Do you think the bounty on Salman Rushdie's head is justified?

[Tubs]

31 years on, is there still a deep hatred for Rushdie?

Please don't give me the 'no, but you're not allowed to offend the prophet' because that's not answering the question. Is it really right for him to have to live under surveillance and protection for decades, just because he wrote a book that is deemed offensive by some?

 

[James]

No.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think the bounty was quietly lifted some time ago, I don't think he even lives under protection these days.

 

[Pakistanian]

This is such old news, don't see the point of bringing something up from like 50 years ago.

 

[Robert]

I heard it was caused by two young British activists who appealed to the Ayatollahs, who had no interest in Rushdie otherwise.

 

[troodon]

The bounty was stupid to begin with and if it is still there, it is still stupid.

If God is all powerful and knowing, then he can defend himself.

 

[Tubs]

I think the bounty was quietly lifted some time ago, I don't think he even lives under protection these days.

Apparently there was fund-raising done in Iran in 2016 which raised the bounty. Haven't found any source that it has been lifted unfortunately.

This is such old news, don't see the point of bringing something up from like 50 years ago.

See above, still an active issue.

The bounty was stupid to begin with and if it is still there, it is still stupid.

If God is all powerful and knowing, then he can defend himself.

Very true, I wish all people thought like this. If Muhammad is indeed the prophet of the Almighty, then he has no need for humans to defend him.

 

[Madplayer]

Is this abominable person still alive? He must be 200 year old. Evil people live longer it seems.

 

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

Stupid bounty, Stupid Thread .Back then things were different . Sitting in Iran and issuing a bounty for someone one all the way across the world didn't mean anything .Much different now that the world is so much more connected.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I heard it was caused by two young British activists who appealed to the Ayatollahs, who had no interest in Rushdie otherwise.

Yasmin Alibhai Brown was on tv a couple of weeks ago in that programme about the Satanic verses and she reckoned it was Kalim Siddiqui, and old guy who died some while back. It's an old issue, no one really talks about it any more, things moved on a lot since then.

 

[Tubs]

Abominable for writing a book which which offends a religion? Is free speech nothing anymore?
[MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION]

 

[The_Odd_One]

Even worse has been written or shown for Jesus but none takes these thing seriously. You cannot force everyone to respect your religious beliefs. The best course of action is to ignore and not give them any importance.

 

[troodon]

Is this abominable person still alive? He must be 200 year old. Evil people live longer it seems.

Why is he abominable? He wrote a book about the verses that Satan supposedly told Prophet Mohammed about the daughters of Allah. Angel Gibreal was able to correct them. End of story.

I believe by making unnecessary fuss, too much importance was given to Rushdie.

 

[Pete Rose]

No. It’s given a career in decline a shot in the arm. Rushdie should have stopped writing after Midnights Children

 

[Pakpak]

Not really. How can killing someone based on words ever be justified.

 

[Pakpak]

No. It’s given a career in decline a shot in the arm. Rushdie should have stopped writing after Midnights Children

He is a bang average writer, ironically the bounty and all the nonsense made him more famous than he ever deserved to be.

 

[Savak]

Lol at bounty, the things he mentioned in his book, muslims will gladly kill him for free.

 

[James]

The Satanic Verses is actually one of his poorer books. It is simply the most notorious.

Midnight’s Children and The Moor’s Last Sigh, which deeply explore the history of twentieth-century India, are both far superior novels, and not at all offensive.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Lol at bounty, the things he mentioned in his book, muslims will gladly kill him for free.

I dont think so. He is an average writer and most Muslims didn't care. The whole issue was overblown by Iran and the western media to show Muslims as angry bloodthirsty people. We know what came next.

 

[irfan]

The Satanic Verses is actually one of his poorer books. It is simply the most notorious.

Midnight’s Children and The Moor’s Last Sigh, which deeply explore the history of twentieth-century India, are both far superior novels, and not at all offensive.

Not read The Moor's Last Sight but Midnight's Children and Shame are superlative works, you wouldn't believe the same author wrote Satanic Verses which by comparison is poorly written.

To answer OP no of course it's not justified, the novel isn't even really about Islam but more to do with immigrant identity struggles, most people who protested against it hadn't even read it.

 

[Savak]

I dont think so. He is an average writer and most Muslims didn't care. The whole issue was overblown by Iran and the western media to show Muslims as angry bloodthirsty people. We know what came next.

The problem is that most Islamic clerics have released the verdict that reading the Satanic Verses will be like committing Blasphemy therefore it isn't possible for Muslims to read the book to really know what it is about.

 

[moghul]

Ridiculous, that's why mullahs are bad for Islam's image. They made a mediocre writer famous in the world.

 

[Adijazz1706]

31 years on, is there still a deep hatred for Rushdie?

Please don't give me the 'no, but you're not allowed to offend the prophet' because that's not answering the question. Is it really right for him to have to live under surveillance and protection for decades, just because he wrote a book that is deemed offensive by some?

He gained a lot out of the whole controversy so good for him, it's not like Ayatollah was sending assassins after him or anything :

 

[Madplayer]

Why is he abominable? He wrote a book about the verses that Satan supposedly told Prophet Mohammed about the daughters of Allah. Angel Gibreal was able to correct them. End of story.

I believe by making unnecessary fuss, too much importance was given to Rushdie.

Mate you might have incomplete knowledge of what he has written in the book and the kind of language that he has used. Forget insults to Islam and muslims, the book is filled with racism. I am not going to repeat it here because it is a very sensitive subject. For us muslims, he is abominable.

Having said that, i agree with your last line. i dont support these bounties and all.

On a side note,Credit to India where due, it was one of the 1st non-muslim countries to ban the book.

 

[QazzarFan]

I dont think so. He is an average writer and most Muslims didn't care. The whole issue was overblown by Iran and the western media to show Muslims as angry bloodthirsty people. We know what came next.

unfortunately a too many acts by muslim extremists are to be blamed for thAT WORLD VIEW. You can blame others all you want but fact remains... too many incidents where Muslims committed acts of violence and justified it in the name of defending the religion

Remember Theo Van Gogh?

then Taslima Nasrin was attacked several times. She is now living in Europe under protection..

 

[KingKhanWC]

unfortunately a too many acts by muslim extremists are to be blamed for thAT WORLD VIEW. You can blame others all you want but fact remains... too many incidents where Muslims committed acts of violence and justified it in the name of defending the religion

Remember Theo Van Gogh?

then Taslima Nasrin was attacked several times. She is now living in Europe under protection..

Muslims are still way behind when it comes to acts of barbarity and terrorism. It would take a millenium to get close to the terrorism of the US state. Now they have a far right nutjob as President who has influenced white supermacists to gun down Jewish temples, Mosques, Sikh temples, Black churches. And you will find they are the biggest threat right now around the world. You can blame Muslims but do look in the mirror too.

 

[Robert]

Mate you might have incomplete knowledge of what he has written in the book and the kind of language that he has used. Forget insults to Islam and muslims, the book is filled with racism. I am not going to repeat it here because it is a very sensitive subject. For us muslims, he is abominable.

Have you read it?

 

[Robert]

Muslims are still way behind when it comes to acts of barbarity and terrorism. It would take a millenium to get close to the terrorism of the US state. Now they have a far right nutjob as President who has influenced white supermacists to gun down Jewish temples, Mosques, Sikh temples, Black churches. And you will find they are the biggest threat right now around the world. You can blame Muslims but do look in the mirror too.

Arab Slave Trade that stole twenty million Poles, Lithuanians, Iberians, Slavs and North Africans?

Hindu and Sikh Holocausts at the hands of the Mughals?

Armenian Genocide?

I’d say that the Caliphates and the USA come out about even so far.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Arab Slave Trade that stole twenty million Poles, Lithuanians, Iberians, Slavs and North Africans?

Hindu and Sikh Holocausts at the hands of the Mughals?

Armenian Genocide?

I’d say that the Caliphates and the USA come out about even so far.

USA has been around only a few hundred years , while the Caliphate was much longer but you are still wrong. 1 million people died in Iraq alone due to American state terrorism. 4 million died as result of the so called war on terror. If you want to go back in history then judge by religion the Anglo Christian, Amerian Christian and others would out do the Muslims by many folds.

Not sure why you jump to defend such terrorism but then again you also believe dropping nukes on Japan was a good thing.

 

[troodon]

USA has been around only a few hundred years , while the Caliphate was much longer but you are still wrong. 1 million people died in Iraq alone due to American state terrorism. 4 million died as result of the so called war on terror. If you want to go back in history then judge by religion the Anglo Christian, Amerian Christian and others would out do the Muslims by many folds.

Not sure why you jump to defend such terrorism but then again you also believe dropping nukes on Japan was a good thing.

Slavery was common during that time and there are countless presentations on Youtube as to how Islamic empires participated in Slave Trade.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Slavery was common during that time and there are countless presentations on Youtube as to how Islamic empires participated in Slave Trade.

Im not saying they didn't but Christians from the west, Brits, Spanish etc INDUSTRIALISED slaverly, it was on another level. It's ignorant to even compare.

 

[troodon]

Im not saying they didn't but Christians from the west, Brits, Spanish etc INDUSTRIALISED slaverly, it was on another level. It's ignorant to even compare.

So what? West industrialized everything. Its not like White man went to Africa and captured blacks. Most of the slaves were sold by African tribes(from enemy tribe). It takes 2 hands to clap.

Did Islam ban slavery? I don't think so. Hence the caliphs after Prophet Mohammed continued it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So what? West industrialized everything. Its not like White man went to Africa and captured blacks. Most of the slaves were sold by African tribes(from enemy tribe). It takes 2 hands to clap.

Did Islam ban slavery? I don't think so. Hence the caliphs after Prophet Mohammed continued it.

lol. Industrailised slaverly is not like the car industry. They made it into big huge business like never seen before.

Pal, you nothing little about many subjects so please dont come on here to tell Muslims what Islam did or not. Slavery in Islam was only continued at the time of the Prophet(pbuh) due to slaves being ecomonic assets and due to the nature of conflict but Islam clearly says slaves should be freed and many Muslims did so and never indulged in slavery.

 

[troodon]

lol. Industrailised slaverly is not like the car industry. They made it into big huge business like never seen before.

Pal, you nothing little about many subjects so please dont come on here to tell Muslims what Islam did or not. Slavery in Islam was only continued at the time of the Prophet(pbuh) due to slaves being ecomonic assets and due to the nature of conflict but Islam clearly says slaves should be freed and many Muslims did so and never indulged in slavery.

Keep the excuses coming.

Slaves were freed? I remember certain slave by the name Bilal was not freed. Its in your Sahih Hadith.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Keep the excuses coming.

Slaves were freed? I remember certain slave by the name Bilal was not freed. Its in your Sahih Hadith.

You are just embarrasing yourself now and looking foolish. Bilal was the first man to stand on the Kabba and recite the call to prayer. Of course he was freed.

 

[troodon]

You are just embarrasing yourself now and looking foolish. Bilal was the first man to stand on the Kabba and recite the call to prayer. Of course he was freed.

Please. He was a slave and was ordered to recite the Adhan. He did his duty. He was not freed when Prophet Muhammad was alive. Now don’t embarrass yourself.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Please. He was a slave and was ordered to recite the Adhan. He did his duty. He was not freed when Prophet Muhammad was alive. Now don’t embarrass yourself.

Did you get this off some Hindutva website? lol

He was bought by Abu Bakr and freed. I challenge you to prove me wrong and the loser to never write on this forum again? Whatta say?

 

[troodon]

Did you get this off some Hindutva website? lol

He was bought by Abu Bakr and freed. I challenge you to prove me wrong and the loser to never write on this forum again? Whatta say?

He was finally freed by Abu Bakr after Prophet’s death. Not during his time. That too Bilal had to go and plead Abu Bakr.

Did not know Sahih Bukhari is a Hindu website.

 

[Abdullah719]

He was finally freed by Abu Bakr after Prophet’s death. Not during his time. That too Bilal had to go and plead Abu Bakr.

This is hilarious )

I don't mean to be rude but you have no idea what you're talking about. I would stop now to avoid further embarrassment.

 

[KingKhanWC]

He was finally freed by Abu Bakr after Prophet’s death. Not during his time. That too Bilal had to go and plead Abu Bakr.

Did not know Sahih Bukhari is a Hindu website.

The Prophet(pbuh) was the one who told Abu Bakr to go free him, while alive. Now prove this because one of us will be leaving this forum today

 

[troodon]

The Prophet(pbuh) was the one who told Abu Bakr to go free him, while alive. Now prove this because one of us will be leaving this forum today

I will provide the link tomorrow. I have left the work and posting from my phone.

 

[troodon]

Also why would I leave the forum? I am studying Islam for the past few months. I will be more than happy to get educated on it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I will provide the link tomorrow. I have left the work and posting from my phone.

Sure you will, just as Salman Rushdie wasnt out to insult Muslims.

 

[troodon]

Sure you will, just as Salman Rushdie wasnt out to insult Muslims.

I will surely post it tomorrow.

 

[Muhammad10]

Also why would I leave the forum? I am studying Islam for the past few months. I will be more than happy to get educated on it.

Your posts about Bilal (RA) on this thread make me wonder what kind of "Islam" you've been studying...

 

[troodon]

As promised.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 99 :
Narrated by Qais
bilal said to Abu Bakr, "If you have bought me for yourself then keep me (for yourself), but if you have bought me for Allah's Sake, then leave me for Allah's Work.

So basically Bilal was bought from another slave master. He was exchanged for a couple of Pagan slaves.

 

[troodon]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=134551]Muhammad10[/MENTION]

 

[Robert]

USA has been around only a few hundred years , while the Caliphate was much longer but you are still wrong. 1 million people died in Iraq alone due to American state terrorism. 4 million died as result of the so called war on terror. If you want to go back in history then judge by religion the Anglo Christian, Amerian Christian and others would out do the Muslims by many folds.

Not sure why you jump to defend such terrorism but then again you also believe dropping nukes on Japan was a good thing.

I have repeatedly stated that the nuke strikes were the least bad thing. The alternatives were millions starved to death and invasion followed by millions of military and civilian casualties. 200,000 deaths in the nuke strikes were less bad than the millions of deaths which were otherwise certain.

I am not defending European and US state terror and slavery. I am challenging your idea that these are somehow worse than Caliphate state terror and slavery, especially considering that the Arab slave trade went on far longer, overlapping into the 20th century, and stole and killed more people. Umpteen millions of Poles and Lithuanians alone.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Keep the excuses coming.

Slaves were freed? I remember certain slave by the name Bilal was not freed. Its in your Sahih Hadith.

Prepare to hear a lot of excuses.

If slavery was not stopped due to slaves being economic assets then why did not the same logic work for alcohol and riba prohibition?

Also, religion does not bend rules for feasibility. Slavery was not considered wrong in Islam. This is the simplest explanation.

 

[troodon]

Prepare to hear a lot of excuses.

If slavery was not stopped due to slaves being economic assets then why did not the same logic work for alcohol and riba prohibition?

Also, religion does not bend rules for feasibility. Slavery was not considered wrong in Islam. This is the simplest explanation.

I am studying Islam from a neutral point of view. Neither to become a convert nor insult it. I just want to listen to what the believers think of a lot of things I am finding.

From what I read, Slavery was never banned during the time of Prophet Muhammed. I can see enough evidence for this. I am waiting to hear the point of view of [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] and [MENTION=10769]muhammed[/MENTION]10 .

 

[Asim_khan]

As promised.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 99 :
Narrated by Qais
bilal said to Abu Bakr, "If you have bought me for yourself then keep me (for yourself), but if you have bought me for Allah's Sake, then leave me for Allah's Work.

So basically Bilal was bought from another slave master. He was exchanged for a couple of Pagan slaves.

You've obviously not done much studying in those months if something as simple as this is beyond your comprehension.

 

[troodon]

You've obviously not done much studying in those months if something as simple as this is beyond your comprehension.

Explain please.

 

[Tubs]

Im not saying they didn't but Christians from the west, Brits, Spanish etc INDUSTRIALISED slaverly, it was on another level. It's ignorant to even compare.

Slavery still goes on in the Islamic world.

 

[Muhammad10]

He was finally freed by Abu Bakr after Prophet’s death. Not during his time. That too Bilal had to go and plead Abu Bakr.

Did not know Sahih Bukhari is a Hindu website.

As promised.
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 99 :
Narrated by Qais
bilal said to Abu Bakr, "If you have bought me for yourself then keep me (for yourself), but if you have bought me for Allah's Sake, then leave me for Allah's Work.

So basically Bilal was bought from another slave master. He was exchanged for a couple of Pagan slaves.

Some basic research into the background of the Hadith you have quoted would have prevented you from arriving at such an erroneous conclusion.

Firstly, the Hadith you have quoted doesn't in any way imply that he was freed after the Prophet's (PBUH) death. It is clearly from the time when his freedom was purchased by Abu Bakr (RA), long before the Prophet's (PBUH) death. As for your strange claim that he had to "plead" to be set free, it's pretty obvious that he was simply showing his gratitude after Abu Bakr (RA) purchased him in order to free him. This is confirmed by the following source, which covers the background and context of the Hadith.

Among those who witnessed the torture of Bilal, and could not tolerate the fact that a fellow believer could suffer in such a way, was Abu Bakr, and he was moved to purchase Bilal’s freedom. This is confirmed by the Qur’an and several hadiths.

According to the tafseer of Ibn Kathir of (Al-Layl 92: 5-7, 17-21), we find lessons about the unparalleled generosity of Abu Bakr, and in particular as it related to his spending of his own wealth to free slaves, such as Bilal.

Having been set free, Bilal could have easily been overly grateful and voluntarily offered himself in the servitude of Abu Bakr, but as we know from a narration by Qais, Bilal said to Abu Bakr:

“If you have bought me for yourself then keep me (for yourself), but if you have bought me for Allah’s Sake, then leave me for Allah’s Work” (Al-Bukhari, Book #57, Hadith #99).

http://aboutislam.net/shariah/prophet-muhammad/his-companions/bilal-voice-islam-model-servitude/

 

[troodon]

Some basic research into the background of the Hadith you have quoted would have prevented you from arriving at such an erroneous conclusion.

Firstly, the Hadith you have quoted doesn't in any way imply that he was freed after the Prophet's (PBUH) death. It is clearly from the time when his freedom was purchased by Abu Bakr (RA), long before the Prophet's (PBUH) death. As for your strange claim that he had to "plead" to be set free, it's pretty obvious that he was simply showing his gratitude after Abu Bakr (RA) purchased him in order to free him. This is confirmed by the following source, which covers the background and context of the Hadith.

Where in the Hadith does it say that Bilal was set free? Bilal was purchased from a different slave owner in exchange for some other slaves.

Yes, Prophet Muhammed asked Abu Bakr to buy Bilal because Bilal was one of the first to convert to Islam. But after Prophet's death, Bilal was still asking Abu Bakr to let him go according to the above Hadith from Qais.

A free man would never ask anyone to let him go. Also, from the above Hadith, Bilal himself was not sure if he was free. Otherwise he would not say "If you have bought me for yourself, then keep me for yourself".

Can you quote me a Hadith that says Bilal was indeed set free and he was a free man?

Let me also say something. Arabia had tons of slaves. Any Sahih Hadith about ABu Bakr granting freedom to non-believing slaves?

 

[Muhammad10]

Where in the Hadith does it say that Bilal was set free? Bilal was purchased from a different slave owner in exchange for some other slaves.

Yes, Prophet Muhammed asked Abu Bakr to buy Bilal because Bilal was one of the first to convert to Islam. But after Prophet's death, Bilal was still asking Abu Bakr to let him go according to the above Hadith from Qais.

A free man would never ask anyone to let him go. Also, from the above Hadith, Bilal himself was not sure if he was free. Otherwise he would not say "If you have bought me for yourself, then keep me for yourself".

Can you quote me a Hadith that says Bilal was indeed set free and he was a free man?

Let me also say something. Arabia had tons of slaves. Any Sahih Hadith about ABu Bakr granting freedom to non-believing slaves?

Where are you getting this from? What evidence do you have that this was after the Prophet's (PBUH) death?

As for evidence that he was indeed freed by Abu Bakr (RA), here you go:

Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 5, Book 57, Hadith 98):
Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: `Umar used to say, "Abu Bakr is our chief, and he manumitted our chief," meaning Bilal.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/101

I don't know if he granted freedom to non-believing slaves, but he had a reputation for such kind acts, so he might have freed some non-believing slaves in the Pre-Islamic era. After Islam arrived, the Muslims, particularly those who were not influential, were being persecuted on a massive scale, therefore, obtaining their freedom from their oppressors was crucial.

 

[troodon]

^ Thanks for the Hadith. It does say that Abu Bakr set free Bilal.

I cannot remember where I read that the Qais from. It was after the death of Prophet Muhammed, Bilal sides with Ali which did not go well with Abu Bakr. It was at that point, Bilal says the words from above Hadith. Some how it tells me that Bilal was never completely free to leave Abu Bakr.

The Hadith from Qais tells me that Bilal was only freed from Umayyah who was torturing him. He was bought by Abu Bakr because he could not tolerate a believer being tortured by a slave master.

Was a non-believer ever saved from slavery by Abu Bakr?

Also, do you believe Islam completely banned Slavery? I mean any type of Slavery?

 

[troodon]

Where are you getting this from? What evidence do you have that this was after the Prophet's (PBUH) death?

As for evidence that he was indeed freed by Abu Bakr (RA), here you go:



I don't know if he granted freedom to non-believing slaves, but he had a reputation for such kind acts, so he might have freed some non-believing slaves in the Pre-Islamic era. After Islam arrived, the Muslims, particularly those who were not influential, were being persecuted on a massive scale, therefore, obtaining their freedom from their oppressors was crucial.

Let me Quote you another Hadith.

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
"All types of women were prohibited for the Messenger of ALlah (ﷺ) except for the believing women among those who emigrated. (Allah) said: 'It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those whom your right hand possesses (33:52). - And Allah made your believing girls lawful 'And a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet (33:50)' and He made every woman of a religion other than Islam unlawful." Then He said: "And whoever disbelieves in faith then fruitless is his work; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers (5:5)." And he said: "Verily We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their due, and those whom your right hands possess - whom Allah has given you" up to His saying: "A privilege to only you, not for the (rest of) the believers (33:50)." He made the other types of women unlawful."
Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)
English reference : Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3215
Arabic reference : Book 47, Hadith 3521
https://sunnah.com/urn/642470

What does Right hand possess means here?

 

[Muhammad10]

^ Thanks for the Hadith. It does say that Abu Bakr set free Bilal.

I cannot remember where I read that the Qais from. It was after the death of Prophet Muhammed, Bilal sides with Ali which did not go well with Abu Bakr. It was at that point, Bilal says the words from above Hadith. Some how it tells me that Bilal was never completely free to leave Abu Bakr.

The Hadith from Qais tells me that Bilal was only freed from Umayyah who was torturing him. He was bought by Abu Bakr because he could not tolerate a believer being tortured by a slave master.

Was a non-believer ever saved from slavery by Abu Bakr?

Also, do you believe Islam completely banned Slavery? I mean any type of Slavery?

I haven't heard of this, but maybe you have mixed it up with the following Hadith:

Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 31):
Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais: While I was going to help this man ('Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Abu Bakra met me and asked, "Where are you going?" I replied, "I am going to help that person." He said, "Go back for I have heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.' I said, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?' Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "He surely had the intention to kill his companion."

Regarding your other points, I don't have sufficient in-depth knowledge to address them.

 

[troodon]

I haven't heard of this, but maybe you have mixed it up with the following Hadith:



Regarding your other points, I don't have sufficient in-depth knowledge to address them.

Thanks for the patience.

Can you please refer to the Hadith I posted in Post # 58?

 

[Muhammad10]

Let me Quote you another Hadith.

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
"All types of women were prohibited for the Messenger of ALlah (ﷺ) except for the believing women among those who emigrated. (Allah) said: 'It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those whom your right hand possesses (33:52). - And Allah made your believing girls lawful 'And a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet (33:50)' and He made every woman of a religion other than Islam unlawful." Then He said: "And whoever disbelieves in faith then fruitless is his work; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers (5:5)." And he said: "Verily We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their due, and those whom your right hands possess - whom Allah has given you" up to His saying: "A privilege to only you, not for the (rest of) the believers (33:50)." He made the other types of women unlawful."
Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)
English reference : Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3215
Arabic reference : Book 47, Hadith 3521
https://sunnah.com/urn/642470

What does Right hand possess means here?

Refer to the following article:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/125...er-of-a-right-hand-servant-have-to-be-married

 

[troodon]

Refer to the following article:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/125...er-of-a-right-hand-servant-have-to-be-married

This clearly shows that Muslims can have females and their kids as slaves and they can have sex with them once they confirm that the woman is not pregnant. They can even sell their slaves and it all depends on the owner of the slaves.

 

[Zhasan]

Abominable for writing a book which which offends a religion? Is free speech nothing anymore?
[MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION]

There is no such thing as absolute free speech, even the US constitution recognizes this fact.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I have repeatedly stated that the nuke strikes were the least bad thing. The alternatives were millions starved to death and invasion followed by millions of military and civilian casualties. 200,000 deaths in the nuke strikes were less bad than the millions of deaths which were otherwise certain.

I am not defending European and US state terror and slavery. I am challenging your idea that these are somehow worse than Caliphate state terror and slavery, especially considering that the Arab slave trade went on far longer, overlapping into the 20th century, and stole and killed more people. Umpteen millions of Poles and Lithuanians alone.

You should never justify nuke strikes and always say there were other options which there were. The person in charge of the US forces doesn't believe they were required and he knows more than you or I.

You cannot compare Christian history with Islamic history. Christian nations to this day are destorying people. If you want to start a thread we can discuss and compare in detial but for now I will point you to the example of when Christians and Muslims were at war. Firstly when Muslims captured Jerusalem on many occasions showed mercy and humanity by letting the enemy walk free or allowing those to who wished to stay. When the Crusaders captured the holy city, they killed everyone and even were putting children on spit roats to eat in the night.

 

[troodon]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION], now that you are in this thread, can you please comment on my Post #62? Do you agree with it?

 

[KingKhanWC]

This clearly shows that Muslims can have females and their kids as slaves and they can have sex with them once they confirm that the woman is not pregnant. They can even sell their slaves and it all depends on the owner of the slaves.

Firstly Islamqa is not any official authority on Islam. It's the view of some people who follow a certain sect.

In those times after war the defeated army would leave many widows who would be raped and killed by the victorious army. Those who survived rape were still alone and not even safe from their own people. Islamic view is those women should be freed but if they want to live with Muslims , a man cannot have sex with any captured woman if she is against it and if she does, she is bascially another wife, given the same rights as a wife. This is why many themselves happily converted.

It may be too much for you to stomach coming from a negative agenda but this is correct. Take it or leave it, im not here for you to see Islam in good light, frankly I dont care.

 

[troodon]

Firstly Islamqa is not any official authority on Islam. It's the view of some people who follow a certain sect.

In those times after war the defeated army would leave many widows who would be raped and killed by the victorious army. Those who survived rape were still alone and not even safe from their own people. Islamic view is those women should be freed but if they want to live with Muslims , a man cannot have sex with any captured woman if she is against it and if she does, she is bascially another wife, given the same rights as a wife. This is why many themselves happily converted.

It may be too much for you to stomach coming from a negative agenda but this is correct. Take it or leave it, im not here for you to see Islam in good light, frankly I dont care.

The topic on hand was you claiming the slavery and the number of people killed by White Europeans.

Look at my post # 58 again. It clearly says that Slave woman are lawful for a man to have sex. It does not depend on whether she gives permission or not. The slave owner simply has to wait for 1 month to see if she got her period and have sex with her.

How will a woman happily convert when the Muslim army killed her husband/brother/father and all fighting age men that are near and dear to her? which woman in her right mind would do that?

Sure you don't care. smh!!

 

[KingKhanWC]

The topic on hand was you claiming the slavery and the number of people killed by White Europeans.

Look at my post # 58 again. It clearly says that Slave woman are lawful for a man to have sex. It does not depend on whether she gives permission or not. The slave owner simply has to wait for 1 month to see if she got her period and have sex with her.

How will a woman happily convert when the Muslim army killed her husband/brother/father and all fighting age men that are near and dear to her? which woman in her right mind would do that?

Sure you don't care. smh!!

I would reply but as I said you have pre-determined mindset and will not understand, even though I have made it clear and easy to understand. Im a Muslim, you're not but you know better lol Go cheer on Modi, please dont quote me again, you're boring .

 

[Robert]

You should never justify nuke strikes and always say there were other options which there were. The person in charge of the US forces doesn't believe they were required and he knows more than you or I.

You cannot compare Christian history with Islamic history. Christian nations to this day are destorying people. If you want to start a thread we can discuss and compare in detial but for now I will point you to the example of when Christians and Muslims were at war. Firstly when Muslims captured Jerusalem on many occasions showed mercy and humanity by letting the enemy walk free or allowing those to who wished to stay. When the Crusaders captured the holy city, they killed everyone and even were putting children on spit roats to eat in the night.

Bombing cities with nuclear weapons was no different than mass raids with incendiaries. Both resulted in a destroyed city and 100k dead. As I said before Ike was Supreme Commander Europe and fought Germans not Japanese. German soldiers surrendered when the position was hopeless, Japanese did not. Supreme Commander Pacific Pershing wanted the nuclear strikes, because his alternative was to carry on carpet bombing cities with incendiaries, send a million of his troops to their deaths and God knows how many Japanese soldiers and civilians. Pershing’s way shortened the war and resulted in many fewer deaths. Surely you can see that fewer deaths are less bad than more deaths?

No argument about the Crusaders who (for example) murdered 3000 prisoners at Acre. The Pope sanctified all their actions giving them license to commit atrocity.

 

[troodon]

I would reply but as I said you have pre-determined mindset and will not understand, even though I have made it clear and easy to understand. Im a Muslim, you're not but you know better lol Go cheer on Modi, please dont quote me again, you're boring .

Don't runaway KK. You explained. But it was a silly explanation. Women whose husbands, fathers and brothers and sons were happy to be captures as slaves and even more happy to convert. Cool story bro!

 

[James]

As if this started off as a Rushdie thread lol.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Bombing cities with nuclear weapons was no different than mass raids with incendiaries. Both resulted in a destroyed city and 100k dead. As I said before Ike was Supreme Commander Europe and fought Germans not Japanese. German soldiers surrendered when the position was hopeless, Japanese did not. Supreme Commander Pacific Pershing wanted the nuclear strikes, because his alternative was to carry on carpet bombing cities with incendiaries, send a million of his troops to their deaths and God knows how many Japanese soldiers and civilians. Pershing’s way shortened the war and resulted in many fewer deaths. Surely you can see that fewer deaths are less bad than more deaths?

No argument about the Crusaders who (for example) murdered 3000 prisoners at Acre. The Pope sanctified all their actions giving them license to commit atrocity.

I was referring to Dwight Eisenhower but there were many other Americans who knew the war had already been won and Japan was in the process of surrendering. Anyway apologies for going off topic and the usual respect for you Robert.

 

[Tubs]

As if this started off as a Rushdie thread lol.

Hahaha, I know.

I should have known it'd dissolve into a discussion about Islam, but I suppose it's a fine discussion to have as long as it doesn't get too heated.