Reply to Why Some People Convert to Islam

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why Some People Convert to Islam"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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? [/quote]

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 .[/quote]

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

So many alternatives to forcible sex...
- reunite them with their surviving relatives,
- create a legal framework that supports women who need to work, 
- monastery,
- poor house, 
- a house of worship (theirs or yours) gives them alms, food and housing

Basically, anything besides forcing sex on them. [/quote]

The Koran set down rules for the early stages of Islamic conquest to provide order and discipline.  These were no more barbaric than the prevailing practices and in many cases were more civilized.  These really should be viewed as a historical artifact.  But again we run into the problem of mainstream Islam refusing to see important parts of the Koran as very specific to the age.  Instead, they maintain that all parts of it are applicable forever.  (This is the problem of the co-Eternal Koran I've mentioned before.)

So PP gets stuck defending an ancient practice when none of us would want to be in the position of defending much of the Crusades or the Spanish inquisition.  She coyly alludes in her arguments to historical context but can't come right out and say that those lines are about the past and have no relevance to modern times because that would violate the view that the Koran is in fact in its totality applicable to all times and places.

i get the sense that PP is subconsciously there, though, but it would take a great deal of--dare I say--fortitude to come out and say the Koran is not co-eternal and not everything it says is valid today.  And further that ISIS is barbaric and heretical for claiming they can do all that they do in God's name.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics