Sunday, December 31, 2017

Mike Muluk Quora Epic Fail

While I work on my first video on my channel, I decided to read a specific Quora published article by a self proclaimed ex Muslim named Mike Muluk, here we shall go off the usual professional attitude as I did when I responded to Reddit trolls (which I shall do again and respond to more articles attacking me) today we will tackle a usual claim made by ex Muslims that I already discussed before and debunked many times, but this is only for fun and education
this is his article:


Red Text is Mike claims

I knew that darned meme would crop up. Well, if it takes a meme from 2015 to prove that Mohammad was a peaceful fella, you know something is fishy.

Yes, Memes, the best invention in history, the one thing that simple minds like Mike can only understand, yes, why resort to critical and detailed explanations, why not use memes?

The justification for killing women & children:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

Sahih Bukhari 4:52:256

It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet)" Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids". He said: "They are from them".

Sahih Muslim 19:4322

The same repeated Nonsense that I already refuted over and over, children and women are only killed when they engage in battle against the Muslims so I’m going to quote myself here
“According to the following explanation by Imam Nawawi
“The Ulama Agreed on the execution of the Hadith, and prohibiting the Murder of Women and Children If they didn’t Engage in Battles, But if they do Engage and attempt to kill Muslims then only in this case they should be killed[1]

This above explanation is direct reference to the same hadith above, under the hadith this commentary is by imam nawawi explaining what majority of scholars agree upon
Meaning women and children are not to be killed except if they are engaging in battles

Killing the whole male population after they surrendered is also being praised as “great judgment” by Muhammad:

For example, after the death of Banu Qurayza, Muhammad gave over the decision of what is to be done with the captives to a lieutenant, Sa’ad, who lost a kin in the battle:

Then the Prophet said, "O Sa’ad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sa’ad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment).

"Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:148


Already here we have a sign of stupidity if you read the above title “Why did Prophet Muhammad, while fighting polytheist enemies, also kill their family and other people who did not attack him?”
This whole “article” by Mike is directed toward the prophet, yet this ex-Muslim Dimwit with that low IQ didn’t realize how his own quote above just shows how insane he is
O Sa’ad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sa’ad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives."

How dumb do you have to be to not read carfully what your own source says, I read a lot of citations in my life from insane and dumb anti-muslim indivuals, but I have never seen somone destroys his own credibility with such citations, your own quote Mr.Mike destroy you, as stated this was not the judgment of Muhammad as he says ““great judgement” by Muhammad:” this was the judgment of Sa’ad who judged them based on their own holy scripture, not only that he didn’t kill non combatants, only those who have the capacity (and Did) carry swords and fought muslims are to be killed, non combatants and civilianse were left to live, I mean I can’t fathim the amount of mental gymnasitics he went through to cite a source that completely says the opposite of what he says, let alone not a single sentence here in this source says “whole male population” is to be killed, only warriors are


Even one woman (who apparently was becoming crazy witnessing the slaughter) was killed:

Narrated by Aisha: No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.

Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665


Oh let us read, did Muhammad actually killed her?......nope, it’s actually one of Muhammad soldiers who was terrified of her insanity so he beheaded her, where does it say Muhammad by his hand executed her? Honestly how many times do you Mr.Mike have to fail?


CONCLUSIONS:

It is easy to see, that Muhammad thought of the civilian population of the enemy as complicit in the enemy’s warfaring activities. That is the reason why women and children were always taken as slaves, the property was always seized and on some occasions, the whole male population was mercilessly butchered to the man.

This attitude can also be found in the doctrine of modern terrorist organizations such Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who have studied most and foremost Muhammad’s armed Jihad.


Wait? Hold on, that’s it? That’s all you got for us? That’s your conclusion? Ok let us Recap
Mike first cited two hadiths that he misunderstood and never cared to give us explanations from scholars
Then he proceeded to say Muhammad judged people of Banu Qurayza, the traitorous  criminal tribe, yet his own source clearly states it was not Muhammad judgment, then he goes on and accuse Muhammad of killing a crazy woman when at no point does the hadith imply that
Then he makes this idiotic conclusion?

Here is the “Official” statement by ISIS regarding today’s attacks in Brussels and why they were “justified” was also sent out by Amaq News after the Brussels Airport Attack:

Paris Attack (13th Nov. 2015) and Brussels Attack (22nd March 2016) in the light of the Islamic Shari’ah.

Justifying the Paris attacks/Brussels attack(& the likes of it) in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah and the ijmā’ & quotes from the scholars of the salaf.

We have seen so many people in the social media claiming that The Islamic state was not justified in killing the French “innocent” citizens in the blessed ghazwa in Paris, and that of the Brussels attack now.We have also seen some evil “scholars” – Scholars for the dollars quoting the textual evidence out of context. Today, we shall tackle this topic with evidence from the Qur’ān and Sunnah and the ijmā’ & quotes from the scholars of the salaf

First, we want to make it clear to all that what makes the kafir’s blood permissible to spill is not him fighting the Muslims, rather it is his “KUFR” that necessitates his killing. So if one asks, can you kill a Kafir (who does not fight Islam and Muslims)? the answer is a big YES.

[] Explaining the Mafhūm Al-Mukhālafah (the understanding of the opposite) in Usūl Fiqh:

This is like when Allāh said: “And never pray (funeral prayer) upon any of them (i.e. the hypocrites) who dies, nor stand at his grave.” (At-Tawbah verse 84). So because the disbelieving hypocrites were those whom Allāh specifically identified as being prohibited to have the funeral prayer performed upon and their graves visited, then this necessitates that the Muslims are those who are to be prayed upon and whose graves are to be visited. And this is understood by the rule: “Mafhūm Al-Mukhālafah” (the understanding of the opposite), because if we say the disbelievers are those whom Allāh specified a prohibition regarding something, then this necessities that the opposite ruling would apply for those who are opposite to them (i.e. the believers). So this is the explanation for the rule: “Mafhūm Al-Mukhālafah”, which is also referred to as: “Dalīl Al-Khitāb”. ○●○●○●○

The example of the prohibition of praying the funeral prayer for the disbeliever indicating the permissibility of praying the funeral prayer for the Muslims and visiting their graves was used by Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah frequently, as he said: “And do not ever pray upon anyone of them who dies and do not stand at their graves.” Therefore, the ‘Dalīl Al-Khitāb’ is that the believers are prayed upon and their graves are to be stood at.” [“Majmū’ Al-Fatāwa ”, Vol. 3/399; also look to Vol. 24/330 & Vol. 24/346 & Vol. 27/448]

Allah says: “…But if they repent and perform As-Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free…” (At-Tawbah Verse 5)

NOTE: Repentance in the above ayah means saying the shahadatain and entering Islam. Ibn ‘Umar narrates that the Rasulullah(saw) said: “I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and until they establish the Salah and pay the Zakah. And if they do so then they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they commit acts that are punishable] in accordance to Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty.” [Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim] Therefore, the ‘Dalīl Al-Khitāb’ in the above ayah & hadeeth is that, if the kuffar don’t become Muslims, their blood would not be protected and would be legal to spill and their wealth would be halal to take.

Allah also has made the blood of every kafir legal to spill in the general ayah: “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush” (At-Tawbah verse 5).

Allah just said the mushrikeen(idolators), so he never differentiated the “innocent civilians” from the “fighting soldiers”. So who are we to differentiate the kuffar today?

Ijmā’ of the ulamaa on the legality of spilling the blood of the Kuffar:

● Ibn Kathir said: “Ibn Jareer narrated an Ījmā'(scholarly consensus) that it is permissiable to kill a kafir if he has no protection even if he is in Baytul Harām or Baytul Maqdis” [Tafsīr Ibn Katheer 2/6]

● Al Qurtubi said: “The ulamaa have gathered in consensus(ijmā’) that; if a kafir was to wrap his neck with his hands and the backs of all the trees in the Haram(Makkah) (in an effort to save his life); that would not prevent his killing if he had no previous contract of security” [Tafsīr At-Tabari 6/61] ♢♢♢♢♢

Quotes of the ulamā’ of the salaf about the legality of apilling the blood of the kuffar even if they dont fight us:

● Imam Ash-Shafi’ said: “Allah the exalted & blessed legalized(to spill) the blood and wealth of the kafir unless he pays the jizya(tax) or he is granted protection for a certain period” [Al Umm 1/264]

● Imam Ash-Shawkāni said: “As for the Kufar, their blood is basicaly legal(to spill) as it is in the ayah of the sword(At-Tawbah verse 5), what about if they start fighting(us)?” [Al Sayrul Jarār ..

● Umar bin Al Khattab said to Abu Jandal (May Allah be pleased with them both): “For verily they are Mushrikeen(polytheits), and the blood of one of them is like the blood of a dog” [Reported by Ahmad & Al Bayhaqi]

● Ibn Muflih said: “There is no expiation nor blood money paid for killing a kafir that has no peace treaty, because his blood is generaly permissiable(to spill) like the pig” [Al Mubdi’ 8/263]

● Ash-Shawkāni said: “The kafir, whether he fights(the Muslims) or not: his blood is permissiable(to spill) as long as he is a kafir” [Al Sayrul Jarār 4/369]

● Al Kāsāni: “Basicaly: Anyone(who is a kafir) from the fighters(i.e. the male that has reached the fighting age): it is permissiable to kill him whether he fights(the Muslims) or not” [Badā’ As-Sanāi’ 7/101]

● Al Qurtubi said: “If a Muslim meets a kafir that has no contract(of protection): it is permissiable for him to kill that Kafir” [Tafsīr Al-Qurtubi 5/338]

● As-Sarkhāsi said: “There is no sin upon one who kills the appostates before calling them to Islam because they are the same with the kuffar and the Message(of Islam) has reached them” [Al Mabsūt 10/120]

●Imam An-Nawawi said: “As for the kafir that has no contract of peace(with a legitimate Islamic State to which he pays Jizya), there is no liability in killing him, from whatever religion he might be” [Rawdhatu Tālibīn 9/259]

●Ibn Hajar Al ‘Asqalāni said: “The existence of the disbelief (Kufr) is what permits the blood” [“Fat’h Al-Bārī ”, Vol. 12/326; publication of “Maktabat Dār As-Salām” & “Maktabat Dār Al-Fayhā’ ”, 1st Edition, 1418 H.]

♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢

For those that say that we mistranslate these Quranic verses of Jihad and Qitaal and we go against the ‘known’ ‘ulamaa’:

then give them this audio by Shaykh Ibn ‘Utheymīn who they respect alot who says exactly what we have said now

Shaykh Ibn ‘Utheymin(rh), said in a tape recording regarding this topic: “And the second (matter) is the forbiddance of killing women and children in times of war. But if it is said: ‘If they (the kuffār) do this to us – meaning that they kill our children and women – Then do we then kill them?’ The apparent [dhāhir] is that it is (permissible) for us to kill their women and children- And due to the generality of the Statement of Allāh: “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him”{ Al-Baqarah: 194} [Refer to the side “B” from the third cassette of Kitāb al-Jihād from Sharh Bulūgh al-Marām. Starting at time frame 29:09]

In addition to the above cattegories of those of the kuffar that we shouldnt kill, we have :

1. The Children

2. The Women

3. The Old etc.

》》 So All those kuffar cattegories we mentioned that their blood is protected; they can be killed anytime should they violate their contracts by:

A.) If the dhimi/Mu’āhad starts fighting the Muslims etc he is killed and his blood would be legal to spill despite him paying jizya

B.) If the kuffar kill our children/Women/old we do the same: Allah Says: “So whoever has transgressed against you, then transgress against him in the same way that he has transgressed against you” [Al Baqarah 194]

So how many Muslim women and children and old have The French Kuffar killed in Syria, Iraq and other parts of the muslim lands???? We have not yet settled the scores, a few hundreds aint enough yet.

Allah also says: “And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed” [An-Nahl 126]

Allah Also Says: “And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it” [Ash-Shūrah 40]

Allah also says: “And those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, they take revenge” [Ash-Shūrah verse 39].

So, this was a piece of article for the one who cry and mourn on the death of the Kuffar, while the death hundreds of muslim men, women, old and children dying daily in the airstrikes don’t effect them in anyway.

MAY ALLAH ACCEPT THE EFFORTS MADE TO COLLECT THESE PROOFS N EVIDENCES N MAY HE UNITE THIS UMMAH UNDER ONE LEADER AND ONE BANNER, M MAY ALLAH GRANT IZZAH TO ISLAM N MUSLIMS EVERY WHERE ON THE EARTH N MAY HE GRANT VICTORY TO THIS RELIGION ESTABLISHING THE SHARI’AH OF ALLAH IN EVERY CORNER OF THE EARTH.

AAMEEEN.


Offical? Really? so what is the source? I checked all sources including ex-Muslims Reddit, and it all point toward
apparently, the article is not accessible at all, so how can you I used the way back machine to dig back the deleted article
the article has been saved over 42 times which I opened all of them
Big problem is that Heavy gives no direct link to the quote when they said that a longer version can be found, there is littraly not a single cite out there that give reffrence to this fake translation that Heavy provided, so I was left with no option other than to find the original Arabic text, the best option we have is the A’maq news agency the official ISIS news outlet that was the first to proclaim the attack, unfortunantly for our research A’maq was taken down by a group of muslim Hackers (see how muslims fight ISIS and ex-muslims complain like cowards?)yet I was left with no lead to the website since it was taken down dabiq was then left and was not accesable since it was blocked, the only magazine I was able to access with the publication “why we hate you and why we fight you” other than that both website and magazine are blocks
So we are left with a claim made by Heavy news outlet where they point out the source yet the source doesn’t exist, I looked over all Arabic sources that contain quotations to Brussels attack statements from ISIS, neither any of them had a reference to that big quote ISIS made, so far we have a questionable source with questionable link that was deleted by the source itself


Why does anyone take this seriously?






[1] Sahih Imam Muslim By Explanation of Imam Al-Nawawi Vol.12 Page.73 Dar Al-Rushod Edition

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Why The Masked Arab is Masked, Falsehood makes one Bashful, 7 vulgar reasons why TMA left Islam part-3 (A) The Prophet Muhammad Attitudes (did the prophet Allow Rape?)

Introduction:
Continuing from our series on his videos regarding the 7 reasons why he left Islam, today we will tackle the issues raised regarding the Prophet Muhammad and his life, with that being said let us proceed
Note regarding the channel: inshallah when finished with his video that we are tackling this time I shall start working on my channel, the theme will be text on the screen, no voice narration, that will come later.
all sources that are displayed in the video will be sourced in the description, if I had to if youtube won’t allow word limits, I will use this blog as a resource for sources

I will Try and get this blog out as fast as possible to go to my channel as the next source for refutations when I'm done with his video, as you know this video will be dedicated to responding to the accusations TMA brought regarding the life and actions of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ, any allegation that was already refuted in previous articles will not be discussed here, I will rather just leave a link to my article addressing the issue, moving on let us proceed.

Issue #1
@8:45 the masked Arab start with the well-known allegation of the prophet marriage to Aisha (RA)
The masked arab start this section by the following Quote “but there is no doubt if you read the quran, Hadith and his sira, which is his Bioghraphy the man was brutal, to say the least, and no where near the absulot modle of perfection I was taught he was a muslim, the most well-known controversy involving him was for his marriage to his six-year-old girl before consummating the marriage at nine, apologists in this generation know this stand against their values and often try and wriggle out of it by changing the age of Aisha based on indirect calculations emanating from much weaker hadiths, while others claim girls mature faster in hot climates, but I’m not here to cite aisha’s marriage and instade we will focus on other aspects”

Let’s us address the elephant in the room first, he split the apologists into two categories, ones make the argument that she is much older but claims that it’s based on weak hadiths, now I don’t advocate for this argument at all (I used to) but if they are weak prove it, show the sources they use and prove that they are weak, if you are too intellectually lazy to put effort into your videos then don’t expect to be taken seriously by Muslims
As for the second category, note how he didn’t bother to refute it, and instead decided to run away like a coward without actually addressing the response
Now this claim is actually factually correct, this is a historical fact no one can’t deny it, I've already explained how it’s both illogical and scientifically impossible for Muhammad to be considered pedophile in my article[1]

But let us see, how puberty was viewed in history, in fact, each society has its own way of marking puberty that differentiates it from others
Peter N Stearns writes in Childhood in World History:
almost all societies have some way to mark of the age or period in which puberty is usually achievedthe average age of puberty varies greatly from one society to the next (it’s lower in hot climates, and also where food is abundant)  by the same token it can be changed over time; puberty today, in the united states and western Europe occurs four years earlier (or more) than it did on average 200 years ago, some societies view people as adults, or virtually so, when they have completed puberty. In many societies marriage at the age of puberty, particularly for girls, is quite common. Other societies, like our own in contemporary west, still mark off an extended period of childhood.  Some societies have elaborate rituals around puberty; others, like our own (aside from religious confirmation marks), tend to downplay the ceremonial aspects, partly perhaps because they worry about the consequences of puberty for people still regarded as children. The variations and potential changes over time are striking[2]
genetic changes have been noted in Harvard and Cambridge articles as an indication of maturity evolving in history
While the academic article below deals heavily with the effects of genetics makeup in puberty, please feel free to skip it if you don’t want to read some complex scientific terms, it and describes early puberty (which is not what we are addressing) the point here is withered or not there has been genetic changes and makeups to determine the timing of the onset, it does tell us that puberty had no fixed number, and was changing in time

 “A clearer relationship can be drawn between the pace of childhood growth and the timing of puberty. Within populations, children of both sexes who are taller and heavier in middle childhood are more likely to enter puberty earlier. Also, the secular trend toward faster childhood growth through time has been associated with a simultaneous trend toward earlier puberty in both sexes (Ellison1982; Eveleth and Tanner 1991; Cole 2000; Karlberg 2002)..”[3]

These are all scientific facts, if the apologists are claiming that puberty has changed drastically in time, then the masked Arab is on the wrong side of history to completely disagree with such fact, almost all historians and almost all professors of history agree to such fact, you only notice this claim among polemicists like the masked Arab

Nevertheless, my article shall be sufficient enough to deal with the issue, I even dedicated 2 articles regarding pedophilia, that explain why Muhammad can’t be considered a pedophile


Issue #2:
@09:09 the masked arab says “Muhammad was a violent man who leads atleast 30 raids against his opponents and encouraged banditry against trade caravans where his men looted goods and killed travelling merchants, the attacks were unprovoked the vast majority of the time, in some raids muslims attacked villages killing the men and enslaving women and children in one instance battle of Autas muslims captured women as sex slaves and felt it was immoral to have sex with them as they were already marries, so then Muhammad reveals a quranic verse to tell them that having sex with married women is banned with the exception if that married woman is actually your slave, apologetics have a difficult time trying to defend this verse as is clear in the quran and it’s across pretty much all Islamic sources sunni and shia, this is found in sura al-nisa which is chapter 4 and verses 23 and 24, at the beginning of verse 24 we see it says { And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess} so we can clearly see that Muhammad and the Quran encouraged muslim soldiers to rape their female captives even if they were married}
Here I shall provide detailed analysis of this verse, from who were captured to what happened to them
Ok now that is an insane misquotation, let us read the two verses that he called out (note that he didn’t read verse 23)
4:23:
{Prohibited to you [for marriage] are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father's sisters, your mother's sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your [milk] mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, your wives' mothers, and your step-daughters under your guardianship [born] of your wives unto whom you have gone in. But if you have not gone in unto them, there is no sin upon you. And [also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your [own] loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.}

As you can see, the first verse in context, it’s talking about marriage, how the hell did the masked Arab with his unbound dishonesty twist this verse to talk about sex, let alone not showing the context that he associated it with it is beyond me, is this the bright night of ex-Muslims?, apologists have no difficulty here at all, even when I was an atheist I never used this verse and associate it with sexual intercourse
While we do have context to the verse, as the masked Arab cited, but he needs to provide his claims with evidence even when we know about them, given the fact not everyone knows about the story behind this verse

Now large portions will come below, it will deal with what this verse was all about, then, later on, we will deal with the shubha (allegation) that Islam allows rape in short burst of sources, we shall explore the stages when which what sexual relations are allowed, then we shall see if these captives were engaged directly in sexual intercourse without marriage (zina) or were they handed over in marriage? And if they were handed over in marriage was it enforced nonconsensual marriage? We shall explore the issues in short details even as of now the article is already long enough
While to play the devil’s advocate the first word mentioned in verse 4:23 ([for marriage]) is not part of the verse Arabic text, but we shall address it in the tafsir section

Al-Nawawi said in the explination of Sahih Muslim:
اعلم أن مذهب الشافعي ومن قال بقوله من العلماء أن المسبية من عبدة الأوثان وغيرهم من الكفار الذين لا كتاب لهم لا يحل وطؤها بملك اليمين حتى تسلم، فما دامت على دينها فهي محرمة، وهؤلاء المسبيات كن من مشركي العرب عبدة الأوثان، فيؤول هذا الحديث وشبهه على أنهن أسلمن، وهذا التأويل لا بد منه[4]

Translation:
I know from the madhab of Shafi’I and what the majority of scholars say regarding the right hand possess who are the polytheists and worshipers of the stones and others are Kufar infidels who had no book, and having sex with them is prohibited until they are muslims, if she remained on her religion then she is prohibited to have sex with, and those captives were among the polytheises (reffering to 4:24) who worshiped the stones, so interpreted from this hadith is that they might have converted to islam, and that is an interpretation that is the most probable one

أن من حرم نكاح حرائرهم من المجوسيات وسائر الكوافر سوى أهل الكتاب لا يباح وطء الإماء منهن بملك اليمين في قول أكثر أهل العلم، منهم: مرة الهمذاني والزهري وسعيد بن جبير والأوزاعي والثوري وأبو حنيفة ومالك والشافعي ، وقال ابن عبد البر على هذا جماعة فقهاء الأمصار وجمهور العلماء وما خالفه فشذوذ.”[5]
Translation:
 who prohibited the marriage of free and majority of Kufar except for people of the book, it’s not allowed to have sex with captives as in the opinion of the majority of people of knowledge among them: Al-Hamthani, Al-Zuhri, Sa’id bin Jarir, Al-Awzai, Al-Thuri, Abu Hanifa, and Al-Shafi’I, and Ibn Abd Al-bir said regarding this is the majority of Fuqaha and majority of scholars, and those who disagreed are mere abnormality

If Muslims and the prophet all that they cared about is sexual pleasure, then please for any nonmuslim reading this, answer this question:
Why didn’t the prophet let alone the scholars allowed having sex with the polytheists?, here Muslims will have sexual pleasure with two types of women, the Muslims and non muslims if they truly seek pleasure, why didn’t the prophet and the scholars allow sex with polytheists if they are such sexual predators as TMA and his fans claim?

Now that we understand that this verse is talking about marriage and not sex, Let’s look at what scholars said :
According to Ibn Kathir, the women you have sexual intercourse with must be set free.
"قال عمر بن عبد البر عن اياس بن عمار, سألت علي ابن ابي طالب فقلت: أن لي أختين مما ملكت يميني أتخذت أحدهما سرية فولدت لي أولاد ثم رغبت في الأخرى فما أصنع؟ فقال علي رضي الله عنه. تعتق التي كنت تطأ ثم تطأ الأخرى..."[6]
Translation:
Umar bin abid al bir said from Ayas bin Amar, I asked Ali bin Abi Talib so I said: I had two sisters of my right hand possess (sister here means sister in Islam) I took one of them as captives so she gave me a boy, then I desired the other one so what do I do? Ali (blessings of God be upon him) said: you must set free the one you had sex with, then the other one
While Ibn Kathir later on did say that sexual intercourse is permitted with them if you check for menstruation (يعيني ألا ملكتموهن بالسبي فأنه يحل لكم وطؤهن اذا استبرأتموهن  (to make sure that they are not pregnant, he does say this is the opinion of Imam Ahmed bin Abi Sa’id, but let us put that in perspective, and explore the conditions of sexual intercourse, is it permissible to have sexual intercourse with non muslims?

According to a narration from al-Tabari in a Sahih hadith
حدثني يعقوب بن أبراهيم, قال حدثنا أبن علية عن خالد عن عكرمة عن أبن عباس قال: طلاق الأمة ست: بيعها طلاقها, و عتقها طلاقها وهبتها طلاقها, و براءتها طلاقها, و طلاق زوجها طلاقها"[7]
Translation:
Ya’qub bin Ibrahim told me, said ibn Alia from Khalid from ‘Ukrama from Ibn Abbas said: the divorce of the captive is six: selling her is her divorce, setting her free is her diverse, giving her away is her divorce, he innocence is her divorce, and her husband divorce is her divorce

What is meant above is that a captive goes under six conditions for divorce, one of them the last one is the divorce of her husband makes her divorce, that is exactly what happened to the captives of Awtas, as their mere capture inhibited the contract between their husbands and them.
Furthermore

Does Islam permit Marriage with Polytheist women (including those mentioned in the allegation)?:
"وحرمت عليكم النساء المزوجات فلا يحل لكم التزوج بهن أثناء كونهن مزوجات ألا أمراة ملكتها يمينكم بالسبي.... و هذا قول كثير أهل العلم"[8]
Translation:
It’s prohibited for you the married women so it’s not rightful for you to marry them since they are married, except for your right hand possess…. And that is the opinion of the majority of people of knowledge (scholars)
Continuing on:
"كما قال النووي رحمه الله: و المزوجات حرام على غير أزواجهن ألا ملكتم بالسبي, فأنه يفسخ نكاح زوجها الكافر و تحل لكم اذا انقضى أستبرائوها"[9]
Translation:
As Imam Nawawi said: and the married women are forbidden on men who are not their husbands, except for your right hand possess, this violates her marriage contract with her infidel husband and it’s allowed for you to marry them when their menstruation pass on
This is further reinforced by verse 2:221
{And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe.}
4:3
{And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].}

4:25
{And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.}

The common denominator here is the concept of Wat’ bill nukah
Meaning sexual intercourse with marriage, the common theme that one might read from some of the readings is that this permit sexual intercourse, but is sexual intercourse without marriage? Are Muslims permitted to have sexual intercourse with female slaves without marrying them?
There is a word for this, it’s سفاح or also known as Zina
Meaning having sexual intercourse with a woman without marrying her
According to Lisan Al-Arab the most authentic Arabic-Arabic dictionary
وهو أَن تقيم امرأَةٌ مع رجل على فجور من غير تزويج صحيح[10]
Translation:
It’s for a woman to commit sexual intercourse on privet parts without marriage
And at no point did we see any of the above tradition permit the practice of safah let alone mention it, even when scholars like Imam Nawawi stated that these women were converted then got married, this is evidence that sexual intercourse without marriage (سفاح) was not permitted at all, this practice is not mentioned anywhere even in ibn Kathir commentary that permitted sexual intercourse
So now as we progress we are getting a more clear picture of what verse 24 is talking about, but for the sake of more clarity we will see more scholars opinions
According to Ibn Taymiah in his groundbreaking book Majmu’ alfatawa
"(أو ما ملكت أيمانكم) و أنما يمتنع الوطء بسبب يوجب التحريم, ان تكون محرمة بالرضع, او بالصهر, أو بالشرك و نحو ذالك"[11]

Translation:
{or your right hand possess} it’s not permissible to have sexual intercourse with them based on if they were pregnant, or family related, or polytheist, and so on

Meaning it’s not permissible to have sexual intercourse with her until she convert

But that begs the question, the same question I had before if Muslims are such sexual predators, why not allow to have sex even with polytheists?
Why put so many limits and regulations regarding marriage and sexual intercourse prohibiting them.

Now don’t take my word for it, take the word of The Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taymia in his book majmu’ al-fatawa, one of the greatest scholars in the history of Islam regarding the  issue or marriage and sexual intercourse, he stated the following:
"وقال تعالى (يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا يحل لكم أن ترثوا النساء كرها ولا تعضلوهن لتذهبوا ببعض ما آتيتموهن) فقد ذكر ان تراضي بالمعروف و الأمساك بالمعروف و التسريح بالمعروف, و المعاشرة بالمعروف, و أن لهن و عليهن بالمعروف كما قال : (رزقهن وكسوتهن بالمعروف) , فهذا المذكور في القرأن هو الواجب العدل في جميع ما يتعلق بالنكاح من أمور النكاح و حقوق الزوجين, فكما أن ما يجب للمرأة عليهمن الرزق و الكسوة هو بالمعروف, و هو العرف الذب يعرفه الناس في حالهما نوعا و قدر وصفة......وكذالك يجب عليه من المتعة و العشرة فعليه يبيت عندها, و يطأها بالمعروف, و يختلف ذللك باختلاف حالها و حاله, و هذا أصح القولين في الوطء الواجب انه مقدار المعروف"[12]
Translation:
As god said {O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them.} it was mentioned that having a firm and kind relationship and stand firm by kindness and equality, and having intimate relationship with kindness, and for them as it’s on them rights as he said { and their clothing according to what is acceptable} since this is mentioned in the quran it’s obligatory to deal equalily and kindly in all manners of marriage (including sex) and the rights of both spouses, as it’s obligatory to bestow upon the wife of clothing and spending with equality, and this is the equality that people know on both types in quantity and discription……and that is also related to pleasure and sex and intimate relationship , it’s obligoty upon him to give her house, and establish a sexual relation with equity and kindness, this differs according to her situation and his, and that is the most authentic among scholars regarding sexual relation it’s duty that it’s established with fairness”

I’m sorry, but I don’t see any mention of “rape her as long as you desire” above, this is the shaikh of Islam ibn Taymiyyah Granted, this title of Shaikh of Islam is not exclusive to ibn taymia, many scholars like Imam Nawawi (which we mentioned above) ibn Hajar al asqalani, and Ahmed ibn Hanbal and many others shared the same title

So, in short, we established that these women didn’t engage in sexual intercourse without marriage (safih or zina), but rather they converted from polytheism to Islam according to the majority of scholars, from there we need to establish the Hukum or ruling of sexual relations within marriage, and we did so above from Ibn Taymia who was addressing the issue of sexual relations with slaves and captives
Hadiths From the Prophet Prohibiting and preventing Compulsion including rape:
There is also a Hasan Hadith from the prophet punishing a man who forced himself on a woman
“Narrated 'Alqamah bin Wa'il Al-Kindi:
From his father: "A women went out during the time of the Prophet () to go to Salat, but she was caught by a man and he had relations with her, so she screamed and he left. Then a man came across her and she said: 'That man has done this and that to me', then she came across a group of Emigrants (Muhajirin) and she said: 'That man did this and that to me.' They went to get the man she thought had relations with her, and they brought him to her. She said: 'Yes, that's him.' So they brought him to the Messenger of Allah (), and when he ordered that he be stoned, the man who had relations with her, said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I am the one who had relations with her.' So he said to her: 'Go, for Allah has forgiven you.' Then he said some nice words to the man (who was brought). And he said to the man who had relations with her: 'Stone him.' Then he said: 'He has repented a repentance that, if the inhabitants of Al-Madinah had repented with, it would have been accepted from them.'"”[13]
Granted this story is mentioned in Sunan Abu Dawood, al Albani said that the word “stone” probably didn’t exist, never the less, not one protested to this source from Jam’ al Tirmidhi
I honestly can’t fathem the overwhelming sources and arguments in Islamic jursipudence against Ikrah Bil zina (compulsory sex) are complety against it, yet I’m so shocked to see not a single instance of rape in Islamic sources have ever been recorded let alone recorded without having the man punished, not to mention the countless sources contesting against it and the quran already addressing it both in 4:19 and 24:33, Yet TMA with all his cowardness and his dishonesty comes with these load words claiming Muhammad or islam allows rape in general, and he couldn’t even come up with a single story of a man raping a woman without getting punished

Another Hadith from the prophet Prohibiting compulsion on all of its Kinds

There are two hadiths with two different mutations regarding the words, but both share the same words
First hadith
“On the authority of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
Verily Allah has pardoned [or been lenient with] for me my Ummah: their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and that which they have been forced to do under duress. A Hasan hadeeth related by Ibn Majah, and al-Bayhaqee and others.”[14]
Authentication: Hasan
Second Hadith
“It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (
) said :
"Allah has forgiven my nation for mistakes and forgetfulness, and what they are forced to do."”[15]
authentication: Sahih (authentic)
Now, what does Forgiven my nation for mistakes or pardoned them means? For that we need to see what scholars of interpretation have examined on one of these hadiths
"وقوله (رفع الله عن أمتي الخطأ و النسيان) المراد به: رفع حكمه......وقيل: المراد (به): رفع حكمه الذي هو المؤاخدة.....و قد كان يفهم من قولهم (رفعت عنك الخطأ): المؤاخذة به و العقاب"[16]

Translation:
And what is meant by the prophet “God has forgiven for my nation from mistakes and forgetfulness” meaning: the judgment of these actions and mistakes were left……and it was said: what is meant here is the Hukum judgment which is accountability….. it was also understood from (I pardoned you of your mistake) meaning accountability and punishment

Furthermore a  much more striking explanation:
"حك الخطأ والنسيان والمكره عليه فغير مرفوع فلو أتلف شيئاً خطأ أو ضاعت منه الوديعة نسياناً ضمن. ويستثنى من الاكراه: الاكراه على الزنا والقتل فـلا يباحان بالاكراه"[17]
Translation:
And regarding the mistakes and forgetfulness and what was forced upon and what has been inserted on, if it was corrupted as a mistake or lost due to forgetfulness, and what has been made exceptional Duo to compulsions such as compulsion and forced sex, and forced murder these are not allowed  if they were forced


Conclusion:
I have decided to end the article here, it’s already long enough, I shall address the rest of the issues made by the masked Arab regarding the prophet Muhammad attitude in the next article



[2] Childhood in World History By Peter N Stearns, Professor of History and Provost Introduction page.3
[3] Puberty as a life history transition By Peter T. Ellisona, Meredith W. Reichesa, Heather Shattuck-Faegrea, Alicia Breakeya, Martina Konecnab,Samuel Urlachera& Victoria Wobberaa Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, and bDepartment of Zoology,University of South Bohemia, Budwais, Czech Republic, page.4
[4] Sharih Sahih Muslim 1456 by Imam Nawawi
[5] Al-Maqni By Ibn Qudama Vol.9 Page.552
[6] Tayser Al’Ali Al-Qadir fi Ikhtisar Tafsir Ibn Kathri, by Ibn Kathir vol.1 page.373
[7] Jami’ Ahkam Al-Nisa vol.3 page.112
[8] Ibid page.114
[9] ibid
[11] Majmu’ Al-Fataw By Shikh of Islam Ibn Taymia vol.32 chap.12 page.117
[12] Ibid page.55
[13] Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1454
[14] Ibn Maja 40 Hadith Nawawi 39
[15] Ibn Maja Vol. 3, Book 10, Hadith 2045
[16] Rawtha Al-Nathar Wa jana Al-Manthar By Muafaq al Din Almaqdisi (imam Ibn Qudama) page.223
[17] Alkutub Al-Arba’in By Imam Nawawi page.80