Posted on 09/28/2015 6:22:39 AM PDT by Biggirl
>> Does that actually matter whether or not the koran is read by Lew Alcindor...
Yes, you are telling me about Islamic theology but haven’t read the main source. Or if this is just about whether Kareem has or has not read the Koran, how do you know?
Just within the last year thousands of dead infidels can attest to it, but sadly they are not available to give their testimony...
When you read other translations you will see that is the minority meaning. It’s about supporting orphans, and doing so in a way injustice is not done. It’s not right to pick the meaning that matches what we want it to mean, doing that is confirmation bias.
Accuracy matters.
I don’t like it when others act as if they know what I’m thinking better than I do and I’m sure Muslims who don’t believe the Quran justifies raping infidels don’t like it either.
That's an interesting load of Taqiyya. It says "The discussion of orphans and their care continues well into Surah An-Nisa further emphasising that marriage to more than one woman is only permitted in the unique case stated very explicitly within the verse itself".
Yet, looking at the list of Muhammad's wives and concubines, Mo married six year old Aisha, after having earlier married Sawda bint Zam'a. Aisha was not a widow, nor an orphan.
Mo's next wife, Hafsa bint Umar, was also not a widow, but the daughter of his wealthy friend Umar.
Then we have Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr :
Her first husband was one of the 600-900 Qurayza men whom Muhammad beheaded in April 627. He enslaved all the women and selected Rayhana for himself because she was the most beautiful. When she refused to marry him, he kept her as a concubine instead. She died shortly before Muhammad in 632.The only prerequisite, in Islam, for taking a second, third, or fourth wife, is the the husband be able to "deal justly" with them, i.e., be affluent enough to provide a suitable standard of living for each, and provide each with sexual relations. Reference: The Concept of Polygamy and the Prophets Marriages
That pretty-much sums it up.
And he doesn't work hard enough on defense.
Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LGzrYUGXdI
There is more than one denomination of Islam.
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Yes all that complexity is quite a contrast to the simplicity in two commandments Christ gave; “Love God and keep his commandments; Love your neighbor as yourself.”
If people just lived just the second one it would change the world. That’s how powerful it is. Don’t even have to be a committed Christian to justify living it.
I know... their silence is deafening...
Since 9/11, I have maybe read or heard ten times a Muslim of any stripe condemn the fanatical element of Islam...
Imagine the outrage of Christians, if they had a sect of their religion raping, killing, enslaving Muslims, calling for the death of all non-Christians. ...
Muzzie In Name Only. (MINO). Hey Lew, read the Koran, bubba.
All he knew was the Christianity was the religion of the white man, and he wasn't down for that. "Islam is for the proud black man" said Elijah Muhammad. "Sign me up", said Lew. And that is all he knew.
LOL!...(LISTEN, KID! I’ve been hearing that crap...)
OK, so let's pick some other verses involving the phrase "right hand possesses"
4:24: "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess."
33:50: "O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war,"
And here's an Islamic ruling (from a site offering guidance from Islamic clerics to Muslims) on sex with slave women:
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]Now, what defines the status of a slave, a "spoil of war", in Islam? A slave is someone seized in conflict, or purchased from someone who seized her in conflict. And what is the non-Islamic world labeled? Dar el Harb (the realm of War). Islam considers itself to be at war with any contry which is not under Islamic rule, and which has not signed a treaty of peace with Islam. So the West is of Dar el Harb.The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.
Al-Umm, 5/43.
The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
If a Muslim seizes physical control of a woman in an area which is deemed to be at war with Islam, then by that act he has made her his slave, for the duration of the time he has physical control of her. And thus she is a woman who his right hand possesses, and it is legitimate under Islamic law for him to have sex with her.
And what is rape? Rape is the seizing of physical control of a woman, followed by having sex with the seized woman.
Did he hit his head on too many rims? What a misguided goof.
The Koran refers to slaves captured in war as “those that your right hand possesses”. So, when you see it talking about “women that your right hand possesses”, these are female captives or slaves:
Koran, Surah An-Nisa:
“3. And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.”
“24. Also (forbidden for marriage are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess.”
“25. 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.”
“34. As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)...”
Tell that to Ambassador Stevens Kareem.
Pray AMerica wakes
The jury is out on if “right hand possesses” automatically, accurately, and clearly means the Quran justifies rape;
“The Qur’an addressed itself to this reality, noting, for example, whom one cannot and can marry. Sexual relations were not only permissible with one’s spouse, but with “right hand possessions,” generally understood to mean slaves.
Some, by which I mean ISIS and those receptive to their claims, read this as legitimating rape, though it would be a mistake to make the leap from the regulation of sexual relations—you can’t marry your sister, even if she consents—to the crime of rape.
Because rape is a crime, regardless of who the person is.
Omar Suleiman, head of the history department at Bayyinah, an Islamic institute of higher learning based in Texas, confirmed this to me in an extensive conversation on Islam, slavery and sexual consent. “Rape is violence,” Suleiman made clear, “and Islamic scholars have even classified it as muharabah, as war against the community,” the maximal (hadd) punishment for which, he noted, was more severe than adultery.
Indeed, it qualified as a capital crime, indicating that the crime was categorized differently and judged more seriously. “Sex cannot be forced, or taken, from a person,” Suleiman argued, citing the position of Islamic law. Did that include slaves? Suleiman was unequivocal. “Yes.”
Ingrid Mattson confirmed this, and elaborated on it. As early as “the time of Umar [634-44], we have discussions of rape, and what evidence can be used in rape cases.” Mattson would know. Not only is she formerly President of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim organization in North America, but she is a religious scholar, author, and professor of Islamic studies whose dissertation examined Islam and slavery.
Muhammad permitted slavery, and sexual relations were permitted between a man and a female slave as a possibility. But rape never was. How, I wondered, can this possibly be considered morally acceptable, given that slaves, by definition, cannot give consent? I pushed both Suleiman and Mattson on this, and the answers I received required us to reframe the definition of slavery from what we think it is to what Muhammad wanted it to be.
Why it (Still) Makes Little Sense to Call ISIS Islamic
http://religiondispatches.org/why-it-still-makes-little-sense-to-call-isis-islamic/";
Tacquiya Jabbar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.