Why Some People Convert to Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read that the Christian crusaders used to also take female slaves after war, and quite often they would be raped and sold. Apparently this was not uncommon at the time. How is Islam different in this regard then?

Islam is different from Christianity in this regard because there is a provision in the Quran for raping female captives, but there is no provision in the New Testament for raping captives.

As you'll recall, you tried really hard on the Concubines thread to show that Christianity allows concubinage (even outside of war). You failed because the New Testament never sets up a formal structure of sanctioned concubinage (unlike the Quran) and Christianity basically forbids sex outside of marriage.

Christians aren't supposed to even be waging war, for that matter.

Those Crusaders were doing unChristian things, I don't think you'll hear any disagreement about that. Sort of like IS today .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

So many alternatives to forcible sex...
- reunite them with their surviving relatives,
If the people who you are at war with are capturing your women, why would you reunite the women you captured with their relatives unless they agreed to do the same. Warring groups did negotiate the trading of slaves, however.
- create a legal framework that supports women who need to work,
Regardless of their religion, few women worked. Slaves worked and were compensated with food, clothing, shelter.
- monastery,
It is unislamic for women to desire a monastic life. Women are encouraged to get married.
- poor house,
- a house of worship (theirs or yours) gives them alms, food and housing
At the time, women left to live alone, even with other women, were at risk.
Basically, anything besides forcing sex on them.

There is no Quranic evidence to suggest sex was forced upon them.

I'm sort of stunned that you won't just let this die. Or that you don't realize how unsatisfactory your answers sound to non-Muslim ears.

OK. I get that we're ruling out convents and women working because God wants women to marry and not work. I don't like it for myself, but I get it.

I don't get the argument about trading slaves. As an argument for keeping women captives as your sex slaves, this falls very far short. Muslim conquests were usually a case of running over towns in North Africa or to the East - often the existing culture was completely vanquished and had no prisoners of their own to trade with. I get that Muslim conquerors often let male slaves take positions of authority. But where does that leave the female slaves? Better, don't take prisoners and make them sex slaves (women of your right hand) in the first place.

For the rest of your objections to protecting women outside if concubinage, I'm starting to agree with PPs about how the Quran is rooted in 7th century Arabia, and it's your job to keep telling us those social mores are still valid today.

I think you also need to tag as your opinion your statement that the "There is no Quranic evidence to suggest sex was forced upon them. " The word concubine (women of your right hand) says they were required to have sex - otherwise the Quran would have referred to these women simply as "captives."

So the poster should be permitted to respond but I am not permitted to? And quite frankly, the reason the answers are not satisfactory to you is because you are looking at the Islamic system from a western perspective. It just won't work.

Again and again, I tell you that the opposing side took prisoners also, except they would rape the women and then sell them afterward. I'm not going to do more research to show you this was fact. You can do your own research.

[Anonymous]

anonymous wrote: So many alternatives to forcible sex...
- reunite them with their surviving relatives,
If the people who you are at war with are capturing your women, why would you reunite the women you captured with their relatives unless they agreed to do the same.

Often you are at war for that very reason: to obtain material gains, including female booty.

anonymous wrote:
- create a legal framework that supports women who need to work,
Regardless of their religion, few women worked.

That's bullshit. Women, in both 7th century Arabia and the nations Arabs invaded worked in the fields, in the trades, in actual trading. Muhammad's first wife didn't get rich by eating bonbons. Didn't he work FOR HER originally?

anonymous wrote:
- monastery,
It is unislamic for women to desire a monastic life. Women are encouraged to get married.

It's unislamic to enforce islamic ideals on non-Muslim women. La ikraha fi'ddeen. You aren't going to argue that the captors did concubines a favor by meeting their physical needs? I think one of the blogs you linked early on advanced that argument, ridiculous to the hilt. Besides, some of the captured women were ALREADY married, weren't they, but the blogger you linked argued their marriage was invalidated by the mere act of bringing them into an Islamic state. You'd have to be a devoted Muslim not to see it.

anonymous wrote:
- poor house,
- a house of worship (theirs or yours) gives them alms, food and housing
At the time, women left to live alone, even with other women, were at risk.
Basically, anything besides forcing sex on them.

Yes, there were all kinds of options for female captors. Having sex with them wasn't at all necessary. It was, however, a desirable thing in the eyes of the Muslim warriors - both for dominating the nations they defeated (what better way to dominate a man than to screw his women?) and for creating more Muslim children. And hey, if the woman was lucky enough to both deliver a child AND outlive her owner, she might even get freed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is no Quranic evidence to suggest sex was forced upon them.

There is no Quranic evidence to suggest concubines were given a right to reject sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the poster should be permitted to respond but I am not permitted to? And quite frankly, the reason the answers are not satisfactory to you is because you are looking at the Islamic system from a western perspective. It just won't work.

Again and again, I tell you that the opposing side took prisoners also, except they would rape the women and then sell them afterward. I'm not going to do more research to show you this was fact. You can do your own research.

You asked the question, what should be done with female captives besides make them sex-slaves? So, you got a bunch of alternatives that admittedly seem Western and modern even to me. Where's the problem? I just wondered why, since you must know that these positions sound odd to Western ears, you keep belaboring the concubine point.

I think we agree that Quranic rules about this and other things appeared 13 centuries ago. I feel that, even if these rules were progressive at the time, the world has moved on. You're welcome to think these laws are valid for all time. Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regardless of their religion, few women worked.

That's bullshit. Women, in both 7th century Arabia and the nations Arabs invaded worked in the fields, in the trades, in actual trading. Muhammad's first wife didn't get rich by eating bonbons. Didn't he work FOR HER originally?

Yes, Khadijah was wealthy. Wasn't the veil originally a status symbol, a sign that you didn't have to work with your hands, which would have been impossible with a cumbersome veil? Wearing a veil showed you were a lady of leisure.

[Anonymous]

Re: The Koran on Concubinage

Rather an endless discussion on this. I think we can all agree that the Koranic verses were relevant to a time when women were considered booty of war. I think it's pretty much true that no one has paid much attention to these lines for quite some years; the practice seemed so archaic, like slavery.

But there have been disturbing trends in recent years (and by no means all, or even nearly all, Muslim) of women being taken as sex slaves in the battles among various groups. We heard of this first in Africa, along with the practice of child soldiers. But it wasn't justified as part of a religion.

Then a barbaric group suddenly emerges in the Middle East that begins engaging in practices we really haven't seen in recent years outside of Africa. But unlike the cases in Africa, ISIS uses Islam to justify what they are doing with women captives. This sends people scurrying for Islamic references to concubines and allowed practices for women captives, which in any ideal world would have just been curiosities about what was done to order society in seventh century Arabia.

Those who want to find Islam a brutal religion will read these lines as ISIS would: as Islam sanctioning sex slavery with captured women. Funny how those who hate Islam in the abstract can find such common ground with a group like ISIS, but as they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Modern Muslims who are horrified by ISIS's actions find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend what is written in the Koran. Most of the defense is that it relates to a different social context, far away in time. But for various reasons already discussed, they can't quite say these Koranic lines were meant only for the early days of Islam and are not applicable outside of that.

So the debate is really at a standstill; I really have nothing to add except to say, with regard to ISIS and their strange bedfellows in citing the Koran to justify their brutality, what Shakespeare had to say: "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regardless of their religion, few women worked.

That's bullshit. Women, in both 7th century Arabia and the nations Arabs invaded worked in the fields, in the trades, in actual trading. Muhammad's first wife didn't get rich by eating bonbons. Didn't he work FOR HER originally?

Yes, Khadijah was wealthy. Wasn't the veil originally a status symbol, a sign that you didn't have to work with your hands, which would have been impossible with a cumbersome veil? Wearing a veil showed you were a lady of leisure.

I don't see your point. Khadijah was wealthy but she didn't gain her wealth by not working. She was a rich businesswoman who commissioned trading caravans. She is a stark contradiction to your statement that women rarely worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Regardless of their religion, few women worked.

That's bullshit. Women, in both 7th century Arabia and the nations Arabs invaded worked in the fields, in the trades, in actual trading. Muhammad's first wife didn't get rich by eating bonbons. Didn't he work FOR HER originally?

Yes, Khadijah was wealthy. Wasn't the veil originally a status symbol, a sign that you didn't have to work with your hands, which would have been impossible with a cumbersome veil? Wearing a veil showed you were a lady of leisure.

I don't see your point. Khadijah was wealthy but she didn't gain her wealth by not working. She was a rich businesswoman who commissioned trading caravans. She is a stark contradiction to your statement that women rarely worked.

Sorry, I just meant to echo your point about Khadijah having more money than Mohammed - forgot to say because she was a businesswoman. The bit about veils was as add-on: the fact that some women couldn't manage veils because they worked with their hands points to the fact that, indeed, women were working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: The Koran on Concubinage

Rather an endless discussion on this. I think we can all agree that the Koranic verses were relevant to a time when women were considered booty of war. I think it's pretty much true that no one has paid much attention to these lines for quite some years; the practice seemed so archaic, like slavery.

But there have been disturbing trends in recent years (and by no means all, or even nearly all, Muslim) of women being taken as sex slaves in the battles among various groups. We heard of this first in Africa, along with the practice of child soldiers. But it wasn't justified as part of a religion.

Then a barbaric group suddenly emerges in the Middle East that begins engaging in practices we really haven't seen in recent years outside of Africa. But unlike the cases in Africa, ISIS uses Islam to justify what they are doing with women captives. This sends people scurrying for Islamic references to concubines and allowed practices for women captives, which in any ideal world would have just been curiosities about what was done to order society in seventh century Arabia.

Those who want to find Islam a brutal religion will read these lines as ISIS would: as Islam sanctioning sex slavery with captured women. Funny how those who hate Islam in the abstract can find such common ground with a group like ISIS, but as they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Modern Muslims who are horrified by ISIS's actions find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend what is written in the Koran. Most of the defense is that it relates to a different social context, far away in time. But for various reasons already discussed, they can't quite say these Koranic lines were meant only for the early days of Islam and are not applicable outside of that.

So the debate is really at a standstill; I really have nothing to add except to say, with regard to ISIS and their strange bedfellows in citing the Koran to justify their brutality, what Shakespeare had to say: "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

I like this summary: it's fair and it also shows some compassion to all sides.

I for one don't want to keep spinning wheels on this issue. You've identified why the wheels keep spinning. I don't think we can go much beyond this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: The Koran on Concubinage

Rather an endless discussion on this. I think we can all agree that the Koranic verses were relevant to a time when women were considered booty of war. I think it's pretty much true that no one has paid much attention to these lines for quite some years; the practice seemed so archaic, like slavery.

But there have been disturbing trends in recent years (and by no means all, or even nearly all, Muslim) of women being taken as sex slaves in the battles among various groups. We heard of this first in Africa, along with the practice of child soldiers. But it wasn't justified as part of a religion.

Then a barbaric group suddenly emerges in the Middle East that begins engaging in practices we really haven't seen in recent years outside of Africa. But unlike the cases in Africa, ISIS uses Islam to justify what they are doing with women captives. This sends people scurrying for Islamic references to concubines and allowed practices for women captives, which in any ideal world would have just been curiosities about what was done to order society in seventh century Arabia.

Those who want to find Islam a brutal religion will read these lines as ISIS would: as Islam sanctioning sex slavery with captured women. Funny how those who hate Islam in the abstract can find such common ground with a group like ISIS, but as they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Modern Muslims who are horrified by ISIS's actions find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend what is written in the Koran. Most of the defense is that it relates to a different social context, far away in time. But for various reasons already discussed, they can't quite say these Koranic lines were meant only for the early days of Islam and are not applicable outside of that.

So the debate is really at a standstill; I really have nothing to add except to say, with regard to ISIS and their strange bedfellows in citing the Koran to justify their brutality, what Shakespeare had to say: "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

And he has! Lol

[Anonymous]

Some OTHER reasons some people convert to Islam:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-jails-facing-growing-problem-of-forced-conversion-to-islam-officers-warn-8892645.html

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2014/06/article_3177184.html/

https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/forced-conversions-torment-pakistans-hindus-094111771.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/iraqi-christians-mosul-isis-convert-islam-or-be-executed?commentpage=1

http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/Romeos-of-Terror/2014/09/06/article2416263.ece

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/17/attacks-rapes-and-forced-conversions-islam-spike-e/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2640681/Controlling-Muslim-husband-forced-wife-convert-Islam-wear-hijab-killed-pregnant-jailed-17-years.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/11014030/Hindu-woman-gang-raped-and-forced-to-convert-to-Islam.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/india-woman-accuses-husband-torture-forced-conversion-islam-love-jihad-1462575

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2739201/UP-teen-rescued-police-says-love-jihad-victim.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6316966/Handsome-Muslim-men-accused-of-waging-love-jihad-in-India.html

[Anonymous]

I thought we were done here.... Did you have to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought we were done here.... Did you have to do that?

Signed, one of the long-term non-Muslim posters, not going to convert, but wondering why you felt you needed to do that

[Anonymous]

It is terrible that this is happening. Is there any authoritative proof that the religion itself condones this, however? What suggestions do you have for law abiding, peaceful Muslims do to stop this? It sounds like its happening in tribal or rural areas or where the government is corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought we were done here.... Did you have to do that?

Signed, one of the long-term non-Muslim posters, not going to convert, but wondering why you felt you needed to do that

I am a Muslim and I am glad she brought this problem up. Its abominable. But I would like perspective and fairness.
- what percentage of Muslims are doing this
-is this representative of the religio
- is this confined to certain areas, groups