freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2008 at 1:24pm:


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.

Calanen,

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.

Quote:


Again pure fiction.

Quote:


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:


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

Quote:


No.

Quote:


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:


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.

Quote:


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:


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

Quote:


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.

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?

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

It doesn't establish that rape occured.

Come on Mr. Lawyer...