistent with the quranic (and ahadith) themes of the importance and necessity of marriage as a precursor to sexual relations.


Quote:
O young men, if you are able to support a wife then get married. Verily, it restrains the eyes and protects the private parts. Whoever is not able to do so, then he has the duty to fast because it is a means of control. - See more at: http://www.faithinallah.org/does-islam-allow-muslims-to-rape-female-sex-slaves-or-keep-unmarried-concubines/#sthash.pFvavlIb.dpuf


Thats pretty clear - if you want to have sex, get married. And if you are not able to do so, fast in order to control your sexual desires.

It makes no sense to turn this on its head and claim that Quran 4:22-24 is simply pandering to man's base desire to have their way with their sexy maid servants.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 6th, 2014 at 8:28pm

Quote:
It has everything to do with islamic doctrine


You said it was based on gut feeling and the eloquence of an article telling you what you want to hear.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:28pm
The eloquence of the articles confirming what I always new to be true about the message of Islamic doctrine

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm
How did you "always know" it to be true?

You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:53pm

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.


Yes, FD did say this.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:02pm

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.


Only in so far as I refuse to accept that the message of islam is about creating bigots and misogynists. I unapologetically treat this as a priori knowledge in my islamic beliefs - it would be absolutely nonsensical to me to come into islam thinking "well it could be about tolerance and understanding, but equally it could be about bigotry". If I had accepted it was the latter, then I would not have embraced islam - unless I was a psychopath. Once I accept the overall "theme" of islam, then the rest is just details.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:02pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.


Yes, FD did say this.


;D ;D

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Yadda on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.


Only in so far as I refuse to accept that the message of islam is about creating bigots and misogynists. I unapologetically treat this as a priori knowledge in my islamic beliefs - it would be absolutely nonsensical to me to come into islam thinking "well it could be about tolerance and understanding, but equally it could be about bigotry".

If I had accepted it was the latter, then I would not have embraced islam - unless I was a psychopath.


So you are a convert, to ?





Quote:

Once I accept the overall "theme" of islam, then the rest is just details.




This is so interesting.         

But i'm still puzzled [as i am sure that you are too] by how, so many other moslems, seem to misunderstand, 'the overall "theme" of islam'.

In that many moslems seem to think that ISLAM is all about conquest, and bringing the infidel world into subjection, under you - the moslem.

???





Quote:

Creed of the sword
Mark Durie
September 23, 2006
.....the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, issued a statement on the official Saudi news service, defending Muslims' divine right to resort to violence: "The spread of Islam has gone through several phases, secret and then public, in Mecca and Medina. God then authorised the faithful to defend themselves and to fight against those fighting them, which amounts to a right legitimised by God. This ... is quite reasonable, and God will not hate it."
Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam.
.......At the beginning, in Mohammed's Meccan period, when he was weaker and his followers few, passages of the Koran encouraged peaceful relations and avoidance of conflict: "Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." (16:125)
Later, after persecution and emigration to Medina in the first year of the Islamic calendar, authority was given to engage in warfare for defensive purposes only: "Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God does not love transgressors." (2:190)
As the Muslim community grew stronger and conflict with its neighbours did not abate, further revelations expanded the licence for waging war, until in Sura 9, regarded as one of the last chapters to be revealed, it is concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged more or less at any time and in any place to extend the dominance of Islam.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html







Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:08pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.


Only in so far as I refuse to accept that the message of islam is about creating bigots and misogynists. I unapologetically treat this as a priori knowledge in my islamic beliefs - it would be absolutely nonsensical to me to come into islam thinking "well it could be about tolerance and understanding, but equally it could be about bigotry". If I had accepted it was the latter, then I would not have embraced islam - unless I was a psychopath. Once I accept the overall "theme" of islam, then the rest is just details.


Really, then tell me how the scriptures that the extremist muslim murderers quote do not represent the true Islam that you embrace ?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:22am
Gandalf what scriptural support is there for a ban on sex with slaves?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:19pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:22am:
Gandalf what scriptural support is there for a ban on sex with slaves?


Quran 4:25. I believe I've been through this already,

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:29pm

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:02pm:
But i'm still puzzled [as i am sure that you are too] by how, so many other moslems, seem to misunderstand, 'the overall "theme" of islam'.

In that many moslems seem to think that ISLAM is all about conquest, and bringing the infidel world into subjection, under you - the moslem.


Islam today is dominated by people who are in a post-colonial, anti-west state of mind. Theology and geopolitics are more intertwined than they have ever been. There is a perceived victimhood amongst muslims, especially in former colonies (which is most of the muslim world today), which gives rise to violence and irrational behaviour that is, at its core, entirely secular in nature, but have been infused with islamic ideology.

Eventually the muslim world will find their feet, and when pride and prosperity returns in the minds of the people, a more honest and objective approach to islamic doctrine will arise. IMO. Much like it was in the golden age - tolerance, coexistence and an atmosphere conjusive to free and open intellectual thought and debate.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:31pm
Sahih International: And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Pickthall: And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Yusuf Ali: If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Shakir: 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; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Muhammad Sarwar: If any of you do not have the means to marry a chaste believing woman, marry your believing slave-girls. God knows best about your faith. You have the same faith. Marry them with the permission of their masters and if they are chaste and have avoided fornication and amorous activities, give them their just dowries. If after marriage they commit adultery, they should receive half of the punishment of a free woman who has committed the same crime. This is for those who fear falling into evil. It is better for you to have self-control. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

Mohsin Khan: And whoever of you have not the means wherewith to wed free, believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess, and Allah has full knowledge about your Faith, you are one from another. Wed them with the permission of their own folk (guardians, Auliya' or masters) and give them their Mahr according to what is reasonable; they (the above said captive and slave-girls) should be chaste, not adulterous, nor taking boy-friends. And after they have been taken in wedlock, if they commit illegal sexual intercourse, their punishment is half that for free (unmarried) women. This is for him among you who is afraid of being harmed in his religion or in his body; but it is better for you that you practise self­restraint, and Allah is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Arberry: Any one of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing freewomen in wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that your right hands own; God knows very well your faith; the one of you is as the other. So marry them, with their people's leave, and give them their wages honourably as women in wedlock, not as in licence or taking lovers. But when they are in wedlock, if they commit indecency, they shall be liable to half the chastisement of freewomen. That provision is for those of you who fear fornication; yet it is better for you to be patient. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.


No Ban there regarding that translated..

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:35pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:29pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:02pm:
But i'm still puzzled [as i am sure that you are too] by how, so many other moslems, seem to misunderstand, 'the overall "theme" of islam'.

In that many moslems seem to think that ISLAM is all about conquest, and bringing the infidel world into subjection, under you - the moslem.


Islam today is dominated by people who are in a post-colonial, anti-west state of mind. Theology and geopolitics are more intertwined than they have ever been. There is a perceived victimhood amongst muslims, especially in former colonies (which is most of the muslim world today), which gives rise to violence and irrational behaviour that is, at its core, entirely secular in nature, but have been infused with islamic ideology.

Eventually the muslim world will find their feet, and when pride and prosperity returns in the minds of the people, a more honest and objective approach to islamic doctrine will arise. IMO. Much like it was in the golden age - tolerance, coexistence and an atmosphere conjusive to free and open intellectual thought and debate.


That is a nice pipe dream it is a shame the Islamic Doctrine doesn't support it. In fact according to it you wouldn't be a muslim but a non believer and we all know what it says about those now don't we.
Spin it as much as you like the quaran book is clear in what it says.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:04pm

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:31pm:
No Ban there regarding that translated..


4:25 needs clarification.

The sentence: " [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers." - needs to be understood properly:

As the renound islamic scholar Muhammad Asad states:


Quote:
Contrary to the popular view and the practice of many Muslims in the past centuries, neither the Quran nor the life-example of the Prophet provides any sanction for sexual intercourse without marriage…

Literally meaning, “And not taking unto themselves secret love-companions.” This passage lays down in an unequivocal manner that sexual relations with female slaves are permitted only on the basis of marriage, and that in this respect there is no difference between them and free women. Consequently, concubinage is ruled out.
- See more at: http://www.faithinallah.org/does-islam-allow-muslims-to-rape-female-sex-slaves-or-keep-unmarried-concubines/#sthash.pFvavlIb.dpuf


Thus the context of the subsequent sentence: "This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you."

as well as the sahih hadith I quoted earlier:


Quote:
O young men, if you are able to support a wife then get married. Verily, it restrains the eyes and protects the private parts. Whoever is not able to do so, then he has the duty to fast because it is a means of control. - See more at: http://www.faithinallah.org/does-islam-allow-muslims-to-rape-female-sex-slaves-or-keep-unmarried-concubines/#sthash.pFvavlIb.dpuf


Clearly - muslims are encouraged to marry slaves specifically in order to avoid falling into temptation and committing sin through fornication.

Such a prescription makes absolutely no sense if muslims are given permission elsewhere to bang their slaves out of wedlock whenever they desire.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:18pm
Clearly all the other scholars and translators must all be wrong then. That makes perfect sense does it not. I am sure he is a renowned Muslim scholar no doubt. 

At the end of the day in this country people are free to believe whatever scholar they like that suits their needs. I prefer to lay my money on looking at all the major translations and seeing where the majority agree unanimously than cherry pick one that just says what I want.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:18pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:19pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:22am:
Gandalf what scriptural support is there for a ban on sex with slaves?


Quran 4:25. I believe I've been through this already,


Is that the one that says to beat them in a respectful manner?


Quote:
Islam today is dominated by people who are in a post-colonial, anti-west state of mind. Theology and geopolitics are more intertwined than they have ever been.


More so than when Muhammed and his successors were establishing their thousand year reich?


Quote:
There is a perceived victimhood amongst muslims


Really? I hadn't noticed.


Quote:
which gives rise to violence and irrational behaviour


Is this automatic, or the particular Muslim response? Or is it automatic in the context of Islam?


Quote:
Eventually the muslim world will find their feet, and when pride and prosperity returns in the minds of the people, a more honest and objective approach to islamic doctrine will arise. IMO.


The only time Muslims have found their feet is when they were ruling everyone with an iron fist.


Quote:
Much like it was in the golden age - tolerance, coexistence and an atmosphere conjusive to free and open intellectual thought and debate.


Not according to writing from non-Muslims at the time. They made it sound just like it is today in many parts of the middle east, with Muslim mobs ready to attack anyone who said the wrong thing.


Quote:
Clearly all the other scholars and translators must all be wrong then. That makes perfect sense does it not. I am sure he is a renowned Muslim scholar no doubt.
 

Gandalf has an a priori translation. Then it is merely a matter of finding the Imam that got it right. Any other approach would make no sense.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:21pm
At the end of the day the quaran book wasn't even around in mohammeds time it was written much later so there is no point squabbling about it is there.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:44pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:18pm:
Not according to writing from non-Muslims at the time. They made it sound just like it is today in many parts of the middle east, with Muslim mobs ready to attack anyone who said the wrong thing.


could you cite some please?


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:18pm:
Then it is merely a matter of finding the Imam that got it right. Any other approach would make no sense.


If you were honest with yourself you would admit that is exactly what you and all the other critics here do - find opinions and translations that suit your agenda, and discard the rest. 

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:59pm
I had no agenda until I started talking to Muslims about Islam. You have even pointed this out to me before. The difference between Abu, Falah, Malik et al and you is that they got their views about Islam from Islamic scripture, rather than coming to it with an a priori interpretation.

In any case, it does make sense to take that approach if you want to criticise something. It does not make sense to take that approach in adopting a religion. To me that would defeat the entire purpose.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 7th, 2014 at 7:28pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 5:19pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:22am:
Gandalf what scriptural support is there for a ban on sex with slaves?


Quran 4:25. I believe I've been through this already,


Is that the one that says to beat them in a respectful manner?


Quote:
Islam today is dominated by people who are in a post-colonial, anti-west state of mind. Theology and geopolitics are more intertwined than they have ever been.


More so than when Muhammed and his successors were establishing their thousand year reich?

[quote]There is a perceived victimhood amongst muslims


Really? I hadn't noticed.


Quote:
which gives rise to violence and irrational behaviour


Is this automatic, or the particular Muslim response? Or is it automatic in the context of Islam?


Quote:
Eventually the muslim world will find their feet, and when pride and prosperity returns in the minds of the people, a more honest and objective approach to islamic doctrine will arise. IMO.


The only time Muslims have found their feet is when they were ruling everyone with an iron fist.


Quote:
Much like it was in the golden age - tolerance, coexistence and an atmosphere conjusive to free and open intellectual thought and debate.


Not according to writing from non-Muslims at the time. They made it sound just like it is today in many parts of the middle east, with Muslim mobs ready to attack anyone who said the wrong thing.


Quote:
Clearly all the other scholars and translators must all be wrong then. That makes perfect sense does it not. I am sure he is a renowned Muslim scholar no doubt.


Are you saying you’ve read books by Muslim scholars, FD?

Oh - silly me. You’re referring to your Abu quotes.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 7th, 2014 at 7:33pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:18pm:
Not according to writing from non-Muslims at the time. They made it sound just like it is today in many parts of the middle east, with Muslim mobs ready to attack anyone who said the wrong thing.


could you cite some please?


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:18pm:
Then it is merely a matter of finding the Imam that got it right. Any other approach would make no sense.


If you were honest with yourself you would admit that is exactly what you and all the other critics here do - find opinions and translations that suit your agenda, and discard the rest. 



Yet you're the one that quotes one scholar and ignores all the rest funny that.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 7th, 2014 at 7:38pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
I had no agenda until I started talking to Muslims about Islam. You have even pointed this out to me before. The difference between Abu, Falah, Malik et al and you is that they got their views about Islam from Islamic scripture, rather than coming to it with an a priori interpretation.


Abu, Falah et al are fundamentalists. Have you ever talked to Y about his beliefs?

There is no fundamental difference between Y and Abu, Falah et al’s beliefs, merely the names.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 7th, 2014 at 7:55pm
Muhammed was also a bit of a fundamentalist. Jesus was more of a hippy. It comes with the territory.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 7th, 2014 at 8:56pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 7:55pm:
Muhammed was also a bit of a fundamentalist. Jesus was more of a hippy. It comes with the territory.


Maybe, but chanelling the Angel Gabriel is hardly the work of a true fundamentalist.

Jesus was much more of a hippy than Muhammed. It makes you wonder why Y isn’t firing Kalishnikovs into the air and Allah Uakbaring with the best of them.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 7th, 2014 at 9:16pm

Quote:
Maybe, but chanelling the Angel Gabriel is hardly the work of a true fundamentalist.


It is if the angel tells you to behead 800 Jews.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 7th, 2014 at 9:24pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

Quote:
Maybe, but chanelling the Angel Gabriel is hardly the work of a true fundamentalist.


It is if the angel tells you to behead 800 Jews.


True. The angel must have said the same to King Herod too, eh?

And he was a Jew.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:06pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
I had no agenda until I started talking to Muslims about Islam. You have even pointed this out to me before.


until you started talking to muslims??  :-?

Do tell FD, what are you saying your "agenda" is now? I find that statement quite revealing.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
The difference between Abu, Falah, Malik et al and you is that they got their views about Islam from Islamic scripture, rather than coming to it with an a priori interpretation.


I have quoted you scripture on just about every single doctrinal opinion I have on islam. I have probably given you more scriptural references than Abu or Falah. so I have no idea where this idea that Abu and Falah's views come from scripture, but mine don't.

If we were all honest here we would admit that every single one of us - you, me, Abu, Yadda - everyone - approaches the topic of islam with certain preconceived notions and perspectives. For my part, I had enough knowledge about islam to be satisfied enough about Islam's overall theme before I started digging deep into the nitty gritty of it. Knowing that islam is ultimately about all the main universal values like justice, acceptance, respect, human rights etc, I have absolutely no problem admitting that I study Quranic verses with this preconceived view in mind.

It is generally the same for everyone - we form a view of islam first, and then go and dig up the quotes to find support for that view - not the other way around. Even Abu - who you would have me believe is the most 'objective' and honest muslim on islamic jurisprudence (while simultaneously smearing him as a liar and deceiver - go figure  :P), very clearly brings in a lot of cultural baggage when arguing the case for islam. Rarely, if ever, could he bring himself to promote islam without comparing it in some way with the degeneracy of the west. For him, arguing the case for islam was more about inflaming a bitter cultural war and highlighting himself as the ultimate "anti-west" hero. Falah was even more extreme in this respect.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
In any case, it does make sense to take that approach if you want to criticise something.


The 'devil's advocate' routine doesn't work if you dismiss even the existence of competing views, and the potential that either could be legitimate. A constructive devil's advocate critique would be along the lines of "yes I understand your perspective and accept that it is held in some circles, but equally, there is this view..." - as opposed to your approach, which is "there is only one perspective in islam, and I reject your point of view because it doesn't conform to this one true perspective, and won't even consider that it might be held in any muslim circles.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
It does not make sense to take that approach in adopting a religion. To me that would defeat the entire purpose.


Nonsense. No one, except maybe a tiny handful of oddball intellectuals with too much time on their hands, embraces islam (or dare I say any other text-based religion) only after they have conducted a thorough analysis of all the relevant religious texts. You learn the core tenets of the religion which will give you the general gist of it and accept that the "details" will reaffirm your initial understandings. Thats how virtually every new convert to any religion comes to embrace that religion.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm

Quote:
I have quoted you scripture on just about every single doctrinal opinion I have on islam.


You quote vague scripture that says something like "be nice" or "don't go overboard". Then you interpret it to overrule the specific rulings that aren't very nice.


Quote:
so I have no idea where this idea that Abu and Falah's views come from scripture, but mine don't.


Because they quote relevant scripture and don't project their own a priori knowledge onto it.


Quote:
For my part, I had enough knowledge about islam to be satisfied enough about Islam's overall theme before I started digging deep into the nitty gritty of it. Knowing that islam is ultimately about all the main universal values like justice, acceptance, respect, human rights etc, I have absolutely no problem admitting that I study Quranic verses with this preconceived view in mind.


Is this your a priori knowledge?


Quote:
You learn the core tenets of the religion which will give you the general gist of it and accept that the "details" will reaffirm your initial understandings.


Where did you get those core tenets from? I get the justice thing, even if it isn't what we would accept as just and fair, but the rest is utter BS. Either that, or Muhammed was a great hypocrite.

The interpretation of Abu, Falah, and Malik etc largely agree with the actions of Muhammed himself. Your interpretation is the opposite, and always requires you to hold the vague, brief and ambiguous as being more authoritative than the direct and specific verses.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:41pm
And yet, many of those "direct and specific" versus you mention are allegorical.

Gud is great, no?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:54pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
You quote vague scripture that says something like "be nice" or "don't go overboard". Then you interpret it to overrule the specific rulings that aren't very nice.


Gee FD, that sounds a lot like how you interpret the opinions of Abu and Falah - dig up vague quotes (or quotes that say the exact opposite to what you claimed), or more often, no quotes at all, and apply your own spin to them.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
Because they quote relevant scripture and don't project their own a priori knowledge onto it.


Everyone projects their own a-priori knowledge onto it - especially Abu and Falah. Apparently I'm the only one honest enough to admit it.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
Where did you get those core tenets from?


ask an imam, google it, read a flier at the local mosque.... take your pick. This is how all religious work in the real world FD. Do you seriously think that converts to islam actually go and study the entire quran and 4000 odd ahadeeth as a necessary step before they decide to embrace islam?


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
The interpretation of Abu, Falah, and Malik etc largely agree with the actions of Muhammed himself. Your interpretation is the opposite,


Stop bringing Malik into this - I have read his posts, there weren't many, but he was pretty close to my views, and not even in the same ballpark as Abu and Falah. And we both know there was no "etc". You only ever quote Abu and Falah, and there's a reason for that - because they are the only two muslims here that even remotely fit the caricature you create.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
always requires you to hold the vague, brief and ambiguous as being more authoritative than the direct and specific verses.


Examples of my vague, brief ambiguous verses being trumped by Abu/Falah's direct and specific verses that prove the opposite?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:57pm
bump...


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 6:44pm:
freediver wrote Today at 6:18pm:
Not according to writing from non-Muslims at the time. They made it sound just like it is today in many parts of the middle east, with Muslim mobs ready to attack anyone who said the wrong thing.


could you cite some please?


Title: Re: concubines
Post by Caliph adamant on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:03am

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:41pm:
And yet, many of those "direct and specific" versus you mention are doggerel


::) ;D

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Caliph adamant on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:20am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:06pm:
Falah was even more extreme in this respect.


Somewhere Falah stated he was a Salafi whilst Abu preferred the MB if I remember correctly. Which branch of Bro's do you hang around with Gandalf? 

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:18pm

Quote:
And we both know there was no "etc".


There were plenty of etc. Right now we have TC for example, trying to pass Muhammed cartoons off as child porn to get them censored. Abu, Falah and he who shall not be named were just the more prevalent posters.


Quote:
Stop bringing Malik into this - I have read his posts, there weren't many, but he was pretty close to my views, and not even in the same ballpark as Abu and Falah.


And yet somehow Abu came to replace Malik as Islam's representative here, with Malik's consent.


Quote:
You only ever quote Abu and Falah, and there's a reason for that - because they are the only two muslims here that even remotely fit the caricature you create.


If they fit it, then it is not a caricature is it?


Quote:
could you cite some please?


I'm not going to bother myself, but there is a classic example that was introduced by one of the Muslims here. It was of a non-Muslim writer who was critical of Islam, and the Muslims hold him up as evidence of a tolerant society. Yet one of his main criticisms was that he couldn't say the same things he was writing down because of the lynch mobs. This was right in the middle of the "golden age". Someone else should remember the details. That's all I recall.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:28pm

Adamant wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:20am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:06pm:
Falah was even more extreme in this respect.


Somewhere Falah stated he was a Salafi whilst Abu preferred the MB if I remember correctly. Which branch of Bro's do you hang around with Gandalf? 


He feels like classic slippery Sunni.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:29pm
That’s all, eh? A half-remembered Abu post.

Lucky you couldn’t be bothered, FD. Islam is in safe hands with the Muselman, no?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:34pm
It comes up occasionally Karnal. There have been a few discussions about it.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:42pm
Good to know, FD. Is that all you’ve read on Islam?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by moses on Jun 8th, 2014 at 1:39pm
Grand Duke Imam Gandalf wrote:

Quote:
a priori knowledge in my islamic beliefs


Now this is a classic example of why islam is a cult of killers and so called moderates, are indeed passive, moral supporters of the true muslims who commit the foulest human rights atrocities imaginable in the name of islam. 

From the dictionary priori means:

Adjective: a priori
Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact

Adverb: a priori
Derived by logic, without observed facts


So there it is, not one fact to support their views, they make up lies to suit themselves, to obtain the necessary effect

They refuse to castigate, ridicule and decry the filth and perversion of islam. allah, muhammad and the quran, which constitutes the teachings and tenets of islam that unequivocally urge muslims to engage in:

Theiving, lying, sexual depravity, mass murder, torture, rape beheading etc. etc. as noble tasks for true muslim believers.

These are the facts substantiated by qur'an and hadi'th

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 8th, 2014 at 1:54pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:54pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
You quote vague scripture that says something like "be nice" or "don't go overboard". Then you interpret it to overrule the specific rulings that aren't very nice.


Gee FD, that sounds a lot like how you interpret the opinions of Abu and Falah - dig up vague quotes (or quotes that say the exact opposite to what you claimed), or more often, no quotes at all, and apply your own spin to them.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
Because they quote relevant scripture and don't project their own a priori knowledge onto it.


Everyone projects their own a-priori knowledge onto it - especially Abu and Falah. Apparently I'm the only one honest enough to admit it.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
Where did you get those core tenets from?


ask an imam, google it, read a flier at the local mosque.... take your pick. This is how all religious work in the real world FD. Do you seriously think that converts to islam actually go and study the entire quran and 4000 odd ahadeeth as a necessary step before they decide to embrace islam?


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm:
The interpretation of Abu, Falah, and Malik etc largely agree with the actions of Muhammed himself. Your interpretation is the opposite,


Stop bringing Malik into this - I have read his posts, there weren't many, but he was pretty close to my views, and not even in the same ballpark as Abu and Falah. And we both know there was no "etc". You only ever quote Abu and Falah, and there's a reason for that - because they are the only two muslims here that even remotely fit the caricature you create.


Abu and Falah should be given the Al Qaida anti-Freedom medal for this. Look at all the good work they did killing off the 2007 FD.

Not even all the books in in the world on Islam could do this. A few Abu posts, and a Freedom-loving spineless-apologist indidel takes one for Mo.

Not a bad day at the office, eh?

Allah Uakbar.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 2:11pm
Who left mohammereds crypt open today (piss be upon him).

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:18pm

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:18pm:
And yet somehow Abu came to replace Malik as Islam's representative here, with Malik's consent.


And that makes Malik a carbon copy of Abu? It is strange that for all the hundreds of quotes/misquotes of Abu and Falah, and your constant efforts to lump Malik into the same group, you have never even attempted to quote or paraphrase him to make him into the caricature of muslims you create.

Malik was the most dignified person I have ever seen on this forum. He was nothing but polite and respectful to everyone he conversed with, and presented all his views in the most sensible and logical manner. You are really stooping low here FD.


freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:18pm:
I'm not going to bother myself


Yes, we all could have guessed that.


freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:18pm:
but there is a classic example that was introduced by one of the Muslims here. It was of a non-Muslim writer who was critical of Islam, and the Muslims hold him up as evidence of a tolerant society. Yet one of his main criticisms was that he couldn't say the same things he was writing down because of the lynch mobs. This was right in the middle of the "golden age". Someone else should remember the details. That's all I recall.


You don't remember the details - yes FD, thats why you cite it, because you don't know the details, because if you did you would know it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

The discussion was about al-Razi, one of the many great polymaths in the muslim world. Baron attempted to present him as an atheist, but this is wrong. He was a free thinker (note the word "free") - a believer in the the God of islam, but refused to be a slave to dogma and doctrine.

Where you are so wrong about this "example" is that in the quote in question, al-Razi wasn't even talking about islam. If you knew anything about al-Razi, you would know that he wrote a powerful critique of religion in general, not just islam.


Quote:
According to Abu Hatim, Razi offered harsh criticism concerning religions, in particular those religions that claim to have been revealed by prophetic experiences.

[...]

Concerning the link between violence and religion, Razi expressed that God must have known, considering the many disagreements between different religions, that "there would be a universal disaster and they would perish in the mutual hostilities and fighting. Indeed, many people have perished in this way, as we can see."[43]

He was also critical of the lack of interest among religious adherents in the rational analysis of their beliefs, and the violent reaction which takes its place:

    If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.


The last paragraph is the quote you are referring to.

Razi was writing about all three abrahamic religions, and across all history. He was clearly using rhetoric to make a point - and that point had nothing to do with him being scared to say out aloud the things he writes down. You are simply recalling you previous fabrication you made on this.

The obvious point in all this (which I made the last time this was brought up), is that if Razi was so fearful about criticising islam, he would not have criticised islam, he would have shut up about it and focused on his many other areas of intellectual expertise. Instead he was able to openly criticise islam and remain a celebrated and most respected scholar.

The reality is that during the golden age the muslim world was an oasis of free thinking and open criticism:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-freedom-expression

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:26pm
Gotta love the Lunacy.

Mussies never shut up with the Islamic BS  ;D

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:39pm
^ the cream of anti-islamic intellectualism right here folks.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:42pm

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 12:34pm:
It comes up occasionally Karnal. There have been a few discussions about it.


Ah.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:47pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:39pm:
^ the cream of anti-islamic intellectualism right here folks.


^ the cream of islamic intelligence right here folks  ;D

Put a sock in your BS for once you have been made a fool of umpteen times thus far by numerous posters on this forum.

Am I anti islamic you bloody bet I am and proud of it.

I have seen muslim skum behead people and quote your filthy quaran and when you are asked about the scriptures they use to justify their acts you ignore the question as the good muslim you are. allah is all BS and doesn't exist.

So save your shyte for some less intelligent people. At the end of the day mohammed just took what he wanted from paganism to horde himself an army to go raping pillaging and porking little girls. The quaran never even existed in his time and nice people like you continually bat off in our country with your BS . You are either really thick, deaf dumb or stupid.


Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:53pm

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:47pm:
when you are asked about the scriptures they use to justify their acts you ignore the question


Examples please?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:59pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:47pm:
when you are asked about the scriptures they use to justify their acts you ignore the question


Examples please?


I have asked you twice, I am not your lapdog, so if you must try an save face which you won't, go look it them up yourself and respond.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:02pm

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:59pm:
I have asked you twice


Sorry, I must have missed it beneath all the personal abuse you were hurling. I do tend to skim over that.

I'll go back and check, but its normally not my habit to avoid questions on doctrinal matters.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:06pm
This one matty?


Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.


Only in so far as I refuse to accept that the message of islam is about creating bigots and misogynists. I unapologetically treat this as a priori knowledge in my islamic beliefs - it would be absolutely nonsensical to me to come into islam thinking "well it could be about tolerance and understanding, but equally it could be about bigotry". If I had accepted it was the latter, then I would not have embraced islam - unless I was a psychopath. Once I accept the overall "theme" of islam, then the rest is just details.


Really, then tell me how the scriptures that the extremist muslim murderers quote do not represent the true Islam that you embrace ?


It would help if you were a little more specific. Give me an example of an extremist reciting a quranic quote while they commit murder and I'll explain to you why I believe they are wrong - doctrinally.

You'll forgive me for treating this more as a rhetorical question to make a point, rather than an actual question you were expecting an answer to.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:09pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 4:59pm:
I have asked you twice


Sorry, I must have missed it beneath all the personal abuse you were hurling. I do tend to skim over that.

I'll go back and check, but its normally not my habit to avoid questions on doctrinal matters.


My bad, I thought it was, when it was skipped so many times and you were online posting. Yeah it was all abuse wasn't it.  Surely you're not allowed to lie to non-believers now are you. You're not telling any porkies by any chance surely not.
What would allah say. Well I think we both know he really couldn't give a rats ass now could he given what the quaran says about the nasty nasty non believers in the cult.


Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:20pm
stay focused matty - example of a muslim citing the quran while they murder please, and I'll explain why they are wrong.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:33pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:06pm:
This one matty?


Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 11:08pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot of your own knowledge onto Islam.


Only in so far as I refuse to accept that the message of islam is about creating bigots and misogynists. I unapologetically treat this as a priori knowledge in my islamic beliefs - it would be absolutely nonsensical to me to come into islam thinking "well it could be about tolerance and understanding, but equally it could be about bigotry". If I had accepted it was the latter, then I would not have embraced islam - unless I was a psychopath. Once I accept the overall "theme" of islam, then the rest is just details.


Really, then tell me how the scriptures that the extremist muslim murderers quote do not represent the true Islam that you embrace ?


It would help if you were a little more specific. Give me an example of an extremist reciting a quranic quote while they commit murder and I'll explain to you why I believe they are wrong - doctrinally.

You'll forgive me for treating this more as a rhetorical question to make a point, rather than an actual question you were expecting an answer to.



It was just ignored. I have no idea why you thought it wasn't a question wanting an answer.

I want you to explain why the Quaran is wrong and why another verse supersedes what is written below today.  I am sure you have seen these before. I just did a quick google so don't hold me to who translated what but the general gist is there. More than happy to know why they are all BS and not applicable today and why I could not quote them as a muslim carrying out what they say and allah would not be storing away virgins for me.

Even if I took away the simple basic message of hatred why I could not apply it.

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)




Title: Re: concubines
Post by it_is_the_light on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:34pm
many blessings

may peace be upon one and all beings

namaste

- : ) =

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:36pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:20pm:
stay focused matty - example of a muslim citing the quran while they murder please, and I'll explain why they are wrong.


Oh I am focused oh Great Grand Imam.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 8th, 2014 at 6:12pm

Quote:
And that makes Malik a carbon copy of Abu?


It makes a microcosm of the broader strategy of Islam. It allows itself to be represented by the limp wristed hippy version, then simply replaces it with the head chopping version.


Quote:
Razi was writing about all three abrahamic religions, and across all history.


He was living in the golden age of Islam, where tolerance was supposedly the order of the day.


Quote:
He was clearly using rhetoric to make a point - and that point had nothing to do with him being scared to say out aloud the things he writes down.


Are you saying he was lying?


Quote:
The obvious point in all this (which I made the last time this was brought up), is that if Razi was so fearful about criticising islam, he would not have criticised islam


Or, he would have kept it to his writing where the lynch mobs would be unlikely to venture, and to the few tolerant audiences he had.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Caliph adamant on Jun 8th, 2014 at 7:20pm

Adamant wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:20am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:06pm:
Falah was even more extreme in this respect.


Somewhere Falah stated he was a Salafi whilst Abu preferred the MB if I remember correctly. Which branch of Bro's do you hang around with Gandalf? 


Bump

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 8:21pm

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 6:12pm:
Or, he would have kept it to his writing where the lynch mobs would be unlikely to venture, and to the few tolerant audiences he had.


I just love watching you inventing history FD.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Razi restricted himself to written criticisms, and was terrified to open his mouth in any public forum. What we do know is that he lived and worked in Baghdad - at the time a flourishing intellectual hub, famous as a forum for live, intellectual debate, and that he was a renowned lecturer.

This is literally your only "example" of non-muslims writing about how during the golden age it was "just like it is today in many parts of the middle east, with Muslim mobs ready to attack anyone who said the wrong thing" - right?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by mattywisk on Jun 8th, 2014 at 8:42pm

it_is_the_light wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 5:34pm:
many blessings

may peace be upon one and all beings

namaste

- : ) =


That never helped it was an impossible job anyway.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 8:57pm

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 6:12pm:
It makes a microcosm of the broader strategy of Islam. It allows itself to be represented by the limp wristed hippy version, then simply replaces it with the head chopping version.


Would you mind quoting Malik that demonstrates that he is part of this "microcosm" along with Abu and Falah?

My experience was that he was the exact opposite to Abu and Falah - in just about every way


Adamant wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 7:20pm:
Somewhere Falah stated he was a Salafi whilst Abu preferred the MB if I remember correctly. Which branch of Bro's do you hang around with Gandalf? 


My "branch" is islam.  :)

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:01pm

Quote:
Would you mind quoting Malik that demonstrates that he is part of this "microcosm" along with Abu and Falah?

My experience was that he was the exact opposite to Abu and Falah - in just about every way


That was my point Gandalf.


Quote:
My "branch" is islam.


Just like Abu. There's no such thing as a progressive Muslim, is there Gandalf?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 8th, 2014 at 11:19pm

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:01pm:
That was my point Gandalf.


Sorry FD, you'll have to explain that one to me. All this time you've been trying to convince us that Malik's views are the same as Abu and Falah because... they are in fact exact opposites?

and again, could you please provide some quotes of Malik that demonstrate he "makes a microcosm of the broader strategy of Islam. It allows itself to be represented by the limp wristed hippy version, then simply replaces it with the head chopping"?


freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:01pm:
Just like Abu. There's no such thing as a progressive Muslim, is there Gandalf?


Apparently I'm a "self described" progressive muslim - remember?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2014 at 11:36am

Quote:
All this time you've been trying to convince us that Malik's views are the same as Abu and Falah


No I haven't.


Quote:
and again, could you please provide some quotes of Malik that demonstrate he "makes a microcosm of the broader strategy of Islam. It allows itself to be represented by the limp wristed hippy version, then simply replaces it with the head chopping"?


The transition from Malik to Abu.


Quote:
Apparently I'm a "self described" progressive muslim - remember?


Are you? At times you appear to concede that you are a progressive Muslim, only disputing whether you have declared it. At other times you appear to insist there is no such thing.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 9th, 2014 at 1:40pm
Wrong answer, FD. The correct response is Abu, Falah, Malik and Gandalf are all the same because they’re all Muslims.

And as we know, Muslims believe exactly the same things, as brainwashed by their sinister imams, who take their orders from Al Qaida.

Any "progressive" Muslim is a liar who is merely practicing Taqiyya (Google Taqiyya). Each and every Muslim around the world - a quarter of the human race - is sworn to destroy the West and blow up.as many infidels as possible.

How do we know all this?

Because Abu and Falah evaded your questions.

Gandalf does the same, sometimes leaving you waiting for days for a reply to your important questions about Mo’s sex slaves, the correct Islamic punishment for raping your wife, or the number of prisoners killed in some 8th century battle.

Cunning, no?







Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 9th, 2014 at 4:41pm

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 11:36am:
Quote:
All this time you've been trying to convince us that Malik's views are the same as Abu and Falah


No I haven't.


You not only lump them in the same ideological basket, you attribute BS claims to all 3:


freediver wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 2:20pm:
How is it like a religion? Do you see anyone other than Muslims saying that we should be allowed to take home any women we capture on the battlefield and rape them at our leisure?



MOTR wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 2:23pm:
How many Muslims believe this, Freediver?



freediver wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 2:30pm:
As far as I can tell Abu, Lestat, Falah and Malik. The rest weren't around long enough to discuss it, or I have forgotten who they are.


...

and splitting muslims into two groups - gandalf, and the rest:


Quote:
Never fear Gandalf, it would take a sane Muslim to do that. You are still far ahead of Abu, Falah, Malik etc in my opinion.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362655638/47#47

Malik is polls apart from Abu and Falah, and I don't see any discernible difference between his views and mine. But to FD, they are all the same. And of course it goes without saying that in time I will be lumped in with them as well - despite claiming a distinction here.

Oh and while we're at it - on that BS line of yours about Malik being a shiite and being scared off by Abu who wanted to execute him:


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 8:52am:
I'd just like to clarify here, while I follow on of the shia school's of thought I certainly don't consider myself a shia. I'm a Muslim plain and simple, the school of thought is simply a means to sift through all of the religious duties in a path that's already been mapped out by scholars previously..

We aren't sects like Christianity has.



freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 11:36am:
Quote:
Apparently I'm a "self described" progressive muslim - remember?


Are you? At times you appear to concede that you are a progressive Muslim, only disputing whether you have declared it.


I have not declared it - thats the point about me not being "self declared". Its just another entry to your very long list of BS claims of what muslims said on this forum. This in itself is a significant point - it speaks directly to your credibility at citing facts - ie since you have proven yourself to be such a serial offender as a fabricator of facts, why should you be believed on any claim you make?


freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 11:36am:
At other times you appear to insist there is no such thing.


At all times I have appeared to insist there is no such thing. There is nothing whatsoever in my posts here that suggest I believe there is - let alone that I identify as such. Again, 100% your own fabrication.

As I stated previously, the notion of a "progressive" muslim exists only in cynical anti-islam circles, and is simply a muslim who joins in on the trashing of islam and The Prophet. That is not me by the way.

I'm like Malik - my 'affiliation' - if you like, is "islam". Not any so called sect like sunni or shiite, and certainly not "progressive islam".

Title: Re: concubines
Post by MattyWisk on Jun 9th, 2014 at 4:48pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 1:40pm:
Wrong answer, FD. The correct response is Abu, Falah, Malik and Gandalf are all the same because they’re all Muslims.

And as we know, Muslims believe exactly the same things, as brainwashed by their sinister imams, who take their orders from Al Qaida.

Any "progressive" Muslim is a liar who is merely practicing Taqiyya (Google Taqiyya). Each and every Muslim around the world - a quarter of the human race - is sworn to destroy the West and blow up.as many infidels as possible.

How do we know all this?

Because Abu and Falah evaded your questions.

Gandalf does the same, sometimes leaving you waiting for days for a reply to your important questions about Mo’s sex slaves, the correct Islamic punishment for raping your wife, or the number of prisoners killed in some 8th century battle.

Cunning, no?


Cunning ? I doubt it, but expected. A quarter of the human race was a giggle though I always enjoy ad libbers. Even if posted by pretend muslims.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2014 at 4:50pm

Quote:
You not only lump them in the same ideological basket, you attribute BS claims to all 3:


I lump them in the basket of "Muslims who I have previously discussed Islam with on this forum". It took me a long time to convince you that Falah and Malik even existed.


Quote:
As far as I can tell Abu, Lestat, Falah and Malik.


There we go - another Muslim you just finished insisting does not exist.


Quote:
Oh and while we're at it - on that BS line of yours about Malik being a shiite and being scared off by Abu who wanted to execute him:


Quote me.


Quote:
I have not declared it - thats the point about me not being "self declared". Its just another entry to your very long list of BS claims of what muslims said on this forum. This in itself is a significant point - it speaks directly to your credibility at citing facts - ie since you have proven yourself to be such a serial offender as a fabricator of facts, why should you be believed on any claim you make?


Constantly citing a progressive version of Islam makes you a self declared progressive Muslim. You declare it by the positions you espouse, and by deliberately differentiation yourself from conservative Muslims.


Quote:
And of course it goes without saying that in time I will be lumped in with them as well


If you can convince me you are not a progressive Muslim, I will.


Quote:
At all times I have appeared to insist there is no such thing.


No such thing as a progressive Muslim?


Quote:
As I stated previously, the notion of a "progressive" muslim exists only in cynical anti-islam circles, and is simply a muslim who joins in on the trashing of islam and The Prophet.


Did it occur to you that it may mean a Muslim who has a more progressive interpretation of Islam?


Quote:
I'm like Malik - my 'affiliation' - if you like, is "islam".


You are also like Abu in this regard. In fact Abu also liked to spin BS about Islam's core tenets being in line with progressive western values. Abu was just a bit more willing to discuss the details.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 9th, 2014 at 5:30pm

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 4:50pm:
Quote:
Oh and while we're at it - on that BS line of yours about Malik being a shiite and being scared off by Abu who wanted to execute him:


Quote me.


Sure. You even started a thread about it.


freediver wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 8:23am:
This is an interesting thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1336430169/30#40

I pointed out that Abu scared Malik away because Malik is a shite, and Abu thinks shites should be stoned to death for apostasy.

Malik used to co-moderate the Islam board with Abu.



freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 4:50pm:
Constantly citing a progressive version of Islam makes you a self declared progressive Muslim.


I see!  ;D ;D

Even when I myself don't consider it a "progressive version of islam"?

Saying I prescribe to a "progressive version of islam" implies that I acknowledge the existence of a "non-progressive" version. Which I don't. Islam is islam, it is perfect, and there is only one version as far as I'm concerned.


freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 4:50pm:
Abu was just a bit more willing to discuss the details.


Is that like me going to considerable effort to give you a detailed explanation of how I interpret Muhammad's example, and then 5 minutes later you turn around and rant about how gandalf never wants to explain how he interprets Muhammad's example?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2014 at 5:50pm

Quote:
Even when I myself don't consider it a "progressive version of islam"?

Saying I prescribe to a "progressive version of islam" implies that I acknowledge the existence of a "non-progressive" version. Which I don't. Islam is islam, it is perfect, and there is only one version as far as I'm concerned.


How would you describe how your version of Islam differs from that of Abu and Malik? Is yours the one true version and theirs a false version?


Quote:
Is that like me going to considerable effort to give you a detailed explanation of how I interpret Muhammad's example


That's not how I would describe it. You were only slightly less evasive than in the core tenets thread. You did give one or two examples early on, but the closest thing to a methodology was "making it up as you go along".

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:10pm

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 5:50pm:
How would you describe how your version of Islam differs from that of Abu and Malik? Is yours the one true version and theirs a false version?


I told you already that I consider my views nearly identical to Malik - based on what I have read.

As for Abu, its difficult to differentiate between what he actually says and the fabricated claims you ascribe to him.

I disagree with him on some details such as the death penalty, but don't really have a clear grasp of his overall views.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by MattyWisk on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:13pm
.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:56pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 5:50pm:
How would you describe how your version of Islam differs from that of Abu and Malik? Is yours the one true version and theirs a false version?


I told you already that I consider my views nearly identical to Malik - based on what I have read.

As for Abu, its difficult to differentiate between what he actually says and the fabricated claims you ascribe to him.

I disagree with him on some details such as the death penalty, but don't really have a clear grasp of his overall views.


I take it you disagree with him and Falah on concubines? They both believed that concubines are acceptable and that Muhammed himself had them in addition to his dozen or so wives.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:17pm

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:56pm:
I take it you disagree with him and Falah on concubines? They both believed that concubines are acceptable and that Muhammed himself had them in addition to his dozen or so wives.


Can you quote them please?

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:28pm

falah wrote on Jan 17th, 2012 at 7:14pm:
The use of the term "sex slaves" is misleading. Hypothetically, Islam allows a man to have relationship with his female slaves similar to that a wife - a concubine.


FYI, it is "hypothetical" today because Islam only allows the enslavement of non-Muslims, which would require them to win a war against non-Muslims.

Abu, on the first two posts of this thread:


freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 1:24pm:
Under what situations does/did Islam permit concubines? Is a concubine regarded as additional or separate to a wife?



abu_rashid wrote on Oct 21st, 2008 at 3:36pm:
Today there are no situations in which it's permitted.

Yes it is considered seperate to a wife.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 10th, 2014 at 11:58am
I was more interested in their "belief" that Muhammad himself had concubines.

I searched myself and came up short for Abu.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by freediver on Jun 10th, 2014 at 12:39pm
There was some discussion of specific concubines.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Grand Duke Imam Gandalf on Jun 10th, 2014 at 12:46pm
link? I can't find any where Abu specifically indicated he believed Muhammad had concubines.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 10th, 2014 at 1:56pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 11:58am:
I was more interested in their "belief" that Muhammad himself had concubines.

I searched myself and came up short for Abu.


Yes, but there was some discussion. It was mainly Abu ducking FD's questions and being written up in the Wiki for evasion, but there you have it.

Sex slaves.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Caliph adamant on Jun 10th, 2014 at 4:20pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 11:58am:
I was more interested in their "belief" that Muhammad himself had concubines.

I searched myself and came up short for Abu.


Yes, but there was some discussion. Sex slaves.


Sex slaves, concubines?

Your are too old!

Oh well I suppose you (kernel) can live in hope of a good rogering!

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 10th, 2014 at 5:06pm

Adamant wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 11:58am:
I was more interested in their "belief" that Muhammad himself had concubines.

I searched myself and came up short for Abu.


Yes, but there was some discussion. Sex slaves.


Sex slaves, concubines?

Your are too old!

Oh well I suppose you (kernel) can live in hope of a good rogering!


I do the rogering around here, boy, but don't get your hopes up. The dance card's full.

Chin up, old son. The old boy's good for a bit if you don't mind cheese.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Mahdi on Jun 21st, 2014 at 8:38pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 5:06pm:

Adamant wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 1:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 11:58am:
I was more interested in their "belief" that Muhammad himself had concubines.

I searched myself and came up short for Abu.


Yes, but there was some discussion. Sex slaves.


Sex slaves, concubines?

Your are too old!

Oh well I suppose you (kernel) can live in hope of a good rogering!


I do the rogering around here, boy, but don't get your hopes up. The dance card's full.

Chin up, old son. The old boy's good for a bit if you don't mind cheese.


I bet the old peoples home that you live in really goes off on Friday nights.  ;D

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:57pm
And I’ll bet the wisk you use makes a marvellous stool curd.

Miam miam.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Soren on Jun 21st, 2014 at 10:14pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:57pm:
And I’ll bet the wisk you use makes a marvellous stool curd.

Miam miam.


You are a gourmand for shite sandwiches, PB.
You are permitted another. Now you are grinning.
Have two.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Karnal on Jun 21st, 2014 at 10:39pm

Soren wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 10:14pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:57pm:
And I’ll bet the wisk you use makes a marvellous stool curd.

Miam miam.


You are a gourmand for shite sandwiches, PB.
You are permitted another. Now you are grinning.
Have two.


Thank you, dear, but it’s just a matter of good taste. You either have it or you don’t. Good taste is not learned, dear boy, it’s bred.

Your sheisen.sandwitches sound divine, but do you have any with fish paste or a glob of fresh semen?

Miam miam.

Title: Re: concubines
Post by Mahdi on Jun 21st, 2014 at 10:49pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 21st, 2014 at 9:57pm:
And I’ll bet the wisk you use makes a marvellous stool curd.

Miam miam.


Enjoy a stool curd do you ?   :D

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.