Islam is anti women

[CabinInTheForest]

The oppression of women that Islam advocates is not only disturbing, but is direct contrast with everything that Christian civilization stands for when it comes to the rights of women.

The Quran

A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like

Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status

A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . .

A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.

A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man and then this second man divorces her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry

Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war]

A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.

A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense.

Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. Islam supports peadophilia.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.

Mohammed had an 8 year old wife (peadophilia).

Although in the Quran he would limit his followers to having four wives, Mohammed himself took more than four wives and concubines.

It also poses a logical problem for Muslims. Because the Quran in Sura 4:3 forbids the taking of more than four wives, to have taken any more would have been sinful for Muhammad.

LIST OF MOHAMMED WIVES

1.Khadija 12. Hend
2. Sawda 13. Asma (of Saba)
3. Aesha 14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
4. Omm Salama 15. Habla
5. Halsa 16. Asma (of Noman)
6. Zaynab (of Jahsh) 17. Mary (the Christian)
7. Jowayriyi 18. Rayhana
8. Omm Habiba 19. Omm Sharik
9. Safiya 20. Maymuna
10. Maymuna (of Hareth) 21. Zaynab (a third one)
11. Fatema 22. Khawla
12. Hend
13. Asma (of Saba)
14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
15. Habla
16. Asma (of Noman)
17. Mary (the Christian)
18. Rayhana
19. Omm Sharik
20. Maymuna
21. Zaynab (a third one)
22. Khawla

The first 16 women were wives. Numbers 17 and 18 were slaves or concubines.

The last four women were neither wives or slaves but devout Muslim women who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.

Aesha was only eight or nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, she was still playing with her dolls. This facet of Muhammad's sexual appetite is particularly distressing to christians and hindus.

This aspect of Muhammad's personal life is something that many scholars pass over once again because they do not want to hurt the feelings of Muslims. Yet, history cannot be rewritten to avoid confronting the facts that Muhammad had unnatural desires for little girls. Islam and Mohammed is immoral.

[Fatihah]

Response: Yet we can see from your words above that once again you've failed to provide any fault in my claims, thus your own argument supports the fact that my claims are true.

I haven't even addressed your claim merely the wording of it which constantly causes contradictions to spring up. If you want anyone to address your claims then you actually have to provide evidence to back up your claim. As you have said truth is based on proof, you have not given any proof so your claim is not true.

Response: Yet once again we see you produce no fault or contradicting words of my claim. Thus your own words support the fact the wording is clear and the claim is true.

Hello Fatihah,

If I may ask you a serious question...

Do you really think that what you wrote above is consistent with honest, rational debate?

"If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right"?

You keep endlessly repeating essentially the same thing in slightly different words.

It isn't reasonable to consider a claim as true until it's demonstrated to be such.
It isn't reasonable to consider a claim as true because it hasn't been proven wrong.

You keep making claims but never seem to back them up with anything else than more claims, which in turn are never substantiated by anything else than new claims.

Do you understand that meaningful discussion requires more than claims and triumphalism?

Even if it were true that Wyvern had found no weaknesses in the position you've adopted -which he certainly has- , your notion of "Thus your own words support the fact the wording is clear and the claim is true" would still be false.

Would you deny this?

The explanations you gave are strenuous at best, and need a lot of assumptions that aren't supported, apparently, by anything else than "necessity" on the part of Muslims who would rather not think of the implications of Muhammad's condoning sex with slaves.

The evidence against your position is strong.

-Quran: use of the words "ma malakat aymanukum" which are always used to refer to the prisoners of war. Is it intellectually honest to make an exception (special pleading) for verses that clearly speak of sexual relationships or lust for wives OR "ma malakat aymanukum" and say to ourselves "well Muhammad must be speaking of wives and future wives" even if there is no indication of this in the slightest?

-Hadith: Muhammad's impassibility when his own men speak of sex with captives or slaves, and the fact that sex with slaves or captives is never condemned anywhere in the Quran or Hadith

-Scholars, biographers, translators, etc.: Muhammad's concubine, use of the words "slave" or "captive" in the translations (please quote a bit of, say, Pickthall's explanation for this, I am really curious to see how he justifies the discrepancy)

-The notion that innumerable pious and learned Muslims believe that "ma malakat aymanukum" in the meaning of captives of war are halal for sexual relationships based on their belief in Islam's revered texts, as any quick internet search will show.

What do you have in support of your position, really?
-Your contention that the prohibition on zina encompasses sex with slaves, which isn't corroborated by the Quran or Hadith in the slightest.

That's all, and that's not much.

-Woland

Response: For starters, you again interpolate words which were never stated then base an argument on it, making it fallacious from the start. My exact words was that showing no fault in my claim "supports" the fact that the claim is true, not "proof" of it, as you interpolated. So why the persistant debate tactic of interpolating words? Because the intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. Nor is "support" or "proof" synonymous words, so don't make the absurd suggestion that they mean the same. If you don't know the difference betweeen the words, then it's a reflection of your inability to comprehend, not fault in my logic.

And again, we see clearly the determination on your part to make islam look as degrading as your ideology, despite being utterly debunked over and over again. Your rebuttle that "ma malakat aimanakum" is used to refer to slaves and captives throughout the qur'an is supported by no sound logic at all. The logic of, "since it was translated like that at some parts means that it's that way in all parts" is completely illogical, as it has been shown that some words change meaning according to context. The example given before of "I'm running for president" and "I'm running a race" clearly show this, as we can see the word "running" change meaning as the context changes. Then you insist on using hadiths which do not refer to the topic of sex with slaves as proof that Muhammad permitted it because he did not speak on it. Yet any person who has read the complete collection of hadiths can see that the hadiths are reports relating to ceratin topics. So if the hadiths are credible to show that Muhammad condoned sex with slaves because he didn't speak against it, then this post alone, according to your logic, is proof that you condone rape, because you didn't speak against it. Any person can see the flaw in such logic which only makes your ideology look more degrading, not islam.

Lastly, a scholar is a learned person but that does not mean that everything they learned is correct. Again, if your logic is that your stance is correct because so many scholars support it, then according to your logic, islam is a true religion and Muhammad is a true prophet, because those same scholars agree to it and support it. Yet you accept the first but not the latter, showing the hypocrisy in your argument, thus ultimately failing in your logic all together.

[Wyvern]

Response: For starters, you again interpolate words which were never stated then base an argument on it, making it fallacious from the start. My exact words was that showing no fault in my claim "supports" the fact that the claim is true, not "proof" of it, as you interpolated. So why the persistant debate tactic of interpolating words? Because the intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. Nor is "support" or "proof" synonymous words, so don't make the absurd suggestion that they mean the same. If you don't know the difference betweeen the words, then it's a reflection of your inability to comprehend, not fault in my logic.

Yes after all the only fault in your logic is your entire argument which amounts to nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Even if true which it is not care to explain how not finding fault in an unsubstantiated argument makes it true?

And again, we see clearly the determination on your part to make islam look as degrading as your ideology, despite being utterly debunked over and over again. Your rebuttle that "ma malakat aimanakum" is used to refer to slaves and captives throughout the qur'an is supported by no sound logic at all. The logic of, "since it was translated like that at some parts means that it's that way in all parts" is completely illogical, as it has been shown that some words change meaning according to context. The example given before of "I'm running for president" and "I'm running a race" clearly show this, as we can see the word "running" change meaning as the context changes. Then you insist on using hadiths which do not refer to the topic of sex with slaves as proof that Muhammad permitted it because he did not speak on it. Yet any person who has read the complete collection of hadiths can see that the hadiths are reports relating to ceratin topics. So if the hadiths are credible to show that Muhammad condoned sex with slaves because he didn't speak against it, then this post alone, according to your logic, is proof that you condone rape, because you didn't speak against it. Any person can see the flaw in such logic which only makes your ideology look more degrading, not islam.

Even the hadiths he uses that do refer to having sex with slaves you simply magically turn all the slaves into wives because your understanding of islam does not allow sex outside of marriage. Ma malaket has many definitions and your insistence that it means only one thing in this case does not follow. If you take the actual meaning of this word then the hadith in question is simply a listing of what is acceptable to have sex with within islam while using your definition it is telling muslims they can have sex with their wives and I really hope muslim men aren't that stupid that they need to be told that. Are they?

Lastly, a scholar is a learned person but that does not mean that everything they learned is correct. Again, if your logic is that your stance is correct because so many scholars support it, then according to your logic, islam is a true religion and Muhammad is a true prophet, because those same scholars agree to it and support it. Yet you accept the first but not the latter, showing the hypocrisy in your argument, thus ultimately failing in your logic all together.

So basically everyone is wrong but you.

[Fatihah]

Response: For starters, you again interpolate words which were never stated then base an argument on it, making it fallacious from the start. My exact words was that showing no fault in my claim "supports" the fact that the claim is true, not "proof" of it, as you interpolated. So why the persistant debate tactic of interpolating words? Because the intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. Nor is "support" or "proof" synonymous words, so don't make the absurd suggestion that they mean the same. If you don't know the difference betweeen the words, then it's a reflection of your inability to comprehend, not fault in my logic.

Yes after all the only fault in your logic is your entire argument which amounts to nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Even if true which it is not care to explain how not finding fault in an unsubstantiated argument makes it true?

And again, we see clearly the determination on your part to make islam look as degrading as your ideology, despite being utterly debunked over and over again. Your rebuttle that "ma malakat aimanakum" is used to refer to slaves and captives throughout the qur'an is supported by no sound logic at all. The logic of, "since it was translated like that at some parts means that it's that way in all parts" is completely illogical, as it has been shown that some words change meaning according to context. The example given before of "I'm running for president" and "I'm running a race" clearly show this, as we can see the word "running" change meaning as the context changes. Then you insist on using hadiths which do not refer to the topic of sex with slaves as proof that Muhammad permitted it because he did not speak on it. Yet any person who has read the complete collection of hadiths can see that the hadiths are reports relating to ceratin topics. So if the hadiths are credible to show that Muhammad condoned sex with slaves because he didn't speak against it, then this post alone, according to your logic, is proof that you condone rape, because you didn't speak against it. Any person can see the flaw in such logic which only makes your ideology look more degrading, not islam.

Even the hadiths he uses that do refer to having sex with slaves you simply magically turn all the slaves into wives because your understanding of islam does not allow sex outside of marriage. Ma malaket has many definitions and your insistence that it means only one thing in this case does not follow. If you take the actual meaning of this word then the hadith in question is simply a listing of what is acceptable to have sex with within islam while using your definition it is telling muslims they can have sex with their wives and I really hope muslim men aren't that stupid that they need to be told that. Are they?

Lastly, a scholar is a learned person but that does not mean that everything they learned is correct. Again, if your logic is that your stance is correct because so many scholars support it, then according to your logic, islam is a true religion and Muhammad is a true prophet, because those same scholars agree to it and support it. Yet you accept the first but not the latter, showing the hypocrisy in your argument, thus ultimately failing in your logic all together.

So basically everyone is wrong but you.

Response: More of the same redundancy. Thus it becomes apparent, after your baseless interpilations, that you share the same intent as Woland to make islam appear as degrading as your ideology. We watch once again how you fail to show any faultvin my logic, thus your own words support the fact that my logic is correct. Then you falsely claim that I stated that the hadiths say that the slaves are not having sex outside of marriage yet in post 67 I clearly stated that they were, which was condemned when the verse of the qur'an was finally revealed to condemn it.

But to top it off, you ask the ridiculous question as to whether muslims needed to be told to have sex only in marriage. Does the verse say they "needed" to be told? No. So such a question is without merit. It's a law and like any law, it's meant to bring stability. Why did the presidents see to it that the law states that murder and rape and robbery should not be done? Is it because non-muslims are that stupid and didn't know? Anyone can see the absurdity in your logic.

[Woland]

We watch once again how you fail to show any faultvin my logic, thus your own words support the fact that my logic is correct.

Hello Fatihah,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are claiming that if someone fails to prove you wrong, then it supports the notion that you are correct. Is this what you believe?

-Woland

[Fatihah]

We watch once again how you fail to show any faultvin my logic, thus your own words support the fact that my logic is correct.

Hello Fatihah,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are claiming that if someone fails to prove you wrong, then it supports the notion that you are correct. Is this what you believe?

-Woland

Response: If one claim's that someone's logic is flawed but can't demonstrate where the flaw is, then there own words show that there is no flaw. For if you claim that there's a flaw, then you should be able to demonstrate what it is. Since a fact has no flaw and one's own words can not show flaw, then there own argument supports the fact that the claim is flawless, thus correct.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: For starters, you again interpolate words which were never stated then base an argument on it, making it fallacious from the start. My exact words was that showing no fault in my claim "supports" the fact that the claim is true, not "proof" of it, as you interpolated. So why the persistant debate tactic of interpolating words? Because the intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. Nor is "support" or "proof" synonymous words, so don't make the absurd suggestion that they mean the same. If you don't know the difference betweeen the words, then it's a reflection of your inability to comprehend, not fault in my logic.

Already addressed in previous post. Whether you use "support" or "prove" doesn't make your statement any more valid. Someone else's (imagined) inability to prove your questionable logic wrong doesn't support the supposed fact that it is correct. Not in the slightest.

Do you really deny this? If so, we will start at the beginning, with basic concepts like burden of proof and validity of evidence.

And again, we see clearly the determination on your part to make islam look as degrading as your ideology, despite being utterly debunked over and over again. Your rebuttle that "ma malakat aimanakum" is used to refer to slaves and captives throughout the qur'an is supported by no sound logic at all. The logic of, "since it was translated like that at some parts means that it's that way in all parts" is completely illogical, as it has been shown that some words change meaning according to context.

I wasn't speaking of translation (although the translation seems to very much support my position in the absence of the commentary which I asked you to provide) - I was talking about the use of the words "ma malakat aymanukum" in the entire rest of the Quran, EXCEPT those verses which clearly mention wives OR "ma malakat aymanukum" (in present tense, so there is no "future wife" excuse) and for which you would have us believe that only these times is the expression used to redundantly refer to wives. Do you understand why this is suspect?

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever seen ridiculous and inconsistent Christian explanations for verses, which are used as an only recourse when apologists need to justify something in their texts? Their explanations are just as valid as yours - not very. They make a lot of strenuous and suspiciously necessary assumptions and often require special pleading.

The example given before of "I'm running for president" and "I'm running a race" clearly show this, as we can see the word "running" change meaning as the context changes.

It doesn't strike you as suspect that the meaning changes only when you need it to for it to conform to your position, and that we have nothing but your claims to show that this (wives) was the original meaning when the rest of the text CONSISTENTLY uses the expression very differently?

You make Allah sound like an incompetent, a deity who didn't even know that he would confuse well-meaning, pious and learned Muslims with his very selectively inconsistent use of terms.

Then, you would have us believe that translators used the words "slaves" or "captives" just so that the expression would be translated in accordance to the other times the expression is used in the text when it is meant to convey an allegedly very different meaning, and when innumerable Muslims who don't know Arabic will be confused. Nonsense. One can clearly see, even by your "running" examples above, that no translators would translate running to mean a given thing just to be "consistent" with the rest of the text if it completely changed the meaning of the translated sentence, as you claim was the case with several translations of the Quran.

Think of your own "running" examples and of what a translator would do when he was translating something which is an expression in English but not in other languages (running for president) if the verb running (easily translated in other languages) was found elsewhere in the text.
You are not helping your case at all!

Then you insist on using hadiths which do not refer to the topic of sex with slaves as proof that Muhammad permitted it because he did not speak on it. Yet any person who has read the complete collection of hadiths can see that the hadiths are reports relating to ceratin topics. So if the hadiths are credible to show that Muhammad condoned sex with slaves because he didn't speak against it, then this post alone, according to your logic, is proof that you condone rape, because you didn't speak against it. Any person can see the flaw in such logic which only makes your ideology look more degrading, not islam.

The false projected logic fallacy again?
Please resort to something more original.

It has already been explained to you that those situations aren't comparable.
Here's an analogous example "according to my logic", not the farce involving rape which you are trying to pass off as my logic to justify your nonsense explanation:

1. I am responsible for a group of warriors.

2. They come to tell me that they beat a defenseless woman with logs of wood.

3. They ask me if it is alright to beat someone with logs of wood.

4. I say "It doesn't matter whether you beat someone with logs of wood or with something else", and leave it at that.

5. I am never recorded anywhere as saying that it's wrong to beat women (i.e. have sex with slaves or captives).

6. I failed in my moral duty as a human being, especially one responsible for men in an army.

Do you really fail to understand the significance of your prophet's irresponsibility in the face of the immorality of his own men?

Is "Allah hadn't revealed what to do yet" really a valid excuse in your opinion? This is what you are pretending, is it not?

If so, then according to your own logic, Muhammad wouldn't have done anything if he saw many atrocities which Allah hadn't prohibited yet, which demonstrates that he was a man of weak morals and principles and certainly not an example of righteousness.

Do you agree?

You need to stop this "according to your own logic" nonsense - your comparisons are never even remotely valid as far as I've seen. We weren't discussing rape. If anyone told me that they raped someone with a cucumber and asked me about the cucumber I would immediately call the police, NOT casually tell them all about the cucumber's merits and leave it at that - or even tell them about the cucumber at all. Do you know what false equivocation is?

Seriously, if you keep insisting that your rape example is representative of my implied logic, you need to get an education in philosophy. I don't know how else to tell you how rude and ignorant it is to repeatedly invent fallacies and project them onto your debate opponent.

Lastly, a scholar is a learned person but that does not mean that everything they learned is correct. Again, if your logic is that your stance is correct because so many scholars support it, then according to your logic, islam is a true religion and Muhammad is a true prophet, because those same scholars agree to it and support it. Yet you accept the first but not the latter, showing the hypocrisy in your argument, thus ultimately failing in your logic all together.

My stance is certainly not that my contention is correct because it is supported by scholars.
I consider the opinion of Muslim scholars who admit that sex with slaves is permissible to be evidence supporting my position because they base their contentions on the texts themselves. I also find it interesting that Muslim scholars who don't have slaves would have no problem admitting that their peaceful and flawless religion permits a master to have sex with captives or slaves, based on their honest belief in the text.

You still haven't substantiated any of your claims with anything else than more claims - claims which, in addition to being unsupported and highly questionable as well, are suspiciously necessary to your argument.

-Woland

[Wyvern]

Response: More of the same redundancy.

If you would actually answer the question instead of thinking you have answered we would not have to keep asking you for the same thing over and over again.

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: For starters, you again interpolate words which were never stated then base an argument on it, making it fallacious from the start. My exact words was that showing no fault in my claim "supports" the fact that the claim is true, not "proof" of it, as you interpolated. So why the persistant debate tactic of interpolating words? Because the intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. Nor is "support" or "proof" synonymous words, so don't make the absurd suggestion that they mean the same. If you don't know the difference betweeen the words, then it's a reflection of your inability to comprehend, not fault in my logic.

Already addressed in previous post. Whether you use "support" or "prove" doesn't make your statement any more valid. Someone else's (imagined) inability to prove your questionable logic wrong doesn't support the supposed fact that it is correct. Not in the slightest.

Do you really deny this? If so, we will start at the beginning, with basic concepts like burden of proof and validity of evidence.

And again, we see clearly the determination on your part to make islam look as degrading as your ideology, despite being utterly debunked over and over again. Your rebuttle that "ma malakat aimanakum" is used to refer to slaves and captives throughout the qur'an is supported by no sound logic at all. The logic of, "since it was translated like that at some parts means that it's that way in all parts" is completely illogical, as it has been shown that some words change meaning according to context.

I wasn't speaking of translation (although the translation seems to very much support my position in the absence of the commentary which I asked you to provide) - I was talking about the use of the words "ma malakat aymanukum" in the entire rest of the Quran, EXCEPT those verses which clearly mention wives OR "ma malakat aymanukum" (in present tense, so there is no "future wife" excuse) and for which you would have us believe that only these times is the expression used to redundantly refer to wives. Do you understand why this is suspect?

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever seen ridiculous and inconsistent Christian explanations for verses, which are used as an only recourse when apologists need to justify something in their texts? Their explanations are just as valid as yours - not very. They make a lot of strenuous and suspiciously necessary assumptions and often require special pleading.

The example given before of "I'm running for president" and "I'm running a race" clearly show this, as we can see the word "running" change meaning as the context changes.

It doesn't strike you as suspect that the meaning changes only when you need it to for it to conform to your position, and that we have nothing but your claims to show that this (wives) was the original meaning when the rest of the text CONSISTENTLY uses the expression very differently?

You make Allah sound like an incompetent, a deity who didn't even know that he would confuse well-meaning, pious and learned Muslims with his very selectively inconsistent use of terms.

Then, you would have us believe that translators used the words "slaves" or "captives" just so that the expression would be translated in accordance to the other times the expression is used in the text when it is meant to convey an allegedly very different meaning, and when innumerable Muslims who don't know Arabic will be confused. Nonsense. One can clearly see, even by your "running" examples above, that no translators would translate running to mean a given thing just to be "consistent" with the rest of the text if it completely changed the meaning of the translated sentence, as you claim was the case with several translations of the Quran.

Think of your own "running" examples and of what a translator would do when he was translating something which is an expression in English but not in other languages (running for president) if the verb running (easily translated in other languages) was found elsewhere in the text.
You are not helping your case at all!

Then you insist on using hadiths which do not refer to the topic of sex with slaves as proof that Muhammad permitted it because he did not speak on it. Yet any person who has read the complete collection of hadiths can see that the hadiths are reports relating to ceratin topics. So if the hadiths are credible to show that Muhammad condoned sex with slaves because he didn't speak against it, then this post alone, according to your logic, is proof that you condone rape, because you didn't speak against it. Any person can see the flaw in such logic which only makes your ideology look more degrading, not islam.

The false projected logic fallacy again?
Please resort to something more original.

It has already been explained to you that those situations aren't comparable.
Here's an analogous example "according to my logic", not the farce involving rape which you are trying to pass off as my logic to justify your nonsense explanation:

1. I am responsible for a group of warriors.

2. They come to tell me that they beat a defenseless woman with logs of wood.

3. They ask me if it is alright to beat someone with logs of wood.

4. I say "It doesn't matter whether you beat someone with logs of wood or with something else", and leave it at that.

5. I am never recorded anywhere as saying that it's wrong to beat women (i.e. have sex with slaves or captives).

6. I failed in my moral duty as a human being, especially one responsible for men in an army.

Do you really fail to understand the significance of your prophet's irresponsibility in the face of the immorality of his own men?

Is "Allah hadn't revealed what to do yet" really a valid excuse in your opinion? This is what you are pretending, is it not?

If so, then according to your own logic, Muhammad wouldn't have done anything if he saw many atrocities which Allah hadn't prohibited yet, which demonstrates that he was a man of weak morals and principles and certainly not an example of righteousness.

Do you agree?

You need to stop this "according to your own logic" nonsense - your comparisons are never even remotely valid as far as I've seen. We weren't discussing rape. If anyone told me that they raped someone with a cucumber and asked me about the cucumber I would immediately call the police, NOT casually tell them all about the cucumber's merits and leave it at that - or even tell them about the cucumber at all. Do you know what false equivocation is?

Seriously, if you keep insisting that your rape example is representative of my implied logic, you need to get an education in philosophy. I don't know how else to tell you how rude and ignorant it is to repeatedly invent fallacies and project them onto your debate opponent.

Lastly, a scholar is a learned person but that does not mean that everything they learned is correct. Again, if your logic is that your stance is correct because so many scholars support it, then according to your logic, islam is a true religion and Muhammad is a true prophet, because those same scholars agree to it and support it. Yet you accept the first but not the latter, showing the hypocrisy in your argument, thus ultimately failing in your logic all together.

My stance is certainly not that my contention is correct because it is supported by scholars.
I consider the opinion of Muslim scholars who admit that sex with slaves is permissible to be evidence supporting my position because they base their contentions on the texts themselves. I also find it interesting that Muslim scholars who don't have slaves would have no problem admitting that their peaceful and flawless religion permits a master to have sex with captives or slaves, based on their honest belief in the text.

You still haven't substantiated any of your claims with anything else than more claims - claims which, in addition to being unsupported and highly questionable as well, are suspiciously necessary to your argument.

-Woland

Response: And we once again see the desperateness. When speaking of "ma malakat aimanakum" and how it changes meaning according to context, you failed to provide any proof that it doesn't. Thus your own words support the fact that my claim is correct. Then you use another absurd kind of logic suggesting that Muhammad is immoral because you read a report which does not say that he prevented an atrocity. Then according to your logic, you're immoral because there's no report above showing that you're not a rapist. Surely, anyone can see the flaw in your degrading ideology, not islam. Lastly, you again try another interpolation suggesting that I stated that the translators translate into different meaning for consistency, when I said that they translate to show consistency, not different meaning, building another strawman argument.

Thus we see more baseless assertions which only demonstrate your flawed, faulty ideology, not islam.

[Fatihah]

Response: More of the same redundancy.

If you would actually answer the question instead of thinking you have answered we would not have to keep asking you for the same thing over and over again.

Response: To the contrary, if you desist from redundancy, you wouldn't have to ask the same thing over and over again.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: And we once again see the desperateness. When speaking of "ma malakat aimanakum" and how it changes meaning according to context, you failed to provide any proof that it doesn't. Thus your own words support the fact that my claim is correct.

*Facepalm*

I find it astounding that you still haven't realized the irrationality of the sort of diatribe quoted above despite my numerous explanations and examples, which you unsurprisingly haven't addressed. The least you could do would be to consider stopping this futile practice of projecting false logic onto others.

I am beginning to tire of this conversation mostly consisting of point-by-point, substantiated rebuttals on my part and evasive tactics, an assortment of fallacies, triumphalism and denialism on your part - a true refusal to acknowledge that strong evidence exists against your position, which cannot be substantiated except by endless further unsupported claims and special pleading.

Then you use another absurd kind of logic suggesting that Muhammad is immoral because you read a report which does not say that he prevented an atrocity. Then according to your logic, you're immoral because there's no report above showing that you're not a rapist.

Didn't I explain to you why this sort of equivocation between two incomparable scenarios is invalid?
http://fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html
Please, read it.

Why do you insist on making false analogies?
Do you at least acknowledge, based on what I've said in previous posts, that your previous analogies were weak?

As I've said, according to your logic, Muhammad would not have intervened if he saw an immoral act happen, involving his own men, that wasn't explicitly condemned by Allah. This is exactly what you implied here:

the qur'an was revealed in intervals (25:32). As such, there are several things in which islam prohibits that you will find allowed in the hadiths. Why? Because there was no revelation to prohibit the acts yet, for the qur'an was revealed piece by piece. So when reading the hadiths concerning sex with slaves, it is not that islam allows it. It's that the verse to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed. I can show you several hadiths in which muslims drink and would go to the masjid drunk and the prophet did nothing. That however changed when Allah revealed the verse prohibiting alcohol.

So in conclusion, the question is what does islam allow. And the answer is clear that islam does not allow sex outside of marriage or sex with slaves. The hadiths in which show that they were allowed is in reference to the fact that the verses to prohibit the acts were not yet revealed.

Remember, this was your original attempt to excuse Muhammad's inaction. Now, you are trying your evasive tactics and false analogies to divert from the fact that Muhammad, if he knew what was moral, should have never allowed his men to have sex with female captives they intended to ransom, or with slaves. There shouldn't be Hadiths showing the "prophet" being more concerned about coitus interruptus than about the questionable morality of his own men.

Surely, anyone can see the flaw in your degrading ideology, not islam. Lastly, you again try another interpolation suggesting that I stated that the translators translate into different meaning for consistency, when I said that they translate to show consistency, not different meaning, building another strawman argument.

What?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but either way, it's irrelevant.

Thus we see more baseless assertions which only demonstrate your flawed, faulty ideology, not islam.

It's interesting to see you repeat this sort of sentence endlessly because I don't remember stating anything about my ideology, except that it may be apparent to you by now that I have great disdain for a religion which teaches (and you've agreed on the following) to kill peaceful homosexuals who are just minding their own business ("because they use each other"), or that a girl aged 3 should be allowed to consent to marriage with an adult ("because she can consent"), or that girls who have their menses are ready for sexual intercourse ("who says so? nature says so"). Let's not forget, wife-beating is allowed under certain circumstances (and a beating which doesn't leave a mark can't be considered abuse). Great - Islam isn't anti-women at all.

At all.

To think of the collective result of the innumerable Muslims who rationalize nefarious beliefs as you do while firmly ignoring human rights and basic biological and psychological scientific knowledge makes me shudder.

I can see that you won't stop the broken record thing anytime soon.

Farewell for this thread at least.

-Woland