Islamic warriors hold 3000 sex slaves....does Islam justify sex slavery?

NO, ill condemn the Bible for those phrases, don't bother me one little bit. Once again I defected from Catholicism because of things I do not agree with.

But again, the thing is what is being written and what is reallly going on in the world.

Muslim world= common to have sex slaves and child brides

Christian world= might be a few stories of the same here and there, but not at all common place.

 

You are wise.

 

If you were actually reading between the lines, you'd see a disgust for hypocrisy, and double standards. The thread was about "Islamic warriors", and there sex slaves.
Where does "but but but but Christianity" fit in there?

 

Fire and brimstone preachers.

They're fans of condemnation, too.

 

They are easy to play with, you can have them stuttering like morons in less than 3 sentences or so.

 

If you took the literal translation of the OT, you would also find justification for sexual slavery. Yet Christians today no longer practice it with the blessing of religion. As for Islam, the majority of Muslims in this world reject that notion just as Christians reject the same type of ancient barbarism in the OT. Asking that question implies that the religion itself justifies it. Most ancient religions have vestiges of this somewhere in their history, the key is to reject that and move on. Most of the Islamic world has done that but for these barbarians. They do not reflect the common traits of Muslims. Islam still has a long way to go to be fully modernized which is what the entire ME is fighting today. The struggle is about becoming a modern society. Here in the west, we struggle with the same things. Human trafficking is common everywhere. Every nation on earth suffers from this scourge. This is more about men than it is about religion. Men the world over still consider women and especially girls to be sexual toys, that is why prostitution is still a big industry everywhere.

 

You don't get it, my friend - the Qur'an is from their god himself (well, thru the angle), they can't just "move on", can't just say "hey, god got that part wrong I guess."
Go ahead, ask Muslims "which parts of the Qur'an did Allah get wrong....the instruction to crucify people as punishment, the part that tells a man to beat his wife (Q4:34), the part that says women get less inheritance than a man, which parts?" Go ahead.

 

In other words if we have the sheer audacity to take the "best book of all time" at its word, as written, on face value, w/out twisting its words to conform to our pre-conceived notions of what it PROBABLY wanted to say, to fit our agenda....is that what you mean by "literal translation"?

 

Another way to know right from wrong is to be intellectually lazy like Christians are and just rely on "god" to tell you what's right and what's wrong - for example the holocaust that god created (99.99999% of not just humans, but all innocent animals as well!) with his "flood"....I've never met a Christian who will make the moral decision of condemning that holocaust. See, if they can't even condemn HOLOCAUSTS then they obviously have no moral spine, so they obviously are just letting "god" decide for them ("if god did it then it must be ok".)
THAT is as intellectually lazy as one could possibly be. Even many NAZIS will admit today that yes, Hitler (their particular hero) was morally wrong with his particular holocaust - but Christians haven't risen to the high moral standards of many Nazis (when it comes to their own hero - god).

 

You can't condemn immorality when you see it, can you? You can't condemn Christians and Muslims for having barbaric texts that approve of sex slavery (yes, SEX SLAVERY), can you? I can.

- - - Updated - - -

You can complain about the mere messenger (me), but you can't complain about people who give those barbaric texts to their impressionable young children (i.e. all Christians and Muslims) and say it's the best book of all time and inspired (or from) the all-knowing creator of the entire universe no less, can you?

 

Dude, you seriously need to read the Islamic texts.
For one thing, you'll see that 1.5 billion people in the world think a person whose texts say he had sex with a NINE year-old little girl is the best role model of all time, by far. The religion justifies pedophilia...."men" are just following the "perfect path" laid down by the "perfect man, chosen by the creator of the universe". Of course it's about religion.

- - - Updated - - -

But the texts of Modern Secular Humanism don't approve of it! Islam/Christianity's texts do!

 

If you were in WWII, and the Nazis published a war manual, and fervent Nazis were following it to the letter (to kill us and overthrow our way of life), would you have read that?

 

nope, I would listen to what others said about it, no reason to taint my brain with it

 

You sound religious - they can't make their own moral decisions ("nope, I'm not gonna remove the parts of my Bible that say to kill gays because god put it there for a reason and he knows best!"), so they have to rely on others (Jesus, god, clergy) to make moral decisions for them - or of course they'd have removed the barbaric verses centuries ago. It's time to stop letting others make decisions for you (when the information is so readily available, that is.)
http://quran.com/

 

Are you THAT easily swayed by certain (bad in this case) writings that you don't dare read them yourself for fear of being mentally damaged by those writings?

 

I have enough Christian nonsense in my head from bible school and church growing up, I do not need another abrahamic religion in there... I can read the condensed versions

and if it's like the bible... it's a loooooong read

.

 

Good reply.

I'll give you the short version, to save you some time: instead of a talking donkey Islam has a flying horse with wings, like the Bible Jesus ("Isa" in Islam) is the warlord who will return to kill and save just the believers (he hates everybody else), and like the Bible the Islamic texts are so filled with hatred that it says to kill innocent people (gays.)....and the invisible friend in the sky believes in this nonsense so much that in over 1400/2000 years he hasn't once come down to update/improve it.

So basically one Abrahamic faith is just like the other....and also pretty hard to differentiate from Lord Of The Rings (except LOTR makes a bit more sense.)

 

Condemnation and complaint doesn't change behaviour. It often makes us look like superior dicks, though, so is best avoided, IMO.

 

First, how dare you denigrate the beliefs of Islam, didn’t you read the official Statecraft of your Obamanation?

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

“Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton) http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

Contents:

“[Elder Woman] Source: LYBIO.net
My age has exceeded 120 years and in all my young life ‘I haven’t seen such a murderous thug as Muhammad’. He kills men, captures women and children, robs the caravans, breaches agreements and treaties. He sells the children as slaves after he and his men have used them. And what’s more, he does this all in the name of God. What God is this? That he’s such an oppressor and so unfair to the people.” http://lybio.net/tag/innocence-of-muslims-muhammad-movie-transcription/

Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids


(3) Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha: On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'." (Book #15, Hadith #103)


"(3) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (Book #62, Hadith #137)"

***

“‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’ said Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-steyn

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

"’[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.’ Id., at 745-746.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46

Since the video in question was legal speech, and “we absolutely reject its contents” was not legal statecraft, therefore, Obama and Clinton violated their oaths of office, consequently, their actions must be impeached.

Second, I don’t think a before the Common Era shotgun wedding law, which according to the Koran was “revealed by Allah,” goes very far in establishing sex slavery as a practice when the verse you quote requires payment to the father and a lifetime of providing for the unmarketable, more on topic would be the female captive booty Islam fracked silly without having to marry or paying their fathers, because there is no female war booty that is destined to exist and be fracked silly by Islam but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.

Third, grandpa told his daughters to tell him if they were raped, and no one else, he would take care of it. I assume a man before the Common Era might also consider it a deadly insult for someone to assume he could bypass custom and steal a man daughters.

 

So instead of reading it yourself, you would taint your brain second hand:

“Rape is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the selective breeding of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigview Brznutski, Obama supporter)
(Terrorized by 'War on Rape' - Washingtonpurplethrobbingpost) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

 

Yeah, Obama said this

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/13/zelizer.bush.muslims/index.html

"Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America; they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior," Bush said.

oh wait, that was Bush

that said, we all have religious freedom in this country, we can choose to believe whatever we want about whatever religion we want, we just do not have the right to force people to believe what we do by force or use the government to push a religion on the people

biblical times must of been some sad times if people felt it was ok to write these kinda things in their religions and say they were God's words about rape and stuff

I would guess the issue was they had too many kids without fathers and to try and stop it, they put that it so women would scream and fight to the death to try not to be raped for fear what would happen to them by the good religious people of the time if they did not

.

 

I have nothing against what you quote Bush as saying, he did not attack freedom of speech in any way like your Obamanation has repeatedly in response to Benghazi.

Going back, according to the same verses, which you have seen before but ignored again:

“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22&version=NIV

In any decent Era, without a sympathetic Obamanation, MoHamMad’s mobs (raping female booty) would have been killed (see carpet bombing), no wonder Islam demanded Israel bow down with those who bow down:

“[2.40] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.
[2.41] And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear.
[2.42] And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (it).
[2.43] And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those who bow down.”
“[2.83] And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now too) you turn aside.”

You said, “we just do not have the right to force people to believe what we do by force or use the government to push a religion on the people,” but your Obamanation threatening all life in the universe said this:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (Obama)

Translation: The future does not belong to science.

Unlike the Obamanation, and Peaceful Muslim from Chicago, Jesus defended freedom of speech and slander of a prophet:

"Matthew 12:30-32: 30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

“Son of Man” is a phase referring to Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in philosophy would be the dictates of conscience, the cornerstone of freedom of speech and all democracy.

“Expressing your opinion and ‘Freedom of Speech‘ is fine until the point of insult.. if what you are saying justifies the insult then that means non of the human rules we are creating are applicable ..” (Peaceful Muslim, from Chicago) http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/8170-now-4.html#post242088

 

Obama is a Christians, not a Muslim, same God, slightly different take on the part 2 of the myth

not to be confused with Mormons that have another take on the part 2 of this myth

if you do not defend blasphemy, you do not defend freedom of speech

.

 

It is true that “if you do not defend blasphemy, you do not defend freedom of speech,” but you can’t be forgiven for blaspheming the Spirit of Truth, because it is impossible to blaspheme freedom of speech and defend freedom of speech, you would be serving two masters or yourself as master of the universe. When you blaspheme the Holy Spirit you blaspheme freedom of speech, you are attacking the right of it, which is setting yourself up or the Grand Inquisitor as dictator of the universe.

The future must belong to those who slander false prophets, to the chagrin of the Obamanation’s frozen on the event horizon of hell “light” of Allah:

"[9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse."

"18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:18-20)

Obama is a Christian, and so was OJ; something I would have told OJ:

"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go."
(Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3)

 

many people are Christians, even OJ