Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Berrin wrote:sure you want more?

Berrin wrote:LOL. I am getting fat and fleshy by the hour..Looking pretty tasty and yummy..How much would you pay for a pound of me?

Berrin wrote:obviously it wasn't pig me..LOL..

general_A wrote:yet islam is the fastest in terms of growing and spreading regardless of how little, typical and inaacurate your escuses are.

event horizon wrote:

general_A wrote:yet islam is the fastest in terms of growing and spreading regardless of how little, typical and inaacurate your escuses are.

Do you think one of the ways allowing for continuous growth in Islam is to allow the legislation the lady is trying to implement?

event horizon wrote:I thought Islam is growing via high fertility rates.

Is there another significant cause for Islam's growth - and what did that lady say that made her full of crap?

All I heard from her was pure Islam.

growth in terms of people embracing it

how did u come to the conclusion that what she said was pure islam?

why has it not been implemented in every muslim nation?

From my research, the number of people embracing Islam is overall very small compared to Islam's total rate of growth. The vast majority of new Muslims are being born rather than converting.

I read her comments and agreed with her that Islamic Law allows for Muslim men to have 'what the right hand possesses' on the side. She even consulted Islamic scholars and they confirmed that her intentions were compatible with her religion.

In Islam, non-Muslim women in dar al-harb (house of war) can be taken as captives and distributed in Muslim lands.

Now, I could ask the same why hand chopping or polygamy isn't implemented in every Muslim country.

Is the fact that most Muslim countries do not hand chop thieves proof that hand chopping is not part of Islam?

shafique wrote:considers Memri's misinformation to be true

[...] I was given the opportunity to visit Mecca, and when I did so, I brought up (this man's) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, "What is the law of se.x slaves?"
The mufti said, "With the law of se.x slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war."

"Is this forbidden by Islam?," I asked.

"Absolutely not. Se.x slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, s.ex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the s.ex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the s.ex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that's it. Therefore the s.ex slave is different than the free woman."

Of course, I also asked religious experts in Kuwait (about this issue), and they told me about the problem with the passionate man, or even the man who is committed to his religion. For every good man in our religion, the only solution for him--when forbidden women come around, if he's tempted to sin, then the solution to this issue is for him to purchase s.ex slaves. I hope that Kuwait will enact the law for this category, this category of people--the sex slaves. [...]

event horizon wrote:I'm still trying to understand how this is 'un-Islamic'.

desertdudeshj wrote:

event horizon wrote:I'm still trying to understand how this is 'un-Islamic'.

No mate you're not not trying to understand anything, Your just waiting so you can't a chance to dish out your tripe to "prove" how it is i.e being your usual self a troll.

Mr. al-Tamimi,

First, the MP is Shiite. So unless Wahhabis are suddenly making kissy-face with Shiites, I'd suspect that she's not Wahhabi. As for her young male friend, the one with the seeming inability to commit the sin of onanism, he may well be Wahhabi.

Secondly, MP al-Mutairi is giving an outline of the traditional ahkam on the treatment of captive women. Nothing remarkable or unusual about it. It's certainly not distinctively Wahhabi, nor was it invented by Ibn Taymiyah or Ibn Hanbal. You'll find the same in the other three Sunni schools, as also in the Ja'fari tradition.

If you'd like to learn more, have a look at a text like Quduri's Mukhtasar. Raping rights for female captives will be discuss in all its vile detail. That's about as mainstream a fiqh manual as you'll find. It's usually the first text a Hanafi student studies. I know dozens of Hanafi students who had it memorized by 10 or 12. Even here in the US, it is probably the most popular guide to Islamic law. Even the mosque up the road has its students memorize it.

In short, you've got no justification for saying that the venerable institution of female sex slaves is anything less than fully Islamic.

I suspect you feel uncomfortable for two reasons:......

desertdudeshj wrote:LOL ! When you didn't get a bite, you couldn't bear not to get a chance to dish out your "answer" eh !
Typical troll.

shafique wrote:^err, I don't think it refers to angels, but rather 'pure companions'.. .and the 72 virgins thing is not in the Quran. Hazelton summed it up nicely in the following (well worth another listen):