In a lengthy piece at Bangladesh web (thanks to Mathew) called "Islam’s tolerance for Prisoners of War and intolerance of Rape," London-based Islamic apologist Yamin Zakaria heaps on the Tu Quoque with story after story of Westerners behaving badly, and explains how Islamic law allowing for the rape of women taken captive in war is not really all that bad:
If the female captives are not ransomed or killed or set free, then they are allocated to soldiers as concubines. This also depends on the actual international situation, how the enemies are behaving with the Islamic State and how they are treating Muslim prisoners. In the case that the women prisoners are distributed as concubines there are very clear and detailed rules regarding how they should be treated, definitely not left to the whims of the soldiers to do as they please.What commentators need to realize is that in Islam a captive woman as a concubine, has essentially same legal rights as a wife, this is surely distinct from the victims of abduction and rape. Remember, this is despite the fact that she is not a guest but a prisoner of war. First of all she is allocated to the soldier and then she has to go through the Iddah period of clearing the womb, which can take up to 1 month to ensure that she is not already pregnant, during this period no man may approach her. She has the right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered adequately at all times. After that period her master may approach her but he cannot force himself on her. He cannot have sex against her will. Equally she is not entitled legally to refuse without good reason, the exact same as a wife. But in the case that she does refuse, the relationship would naturally come to an end. Remember, even a slap on her face would mean in Islam necessitating her freedom.
Did you catch that? "He cannot have sex against her will. Equally she is not entitled legally to refuse without good reason, the exact same as a wife." He can't force her, but she can't refuse him.
This is based a well-attested ahadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 54, no. 460)Abu Huraira (Allah he pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may, peace be upon him) as saying: When a man invites his wife to his bed and she does not come, and he (the husband) spends the sight being angry with her, the angels curse her until morning. (Muslim, bk. 8, no. 3368)
This is another example of the sick and disturbing beliefs of Islam, supported by passages from the hadiths. It is similar to the thinking in Islam that a rape is not an act of violence against a woman, but an attack on a strange version of "family honor" that encourages an honor killing of the rape victim. Women in Islam don't need more veils. They need more women's shelters, where they can escape from the twisted thinking and frequent, Koran-justified physical violence done to them by their fathers, brothers and husbands.
That isn't saying a lot. The "right" to be beaten, the "right" to obey her master/husband at all times, and so on.
Zakaria heaps on the Tu Quoque
I'm waiting for some Muslim to say, "Tu quoque - you do that too."
"...He cannot have sex against her will. Equally she is not entitled legally to refuse without good reason, the exact same as a wife." He can't force her, but she can't refuse him..."
There you have it. Islam in one sentence!
Insanity ad absurdum!
There is no cure for this. In olden days, would you have used garlic to protect yourself?
Only a silver bullet (fired right through the coffee-filter) can kill the beast...
Goes to show how oppressed women are in Islam.
Friends, Muslims, countrymen, lend me your AK47s;
I come to bury the West, not to assimilate.
The evil that Muhammed did lives after him;
The good is oft interred with their camels;
So let it be with West
If the female captives are not ransomed or killed or set free, then they are allocated to soldiers as concubines.
If theyre not killed? That says it all right there.
Why should women POW's be treated any different than men? A prisoner is a prisoner but women are to be allocated like property after capture, as if they were a bag of coins and not a lawful prisoner of war?
The reasons to resist these savages just pile up day after day after day. Its almost too easy, if only th rest of the world would take the time to recognize it.
Welcome to the 7th century.
"The show that never ends."
(To quote Emerson, Lake and Palmer).
Mohammad, Atilla, Hitler, Pol Pot.
The bloodline is clear.
Emphasis on blood.
Wow, such detailed rules for rate. No wonder Tony Blair calls it progressive.
" Remember, even a slap on her face would mean in Islam necessitating her freedom." - from the article
Does anyone know what this is about?
I'm scratching my head and wondering what are the rules for rape and sexual slavery enshrined within the holy books and religious teachings of Christianity and Judaism? What about Buddhism, Hinduism or Confucianism? During war men of all cultures, races and religions do disgusting things but Islam is the only major religion that justifies such behavior and makes it permanent even after the conflict ends. And most conveniently, Islam grinds its women down to such an extent that they resignedly accept husband Abdul coming back from the war with his captive concubine. In other traditions wives are a little more assertive - look what Clytemnestra did to Agamemnon when he dragged Cassandra back home.
" Remember, even a slap on her face would mean in Islam necessitating her freedom." - from the article
Does anyone know what this is about?
Posted by: Silvester
------------------------
It's simple my friend....
"...necessitating her freedom." means death, well after the rape and torture that is.
I've before, I've said again, and I'll repeat it,
"Even when they help their cause, they hurt their cause!"
Muhammadans can't help it. They're too ignorant, unlearned. Plus, they don't even study their own book of law, the koran.
Why is it that women of the free world dont make a stand against this abhorent ideology that is islam.
Oh and the apologist are always using the old Islam is no worst than blah blah blah.
When blah blah blah has not been acceptable for 1000 years and Islam is still doing the same old thing TODAY!
"Why should women POW's be treated any different than men?"
- Posted from above
They're not.
During the first Gulf War Iraqis treated Kuwaiti males and live stock just as they would a woman.
The Middle East, where Men are men, sheep are scared, and the fish are nervous.
The statements by Yamin Zakaria are incredulous;
It is intriguing to have such a detailed explaination of how and when a woman is thought to be considered legitimately able to have sex.
Having sex with a woman who does not wish it, is wrong, irrespective of whether there is a law or procedure by which the men should follow to legitimise it.
By taking comfort in there being a law to guide conduct in this matter and ones of similar importance, we slip down the road of uncivilised behaviour to the point of barbarism.
People are individuals first, religions pre-occupation with defining gender and therefore status, I find detestable.
The laws which assign levels of wrongness to actions based on gender and those who support them, I believe are misguided.
I'm scratching my head and wondering what are the rules for rape and sexual slavery enshrined within the holy books and religious teachings of Christianity and Judaism?
The nearest thing on the subject that springs to mid is this passage in Deuteronomy. Bearing in mind that times have moved on since then - the had moved on noticably by the time the New Testament was written - the attitude seems much more that of a marriage of attraction, between 2 people who just happened to meet on the battlefield, rather than the allocation of the concubines.
Deuteronomy 21:10 Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
If it wasn't clear in the previous post, the point that I was trying to make was that this;
"What commentators need to realize is that in Islam a captive woman as a concubine, has essentially same legal rights as a wife, this is surely distinct from the victims of abduction and rape"
The WHOLE statement is based on the pretext that a womans status and therefore eligibilty is up to the man and upon the law, whihc which he himself wrote.
To think there are still people on this planet who think and believe this type of antiquated rubbish is mind boggling !
The "rules" regarding the proper, ritualized rape of captive women are still the focus of much discussion among Muslim clerics (and, by extension, Muslim men), though boilerplate disclaimers are usually filed regarding its applicability in the modern world. One can almost hear the mullahs' lips smacking with anticipated pleasure as one reads:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=10382
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=10684
"Islam ensured that the slave girl's duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society."
So Mohammed raped his victims after killing their families in front of them to show them the depth of his love; and thus all proper slaves of Allah must follow his example.
Such love. Such harmony. Such Islam.
What's the Arabic for "Tu Quoque"?
Oh, and one final point that always seems to change the tenor of our spirited political discussions:
Gentlemen, these are your wives and daughters that the Muslims are discussing.
"Why is it that women of the free world dont make a stand against this abhorent ideology that is islam."
- stranger
The following is a link to an acticle at Frontpagemag by Kay S. Hymowitz entitled "Why Feminism is AWOL on Islam."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5568
It offers some insights into why it is that the women of the West are so frustratingly blind to excesses committed against their sisters in Dar-al-Islam. The feminist writers who have, in their lofty positions as the intellectual leaders dedicated champions of the causes of women everywhere (or so we are told), turned a blind eye to rape, honour killing, FGM and the whole wretched panorama of Islam's treatment of women should be ashamed.
In most Western cultures there are things that women can say that men can't. While this feature of our societies' social terrain is something I'd like to see change it is still here for the time being. As a result we need more women, more homosexuals, more people drawn from ethnic minorites to speak out against Islam. They, after all - as has been proven, have the most to lose.
Mr Ape Pig
>>They're not.
During the first Gulf War Iraqis treated Kuwaiti males and live stock just as they would a woman.
The Middle East, where Men are men, sheep are scared, and the fish are nervous.
"without good reason"
I would love to hear someone with this type of mentality define what is a "good reason".
I love how he purposely leaves that vague and up to the soldiers discretion.
Marwan's Daughter - thanks for the links. Didja catch this little gem at the second site? (breadwinner - speaking of fish...)
A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, “Bismillahi Allahu Akbar” are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become “Halaal” and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes “Halaal” merely through 'possession' which substitutes for the slaughtering.
In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.
Yamin Zakaria?
Any connection or relation with that Fareed Zakaria at Newsweep?
Either way, both are enemy agents. Just like Tariq Ramadan and so many like him...
It's particularly bizarre that this article should be published in Bangladesh, where one of the most lasting memories of the 1971 War of Liberation, was the mass rape of Bengali women by the West Pakistani soldiers - some edtimates range from 200,000 to 400,000, although the Pakistanis claim the figure was lower.
Notice that even in Deuteronomy which predates Islam by nearly 1500 years the captive woman is to mourn her dead relations for one whole month. Implicit in this is that the enemy dead should be respected and that the captive woman has some rights. Contrast this with the behaviour of that fiend Muhammed who had sex with a captive woman just hours after killing off her father and brothers. What sort of animal will do this kind of thing? Now I am pretty certain that the warrior code of the Arabian past would have forbidden this depravity, nonetheless the Muzzies keep assuring us Islam was an advance on the past.
And those who keep dredging up these comparisons
( not you Granny , I am refering to the braindead who can't make any distinctions ) should be aware that the events recorded in the Old Testament are from the hoary past something like 3000 years ago . Islam on the hand dates from less than 1500 years ago and has been stuck in the same rut all this time.
Hi Ivan
You drew out similar points to the ones I was trying to make.
I can now show my family, I have it in writing thanks to you, that I am not among the braindead, despite appearances to the contrary sometimes.
:-)
"Why is it that women of the free world dont make a stand against this abhorent ideology that is islam." - stranger
Again, we fail to see what we have wrought upon ourselves. The Western man forgets himself. To the degree he has abandoned the very beliefs that have made him great he is accordingly reduced.
In Arab/Muslim nations the men control the sexuality of women. By doing so they guarantee the future survival of their own people and culture. This is one end of the continuum.
We in the West however, have voluntarily allowed our women to control their own sexuality. This is the other end of the continuum. This is a fairly recent phenomenon. All Western laws governing such matters have now been removed. Laws against abortion and miscegenation were the last of such laws to be removed. It follows inevitably then that the thoroughly feminized Western mind would now consider homosexual marriages as normal and healthy.
I think we can all see the results of this bit of Western enlightenment. Through abortion alone we have destroyed an entire generation of our people. And yes, we are indeed dying as a people. Unlike the vast majority of peoples on the planet, Westerners are not having enough babies to replace themselves. This gives the Corporate greed machine a rather nice excuse for the importation of millions of Muslims throughout the Western world. The slightest thought of the consequences of forcing radically different peoples together is never made. Once the Muslims are there, the statist planners (aka liberals) take over with their slogans of "racism" and "all people are the same" to keep the unwashed masses in line. Again, we see the results.
I love women. Their femininity is wonderful and necessary. It is needed for the harmonious functioning of the family unit. But it will not work for governing a nation, especially a diverse nation. Too many of us bought the lie that radical feminists peddled -- that our women are so unfairly treated. Indeed, a brief look around the world will convince anyone that the Western woman is the most pampered and spoiled woman on earth.
To answer "stranger’s" question then; things will only get worse, much worse, until MEN not women, stop acting like women and assert themselves as men.
Granny; of course I didn't mean you at all! You are one of those who convince me that there is life in the Anglican Church yet. I was refering to the pests who pop up everytime the subject of Islamic atrocities come up and then try to derail the discussion with some incident in the O/T or other.