Christian/Muslim ThreadsMentality of an average missionaryCONGRATULATION SARDAB YOU HAVE CONFIRMED OUR ARGUMENTS: Kai replies: I what sense objectieve: the Muslim is told to fight the unbelievers where ever he finds them, those who do not believe in Allah or perform the religion of Islam, unless (Christians and JEws) pay Jizhiya and FEEL THEMSELVES SUBDUED (Sura 9). I what sense am I supposed to be objective, the verse states itself: a Muslim nation is permitted to attack my Christian country, kill the people (those who do not submit to Islam), while I and others are shown mercy, possibly, if we pay security tax and FEEL SUBDUED. You seem also to think that just because Islam may contain some moral it makes the negative and dark side of Islam redundant and non-significant. Yet, how can we consider RAPE OF CAPTIVE HELPLESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN NO-SIGNIFICANT. Sardab wrote:
Kai replies: Well the passages I posted DO NOT MENTION SLAVES, THE PASSAGE DEPICTS A POST BATTLE-FIELD IN WHICH MUHAMMAD'S COMPANIONS FOR LONG FOR SEX WITH THEIR DOMESTICATED WIVES OR CONCUBINES AND TURN TOWARD THE FEMALE WOMENS WHICH THEY HAVE CAPTURED WITH THE INVASION. THEY ASK MUHAMMAD FOR PERMISSION TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM, WHICH IN PERMISSION IS GRANTED; THUS THERE IS NOT EVEN A MENTION OF CONCUBINES BUT OPEN AND STRAIGHT RAPE OF HELPLESS WOMEN AND YOUNG GIRLS. Sardab wrote: And sex with female slaves is permitted, under conditions. Sex is allowed only when the owner is certain. Kai responds: Sex with slaves under any condition is wrong, but in this case we are not even talking about slaves or concubines (sex-slaves, in many cases). And what condition was mentioned in the passages I posted? Let's look at them: First and most the intention with these women and girls was to drag them off to the slave market and sell them. Prior to this, while still on the Battle-field Muhammad's companions wanted to rape them. Thus the scene does not even indicate any treaty or condition. The women were to be raped and thereafter sold, the only concern from the Muslim point of view, was the lowever price they would get if the particular women or girl became pregant. WELL, HERE IS THE PASSAGE THAT CONFIRMS IT:
So much for conditions THE ONLY CONDITION SEEMS TO BE THE PERMISSION TO RAPE SLAVES GIRLS FROM THE BOOTY EVEN THOUGH IN THIS CASE THE PAST REFERS TO ACTUAL SLAVES, EVEN THOUGHT THEY ARE TAKEN AS BOOTY. Sardab wrote: Kai replies: Even though that is sinful enough, you are referring to totally different issues. As for the passages I qouted, the issue was exactly, that these womens were to be kept impregnant, to contain their value for the slave market. Here is the evidence:
Sardab wrote: When a female slave gives birth to a child from her owner she is free. Female slaves could be made married to other slaves as well, which hinders the right to have sex. Kai replies: Beautiful, but WHY TAKE SLAVES GIRLS IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND WHY RAPE THEM OR HAVE THE PERMISSION TO RAPE THEM UNTIL SUCH CAN BE MADE FREE. And even though we all appreciate that a slave is free from her owners rapist practice, HOW DOES IT EXCUSE THE INVASION, THE CAPTIVATION, THE RAPE ON THE BATTLE FIELD AND THE SELLING OR FORCING IN TO SLAVERY AND PERPETUAL RAPE? Sardab wrote: Kai responds: Well here is the Hadith: The only difference between this passage and the others is the fact that the husband are in the presence of their wives, while they are being raped. Thus the attrocities are the same, only the husband were not on the run or were not killed. I simply dont see why this should contrast from the other passages. After all the passage permit lustful beings to rape innocent help less women, because their wives and female slaves are on a distant. being chocked you seem add your own explanation, that the particular passage is not credible, but still this only presents your own oppinion. Sardab wrote:
Kai responds: I would call that attrocites, I would call it evil, I can even state that you would not find one similtude in the New Testament where Christians are commanded or even encouraged to engage in such practice. And then again, how does this defend the practice of raping and molesting female captives or slaves? Sardab wrote: Kai responds: AGAIN HOW DOES THIS DEFEND THE PRACTICE OF RAPING FEMALE CAPTIVES AND SLAVES? Secondly, have you studied the history of those empires. The Muslims in India butchered and genocide millions after millions or non-believers. The turks were famous for attrocites, such as opening pregnant womens and hang the unborn babies on spears, crucifixon, nailing body parts of the warcaptives on walls or pieces of wood, instead of chaining them, cutting of prisoners legs, arms, etc. When I read the history about it, I felt like womiting. Even the Nazis could hardly be compared, at least a nazi execution group would be traumatized for life, after being ordered to commit attrocites, but the Turks loved their practice. The Turks in the beginning of the 20th century, began the systematic method of genocide by the use of concentration camps, in which one and a half million Christians were exterminated, most of them even before they reached the camps. Sardab wrote:
Kai replies: Your greatest fallacy is to combine Christianity and colonization, did you know that Christian mission was banned in India by early colonisers, then in what sense could it be Christian, or did it ever surprise you that Christianity was not enforced upon the Muslims and Hindues or Bubbhists? This contrasts Muslim invasion, in which you could convert or die, unless you were willing to pay money and loose your rights. Your second fallacy is to ignore that similar attrocities were committed by the Muslim invaders. Sardab wrote: Kai replies: Difference in what, there is no difference between Islam and any of the genocide practicing regimes in History. Islam brough misery to India, Europe, ancient Turkey, and where ever it has been established. Concerning Christianity, well you need to explain what you mean by Christianity, because what you describe as Christianity is not according to the New Testament Scripture. Thus I wonder if you see the difference. Kai |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame