Salam alikum here is a list of the articles coming up in chronological order
Sharif Gaber reply part-4
Sharif Gaber reply part-5
TMA request
Introduction to Jarih Wa Alta'dil science of hadith narrator criticism and revision
DTT article updated on Banu Qurayza
in the meantime feel free to ask me questions and I'll do my best to answer
Will the dtt article on qurayza be published here on dtt website?
ReplyDeleteAnd what will you add, briefly?
on DTT website
Deletei will add the initial refutations with more sources if necessary it's my own method (deconstorcting opponent argument and provide counter sources)
Honestly, no disrespect intended, but I really hope that this is the last time you address a Sharif Gaber video, the "arguments" he uses aren't even worth making such a long chain of responses to. However, it'd be interesting to see the one about TMA's request, by the way will you post it on your YouTube channel or here on the blog?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletehopefully my TMA request will be posted on both, I'm anyways planing to migrate to YouTube
Deleteunderstandable, i too hate responding to his idiotic arguments (this words has hundreds of meanings therefore it has no meaning) it make my head hurts and more and more i feel like getting cancer because of him and his lies, but unfortunately many Muslim brothers are lost because of him, and i aim to left the nonsense he is making especially at the end with the British library Quran, as i will refute that, but now as i already showed I'm planning to teach people how to be critical of hadith citations, and planning to provide a free course on Udemy to teach arabic, since Arabic is a MUST in ilm aljarih wa alta'dil
DeleteWhy is it that people that commit suicide are sent to hell for eternity and have no chance of repentance or forgiveness whereas people that commit murder can be forgiven if the repent.
ReplyDeletewell i already answered this one down in comments read it
DeleteCan you a make a post explaining classical scholars' defense of 'Ijaz Al Quran?
ReplyDeleteis the hadith scholar al albani reliable? I always see his gradings on sunnah.com but appearently he was heavily criticized and refuted by other scholars.can we accept his gradings?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/al_albani.htm
Yes we accept his gradings and he was a great scholar of hadith. However he made mistakes and also new information has arisen.
DeleteSo a general rule of thumb
Generally when albani says something is daif it is almost always correct
When he says something is sahih he is often correct but not always. Like with the hadith about saying dhahaba al zama at iftar its weak but he said its sahih.
As for refuting, scholars dont refute him but if he made an error correct it.
As for the allegations against hin many have been responded to already
in general he is reliable, the scholars who refuse him are generally western orientalists, he is not the only hadith Jarih wa mu'adil, there are many others, like Nisai and Bukhari himself, infact Bukhari has his own method that allow him to authenticate hadiths and collected it under his wing, but sunnah.com for reasons I don't know of rely on albani
DeleteWhy does God punish unbelievers in eternal hell? The descriptions of torture in hell in the quran are too extreme and gruesome ,I cannot understand how a lovely and merciful God can do that to his creatures
ReplyDeletein my personal opinion as i saw it and as many scholars so it it's not eternal hell, there is a concept called Jahanamiun, literally means people of hell fire, these people while they are being punished or before it will be granted mercy and enter paradise while their memory is wiped from all they remember of torture as it never happened, they will be asked during hell if they truly believe in god and his messenger, if they respond accordingly they will be cleansed
Deletehttps://sunnah.com/bukhari/81/148
infact the prophet will be also responsible for freeing some of them
https://sunnah.com/urn/1344570
i also read somewhere that hell will eventually be empty
it also depends on the punishment, if you couldn't endure it you will leave hell and go to heaven
يَدْخُلُ أُنَاسٌ جَهَنَّمَ فَإِذَا صَارُوا حُمَمًا اخْرُجُوا فَأُدْخِلُوا الْجَنَّةَ ، فَيَقُولُ أَهْلُ الْجَنَّةِ : مَنْ هَؤُلاءِ ؟ فَيُقَالُ : هَؤُلاءِ الْجَهَنَّمِيُّونَ
people will enter hell, if they become like lava they will leave and go to paradise, and the people of paradise will ask who are they? then they will be answered with : these are the jahanamiun
Source
altawhid by ibn Khuzaima chapter isthbat sifat calam allah
trust worthy chain of narration
so both the level of punishment if you can't endure it, and your deeds and how you will show your belife determin you leaving hell, it's not random
Okay but these are all about muslims ,quran is clear and there is consensus that non-muslims who have received the message of islam and rejected it is going to go to hell. And numerous verses say its eternal. https://islamqa.info/en/727
DeleteI'm generally busy so I can't dedicate time and research to each comment as I did before my job is quite hard I can't fast Ramadan because of it
DeleteBut I'll try and answer that comment
In time
the hadith and the verse you cited are related to which people go to hell, not what happen to them after going to hell which is exactly what I'm talking about
Deleteit's true one of the 3 attributes of the jahanamiun are islamic but the second portion doesn't give any details on the identity of those who are turned to lava duo to sever torture and as result of mercy god deliver them to heaven simply because they couldn't take it anymore, these people are general people
Did you accept the concept of 'awl in inheritance calculation when needed ?
ReplyDeleteyes
DeleteDoesn't that bother you that you have to use this non-quranic ruling to avoid some overshot ? Shouldn't it have been revealed in the sunnah at least ?
DeleteSalam aleykum
ReplyDeleteIs killing apostates a rule in Shariah?
it's a rule but not THE rule, meaning you have two options either exile them or kill them, you chose
DeleteWhat do you think of this one:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/8ptc2c/hotd_236_muhammad_denies_a_slave_his_freedom/
Hey so if you were ever planning a response to hadith rejectors I have found a page of theirs where literally every single argument of theirs is brought and i thought it might be helpful for you.
ReplyDeleteIt goes theough thwir claims of the prophet and the sahaba and the 4 caliphs rejecting writing hadith and more, scholars sayings, their criticisms of certain ahadith abd saying they are weird and wrong, claiming the quran says you should believe in only that and nothing else etc
https://factszz.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/true-history-of-hadiths-and-sunna-a-must-reading-for-all-muslims-and-non-muslims-who-are-interested-in-theology/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Akhi 2 questions
ReplyDelete1. Solomon as said by the quran had the biggest kingdom however history never makes mention of it but it does with each other kingdom
2. Can you help with this video and responding to it: https://youtu.be/zLdfvGcQa4c
buying&selling slaves is permitted. So that means you can go to a slave market and buy a slave woman to have sex? Since you can have sex with slave women?
ReplyDeleteIt is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her. She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner. She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership. https://islamqa.info/en/20085
"buying&selling slaves is permitted. So that means you can go to a slave market and buy a slave woman to have sex? Since you can have sex with slave women?"
Deleteyou have to marry her and set her free first, and of course her consent is required in marrige
no consent = no marriage = no sex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8ylDgXNpyk&feature=youtu.be
DeleteWhat do you think of this buffoon's video?
citing verses out of context, citing hadiths out of context, typical.
Delete"It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her. She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner. She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership after it is established that she is not pregnant by waiting for one menstrual cycle, or until she has given birth if she is pregnant. "
ReplyDeleteThe fathwa said that she become permissible by ownership and contrast to this the wife who become by marriage. Also read the question, in the response the author never say that you have to get married to the slave.
"In the answer to question no. 10382 we have stated that Islam permits a man to have intercourse with his slave woman whether he has one or more wives or he is not married." If what you said was right, the responce to the question 10382 would be negative because you would have to be married to your slave.
so the origin of the "fatwa" comes from islamQ&A and they don't provide any source for their claim
Deleteyet you find that controversial?
Ok ok, this guy will be the next polemicist to be refuted after David wood
DeleteThey know probably more than you...
DeleteWho? Islamq&a ? Know more than me in what?
DeleteNone of the islamic sites,books or scholars I have ever saw say that you have to marry them for sex,rather they explicitly say no marriage is needed.yet this guy is in complete denial and claims the opposite with no evidence at all. He will then ignore every source you bring and never change his mind.
DeleteDont bother to convince him
Waste of time
Yes, you said that they didn't provide any sources.
Delete"None of the islamic sites,books or scholars I have ever saw say that you have to marry them for sex"
DeleteThen you clearly never read any of my previous posts where i show clear opposite to that statement
"yet this guy is in complete denial and claims the opposite with no evidence at all. He will then ignore every source you bring and never change his mind.
Dont bother to convince him
Waste of time"
Goodness gracious I'm in denial ? Yes I'm in denial when I provide irrefutable sources that you have to marry them first to have sex
But you and every one who tries to oppose this make arguments like " but these people says this " ignoring all my source that show the majority agree on my position
If there are people who are waste of time it's you.
"Yes, you said that they didn't provide any sources."
DeleteAre you referring to islamq&a and that statement
"a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her. She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner. She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership"
Then you might be mistaken
Her becoming permissable doesn't mean you can have sex without marriage
But rather permissable for marriage
Because they provide a link to a fatwa they cited before
They explicitly cite link
https://islamqa.info/ar/10382
They explicitly state the following
"أباح الإسلام للرجل أن يجامع أمَته سواء كان له زوجة أو زوجات أم لم يكن متزوجا .
ويقال للأمة المتخذة للوطء ( سرية ) مأخوذة من السِّرِّ وهو النكاح"
Translation :
"Islam allow a man to have sexual intercourse with his slave even if he had a wife or wives or was not married to another
And what it's meant by the concubine (slave) that was taken for sexual intercourse who was taken by capture is marrige contract *
So as you can see the fatwa they link to their own website (which is available only in Arabic) state that what is meant by "permissable" is that they are permissable to marrige
In reference to right hand possess they cite 4:3 of Qur'an which talks about marrige
They later cite 33:50 that talks about guarding your private parts except for wives and your right hand possess, and state the following
"وأباح لك التسري مما أخذت من المغانم ، وقد ملك صفية وجويرية فأعتقهما وتزوجهما "
Translation
And it's permissible for you to take captives of war of booties as the prophet took safiya and juwaiyea and set them free and married them
Note how they cited the story of the prophet setting them free and marrying them to explain 33:50 that talks about sex
In conclusion what they meant by "permissable" is marrige since their own link they cite to explain the issue
Since it's only in arabic i cant disprove you, but its funny that all text that ommit the marriage part are translated in english and all that include it are only in arabic...
Deleteif you think i'm lying, you can go to islamQ&A English link of that alleged fatwa, above there is a text titled "ar" it will switch it to Arabic
Deletego to the last lines where the link to fatwa number 10382 exist, press it and it will direct you to the real fatwa in arabic since the link doesn't work on English since it's not available in English
and tell me that I'm making that up
https://web.archive.org/web/20140303170113/https://islamqa.info/en/10382
DeleteNowhere does it say marriage is needed.
""Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.
A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.""
This is just about semantics, the words origin means marriage. That does not mean you have to marry,it doesnt prescribe a rule. The word concubine in english means someone whom you have sex with outside of marriage,thats why they use it here
Ibn Qudaamah said:
There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because Allaah says
Again,it just says SLAVE WOMAN and doesnt mention marriage. The whole fatwa uses the word concubine in quotes.
""The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.""
Read: EITHER MARRIAGE OR WOMEN SLAVES. SO THEY DONT COUNT AS MARRIED. if I tell you you can go to x or y,that means they are diffirent places.
Jesus, this mustnt be that hard to understand
Al-Umm, 5/43.
""The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them."
Again slaves and intercourse and no marriage mentioned.
Now you will play mental gymnastics again to deny the clear cut words here. Go on
https://pastebin.com/b9edpm9R
Deletestop cherry picking without context
Here is another clear fatwa about the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe questioner asks: Was It permissible to have relations with these slave-women without a formal marriage ceremony?
Pay attention they never say: NO! MARRIAGE IS NEEDED.
""Due to this right of ownership, It became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.
It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate ""with a woman who is not a man's legal wife**""
And. Read, Just ownership makes it ok cuz its like a marriage ceremony.
"The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. "
And ""A question that may still arise is that why does the owner of a slave woman not marry her before having relations with her? Well, this is impracticable""
http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/29160
if that still doesnt convince you,I dont know what can. its clear.
But if you are still denying, just to put an end to this nonsense, I will go ask a scholar,literally,"is marriage needed for sex with slaves" (although the above fatwa is clearly says so,you are in full denial" . when i get an answer ,i will let you know, and do you promise you will shut up and accept you are wrong here?
islamqa.org? wow what an authentic source, so the source is askimam.org for the original fatwa, now who is the owner of that website?
Deleteit's owned by two Imams
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
and Mufti Saheb
2 imams are the onses who authorize that fatwa that you cites
WOW what a great source, let's throw away islamweb which is the most authentic and well established islamic website, and islamQ&A (despite the fact that this one is wahabist) and accept fatwa from 2 Imams only that goes against the majority, not to mention that they cite no evidence no sources in their fatwa
Goodness, from one wahabist websites that disagree with you now you narrow it down to opinion of 2 unknown Imams that gave no sources for their claim? how desperate you have to be?
"But if you are still denying, just to put an end to this nonsense, I will go ask a scholar,literally,"is marriage needed for sex with slaves" (although the above fatwa is clearly says so,you are in full denial" . when i get an answer ,i will let you know, and do you promise you will shut up and accept you are wrong here?"
here are the websites for you that are most authentic
Islamweb (the most authentic and accepted islamic website out there)
and IslamQA.info (al be it this is wahabist website)
drag your ass there and ask them, once you ask islamweb yourself this question, come back here and give me the answer once you do get yourself set when i throw all the sources from them that refute your allegation as i did many times in the past
in the mean time keep on insulting
"and do you promise you will shut up and accept you are wrong here?"
Jesus Christ, you are an idiot, please do so and refute all the sources i cited before in the comment section that disproves your claim, and come back to me with the fatwa from islam web or some authentic website than opinion of just 2 imams that no one know about
When we give you sources that implicitly states that you don't need to be married you denies it and launch yourself into unrelated explanations and wishful thinking, when we give you sources that explicitly sates that you don't have to be married you go into full denial mode. You never question yourself when every scholars state that you can have sex with slave-girls, omitting marriage and you found one or two that say that you need to marry, that its simply not needed ?
Delete"When we give you sources"
Deleteyou literally didn't, you cited 2 websites, one that gave a fatwa without any source but i accepted it because it was an authentic source albeit it was a salafist Wahhabist website (islamQ&A.info) but at least they provided a link to another fatwa that actually contain sources and footnotes, and so i criticized that fatwa since it actually bothers to cite sources and still disagrees with you
then you proceeded to mock me and insult me and cited a website that reference another website supervised by 2 authorities, the worse part is that they don't bother to cite a single shred of evidence or source not even a single hadith/verse at all, and when i consider them abnormal like how imam ibn qudama who stated that majority of scholars agree you shouldn't have sex with captives especially polytheist until they convert and stated that the rest who disagree are abnormal you still mocked me despite the fact that i actually cite sources
then you proceeded to make threats stating that you will ask yourself, then i proceeded to gave you exactly what authority you should ask (islamweb) still you got pissed
"You never question yourself when every scholars state that you can have sex with slave-girls, omitting marriage and you found one or two that say that you need to marry, that its simply not needed ?"
my goodness i literally showed the opposite, the majority agree and stated only few disagree as abnormalities
@Anon
DeleteOuch! You got spanked!
Hello.
DeleteI was following your conversation and i found that you cut the citation at " took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them;" and use it to prove that you need to marry your slavegirls before sex, but if we find the source , we find that " He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both. " Meaning that he was not married to the last two because their are excluted from the freed/married ones.
About rayhaanah :" It was said that Rayhaanah bint ‘Amr al-Nadariyyah (or al-Quraziyyah) was also one of his wives. She was taken prisoner during the battle of Bani Qurayzah, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) chose her for himself and married her, then he divorced her then took her back. Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d , narrating from al-Waaqidi, 8/130
And it was said that she was a concubine. This was regarded as more likely by Ibn al-Qayyim in Zaad al-Ma’aad. " "These are the [11] wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with whom he consummated marriage. Two of them died during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), namely Khadeejah and Zaynab bint Khuzaymah (may Allaah be pleased with them both). The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) left behind nine wives when he died; there is no difference of scholarly opinion on this matter." We can see that rayhaanah is excluted from the 9 surviving wives list and that there is no difference of opignion. https://islamqa.info/en/47072
About maariyah :" The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not marry Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, rather she was a concubine" "Mariyah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was one of the Prophet’s concubines, not one of his wives. " https://islamqa.info/en/47572
Note that he had a son fom maariyah without marriage.
go read the conversation above and see who first cited that source
DeleteI dont care who cited it first, you used it in your pastebin.
DeleteDo you agree with scholars that your prophet got a son without marriage from maariyah ?
obviously you do care, you accused me of misquotation based on a quote from a source i was quoting from somone in my pastebin that was originally theirs, so you better not tell me i misquoted it since it's not even my source and that part you accused me of taking out is a red herring and doesn't address the issue above
Delete"Do you agree with scholars"
it's true, most scholars agree that she was not married when she was handed to him, she was considered Imma which means a nonfree woman
however she did convert before his marrige to her later after she concived to him which he married her at that time
source:
https://books.google.iq/books?id=no4wBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA788&dq=%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D9%85%D9%86+%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A9&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjssbiGrN3bAhXLCuwKHSQvBxEQ6AEIODAC#v=onepage&q=%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%8A%20%D9%85%D9%86%20%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A9&f=false
according to majority of scholars the prophet didn't marry her but had a contract with her as saria that she convert first and become ammia
others as i cited above state she was married after she conceived her son after her conversion
at the end she did convert to islam as her first stage the prophet didn't conceive his son from a nonmuslim like her while other minority state she was married to him
Nobody here was talking about her conversion so it's a red hearing. I also note that you expanded what was firstly quoted from this source("Translation And it's permissible for you to take captives of war of booties as the prophet took safiya and juwaiyea and set them free and married them.Note how they cited the story of the prophet setting them free and marrying them to explain 33:50 that talks about sex") but you ommited the part about muhammad two unmarried concubine.
Delete"Nobody here was talking about her conversion so it's a red hearing."
Deleteno it's not, because it's one of the prerequisite for sex, you can't have sexual intercourse with a nonmuslim infidel slave
"I also note that you expanded what was firstly quoted from this source("Translation And it's permissible for you to take captives of war of booties as the prophet took safiya and juwaiyea and set them free and married them.Note how they cited the story of the prophet setting them free and marrying them to explain 33:50 that talks about sex") but you ommited the part about muhammad two unmarried concubine."
no, again that was not my source, that was an article cited by someone responding to me and i used it against them, i didn't omitt any of it the rest is the real red herring since we were talking about marriage not concubines "he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both. "
no where we were talking about concubines and slaves of war and how they are captured, that is a red herring, the inital topic was what are the prerequisite of sex with slaves and is marriage one of them
her conversion to islam is very very important, because if she didn't prophet muhammad won't have sexual contact with her, her conversion is a must condition even more important than marriage, since sex with infidels is condemn by the overwhelming majority of scholars
The order in your book is conversion into pregnancy into marriage ?
Deletethe book i cited state is conversion -> marriage -> conceived son
Deletethe majority of the scholars who disagree are probably conversion -> conceived son -> marriage
or more likely conversion -> conceived son
in the end conversion to Islam is a compulsory condition that must be meet first to sex, even more than marriage
it's one of the main conditions i cited alongside marriage for sex to happen
"or more likely conversion -> conceived son" this is what ,i think, most people argue about in your comments : not the fact that she has to convert, but that she can have sexual relationship with her master without proper marriage, all following the example of muhammad.
Delete"this is what ,i think, most people argue about in your comments"
Deletemust people (at least non Muslims) are arguing capture -> sex without marriage or conversion at all, not a single one of them agreed that there are stipulations before sexual conduct
"but that she can have sexual relationship with her master without proper marriage"
that is atleast exclusive to Maria as a special case since this is the prophet we are talking about
"all following the example of muhammad."
prophet Muhammad had 12 wives (died with 9 in house) does this mean we should do the same and not follow quranic stipulations of limits to 4 wives only?
"no where we were talking about concubines and slaves of war and how they are captured, that is a red herring, the inital topic was what are the prerequisite of sex with slaves and is marriage one of them" If they are concumbines, they are unmarried ! That's exactly the subject of this discussion and why the fatwa used them as an exemple.
DeleteI also noted "READ "(bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) goodness how hard is that to learn? stop making mental gymnastics and read the fatwa as hole, don't cherry pick that parts that fit your agenda" where you ommited the next part "and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you" wich are separated from the married one and from the bridal money. And you accuse other of cherrypicking when you cannot use a complete sentence...
"where you ommited the next part "and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you" wich are separated from the married one and from the bridal money. And you accuse other of cherrypicking when you cannot use a complete sentence..."
DeleteCherry pick? you are the one who cited that fatwa link and you are the one who took one portion of it and genrlized it, on other note you are the one who cited a fatwa from an unvarifed websites autherized by 2 unknown immams
that sentence above speaks of ownership
as Aljalalayn said regarding that part of the verse that you accused me of cherry picking
"{ وما ملكت يمينك مما أفاء الله عليك } من الكفار بالسبي كصفية وجويرية "
translation:
{and your right hand possess of what allah has returned to you} by slavery and ownership of the infidels as captives like saffiya and juwarah
this does not mean that they are lawful for sex, that sentence speaks about ownership
"wich are separated from the married one and from the bridal money."
slaves are separated from marriage contract, no where did i said otherwise, strawman
slaves have a difference contract to marriage contract, two contracts one weaker than the other can't coexist at all
in order to marry the slave you have to set them free according to majority of scholars
"And you accuse other of cherrypicking when you cannot use a complete sentence..."
not using a complete sentence does not equate cherry picking, cherry picking is where you explictly take a quote out of context
"why the fatwa used them as an exemple."
the fatwa discusses sex with slaves not marriage with slaves
If we trust ibn Kathir the sentence is about sexual relations "(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.' He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners" Something not denied by your explaination that focus on the source of those, in the context of "allowance". Note that marriage and sex without marriage are both in this explanation.
Delete"slaves have a difference contract to marriage contract" Indeed the ownership contract include the right for the master to havd sex with the slave and is superior to a marriage contract, different contracts indeed.
"the fatwa discusses sex with slaves not marriage with slaves" Of course since you don't have to be married to have sex with them, but you can if you want." The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses. "
this will be the last time i repeat this argument
Delete"If we trust ibn Kathir the sentence is about sexual relations "(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.' He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners" Something not denied by your explanation that focus on the source of those, in the context of "allowance". Note that marriage and sex without marriage are both in this explanation."
here ibn kathir doesn't disagree with Jalalyan aswell, the original arabic tafsir of ibn kathir state the following
وقوله : ( وما ملكت يمينك مما أفاء الله عليك ) أي : وأباح لك التسري مما أخذت من المغانم ، وقد ملك صفية وجويرية فأعتقهما وتزوجهما . وملك ريحانة بنت شمعون النضرية ، ومارية القبطية أم ابنه إبراهيم ، عليه السلام ، وكانتا من السراري ، رضي الله عنهما .
translation:
and his saying {and your right hand possess of what god has given to you} meaning : you are allowed to capture of the war booties, and he captured saffiyah and jwayra and set them free then married them, and owned rayhana bin sham'un alnathria, and mariah the Coptic mother of his son ibrahim, and they were among his captives
that part "are also permitted to you" that seams you have confused with permitted in sex, no where does ibn kathir in arabic text says it as shown above
"Indeed the ownership contract include the right for the master to havd sex with the slave and is superior to a marriage contract, different contracts indeed."
not correct, sex is part of the contract but no where does it says you may have sexual intercourse as obligated
infact i stated this time and time again and as i said anyone who replies now and dispute it and keeps on making claims with no evidence that sex is permitted with slaves must provide evidence for it
ibn qudama said in magni:
" أن من حرم نكاح حرائرهم من المجوسيات وسائر الكوافر سوى أهل الكتاب لا يباح وطء الإماء منهن بملك اليمين في قول أكثر أهل العلم"
it's forbidden to marry the polytheists and the rest of the infidels except the people of the book, and it's forbidden to have sexual intercourse with the slave girls of right hand possess as that is the opinion of majority of scholars
"على هذا جماعة فقهاء الأمصار وجمهور العلماء وما خالفه فشذوذ."
on that is the general consensus of the fiquh scholars and the community of scholars and who ever disagree are mere abnormality
" 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."
and among the scholars who said that the captive of the polytheists and others of infidels those who are not of people of the book are not to have sexual intercourse with as right hand possess, untill they convert, so long as she is on her polytheist religion she is forbidden, and those captives of the infidels who worship idols, then this hadith and others like it that they became muslims and that is a must interpertation
source:
https://fatwa.islamweb.net/Fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=50902
again, majority goes beyond what i say, they say you can't have sex at all, i say you can so long as you marry them, and any one who disagree (including these 2 scholars from islam.org, and that 1 from islamQ&A even though islamQ&A didn't confirm you) are all considered abnormalities and they go against the general consensus of thousands of classical scholars
"here ibn kathir doesn't disagree with Jalalyan" i never said he does, simply that he bring new informations : "Something not denied by your explaination that focus on the source of those"
Delete"that part "are also permitted to you" that seams you have confused with permitted in sex, no where does ibn kathir in arabic text says it as shown above" I trust professional translators more than a guy on the internet, if they translated this way, it is because they have reasons to. Probably because he had sex with the last two without marring them.
"not correct, sex is part of the contract but no where does it says you may have sexual intercourse as obligated" For the sake of argument, nowhere did i say that sexual relation are obligated by the contract, only that they are possible.
"not correct, sex is part of the contract" so the slavery contract give you right to sexual relationship ? I agree.
"infact i stated this time and time again and as i said anyone who replies now and dispute it and keeps on making claims with no evidence that sex is permitted with slaves must provide evidence for it" ; "The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses." marriage is separated from slaves by an function word (or) to indicate an alternative. So "sexual relationships" apply to "marriage" excluding "right hand possesses" OR "sexual relationships" apply to "right hand possesses" excluding "marriage". This simple logic is folowed by Maududi in "two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one's possession"
You provide no context for the translation you provided, no accessible sources translated by professionals, so i cannot judge them.
"and among the scholars who said that the captive of the polytheists and others of infidels those who are not of people of the book are not to have sexual intercourse with as right hand possess, untill they convert, so long as she is on her polytheist religion she is forbidden, and those captives of the infidels who worship idols, then this hadith and others like it that they became muslims and that is a must interpertation" red-erring, we are not talking about religions of those slaves, even if this condition had to be fulfilled, for the sake of argument, your citation give nothing about sex with muslims slaves, reinforced by "not to have sexual intercourse with as right hand possess, UNTILL they convert"
"and among the scholars who said" so this is probably not the only/prevalent opinion, because other scholars differs.
"majority goes beyond what i say, they say you can't have sex at all" I read this as sex with unmarried slaves. So [citation needed], even more since your above citation put an "untill" to the prohibition of sex with slaves.
"general consensus of thousands of classical scholars" let me guess, arabic only text translated by yourself against all historians (including muslims ones) asserting that islam allow concubines and countless muslims apologist websites that states that this was better for the slave ?
so your objections pretty much boils down to "i don't trust your translation"? so when i show you general consensus of scholars that sex with slaves and right hand possess is not allowed in the first place (in contrast to what i say that it's allowed) you response is "i don't trust your translation"
Deleteso you trust the translations of TMA and several anti muslim arab speakers but all the sudden when source (which i did provide) are shown that contradict their statement all the sudden it turns to ad hominm and saying "you are just some guy on the internet"?
I gave you a long response that you ignored only to strawman, nowhere did I said that I agree with tma own translations, but he, generally give accessible translation done by professionals. I used this type from islamqa and other, in another comment you translated the first two lines of an arabic only article from islamqa (10382) and when someone gave you islamqa own translation in an archive. I saw that the two are every different, notably you changed words to make an argument. So indeed I don't trust you.
Deleteyour long response was basicly "you are just some dude on the internet" that is all, which is just an ad homienm fallacy, you can take the arabic text i gave you and go to TMA discord there are alot of arab speaking ex muslims, show it to them and tell me i was deceptive in my translation if that is your claim
DeleteTMA generally rely on his translation when citing none translated sources of islamic fiquh, don't tell me he generally use acessible translations done by "proffessionals" which you never proved that they were "proffessional" translators, when ever we have an issue related to Quran he uses one of the translations, when ever we have an issue using sunnah he provide sunnah.com translations, but when citing sources that doesn't exist in neither of them he uses his arabic native knowledge like me, the arabic text is up there (with the source) you can take it and check if i was deceptive in my translations which i always show the arabic text when ever I'm doing a response, so people can fact check me
"I used this type from islamqa and other, in another comment you translated the first two lines of an arabic only article from islamqa (10382) and when someone gave you islamqa own translation in an archive. I saw that the two are every different, notably you changed words to make an argument. So indeed I don't trust you."
ask yourself why did IslamQ@A removed it?
the translation i gave is the followin
""أباح الإسلام للرجل أن يجامع أمَته سواء كان له زوجة أو زوجات أم لم يكن متزوجا .
ويقال للأمة المتخذة للوطء ( سرية ) مأخوذة من السِّرِّ وهو النكاح"
Translation :
"Islam allow a man to have sexual intercourse with his slave even if he had a wife or wives or was not married to another
And what it's meant by the concubine (slave) that was taken for sexual intercourse who was taken by capture is marrige contract *"
you focused on the last part "is marriage contract"
islamQ&A Deleted translation (which they deleted it for an obvious reason) says the following "A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage. "
the only difference is that i added the word contract and in their translation it's not there, but both the same, marriage is marriage contract
the only difference is the syntax, no major difference between the two at all
so please take that ad homienm "you are just some dude on the internet" and use it on someone else, and respond to my sources (which i provided the arabic text for it with the link) and actually respond to my source, take the arabic text and go for your exmuslim arab speakers and come tell me back that I'm a liar
I will be short because i am drunk. But im still able to reply. First i note that you didn't reply to my arguments and you still strawman me. If you abuse quotes to show me a spelling mistake note that I can do the same for every words you misspelled . But I'm above that. I only used "untilll" because it was necessary in my reply. If you think the only difference between the two translations is the word "contract" , please end your life or learn English.
DeleteI won't use tma discord for the same reason I don't trust you: they are just some guys on the internet. Why they deleted it i have no clues, but they didnt remplaced it, so the translation was accurate in my opinion but the text was shocking.
This will be my last reply to you for that matter
DeleteI didn't reply to your arguments because your arguments are ad hominem character assassination
You simply said I was a guy on the internet that you can't trust my translations even though I already invited you to investigate it
You resorted to make a wall of personal attacks and call me untrusted
Then I told you the link is above in case you thought I misquoted them
I invited you to go to TMA discord and ask Arab speaking ex Muslims there hell you can take it and ask TMA himself to translate it because you trust those who affirm your propaganda
And after attacking my personality ignoring all my sources and literally not addressing any of them dispite the fact I was civil with you you told me to kill myself?
Apperalty you are drinking to much that it took tole to your brain and made you lose all intellect (if you had any in the first place) and said I should kill myself
The sources are there above clear as the sun says you can't have sex with slave at all by general consensus of scholars
Then you come and attack my personality in a wall text while ignoring everything I said
Claiming imam nawawi explanation is red herring (apparently you have no clue how red herring works)
And when I point out your fallacy and how you didnt address jackshit your reply is "kill yourself"? The only thing shocking is the level of your stupidity
And before you ask me to learn English learn it yourself "replace" not "remplaced"
Go back to your sad life you dipstick And go back to reddit with your fellow ex Muslims and bang your chest and proclaim how you "owned" me like how you guys did
And spare me your nonsense and stop wasting my time
Still no responses...
Delete"I didn't reply to your arguments because your arguments are ad hominem character assassination " some are simply stating a simple fact , the same way myself i only am another guy on the internet ; but other aren't.
Delete"The sources are there above clear as the sun says you can't have sex with slave at all by general consensus of scholars " which one ? the one with "untill" ?
"apparently you have no clue how red herring works" no one talked about religion of the slave until you brought this quote, so yes it's a red herring.
"And before you ask me to learn English" that because your translation has a whole different
meaning than their own.
"ex Muslims and bang your chest and proclaim how you "owned" me like how you guys did
And spare me your nonsense and stop wasting my time" i'm an atheist.
"jackshit your reply is "kill yourself" If you read carefully, i wrote "please end your life or learn English." You, again, missed the conjunction "OR", the same problem i described in an above reply to you. You seem to have problems with conjunctions.
Delete""The sources are there above clear as the sun says you can't have sex with slave at all by general consensus of scholars " which one ? the one with "untill" ?"
Deletethese
"ibn qudama said in magni:
" أن من حرم نكاح حرائرهم من المجوسيات وسائر الكوافر سوى أهل الكتاب لا يباح وطء الإماء منهن بملك اليمين في قول أكثر أهل العلم"
it's forbidden to marry the polytheists and the rest of the infidels except the people of the book, and it's forbidden to have sexual intercourse with the slave girls of right hand possess as that is the opinion of majority of scholars
"على هذا جماعة فقهاء الأمصار وجمهور العلماء وما خالفه فشذوذ."
on that is the general consensus of the fiquh scholars and the community of scholars and who ever disagree are mere abnormality
" 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."
and among the scholars who said that the captive of the polytheists and others of infidels those who are not of people of the book are not to have sexual intercourse with as right hand possess, untill they convert, so long as she is on her polytheist religion she is forbidden, and those captives of the infidels who worship idols, then this hadith and others like it that they became muslims and that is a must interpertation
source:
https://fatwa.islamweb.net/Fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=50902"
now go to arab speaking exmuslims and ask them yourself to translate this, hell ask TMA himself to translate the arabic text above which you ignored
now as i said i won't bother with responding to you, not until you apologize.
still waiting for your apology
DeleteI just read in an another articles your thoughts about the stoning of homosexuals, if you want apologies for a retorical reply but on your side condome real mass murder based on an hadith, you deserve none.
DeleteNow if you take that back and dont agree to this ruling and other with the same imbalanced "crime"/ punishment ratio, i apologise.
No where did i made an article on stunning homosexuals
DeleteYou are probably still drunk
Perhaps you should use better words
DeleteSaying that I made thoughts in an article suggests I wrote that article about that topic
The better word will be " I found comments about homosexuals that belong to you in an article"
Now using that quote above no where does it says that homosexuals should be stoned to death
The point is that homosexuals are more prone to STDs than heterosexuals
Jesus Christ it's even there in the quote you cited how could you miss this? Homos are more prone to transmit sexually transmitted diseases than straight people
AIDS is spread far more among homos than in heteros
That is a scientific fact, even a pro secular and a pro liberal channel on YouTube called seeker has done works on this and they do agree with me
If science says AIDS is far more spread among gay people then perhaps by your logic science is homophobic
Therefore conducting public gay relations could cause sexual diseases epidemics which is why it's considered wrong by Islamic standards
Similar to how smoking cigarettes is at one point considered haram
Bloody hell stonning is not even part of that quote
Good job at this strawman fallacy
"whomever you find doing" what about accidental findings, generally peoples didn't learn it by breaking into houses ?
Delete"But if you say I want them dead for just being gay then you are insanely dumb" okay i will trust you. sorry, Now what about the differences between your translations i gave you in my comment from July 30, 2018 at 12:58 AM ?
Now you flip the strawman on me after accusing me of saying gays should be stonned ? Wow
DeleteI think homosexuals are sinful and wrong that doesn't mean i want to kill them
The hadith like all hadiths on apostasy rely on that group if society damage rather than their tendency itself
As the hadith says "whomever you find doing the acts of the people of lot kill him and kill the one who does it "
Meaning public act otherwise this verse suggest that you should break into houses and see them doing their act
Which of course it doesn't say that
And why would i defend them ? Should I defend them purely for being gay or should I defend them if they get falsely accused of spreading STDs?
I don't need to defend them for being gay
If they did a criminal act then they get punished like all people do
Are you saying homosexuals are excepted from legal acts if they commit a crime ?
I don't disagree with The hadith because there is nothing wrong with it, do what you want so long as it's not public because then you spread STDs (which as typical you didn't address) which on its own cause mass death
I would rather have one person die rather than having a deadly epidemic spread just because i was tolerant.
Call this what you want twist it to any degree
But if you say I want them dead for just being gay then you are insanely dumb
Public homosexual acts (like all sexual acts in public) is not allowed at all
Gays receive the same punishment as straight get if they commit public act of zina
No difference between two both gays and straight are punished equally if they commit zina
The hadith doesn't address the nature of homosexuality itself the Quran already did it
The hadith talks about the public act
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/17/40
However scholars classified it as hasan because killing was not part of the original script as noted
وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ فِيهِ الْقَتْلَ وَذَكَرَ فِيهِ مَلْعُونٌ مَنْ أَتَى بَهِيمَةً
Translation
And killing was not mentioned only the nature of the one doing the act being cursed animal.
In short scholars differ in regards if gay is killed or not since this was a later insertion to the hadith
Rather they compared the act to zina
As for throwing gays of roof this was legistilated by the companion abu baker
Not Muhammad not allah
First you ignore all my previous sources proceed to call me some dude on internet then tell me to go kill myself
Then you strawman on homosexuality and now you ask me to apologize
The difference between me and you is that u never told someone to be kill themselves you did
And you won't expect further response from me to your response to my sources untill you apologize
I gave you a second chance and now you ruined it then proceed to call me genocidal
Homosexuality is sinful and wrong and all arguments for it from appeal to nature to saying "let them do what they want since they don't harm you " are bad and i will still hold the position that these arguments are bad even if I was an atheist who defend homosexuals
Now either apologize (again) or don't expect even a normal reply form me about anything at all.
"okay i will trust you. sorry, Now what about the differences between your translations i gave you in my comment from July 30, 2018 at 12:58 AM ?"
Deletethe only differnece is the translation you gave uses Zoroastrians instead of just polytheists (although both are acceptable) that is it, both my translation and the translation you got agree that sex with slaves are not allowed
second of all muslim slaves are not mentioned because the questioner in this fatwa from islamweb purposefully asked about right hand possess of infidels as the title of the fatwa says "حرمة وطء الأمة الكافرة بالملك" translation:
the forbidden of sex with female disbeliever as right hand posses
second of all the first part of the sentence is talking about marriage, when it proceed to talk about sex it differentiate it from the first one, and it include all (both people of the book and infidels) since it says "who are from among such people according to the majority of the scholars" meaning both people of the book and infidels
https://pastebin.com/RkJ8X8jh
Deletestop misquoting and strawmaning your own source
First of all i note that again you didnt reply to any of my arguments, you tell me that i used another source even if it the one i use since the beginning of our conversation, but i also used some of the elements that you translated from your own source, for the sake of argument , to show you how they all abound my views.
Delete" completely ignored my sources" i used some of what you translated, and as i previously said its in arabic so no use for me, give me a professional trusted translation and i will respond to it.
" why are you so afraid not to tackle the above statement?" I didnt used it because i dont have a problem with it. I responded to the sentence it was attached to, by itself this one has no sense or use.
" Christians Jews and polytheists are not allowed to have sexual intercourse with, Andy anyone who disagree are abnormality" i responded in a comment above using your town translation and one from the other website.
"note how he cited a verse about marriage with a statement about sex, because marriage again is required for sexual intercourse with Muslim women" no its because the word for marriage "nikaah" is the same that for coit.
" intimate relations doesn't need to be sexual at all." Intimacy carry the notion of sexuality, and the fact that the word is in a text speaking about "sexual relations" dispell any doubt about it. Intimacy and intercourse are used about the same action in "There must be no intercourse with a pregnant woman until ...this is clear evidence indicating the permissibility of being intimate with them."
" since sex is addressed above directly" read my previous comments : "such people" = " Magians and all other disbelievers save Christians and Jews" The expression "suchpeople" was not in your translation.
" it is deemed unlawful for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman or to have intercourse with her by virtue of ownership.” what seems to me the most logical here is that the fatwa cite an alternative opinion to the one prevalent or that since jews and christians are not polytheist (muslims always had problems with trinity, but jews are strict monotheists), they are excluted from this command as above we can read "There is no disagreement among scholars regarding the permissibility of marrying the free women from the People of the Book" contrasted by "is impermissible for the Muslim man to marry a disbelieving woman who is not from the People of the Book; Allaah, The Exalted, says (what means): {And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe…} [Quran 2:221] This is according to the scholarly consensus." Those use the same verse to give a totally opposed view, excluding people of the book from the polytheist.
The same for "It should be noted that the permissibility of having intercourse with one’s polytheist captive was abrogated "
Delete" Ruling on sexual intercourse with one's polytheistic slave-woman" which is why it doesn't address Muslim women slaves" it doesnt adress them directly but we can find mention of them by contrast to the prohibition of non-muslim except people of the book.
" have sexual relations with slaves until you set them free, convert them then marry them" Again polytheist not christian nor jews nor muslims.
" meaning you are allowed to marry people of the book but not polytheist, but you are not allowed to have sexual intercourse with either of them" already responded
" source sex is not an obligated part of the ownership" not obligated but possible, since marriage is a weaker version of it.
" free first to void the slave contract then make a marriage contract in order to have sexual intercourse with them" not necessarily since you can marry another guy slaves , then only one contract by person and the two doest coexist.
" "is the one forbidden, Muslims or Christians or Jews are halal."for marriage"are halal"for marriage" explicity refuted by " The slave owner has the right to be intimate with his female slave (who is a Muslim, Christian, or a Jew) because she is his “milk yameen” and " As for having lawful intercourse with one’s idolatrous/pagan slave woman (i.e. a non-Muslim slave woman who is not from the People of the Book), jurists held different opinions about this. Most of them maintained that it is forbidden" and this view is contrasted to the concensus about the right to marry them " That said, you should know that there is no disagreement among the scholars regarding the following:..."
"it destroys your argument and completely affirms my position" not for me
" you have no contract with them at all so you are not entitled to sex, " you, but she can still be the slave of somebody else, and " from the service of his slave woman and to be intimate with her"
"set free first, then married then you can have sex" refuted by " like if he married her as a slave woman, then he bought her from her master"
" not to cite sources that destroy your own arguments?" You responded to none of my previous comments and ignored all that goes against your views...
I just searched about Qurtubi's wiews :
Delete"It seem that "Qatada and SaTd ibn Jubayr said that the ayat is general to every woman unbeliever and there is a special case for women of the Book, which is explained in Surat al-Ma’ida, and so the general statement never included women of the Book. This is the position of ash-ShafiT." reflect my opinion . Other think that this is abrogated by 5:5 "One group says that Allah forbade marrying all women idolaters in Surat al-Baqara, including women of the Book (Jews and Christians), and then allowed marriage with them in Surat al-Ma’ida. This position is related from Ibn ‘Abbas and was related by Malik ibn Anas," "It is also impossible for this ayat to abrogate the one in Surat alMa’ida because Surat al-Baqara was one of the first suras to be revealed in Madina and Surat al-Ma’ida was one of the last, and the later clearly abrogates the earlier. In any case, there is no dispute that a Muslim is better than an unbeliever. This is clear."
I will dedicate an article regarding this topic so I can get rid of it.
DeleteGood idea, try to provide translations where key words needed to differentiate the objects are not missing. And make sure not to give statement such as :
Delete"meaning you are allowed to marry people of the book but not polytheist,"
"meaning that you are not allowed to marry a non-muslim (which include the people of the book) "
at the same time, else your article "will be self contradicting".
*and this view is contrasted to the concensus about the interdiction to marry them
Deleteit makes no sense for me not to provide my own statements and opinion about it, i have to otherwise the article will be mere translations that is all, you are free to ignore my statements and my commentary and explanations and form your own while at the same time taking the arabic source that i always give with the text and check the translations along with other arab speaking exmuslims so i won't be accused of deceptive translations
DeleteSince we are talking about it, in your translation of ibn qudama, you attached the word "منهن" (literally "from them" (feminine plural)) to the "slave that your hand process " part only, but in their translation they linked it to "people" , previously mentioned and explained. Why are the two so different ?
DeleteIs the story of Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh apostatizing because Muhammad let him edit the Quran and put his own words?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/killed.html
No its not. Its false and check islamic awareness article on it
Deletei will be making a post about it after I'm done with sharif
DeleteAkhi
ReplyDeleteHave you seen jewish prayers. Especially on yom kippur. It seems awfully a lot like the muslim prayer. How then do we respond to those who claim muhammad saw the jews praying in that fashion and took it from them and copied
Jewish prayer
https://youtu.be/0aHWASyMjwg
so muhammad copied the jews (which we have no source that confirm this) because in islamic prayer you prostrate and kneel like jews does?
DeleteBuddhist do the same, did Muhammad witnessed the Buddhist prayer and copied it?
Hi Zaid,
ReplyDeleteSomeone sent me a short article from TROP, can you help me undertand the context behind those incidents when you have some free time from your schedule? Thank 👍
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/women-kill.aspx
Hey Zaid, please don't bother, i already found articles which explains the context behind those executions, one of the stories is infact fabricated...sorry to disturb you 👍
ReplyDeleteHope you're fine by the way...
What is your opinion about the early muslim conquests and the aggressivity of their expansions ?
ReplyDeleteWhere there all defensive warfare, from china to spain ?
"What is your opinion about the early muslim conquests and the aggressivity of their expansions ?
DeleteWhere there all defensive warfare, from china to spain ?"
sorry for the very late reply, busy
my opinion is that almost all islamic wars are defensive, only preemptive wars that don't seam defensive require a reason for it
for example if a non muslim nation governs muslims as citizens on it but oppresses them another islamic nation have the right to wage war on it since that non muslim nation is oppressing it's muslim population, case in point Maynamar and the current genocide muslims face, on that issue muslims are propmted to wage on maynamar to save the current oppressed muslims, it might not seam as self deference but it's necessary
source:
aljihad wa alqital fi alsiasa alshar'ia vol.1 page.131
Some source states that Ibraaheem had Haajar as a concubine, other that she married him, what is your stance on that ?
ReplyDeleteThanks
she was his concubine gifted to him, she was already a concubine to sarah and was gifted to him by his wife sarah herself
DeleteA concubine to sarah ? more like a slave of sarah ? I don't think lesbianism was positively seen at that time ^^
Deletei never said concubine means having same gender relations, concubine is a woman who lives with her master but have lower status than his wives, not necessarily a slave
Deletesame can be said to sarah, as concubine here means sarah is her master and she has lower status than her.
concubine noun [ C ]
Deleteuk /ˈkɒŋ.kjə.baɪn/ us /ˈkɑːn.kjə.baɪn/
a woman who, in some societies, lives and has sex with a man she is not married to, and has a lower social rank than his wife or wives.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concubine
"in some societies" "in some societies"
DeleteDefinition of concubine
: a woman with whom a man cohabits without being married: such as
a : one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife
b : mistress 4a
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concubine
and perhaps i should have made my words better than saying concubine to sarah rather a servant to sarah
DeleteConcubine 1(in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives. 1.1archaic A mistress. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/concubine
DeleteYes, in polygamous societies. "Concubine" definitions always go back to the man as the main subject of cohabitation, so yes servant is more appropriate.
What do you think of essenceofthought?
ReplyDeletehe make excuses, once i asked him to rebuttal i comment i made deconstructing his video (i don't remember which video it was) in long text, he replied with "make a video and i will respond" i state my response is already up you are commenting under it just read it and reply in your time
Deletei couldn't bother with him, he is just someone who make the same anti muslim claims with nothing new other than having a serious face and tone.
how do you respond to someone who says the following
ReplyDelete1. there is no proof of jinns existing
2. beleving there are entities created of smokeless fire is ridiculous since there is no proof to back it up, nor is it logical.
3. not any religion outside of islam cameup with this concept of jinn, if you believe allah sent down prophets to all nations, why is it only islam that believes in jinn and not jews and christians and hindus etc.
4. why does islam believe in jinn? well it is because pre islamic arabia believed in jinn, and because muhammad was born in that society he was made to think that as well. because his mind was now in belief of their existence and now he just implemented this into his religion
"1. there is no proof of jinns existing"
Deletewhat type of proof?
"2. beleving there are entities created of smokeless fire is ridiculous since there is no proof to back it up, nor is it logical."
if i go back to 7th centory arabia and tell them in the future there will be blocks we hold in our hand that allow us to send penless messages through air and move objects by using man made humansoids to do our tasks for us and there will be flying objects in the sky that look like tupes what do you think they will tell you?
that argument is appeal to ridicule fallacy, just because something sound crazy to you dosn't make it false
"there is no proof to back it up, nor is it logical."
again what proof?
"3. not any religion outside of islam cameup with this concept of jinn, if you believe allah sent down prophets to all nations, why is it only islam that believes in jinn and not jews and Christians and hindus etc."
Jews Christians have their own jinns they call them demons, so what is the problem here?
"4. why does islam believe in jinn? well it is because pre islamic arabia believed in jinn, and because muhammad was born in that society he was made to think that as well. because his mind was now in belief of their existence and now he just implemented this into his religion"
jinns are what we call demons , Christians and jews believe in them we give them different terms for that, and Christians existed in 7th century arabia even before islam, and what jinss they believed in, and citation needed
how do we interpret the hadith which says that satan is in our uppert part of our ose when we sleep, also how can he be in so many noses at the same time
ReplyDeleteit doesn't nassarly means Satan sleep or live in the upper part of our nose
Delete"وكذلك آية الكرسي ، وقد تقدم فيه " ولا يقربك شيطان " ويحتمل أن يكون المراد بنفي القرب هنا أنه لا يقرب من المكان الذي يوسوس فيه وهو القلب "
translation:
and so chapter Kursi, and we mentioned "and satan doesn't reach you" and what is the probable meaning behind is to deny the claim that satan can reach one because what is meant here is that satan doesn't reach the place that he possess and that is the heart
source:
Fatih bari fi sharih sahih bukhari kitab badi alkhaliq hadith.3121
so let me simplify what it means here, it means that cleaning up and performing ablution prevent Satan from going though our nose and reaching all the way to our heart to corrupt it, it doesn't mean that Satan literally sleep in our nose, it simply means that we need to clean it and perform daily prayer with recitation of ablution to prevent Satan from going though our nose and reaching our heart
what do you think of this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/sunni-morality.html
Regarding the bestiality points, see:
DeleteLegal status of bestiality in Islam
It is unfortunate to see other Muslim groups also using the same fallacious arguments exploited by anti-Islamists.
Suckling an adult:
Clarification of Hadith about the Suckling of a Grown Man
There is no adult ... in Islam
Discussions regarding the rest, can be quickly searched through more specific search engines such as:
islamWiki Search
the very first glimbs of the first claim that masturbation is not haram, and i clicked on their link, only 2 lines under they contradict it and state it's haram
Deleteand the title above if a man married then it's haram for him to mastubate
good god the very first claim they make and it's already a misquotation?
under it they give rectangle to explain that scholars agree that a woman is allowed to perform certain action for masturbation
the problem is the commentators under that claim state : "he said and what is correct regarding that matter that this is now allowed as the prophet erged those who can't marry to fast instead of masturbate"
so basically the scholar who wrote this book cited an alleged rumored ruling that allow women to masturbate and later state that the authentic saying is that this is not allowed, and the author of shiapen never paid attention to this
2 misquotation in just one paper along with a contradiction?
that was the first claim they made and they expect no one to fact check their lies?
the second one is regarding dildo and the comment under it by the author state "and what is authentic that reached me that this is not allowed" that is the VERY line under the alleged ruling that allow women to use dildo, and they expect no one to fact check this? goodness these guys are worse than answering islam
Delete