47 replies

  1. Sex slaves is your addition. To justify Mohamed’s practices perhaps?
    It is not in the text.
    The surviving minors were adopted in to the community to be cared for and given families.

    Like

  2. It was to protect them and raise them and so that they could become wives later. Treated with honor and respect and free to marry later. It has nothing to do with sex slaves.

    Like

    • Sure, sure…then why were all the little boys killed? Kill all the boys, don’t adopt them and raise them. Oh and also, kill all the non-virgins. But keep the little girls. Yeah, sure. That makes sense…

      Liked by 2 people

    • Still waiting…why weren’t the little boys also not adopted? Why were they brutally killed?

      Like

      • In a conversation with Paul Williams a few years ago, Lizzie Schofield argued along the lines of “Hey, Moses is not my role model. Only Jesus is”. Pressed further about why Jesus would give such an order, her argument veered off into “They were guilty of idolatry. Yahweh has the right to punish them”. I bet Ken Temple has no better argument than that. No christian apologist has, not Paul Copan or William Lane Craig.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. A Muslim dilemma. If it wasn’t Jesus, it is Allah.

    Like

    • Um no. Muslims don’t believe that Allah (swt) would command the killing of children. If you weren’t so ignorant, you would know that already.

      Now go back to your Googling. Perhaps someday, someone somewhere will take anything you say seriously.

      Like

      • Muslims believe Allah is the God of the old testament. A Muslim dilemma.

        Like

      • Are you still trying to be taken seriously?

        No, Muslims don’t believe in the Bible. We don’t believe that God has regrets or that He is an old man with white hair. And again, as I said before, we do not believe that God commanded the murders of innocent infants and children.

        Like

      • Your inconsistency and cherry picking is ridiculous.
        Muslim apologists usually bend over backwards to claim that the God of Israel, “the Father” “Yahweh” is identical with Allah. You want to have your cake and eat it, you are no better than any Christian fundamentalist.

        Like

      • Hey look everyone! The undecided voter has an opinion about something he doesn’t have any clue about in the first place!

        Now pay attention. Just because we say that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God does not mean that the Bible is the word of God. Those are two different claims, dummy. Jews and Christians may worship the same God as us, but their Bible is not His revelation. It is a man-made document. The Quran, on other hand, is directly from God. Get it?

        It must be tough to be only useful for comic relief, but keep at it. I am sure someone somewhere will eventually take you seriously.

        Like

  4. Crickets…and still no answer from the Christians. Why weren’t the little boys also adopted, instead of being brutally killed?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Well, you should ask your women enslaving/raping, muta loving profit since he obviously had no problem with the the commands of the OT. The Quran itself confirms that these OT wars were approved by God himself, especially that of the slaughter of the Canaanite as well as Saul’s war against the Amalekites:

      O my people! Remember Allah’s favour unto you, how He placed among you prophets, and He made you kings, and gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) of (His) creatures. O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers: They said: O Moses! Lo! a giant people (dwell) therein and lo! we go not in till they go forth from thence. When they go forth from thence, then we will enter (not till then). Then out spake two of those who feared (their Lord, men) unto whom Allah had been gracious: Enter in upon them by the gate, for if ye enter by it, lo! ye will be victorious. So put your trust (in Allah) if ye are indeed believers. They said: O Moses! We will never enter (the land) while they are in it. So go thou and thy Lord and fight! We will sit here. He said: My Lord! I have control of none but myself and my brother, so distinguish between us and the wrong-doing folk. (Their Lord) said: For this the land will surely be forbidden them for forty years that they will wander in the earth, bewildered. So grieve not over the wrongdoing folk. S. 5:20-26 Pickthall

      Here we have Muhammad relating the story of God commanding the Israelites to enter into the promised land and slaughter its inhabitants, without a negative word about the supposed injustice of God in ordering them to do so. And:

      Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (That was) among them: “Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of God.” He said: “Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?” They said: “How could we refuse to fight in the cause of God, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?” but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But God Has full knowledge of those who do wrong. Their Prophet said to them: “God hath appointed Talut as king over you.” They said: “How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?” He said: “God hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: God Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. God careth for all, and He knoweth all things.” And (further) their Prophet said to them: “A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith.” When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: “God will test you at the stream: if any drinks of its water, He goes not with my army: Only those who taste not of it go with me: A mere sip out of the hand is excused.” but they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: “This day We cannot cope with Goliath and his forces.” but those who were convinced that they must meet God, said: “How oft, by God’s will, Hath a small force vanquished a big one? God is with those who steadfastly persevere. When they advanced to meet Goliath and his forces, they prayed: “Our Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against those that reject faith.” By God’s will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and God gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not God Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is full of bounty to all the worlds. S. 2:246-251 Y. Ali

      The Quran recounts the story of the people of Israel asking the prophet Samuel for a king, Saul’s appointment as a king, Saul’s wars, and David killing Goliath (cf. 1 Samuel 8-17). What is interesting about all this is that even though the Quran presupposes the biblical account of God’s commission to wipe out the Amalekites it nowhere condemns this Divine decree. It does not say that Saul killing women and children was an evil thing or that the Israelites tampered with the story since this isn’t how it happened; nor does it deny that these things did happen. Its very mention in the Quran without any qualification presupposes that the author(s) and/or editor(s) of the Quran had absolutely no problem with these wars since s/he/they believed that God sanctioned them. So why does this stone smoocher go against the teachings of his own book (as false as it is) and attack the Holy Bible for something with which the Quran and his false prophet affirmed?

      There is more. Note what this next report says regarding Muhammad’s view of the prophet Joshua’s battles against the enemies of God:

      Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “A prophet amongst the prophets carried out a holy military expedition, so he said to his followers, ‘Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage, and has not done so yet, should not accompany me; nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof; nor a man who has sheep or she camels and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.’ So, the prophet carried out the expedition and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the ‘Asr prayer, he said to the sun, ‘O sun! You are under Allah’s Order and I am under Allah’s Order. O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.’ It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said (to his men), ‘Some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.’ (They did so and) the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet. Then that prophet said (to the man), ‘The theft has been committed by your people. So all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.’ The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet and he said, “You have committed the theft.’ Then they brought a head of gold like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the booty. The Prophet added: Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 353)

      Here Muhammad conflates several biblical stories, namely, Moses’ instruction in Deuteronomy 20:1-9, and Joshua’s expeditions against Ai and the king of Jerusalem (cf. Joshua 7 and 10). These are the very expeditions where God commanded Joshua and the Israelites to wipe out everything that breathes!

      Hence, since the unanimous view of Sunni scholarship is that the hadith collection of al-Bukhari is sound, this means that this is not a narration that this pagan rock licker can simply brush aside, especially since the Quran itself testifies that part of Muhammad’s mission was to confirm the textual veracity and divine authority of the very scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in their possession during Muhammad’s time. Therefore, this vile thug internet jihadi has no choice but come to terms with the fact that his own false prophet had absolutely no problems with God’s orders to the Israelites to annihilate everything that breathes, including women, children and livestock. So then why does this man worshiper have a problem?

      So both Allah and his profit were filled with crickets per this vile, inconsistent repulsive pagan.

      Like

      • Lol the fatty is back with its copy pasta. No one is gonna read your same trash over and over again. The Qur’an doesn’t confirm your pornbook. You have been bitchslapped on this and you can’t get enough of it. Keep your trash from your pornbook out of the Holy Word of God, ie the Glorious Qur’an!

        Fat ugly pig.

        Like

      • Remember, according to your hadiths Sauda was a fat slob porker whom your pedophile profit wanted to dump because he no loner was attracted to fatty. She was in your words a fat ugly pig. No disrespect to pigs.

        Like

      • “She was in your words a far ugly pig” Except I don’t know how she looks. I do know how YOU look. And you are ugly. I find it Hilarious how you think that mentioning Sauda somehow gives you a gotcha moment. Besides the sources don’t say the prophet wanted to divorce her because she wasn’t pretty.

        Go worship your god that was squeezed out of a vagina.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You mean the same woman that your filthy profit said his filthy god breathed his spirit into her vagina?

        BEGIN

        And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91

        And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

        The word farjahaa, from farj, refers to a person’s private area, to their private parts. Here are some verses which use this word in this connection:

        Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble … and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 23:1-2,5 Arberry

        Say to the believers, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts (furoojahum); that is purer for them. God is aware of the things they work. And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes’ and guard their private parts (furoojahunna), and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; haply so you will prosper. S. 24:30-31 Arberry

        Men and women who have surrendered, believing men and believing women, obedient men and obedient women, truthful men and truthful women, enduring men and enduring women, humble men and humble women, men and women who give in charity, men who fast and women who fast, men and women who guard their private parts (furoojahum), men and women who remember God oft — for them God has prepared forgiveness and a mighty wage. S. 33:35 Arberry

        and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 70:29 Arberry

        In the above references which speak of Christ’s conception, this word is used to describe Allah penetrating Mary’s private area by breathing his Spirit into it.

        Mahmoud M. Ayoub contrasts the birth narratives of the Gospel of Luke with that mentioned in the Quran. All bold and capital emphasis is ours:

        “The language of this verse (author- Luke 1:35) is clearly circumspect. It implies no sexual union or divine generation of any kind. Furthermore, while Luke’s description agrees both in form and spirit with the Qur’anic idea of the conception of Christ, the language of the Qur’an IS FAR MORE GRAPHIC AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.” (Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)

        He goes on to say:

        “… Then of Mary He (author-allegedly God) continues: ‘And she who guarded well [lit. fortified] her chastity [lit. GENERATIVE ORGAN], and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign [or miracle, ‘Aya] for all beings’ (S. 21:90-91) …

        “In the second instance the Qur’an speaks of Mary as a righteous woman who lived in strict chastity and obedience to God: ‘And Mary daughter of ‘Imran who guarded well her GENERATIVE ORGAN farjaha, and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit’ (S. 66:12). THE BOLD AND GRAPHIC STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE SHOCKED TRADITIONISTS AND COMMENTATORS, so that most of them tried to cover it up with different and FARFETCHED significations or glossed over it with out comment…

        “Ibn Kathir interprets the phrase ‘guarded well her generative organ’ to mean: ‘safeguarded and protected it. Guarding well ihsan signifies chastity and high birth.’ He comments on the phrase, ‘and thus We breathed into it of our spirit’ thus ‘that is, through the angel Gabriel. This is because God sent him to her, and he took for her the form of a man of good stature (S. 19:17). God commanded him to breathe INTO THE BREAST OF HER CHEMISE. HIS BREATH WENT DOWN AND PENETRATED HER GENERATIVE ORGAN, AND THUS CAUSED HER TO CONCEIVE JESUS …’” (Ibid.)

        Finally:

        “Abu Ja’far al-Tusi, the jurist doctor of the Shi’i community, as well as his well known disciple al-Tabarsi, read the words, ‘We breathed INTO IT’ literally. Al-Tusi says: ‘It has been held that Gabriel BREATHED INTO MARY’S GENERATIVE ORGAN then God created Christ in it’ …” (Ibid., p. 68)

        Ibn Kathir provides additional evidence for the very graphic and distasteful nature of the Quranic birth narratives. In his comments on S. 66:12, Ibn Kathir writes:

        meaning who protected and purified her honor, by being chaste and free of immorality,

        meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him TO BLOW into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb THROUGH HER PRIVATE PART; this is how ‘Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here,

        meaning His decree and His legislation. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 10, Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur’an, pp. 75-76; capital emphasis ours)

        Ibn Kathir makes the following comments in reference to S. 19:22-23:

        “Allah, the Exalted, informs about Maryam that when Jibril had spoken to her about what Allah said, she accepted the decree of Allah. Many scholars of the predecessors (Salaf) have mentioned that at this point the angel (who was Jibril) blew into the opening of her garment that she was wearing. Then the breath descended until it entered INTO HER VAGINA and she conceived by the leave of Allah.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 6, Surat Al-Isra’, Verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu’minun, first edition July 2000, p. 244; capital emphasis ours)

        Ibn Kathir’s notes on S. 2:223 also help us to see the very graphic nature of the term farj:

        this refers to Al-Farj (THE VAGINA), as Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and other scholars have stated. Therefore, anal sex is prohibited, as we will further emphasize afterwards, Allah willing …

        Ibn Jurayj (one of the reporters of the Hadith) said that Allah’s Messengers said …

        ((From the front or from behind, as long as it occurs IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).)) …

        Abu Bakr bin Ziyad Naysaburi reported that Isma’il bin Ruh said that he asked Malik bin Anas, “What do you say about having sex with women in the anus?” He said, “You are not an Arab? Does sex occur but in the place of pregnancy? Do it only IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), first edition January 2000, pp. 618, 619, 622; capital emphasis ours)

        In responding to the Shia position regarding the permissibility of temporary marriages (mutah), this Sunni writer defines farj as:

        I’arat al-Furuj (Loaning of Vaginas)
        The Shi’ah books of fiqh carry a separate chapter entitled “I’arat al-Furuj.” This could literally be translated as “The Loaning of Vaginas.” … (Dr. Ahmad ‘Abdullah Salamah, Shi’ah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah))

        Here is the final Muslim example showing that farj refers to the female organ:

        Narrated Basrah:
        A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: She will get the dower, for you made her VAGINA (farj) lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on him. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2126)

        And here is how one lexical source defines the term:

        Fa-Ra-Jiim = To open, separate, cleave, split, enlarge, part, let a space between, make a room, comfort anything in, dispel cares. An opening, intervening space [gap or breach] between two things. Ex: Parting hind legs or intervening spaces between fingers.
        He opened, made room, ample space.
        Furijat – Cloven, split, rent, opened.
        Farjun (Pl. Furuj) – PUDENDA (SEX ORGAN); chastity, space between legs (of horse or mare), part/s of a person (male/female) INDECENT TO EXPOSE, EXTERNAL PORTIONS OF THE ORGANS OF GENERATION [OF A MALE/FEMALE]. ALSO THE POSTERIOR OF PUDENDUM because it is a place of opening, of between the legs.

        faraja vb. (1) perf. pass. 77:9

        farj n.m. (pl. furuj) 21:91, 23:5, 24:30, 24:31, 33:35, 50:6, 66:12, 70:29

        LL, V6, p: 143, 144, 145 (Project Root List; capital emphasis ours)

        Christian writer Abd al-Masih helps to put this in perspective. Commenting on S. 21:91, al-Masih notes:

        “Whoever reads verse 91 of Sura al-Anbiya’ 21 carefully could be embarrassed. It is scandalous how Muhammad and his spirit of revelation lift Mary up as the most important of all women, and at the same time tear away her veil of chastity. Her self-protection is not described in a euphemism, but is calculated brutally, as in a business deal:

        And she guraded her vagina [farj] so we breathed into her of our spirit. (Sura al-Anbiya’ 21:91)

        This revelation is not an honour, but an exposition. Maybe it was customary among Bedouins to speak contemptuously and carelessly about women. But this only shows the rule of Arabic men and their contempt for women. If the best of women is spoken about like this, what about others! The men are never written about like this. They remain covered, holier-than-thou and self-righteous.” (Abd al-Masih, Who Is The Spirit From Allah In Islam? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503, VILLACH AUSTRIA], pp. 46-47)

        He notes regarding S. 66:12:

        “The second problem is caused by the Arabic language. In Arabic, Allah does not say: ‘so we breathed into her of our spirit’, but ‘into him’. Who is it, into whom the spirit was breathed? The embryo ‘Isa? That is difficult to accept, for then ‘Isa would have existed in Mary’s womb already before the spirit was breathed into her. That would mean that Allah created ‘Isa beforehand or that he existed before he was conceived. Both options are out of the question for Islamic scholars.

        Who is it then, into whom the Spirit from Allah was breathed? IT IS ALMOST UNSPEAKABLE, but the last expression in the previous sentence, which is masculine in Arabic, IS THE EXPRESSION FOR MARY’S GENITALS.[43] The literal meaning of Allah’s statement in Arabic is then, ‘so we breathed into her vagina [farj] of our spirit.’ This turns the stomachs of some of our readers.

        Rudi Paret, the best translator of the Qur’an into German, confirms the meaning of this phrase in a footnote. This seems not only to us, but also to many Islamic scholars to be a blasphemy. Ibn Mas’ud went so far as to suggest that the Qur’anic text should be changed to read ‘so we breathed into her [Mary] of our spirit.’ It is comforting to see that there are Muslims who prefer the possibility of a fallible Qur’an to a blasphemy like this.

        Other commentators explain the expression into him as Mary’s heart or body, which are masculine in Arabic, but not mentioned in the text. These are nothing but attempts to cover up the problem, but the problem itself remains. The assumption that it was an unclean spirit that spoke through Muhammad is obvious. It is almost impossible to imagine that Muslims claim that Jibril himself did this. Here the false statement of an unclean spirit stands against the noble Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., pp. 53-54; capital emphasis ours)

        In the above indicated footnote, the author states:

        43. According to al-Nasafi: “in her vagina” (Madarik al-Tanzil, vol. 4, p. 272). (Ibid., p. 53)
        END

        That same woman? So you’re ok with your filthy god blowing into women’s vaginas?

        Like

      • O look another idiotic copy pasta. You are one sick fuck. You believe in a god getting literally squeezed through a vagina and your “refutation” is this verbal diarrhea.

        Like

      • Listen you illiterate stone kisser the copy and paste is from my article. Besides who cares if it’s copy and paste since what matters is the actual content. So stop being an illiterate repulsive stone smoocher like your filthy profit.

        Like

      • And don’t forget your filthy god’s spirit squeezed itself into a woman’s vagina yo get her pregnant. What a filthy Satan you worship.

        Like

      • I know it’s your article you idiot. It’s the same copy pasta from last time when you want to impress someone.
        To bad for you it doesn’t say God’s spirit squeezed itself through a vagina. So you can take your shitty lie and shove it up your fatass you sick fuck.
        Can’t defend your vagina god and now after getting bitchslapped about it you try and lower the Almighty Allah to your filthy pornbook level.
        Either have a logical answer to defend your vagina god getting squeezed out of a vagina or go eat some krabby paties.

        Like

    • Hey Fatty Shamy! Back for more humiliation? You still eating those rabbit turds on a very high mountain while enjoying your god’s flat earth? 😉

      Still waiting for an answer…why were the little boys also not “adopted” instead of being brutally murdered? Will I hear more crickets or deranged ramblings from Fatty Shamy, or will I get a rational response? Queue the Jeopardy theme…

      Like

      • Actually, Sam has lost a lot of weight recently. Good for him.

        I don’t agree with the name calling and ad hominem on both sides, but most of what Sam did is quote from Islamic sources.

        Deal with the content of his quotes.

        It seems that Muslims cannot deal with the content of their own sources, so they deflect by calling Sam names for quoting their own sources.

        Like

      • //Actually, Sam has lost a lot of weight recently.//
        And he has gained a lot of sins! Bad for him! Sam is just a filthy & scum man who needs to be kicked out of here!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hey Kendra, Fatty Shamy tried to change the subject. The question remains: if the girls were simply “adopted”, then why not the boys as well? Stop prevaricating and answer the question you losers!

        Like

  5. O look another idiotic copy pasta. You are one sick fuck. You believe in a god getting literally squeezed through a vagina and your “refutation” is this verbal diarrhea.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. @ AIB
    To begin you have done a “reading between the lines fallacy”. Please show the line in your references 5:20-26, 2:246-251 or the hadith in which the sun is commanded to stop where surrendering women and children were killed. Since it does not exist we are under no obligation to believe it. There are many times in the Bible where Islam has a similar story with differences. A few examples of the top of my head the curse of Ham (aka black people are subservient to Jews and Caucasians), Abraham(as) or Lot(as) committing incest or Jesus’s (as) birth and death.

    Next, let’s say for discussion sake it did exist. You have done “tu quoque fallacy” aka “You did it too”. Killing women and children doesn’t just become right even IF our sources confirmed this tale as true (which it probably isn’t because we have explicit orders not to do this). Most of your articles and argumentation revolve around these two fallacies.

    Finally your last part was a bunch of fluff that is irrelevant to the topic (you have a tendency to do this as well to distract people from the original contention). So I asked the question before to some else and now I’ll extend it to you:

    When is the genocide of a people and killing surrendering women and children morally justifiable? Also because you brought enslavement etc. into the discussion and never gave a clear answer. You DO believe God ordered their genocide and the enslavement of the little girls as sex slaves correct? If not why?

    Liked by 2 people

  7. There is a Hadith in which Muhammad is asked about the women and children being killed, and he replied, “they are of them”.

    I gave the reference, but for some reason those posts are not being allowed.

    What happened?

    Like

  8. It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah,
    when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said:

    “They are from them.”

    Sahih Muslim 1745
    Book 32, Hadith 30
    Book 19, Hadith 4321

    Like

    • Lol are you kidding me?
      That in no way condones the killing of women and children. You take an implicit statement of the Prophet and claim he is condoning the killing of women and children while the Prophet for explicitly said DO NOT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN. You interpret the implicit/unclear/vague statements or verses in light of the clear ones.
      Try again

      Liked by 3 people

      • Except I have read Islamic authorities justify Hamas and PLO suicide bombing (& other extreme Islamic terrorists) with that Hadith.

        Like

      • Almost all scholars agree that the killing of women and children is wrong except in self defense. Wow I expected a dumb respons but this is just beyond stupid.
        You can’t refute what I just said and so you throw this trash at me? You can’t justify your bible having barbaric passeges that will make the hair on one’s back stand up, so much so you feel the need to take a shower after reading it.
        Pathetic.

        Like

      • Again trying to change the subject? Why don’t you deal with your Bible’s barbarity, you sick heathen? Why were the boys brutally murdered, while the young virgins were spared? Are you going to keep lying through your teeth that they were “adopted” and were treated as daughters rather than as concubines? Remember, Satan is the father of all lies. 😉

        Like

    • @ Ken

      Let’s first start with explicit references from Islam:

      “Fight in God’s Cause, those who are fighting you. But do not go too far, because God has no love for those who go too far… And if they stop, then you stop, because God is Extremely Forgiving and Always Merciful.” (2:190-192)

      “…But even after My Messengers came to them (the Jews) in succession with clear directions and proof, majority of them continued to go overboard in killing throughout the earth…” (5:32)

      Note 5:32 refutes Sam’s “argument” that the Quran doesn’t condemn the jews for going too far in slaughtering others.

      Now some implicit verses of the Quran

      After the conquest of Mecca and the people surrendered God revealed:

      “Oh you who believe! Do not desecrate God’s symbols, the Forbidden Months, the marked offerings or the people coming in peace to the Kaaba. They are in pursuit of a favor from their Lord as well as for Him to be pleased… Don’t let your hatred for the people who stopped you from the Kaaba lead you to cross the limits ˹that’ve been˺ set. Help each other in righteousness and piety and do not help each other in sin and crime. Be mindful of God and remember that His retribution is severe.” (5:2)

      God reminds Muslims not to become arrogant and torture the losing nation (hence the don’t help in sin and crime). Also from the Qur’an:

      “Do not take any life which God has made sacred, unless by right. If anyone is killed unjustly, I’ve given authority to their guardian and family, but they should not go overboard in killing, because they’ve already been helped.” (17:33)

      “There are among men those whose speech, in the worldly life, attracts you. They’ll even make God their witness over what’s in their heart, yet they’re of the most argumentative of opponents, who refuse to listen. Once they turn back, they work throughout the earth spreading corruption and disorder, killing crops and children. God does not like corruption or disorder. And when it’s said to him: “Fear God!” Their pride in the sin takes hold of them. So Hell is enough to embrace them, how terrible a bed to rest on.” (2:204-206)

      The harshest Surah in the Quran is chapter 9. This was revealed in regards to the Arab pagans. This what God does when He orders a nation’s destruction and even then its not at the scale the Bible says.

      Now onto hadith:

      Narrated `Abdullah:

      During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet (ﷺ) a woman was found killed. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) disapproved the killing of women and children.
      https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/223

      Narrated Rabah ibn Rabi’:

      When we were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant.
      https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15

      Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, ‘The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.’ ”
      https://sunnah.com/urn/409880

      So Islam’s stance on this matter is clear now here is the hadith you referenced:

      It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (ﷺ), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said:
      They are from them.
      https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/30

      To understand the proper context of this hadith we have to re-humanize warfare for a second here. I don’t know if you’ve ever had the joy that is assaulting a building but its a very high-stress environment and unfortunately mistakes do happen. The general rule of thumb is you avoid this at all cost BUT you’re not going to put yourself or your buddy next to you in danger to do it. The “they are from them” means at the end of the day the only people who you are adamant about getting home to their families are you and the guys you rolled in with. This hadith’s context is there is no sin for accidentally killing a non-combatant in the crossfire. They are raiding and doing house to house fighting and unfortunately, some people got caught in the line of fire.

      There is a big difference between accidentally killing a non-combatant while doing house to house fighting in a raid (which is the nature of the fog of war) and purposely killing women and children who are at your mercy when you have defeated the enemy.

      As for your last part, you could quote WHOEVER you want. That is the beauty of Islam that only text matters. If ANYONE purposely targets non-fighting women and children ala “Operation Fry the Brain” style like the Serbian Christians did in the 90s I have NO problem calling them a pu**y and future fuel for Hell straight to their face. It’s a barbaric and cowardly act plain and simple.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Just posted this on my blog:

    “Over at BloggingTheology2.com, a few Christian apologists, including Sam Shamoun, have been stumped on the question of the controversial verse Numbers 31:18. Of course, this is nothing new, as we have seen the likes of Cerbie (Paulus), also struggling to explain the clear meaning of the verse. Any how, in this latest episode of Christian efforts to cover-up the barbaric nature of the verse, I posed a simple question. The Christians claimed that the young Midianite girls were not taken as sex slaves, but rather were “adopted” into the Israelite community and “taken care of”. Naturally, that raises the question of why the little boys were also not “adopted”. As of yet, none of the lying Christian apologists have been able to answer this question. Shamoun, in usual form, tried to change the subject to Islam, while failing to answer the question. This goes to show how uncomfortable the trinitarian heathens are in explaining their so-called “loving” god’s barbaric nature. The true God did not command the murders of infants and children. Christians are obviously unable to rationally defend their Bible’s horrible stories, so they concoct idiotic theories, such as the “adoption” theory. For shame, Christians!”

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/08/christian-get-stumped-on-numbers-31/

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Crickets and more crickets…so I think we can conclude that the Christians have realized that their “adoption” theory is bunch of baloney. The treatment of the Midianites was nothing short of barbaric, and it creates an unavoidable contradiction…or “dilemma”, because the Christians worship a mangod whom they claim was a very nice guy. The reality appears to be quite different.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Christian Get Stumped on Numbers 31 – The Quran and Bible Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: