QUESTIONS ABOUT ISLAM

AhmadJoyia wrote: Not any more, but at the time of Prophet, it used to be through battles he fought against the oppressors.

The Quran is for all times, even until the end of times. Not only during the Prophet's time. So verse 4:24, just like all verses from the Quran, are always relevant. Even today.

AhmadJoyia wrote: Now to make this verse 4:24 understand a little better, kindly note that here a general rule is being prescribed where all "married women" (those who have their husbands living) are not allowed to be married with. That is to say, a woman can't have more than one husbands at a time, whatever the conditions may be; except those women who are among the category of "RIGHT HAND POSSESSIONS". The women in this category i.e. ""RIGHT HAND POSSESSIONS" might still have their non-Muslim husbands alive, when captured after the battle. So, the prohibition of not marrying an already married women doesn't apply to the women in this category.

So can a married women in our right hand possession be married by us or not?

 

 

AhmadJoyia wrote: Trident wrote: The Quran is for all times, even until the end of times. Not only during the Prophet's time. So verse 4:24, just like all verses from the Quran, are always relevant. Even today. Yap! you are right. But did I say that the verses are no more valid? I don't think so. I only commented on the process of having "Right hand possessions" may not be appliable to our modern day societies. However, if there is, in certain remote part of the world, where this process is still happening, the verses shall equally be applicable to that process, if they are practicing Islam. Trident wrote: So can a married women in our right hand possession be married by us or not?  Yes, I think, they are elligible to be married by the muslims, irrespective if they had a non-Muslim husband living or dead.

Thanks for the reply Mr. Ahmad.

So isn't what I said earlier is true? If the woman's husband is still alive, & she's still legally married to him,  isn't the Muslim committing adultery by marrying her & then having a sexual relationship with her?

AhmadJoyia wrote: Trident wrote: So isn't what I said earlier is true? If the woman's husband is still alive, & she's still legally married to him,  isn't the Muslim committing adultery by marrying her & then having a sexual relationship with her? Well, that is a misconception for those who don't want to percieve the "legality" of the issue from its historic perspective. Things that are "illegal" among the modern societies, may not be so for the societies centuries ago. Islam always existed with the people living in their own time frames and not in a vacuum. When the systems of "legal vs illegal" change among the nations, Islam is very natural to accomodate such changes within its general principles. The captives of war in those days, used to cease all their freedom rights the moment they were captured. That was the norm of the time, though Islam brought that norm to a higher moral ground by allowing Muslims to liberate their captives by marrying them and not through adultary or opening up the institutes of prostitution. Islam came to liberate and not to subjugate.

Islam is based on the Quran, which is the unchanged word of Allah. So how can Islam go through changes, without changing the context of the Quran, which it's based upon? It's impossible.

Why not liberate those captured infidel women by releasing them back to their still living husband? Why didn't Islam take into account their feelings? Would Muslims like it if this happened to them? Think about it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If Islam came to liberate, then those captured infidel women must be given back to their legal husbands. Why must the Muslim soldiers be so callous towards defenceless victims? I wouldn't want to see my wife being forced to marry someone else when I'm still very much alive & legally married to her. 

By liberation, I assume you mean the liberation of slaves. Above you said that Islam brought ancient norms to higher grounds by allowing marriage between a captive & her captor. But this is not always the case. Look at the Quranic verses below.

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

070.029
YUSUFALI: And those who guard their chastity,

070.030
YUSUFALI: Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,

These verses give permission for a Muslim to have sex with his slaves, without the marriage bond. This is practically fornication (khalwat).

Is slavery not subjugation? If Islam wanted to liberate slaves, it should have prescibed marriage, just like what you yourself have mentioned. But from the above verses we can understand that it's legally alright for a Muslim to have sex with his slaves without any marriage bond.

Now tell me my dear friend. Where is the dignity of being made into a sexual object for the satisfaction of your master? Why didn't Islam address this serious subject matter?

 

Edited by Trident

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

Now tell me my dear friend. Where is the dignity of being made into a sexual object for the satisfaction of your master? Why didn't Islam address this serious subject matter?

You can not force a slave to have sex with you this is rape in islam and punishable under shariah law, it is permisable to simply have relations with them [if they are willing] but you can not force anyone to do anything.

Islam is based on the Quran, which is the unchanged word of Allah.

Allah in Quran tells us of the actions of past nations and his final judgment towards them, he also gives commands to the muslim Ummah a small part are direct and literal while others establish legal principles which are to be enforced in accordance to time and situation, which is why it is not permisable to take a rulling given to one person about his particular situation and go and aply it somewhere else where the same conditions do not exist.

an example of a legal principle "dire circumstance necessitate ease" which means that something like drinking alcohol to stop you from chocking would be permisable or eating pig so as not to starve to death is fine. These principles can be aplied in diferent situations at any time and to the person observing from the outside he wont know that the person is acting upon such principles if he himself does not know them which is why those less educated in islamic law often confuse the intentions of the law giver as there are many other principles in islam for diferent things all from the quran or sunnah or actions of the companions.


Edited by rami