Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

“In case you go out to the battle against your enemies and Jehovah your God has given them into your hand and you have carried them away captive; and you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form, and you have got attached to her and taken her for your wife, you must then bring her into the midst of your house. She must now shave her head and attend to her nails, and remove the mantle of her captivity from off her and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole lunar month; and after that you should have relations with her, and you must take possession of her as your bride, and she must become your wife. And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her."

So, take her for your wife, rape her, but if you decide that you don't want her anymore, Hey! That's okay! Just send her away. It doesn't matter that you raped her and murdered her brother(s), sister(s), mother and father. She probably doesn't want anything to do with you anyway, since it is inconceivable that she really wanted to have sexual relations with one who was responsible for the death of her family. But isn't it interesting that divorce is now okay, but later God states that He "hates a divorcing?"

http://truthquest.dougkelley.com/atrocity.htm

I would normally ask eh for an explanation (I despair of any condemnation of these rapes), but from past experience the response will be a typical looon one - i.e. ignore what the Bible says and quote a loon interpretation of Islam (sometimes even a loon paper quoting a loon website's fabricated story).

Anyway, the link where the above is taken from also lists other atrocities in the Bible - none of which eh has condemned, and which make him the current holder of the 'Most Extreme Religious Fanatic' here.

Cheers,
Shafique

What amazes me is that you will justify certain actions from Muhammad's life which are identical (only more extreme - Muhammad didn't wait a month to lie with Saffiyya, the captive whose male relatives Muhammad murdered) to a passage in the Bible but you really do not seem able to distinguish this from the Bible, which you are eager to criticize.

So, are you now saying that Muhammad was a rapist?

I mean, a forcible rapist (he was a statutory rapist, no doubt).

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission.

Muhammad didn't wait a month before he could have relations with her. She had lost her family members only hours before Muhammad threw her into his tent and had his way with her.

One of Muhammad's men was so worried about the safety of the prophet that he stood guard outside the tent all night to make sure Safiya didn't kill Muhammad during this time.

LoL.

Complete and utter self-pwnage.

^typical loon response:

'ignore the Bible in a thread about the Bible and regurgitate loon beliefs about Islam' - it is as if the resident loons here are ashamed of the Bible.

The lad doesn't disappoint.

But let's humour the loon for a bit. Are you saying that your in you loon version of history, Muhammad, pbuh, was acting in accordance with the Bible? I.e. he was following God's instructions in Deuteronomy?

i.e. isn't eh answering the question 'Rape allowed in Bible' with a 'yes rape is allowed in the Bible, but according to Loon history, Muhammad is guilty of following the Bible' (but as he didn't make her shave her hair, mourn for a month, before marrying her - he was more extreme than the Israelites)??

The Bible also says (as quoted above) that if the captive lady doesn't please her new husband, he can just divorce her - surely this must have been written by a man and not God?

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you saying that your in you loon version of history, Muhammad, pbuh, was acting in accordance with the Bible?

No, of course not.

Go back and re-read the hadiths of Muhammad involving Safiyah. The Bible verse says to wait thirty days. Muhammad was not following the Bible when he had relations with Safiyah on the very same night he executed her male family members, including her husband.

As for rape, it was a simple question. You have a tendency of not possessing any common sense when it comes to any subject regarding the Koran and Muhammad.

So, if you are going to argue that the Bible condones rape in this passage, you would also be forced to admit that Muhammad was a rapist.

But hey, we know you won't come to that conclusion. So you'll now come up with an elaborate (or extraordinarily dumb and short explanation that will leave others scratching their heads) excuse why you don't think the same applies to Muhammad as it does with a passage in the Hebrew Bible.

Basically, I nipped this thread in the bud very quickly. (surely you were aware of this controversial aspect of Muhammad, right?)

As I said, I find it funny how liberal you try to make yourself appear to be when it comes to subjects other than Islam, but you are simply a religious fanatic doing your bit on the PR front for Islam.

I hope you're not getting paid for preaching on the internet. You've done an extremely good job showing that Western, 'modernist' Muslims are slightly less crazy and irrational than the crazies we see on the telly.

Abuse of women mentally, physically, financially etc. is present in every religion and is ingrained in all world societies to this day. So, a couple of guys can be on here bickering about stale religious passages from two (of many) misogynistic religions, while women every day in every country face countless examples of s.e.xism and suppression no matter how religious or secular their society is.

The least misogynistic and se.x.ist folks are likely humanist atheists, because they believe in equal human rights for all. Men with these beliefs don't have any religious text telling them that are divinely ordered to be "master" and allowed to mete out whatever punishments on women (and children) that they see fit.

I'm with you kanelli.

I'm just pointing out to the resident loon that he's living in a glass house when he quotes fictitious accounts of a Muslim preacher saying rape is allowed as fact. (See FoxNews thread).

What was expected, and delivered, was that in a thread about a Biblical passage, the resident Christian fundamentalist chooses not to make reference/defend/condemn the Bible. We can reasonably conclude that this is indefensible.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, but the only religious text that I know of that allows husbands to 'mete' out violence against wives to put them in their places is one that shall go unnamed.

But it's funny how shafique now agrees with the above poster. Perhaps his reading comprehension failed him once more and he didn't pick up on the statements that the Koran is a misogynist book?

What's that eh?

The Bible says that rape is ok, but your loon answer is that the Quran is worse than the Bible?

As we've already seen, the most extreme religious fanatic here is not a Muslim, but your good self - and why is that? Because you refuse to condemn the enslavement of 32,000 virgins and the slaughter of their families. Nothing in the loon versions of Islamic history comes close to this mass slaughter and enslavement (and needless to say, the official history only talks of 'clement punishments' and acts of war).

So, no defence of the Bible from our Bible-Basher - just loon theories. As predicted:

I would normally ask eh for an explanation (I despair of any condemnation of these rapes), but from past experience the response will be a typical looon one - i.e. ignore what the Bible says and quote a loon interpretation of Islam (sometimes even a loon paper quoting a loon website's fabricated story).

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, in my opinion both Christianity and Islam are misogynistic religions, as is Judaism. Wow, I'm going to be real popular now!

I remember watching my friend married in a Dutch Christian Reformed church (and marrying a Catholic which was a controversy in itself). The pastor was saying that my friend was to submit to the authority of her husband as he was the head of the family, but that he was to rule his family kindly. I wanted to gak! I could never enter a marriage where my male companion was divinely ordained as head of our family. If men and women are truly equal under God, then it should be stated that husband and wife are partners (as are the children!) with no one having more divine power over the other. As has been seen since the beginning of time, power is abused.

Even though I say this, and had a civil marriage (with a "blessing" in a church because husband wanted white church wedding), I still end up with power struggle in the marriage, and s.e.xist division of labour and s.e.x.ist attitudes towards family roles and decision making. I find it severely annoying.

^I guess you'd also have an issue with the prayer religious Jewish males say each day - thanking God for not making them a slave, a gentile and a woman!

But you are right, all three religions do have a division of labour between men and women. And indeed both Quran and Bible have verses which are considered misogynistic. Each side will point fingers at the other book - but for sheer number and extremes, one stands out.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
vs
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.html

Cheers,
Shafique

Well the volume isn't as significant as the severity of what is actually said. Both were a pretty depressing read!

Atheism is best for me, because I could never submit to any God with those attitudes towards women. I'd be going to hell anyway, because I could never behave how any God wanted me to.

kanelli wrote:Well the volume isn't as significant as the severity of what is actually said. Both were a pretty depressing read!

I agree. But if you look at the severity, the one with the most volume of quotes also has the more extreme pronouncements (eg selling daughter into slavery, women should learn from husbands and keep quiet etc)

kanelli wrote:Atheism is best for me, because I could never submit to any God with those attitudes towards women. I'd be going to hell anyway, because I could never behave how any God wanted me to.

Personal choice on religious matters is a different issue (for me) over how societies treat women. But I guess on the narrow view that Atheists generally have no rules/guidelines which can be viewed as misogynistic, you have a good point.

Cheers,
Shafique

And that's been a struggle for me, because I have a hard time accepting any personal faith because I just can't submit to a God who doesn't think I'm equal and who sets up women in society to be controlled and abused, whether the issue be big or small.

Atheism and humanism do have a guideline which is common sense, and is also represented in many religions - the golden rule of "Don't do to others what you would not like done to you." I think most people can identify the core of what being a good person is, no matter what their faith.

Everyone knows that rape is bad, yet we have religious texts and even secular army practices "rape and pillage" that lets men off the hook for such a crime. It is really distasteful.

kanelli wrote:And that's been a struggle for me, because I have a hard time accepting any personal faith because I just can't submit to a God who doesn't think I'm equal and who sets up women in society to be controlled and abused, whether the issue be big or small.

How do you know that God doesn't think you are equal?
Because it was written in a book that was written 1400 years ago?
Because it was written in a book 2000 years ago?
Because it was written in a book 3400 years ago?

I might add that all were written by the hand of a man, at times when women were treated inferior to what they are today, and would never have been accepted (by the more powerful s.e.x at the time) as "the word of god" unless the man/men writting them added a few carrots here and there.

And I doubt that a God would want you to submit to him anyway. How about a simple "hello, how are you going?. How am I doing?" every now and then?

Oh, and for the record, a Catholic wife is expected to make herself available for s.e.x whenever the husband wants it, which is rape as far as I am concerned.
But just because it says something as stupid as this in the bible or the quran for that matter doesn't mean that you have to believe it.

Too bad God couldn't write his or her own religious text so there would be no misunderstanding. I've tried talking to him or her and don't hear anything back.

Agree with Benwj on this. Some of whats been written(in all religous books) either doesn't make sense or should not be followed as we are talking about some very old texts. None of this I belief should contest whether you believe in god or not but I can see why for many it does. The recent abuse carried out by priests has had lead many to question their catholic faith and god itself and thats to a large extent natural. But their actions doesn't in my opinion mean that there isn't a god.

JoeTGF - thanks for your comments.

I agree that the abuse of religion shouldn't mean that there isn't a God.

I've also often made the observation that Muslims and most Christians view the Bible in the same way - as containing the word of God, but also containing man-made verses which should be ignored. It comes down to which parts of the Bible to ignore.

With the Quran as well, some verses can indeed be misused and misinterpreted.

The verses which this thread relates to - regarding the Bible allowing rape, do fall into the category where Muslims and Christians can agree this is not a teaching/example which we should follow.

Cheers,
Shafique