[Faith-Talk] Bethlehem avenue, Ali Sina, has failed and he is in hell

[Mustafa Almahdy]

Islam forbade slavery for it is the religion that gives rights of
individuals, males or females. It made this as clear as daylight, many
centuries ago, before the slogan of “human rights” came to be known to
the Westerners.
Slavery was not initiated by Islam, it had been in practice long
before the advent of Islam. As we know, it’s the custom of war to have
captives and those captives or prisoners used to be turned into slaves
and concubines by their masters. This was not the case only in the
pre-Islamic Arab regions, but it was there every other place. It was
even worse in some societies, especially with women. She was subject
to all kinds of injustice, oppression and barbarian treatment. This
went as far as that Greeks used to consider her a mere commodity, to
be bought and sold. As for Romans, she was a slave already by nature,
even without being captured at war!
In short, Islam is not the religion that jeopardizes the rights of
women, as Western orientalists would have us believe, concocting any
ideas to distort the image of Islam. Was it Islam that considered
woman as being responsible for the banishing of man from Paradise? Was
it Islam that took women as being the cause of all evils or regarded
her as serpents? Was it in Islam that a meeting was held to debate
whether woman could be regarded as a human being or not? No!This took
place in France in 587 C.E. Actually all this was the norm of the day
in the past Western civilizations. Yes, it was also the habit in the
pre-Islamic Arab, when female babies used to be buried alive.
When Islam came, it tried to put an end to all such inhumane
practices. It left no stone unturned in its quest to let women have
their rights and dignity restored. This is clearly manifest in the way
Islam handled the issue of slavery. Right from the start, Islam set a
goal to eradicate this barbaric system. Yet, it needed to be done
gradually, as the case with all bad habits that have gained ground.
People never give up easily!
So, first of all it confined the issue of taking captives to the
period of warfare. This is just as a situation necessitated by
hostility between warring states. Then it allowed the female captives
to be married by their captors. But why?Does this mean giving men a
golden chance to unleash their sexual desires or to sexually brutalize
those captives?No, not at all!
Here lies certain wisdom that completely escapes the mind of those
Western orientalists, who take this issue to launch attacks against
Islam.
As we know, after the end of hostility, it’s the norm that prisoners
of war be freed and exchanged through mutual agreement between the
parties. Islam has made this clear in its divine texts that the
captives must be freed through ransom or without ransom. Also, it’s
socially understood that marrying freed female captives, would
normally secure their rights, more than would be the case if they were
set free without any guarantee for survival or for preserving their
dignity.
Thus, Islam gave them hope of survival, trying to prevent their
becoming prostitutes. In fact, they would have definitely found it
hard to find suitors, even from among their free male counterparts,
who’d suspect them of being ravished by their captors. Though glimmer
it may be in the beginning, this hope soon turned glittering by
securing them a marital home, whereby their rights and dignity would
be secured.
Here comes the issue of “ma malakat aimanukum” (what your right hands
possess). This is mentioned in many verses in the Qur’an, like the
following:
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing
women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right
hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are
one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give
them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: …
Surah 4 Verse 25." This verse confirms what I have just said; opening
the door for female slaves or captives to be married by destitute
Muslims who cannot afford the dowry of free women. Notice here that
the Qur’an uses the expression “what your right hands.” What is the
significance of this expression?
The word “right hands” here refers to women taken as prisoners of war.
It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally
prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves
from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s during warfare
that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is
what the Qur’an means. That’s point number one.
Point number two is that, the word “right hands possess” also has
another significance that clearly reflects the great concern Islam has
for preserving the rights of those captives. As we know, the right
hand has its special merit and privileged functions that man
instinctively reserve for it. Imam Kurtubi, in his commentary on this
verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it
denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used
when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who
provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left
hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very
hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.”
All this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess” has a
special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies
the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars
should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the
earliest stages.
All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social
ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid
down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the
freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam
stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they
should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of
their human rights. The Prophet (pbuh) made this clear in his
hadiththat masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and
female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in
humanity. He said:
“Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your
control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus,
whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his
same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work
that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow
difficult, lend them a helping hand.”
As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet, as saying:
“If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and
excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he
shall have a two-fold reward.”
You see; that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. They
should definitely be well treated. Also, educating female captives and
marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity,
which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an
end to the habit of using derogative names of “slaves” or “servants”.
For in Islam, man must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the
Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed
by “fatah” (boy) or “fatat” (girl). Besides, the act of emancipating
slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s Companions,
for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of
worship.
What’s more, Islam has also made use of what was an international
custom during that era; i.e. the custom of having intercourse with
female captives. Here Islam stipulated that if through sexual
intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would
automatically gain her freedom. So would her child, for he’d be born
free then. What a wise approach to eliminate a bad habit! So it was
not a means of unleashing sexual desires. Otherwise, it would have
been something permanent, being pregnant would have availed the slave
woman nothing, for she’d remain the property of her master no matter
how. No, Islam was not after such a sensual and voluptuous goal. As to
the Bible though, the biblical term concubine” should be translated as
“(mostly) a sexually trafficked girl in life-time sexual bondage to
grow  progeny to her master. The Bible doesn't seek emancipation of
slave girls. 1 Kings 11:3, "He had seven hundred wives, princesses,
and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away."
So, it's worthwhile to mention though, that Salim bin 'Abdullah bin
Umar al-Farooq was in fact the son of Abdullah bin Umar, may Allah be
pleased with them, a notable narrator of Hadith and prominent scholar
of Medina at his time. So, who is the mother of Salim bin 'Abdullah
bin Umar? She was a former right hand possessed. The problem though
mister Ali, that you're not convinced of the fact that you're intently
lying about everything affiliated with Islam. In the section below,
you've clearly quoted Islamic text dishonestly, intending to
disrespectfully deceive your poorly disinformed  audience. I am not
just versed in the Koran and the Sunnah. I furthermore master them in
their initially eloquent Arabic rhetoric. So, a question to you, just
think of this situation. Warfare has erupted and usually, women are
left without their men subsequent to ceasefire. What would be the
situation if we left the matter to be tackled arbitrarily? Well,
prostitution would then be the norm and corruption shall be all over
the place. So, the bottomline here is, Islam destines to keep the
society clean and aid these women to be esteemed within their newly
established social boundaries. Imagine then, in Bani Al Mustaliq
battle,  in this particular expedition, the prophet offered to marry
Juwayriyya bint al-Harith who was the daughter of the tribe's chief.
Thereupon, all his companions freed their captives because they were
the relatives of the prophet's wife. So, this previously unknown woman
of Arabia, became one of the prophet's glorious wives, mother of the
believers, Juwayriyya bint al-Harith, may Allah be pleased with her.
She is quite honourable to me, even more than the queen of England
herself. Now, to today's modern concubinage, on what legal or moral
grounds is porn allowed in the west today? What moral stance that
okays the literal exhibit of  bare flesh, even if the parties involved
are tolerant with it for the greed it attains, is that morally
justified? The right hand possessed was a temporarily gradual stage to
redress a miserable state, which dominated pre Islamic Arabia. I want
you to look for an answer within the half naked women of Ukraine or
wherever whom you illicitly get around with. Typically, women in the
west are tolerant with the idea of boyfriend girlfriend relationship.
In addition, some of them though would go even farther to work for
stripping or fetishism, etc etc. We knew how corrupt western societies
are on that regard. Thence, it's better not to get into this
direction. How many time a man met with a woman at a bar or whatever
and he took her to his place and, they just spent the night together
and then, well, it's done. The more I look at western social order on
that regard and compare it to what Islam has principled, I feel
grateful for being Muslim. Now, were you, in the section below,
intently lying about the right hand possessed women and the rulings
pertained to them or were you actually ignorant about that? I have put
you between two odd options. The least of them is bitter. I still
didn't see the term nor even the entailment of ravishment expressed in
the text you quoted, either of the Koran or the Hadith. So mister
Sina, were you dishonest or ignorant? The ball is in your playground
now. I want you to get nastier to your utmost, and we'll deal with
you, don't worry, my little dear. You've insinuated yourself into
miserable condition and will make you regret soon. I wish you would
never be guided and would die an infidel.

 On 12/12/19, FFI <faithfreedom2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought you claimed to be versed in the Quran and hadith to the extent
> that you even challenged me to debate when other Muslim scholars failed.
> Here is the evidence that Muhammad allowed rape of captives and beating
> them.
> '
> *Sex with Captives*
>
> "Abu Sai'd al-Khudri said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him)
> sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of
> Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and
> took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may
> peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female
> captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah,
> the Exalted, sent down the Qur'anic verse: [Sura 4:24) "And all married
> women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands
> possess." That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their
> waiting period. (1479)" *Abu Dawud* vol.2:2150 p.577
>
> The fact that it was OK for Muslims to have sex with captive women is also
> in *Sahih Muslim* vol.2:3371-3374 p.732-735; *Abu Dawud* vol.2:2150 and
> footnote 1479 p.577-578.
>
> Stripping female captives of their clothes is OK, according to *Sahih
> Muslim* vol.3:4345 p.953 and *Ibn-i-Majah vol.4:*2840 p.187.
>
> Sex with captives among the Bani Al-Mustaliq. *Bukhari* vol.9:506 p.372;
> *Abu
> Dawud* vol.2:2167 p.582
>
> "Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's
> Apostle he said, 'Oh Allah's Apostle We get female captives as our share of
> booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about
> coitus interruptus?' [a sexual practice] The Prophet said, 'Do you really
> do that? It is better for you not to do it, No soul that which Allah has
> destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." *Bukhari*
> vol.3:432 p.237. See also *Bukhari* vol.5:459 p.317; vol.7:136-137
> p.102-103; vol.8:600 p.391; *Abu Dawud* vol.2:2166,2168 p.582
>
> "After the distribution of the spoils of war a man may have intercourse
> with the female slave after passing one menstrual period, if she is not
> pregnant. If she is pregnant one should wait till she delivers the child.
> This is the view held by Malik, al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifah holds
> that if both the husband and wife are captivated together, their marriage
> tie still continues; they will not be separated. According to the majority
> of scholars, they will be separated. Al-Awza-I maintains that their
> marriage tie will continue till they remain part of the spoils of war. If a
> man buys them, he may separate them if he desires, and cohabit with the
> female slave after one menstrual period. ('Awn al-Ma'bud II.213)" Note that
> Mohammed married Safiyah right after the battle. *Abu Dawud* vol.2 footnote
> 1479 p.577-578.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
> inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
> idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
> mankind, Not thieves, not covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
> extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (KJV)
>
> A Muslim warrior has to wait until a woman's menstrual course is finished
> before having sex with her. *Abu Dawud* vol.2:2153-2154 p.578
>
> Narrated Ibn Muhairiz : I saw Abu Sa'id and asked him about coitus
> interruptus. Abu Sa'id said, "We went with Allah's Apostle in the Ghazwa of
> Bani Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the Arabs as captives and the long
> separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice
> coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible).
> He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah
> has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely
> come into existence." *Bukhari* vol.3:718 p.432
>
> Notice that the captives were in no way considered "wives". They were
> neither wives nor concubines, or they would not have seen any need to ask
> Mohammed about this.
>
> In contrast to this, the Old Testament teaches that if a soldier wanted a
> captive woman, he had to marry her first, and only after waiting for a
> month in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
>
> *Extra-marital Sex with Slave Girls*
>
> That Muslims can force captives to have sex may be a surprise not only to
> some westerners. Even many Muslims who are not very familiar with their own
> hadiths might not know that Mohammed and Muslims historically did this. It
> is perfectly reasonable that a Muslim would be expected not to believe this
> unless there was thorough evidence, so here is the thorough evidence.
>
> "...We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the
> expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captives some excellent Arab
> women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our
> wives (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided
> to have [sex] with them but by observing .... But we said: We are doing an
> act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked
> Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter
> if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of
> Resurrection will be born." *Sahih Muslim* vol.2:3571 p.732-733.
>
> Note that in this quote these women were in no way considered "wives".
>
> *Bukhari* vol.7:22; vol.3:after 436, vol.3:432; vol.5:459; vol.8:600 also
> teach it is morally acceptable to force female slaves to have sex.
>
> "Can one travel with a slave-girl without knowing whether she is pregnant
> or not? Al-Hasan found no harm in her master's kissing or fondling with
> her.
>
> Ibn 'Umar said, 'If a slave-girl who is suitable to have sexual relations
> is given to somebody as a gift, or sold or manumitted [freed], her master
> should not have sexual intercourse with her before she gets one
> menstruation so as to be sure of absence of pregnancy, and there is no such
> necessity for a virgin.'
>
> 'Ata said, 'There is no harm in fondling with one's pregnant (1) slave-girl
> without having sexual intercourse with her. Allah said: 'Except with their
> wives and the (women captives) whom their right hands possess (for in this
> case they are not to be blamed).'" Footnote (1) says, "Pregnant from
> another man, not her present master." *Bukhari* vol.3 ch.113 after no.436
> p.239-240. (Same 'Ata as previous.)
>
> "And 'Ata disliked to look at those slave girls who used to be sold in
> Mecca *unless he wanted to buy*." *Bukhari* vol.8:246 p.162.
>
> Mohammed was asked about sex with slave girls. - It is fine. *Sahih Muslim*
> vol.2:3377,3383-3388. p.734-735 In contrast to this, in the Old Testament a
> man who had sex with a slave, and not his wife, was killed.
>
> Sex with captives is OK. *Sahih Muslim* vol.2:3371-3376 p.733;
> *Ibn-i-Majah*
> vol.3:2517 p.506
>
> Sex with slave girls is OK. *Ibn-i-Majah* vol.1:89 p.52; vol.3:1920 p.158;
> vol.3:1927-1928 p.162. See also *Ibn-i-Majah* vol.3:1851 p.117.
>
> Islam even has a special word for this: an *Umm Walad* (or *um Walid*) is a
> slave girl who gives birth to her master's child. *Ibn-i-Majah *vol.3
> footnote 1 p.257. Mariya was an um walid of Mohammed according to
> *al-Tabari* vol.13 p.58.
>
> The child of a slave girl and her master is mentioned in *Ibn-i-Majah*
> vol.3:2004 p.207.
>
> However, A Muslim slave owner cannot look at the nakedness of a slave girl
> if she is married to someone else. *Abu Dawud* vol.1:496 and footnote 198
> p.126.
>
> All of these quotes are available in Muslim books you can buy, so there is
> no real secret here. Now if you were brought up in a Muslim school, perhaps
> your teachers did not tell you about this part of Islam. Perhaps when you
> decided to follow Islam you were not told the full story, and joined Islam
> under false pretences.
>
> Partners Besides Wives in the Qur'an
>
> If one reads the Qur'an (as I have from cover to cover), one can miss many
> things if you do not know the terminology. Now that we understand what
> "those whom your right hands possess" means, let's see what the Qur'an
> clearly states.
>
> "Also (prohibited are) women already married, *except those whom your right
> hands possess*...." Sura 4:24.
>
>
>
> "Those whom their right hands possess" is also mentioned in Sura 16:71.
>
>
>
> "...abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage
> bond, or *(the captives) whom their right hands possess* - for (in their
> case) they are free from blame," Sura 23:5-6
>
> "And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the
> *(captives)
> whom their right hands possess*, - for (then) they are not to be blamed,"
> Sura 70:29-30
>
> It is not lawful to marry more than "these", except for *those whom your
> right hands possess*. Sura 33:52. See also Sura 33:50. So more than four
> "partners" is OK, as long as they other are merely those whom your right
> hands possess.
>
>
>
> All the quotes of the Qur'an in this video, unless otherwise stated, are
> from Yusuf 'Ali's translation, and "(captives)" is not in the Arabic but
> his translation. Apparently it is to try to soften the impact of "those
> whom your right hands possess", but the truth is, it is not limited to
> captives.
>
> Non-Muslim Sex Slaves may be OK, but non-Muslim Wives are Bad
>
> "Do not marry polytheistic women until they have become true believers. For
> a woman who is a true believe is better than a woman who is a polytheist,
> even should you find the latter greatly pleasing. Furthermore, do not
> permit your women to marry polytheistic men until they have become true
> believers. For a man who is a true believer is better than a man who is a
> polytheist, even should you find the latter greatly pleasing... Sura
> vol.2:221 (quotes from *Women In Islam* p.53)
>
> "Whenever Ibn 'Umar was asked about the marrying of a Christian or Jewish
> woman, he replied: 'Truly, God has made polytheistic women unlawful for
> true believers, and I do not know anything worse in polytheism than for a
> woman to say 'Our Lord is Jesus', though he was merely just one of God's
> servants!'" *Bukhari* vol.7:209 p.155-156. Also quoted in *Women in Islam*
> p.53
>
> Yet Mohammed had at least two concubines who were not Muslim. Mary the
> Christian and Rayhana/Raihana/Rayhanah bint Zayd/Zaid. He also had some
> slave girls on the side too. *Bukhari* vol.7:274 p.210; *Abu Dawud*
> vol.3:4458 p.1249. Salmah for example, was a maid-servant of Mohammed. *Abu
> Dawud* vol.3:3849 p.1084. *al-Tabari* vol.12 p.202 also mentions that 'Umar
> was going to give 10,000 dirhams to each of Mohammed's widows, but none for
> Mohammed's slave girls. However, the wives insisted that Mohammed's slave
> girls each get 10,000 dirhams too.
>
> Mohammed probably never had sex with the wife of someone else though. "He
> [Mohammed] replied, 'Conceal your private parts except from your wife and
> from whom your right hands possess (slave-girls).'" *Abu Dawud* vol.3:4006
> p.1123
>
> *Women of Mohammed's Right Hand*
>
> "...abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage
> bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess - for (in their
> case) they are free from blame," Sura 23:5-6. See also Sura 4:24
>
> "He [Mohammed] replied, 'Conceal your private parts except from your wife
> and from whom your right hands possess (slave-girls).'" *Abu Dawud*
> vol.3:4006 p.1123
>
> *Abu Dawud* vol.3:4443-4445 p.1244 shows that having sex with a slave-girl
> a man owns is OK, but a man will be flogged for having sex with his wife's
> slave-girl.
>
> As was typical of wealthy Arab men, Mohammed had a few slave girls too. See
> *Bukhari* vol.7:274 p.210.
>
> Salmah for was a maid-servant of Mohammed. *Abu Dawud* vol.3:3849 p.1084
>
> Maimuna was the freed slave girl of Mohammed. *Ibn-i-Majah* vol.3:2531
> p.514; *Abu Dawud* vol.1:457 p.118
>
> Mohammed briefly had a "very beautiful" captive before he gave her to
> Mahmiyah b. Jaz' al-Zubaydi. *al-Tabari* vol.8 p.151
>
> One of the slave girls belonging to Mohammed house committed fornication
> with someone else. It is the "someone else" part that was a problem.* Abu
> Dawud* vol.3:4458 p.1249
>
> Mohammed called a black slave-girl to come and conceal Abu Dharr behind a
> curtain while he was taking a bath. *Abu Dawud* vol.1:332 p.87
>
> *Beating Wives Should Not Be As Severe As Beating Slave Girls in Islam *
>
> *Bukhari* vol.7:132 p.101 says not to flog your wife as you flog a slave
> and then sleep with her later. (It does not specify whether the slaves are
> male or female, because at another time (*Ibn-i-Majah vol.3:*1983 p.194)
> Mohammed criticized Muslim men for beating their wives in the same way they
> beat their slave-girls.)
>
> "'How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and
> then he may embrace (sleep with) her?' And Hisham said, 'As he beats his
> slave.'" *Bukhari* vol.8:68 p.42.
>
> *References *
>
> www.Answering-Islam.org is a very extensive web site presenting and
> debating many aspects of Islam.
>
> Arberry, A.J. *The Koran Interpreted* Macmillian Publishing Co. 1955.
>
> Ali, Maulawi Shr. *The Holy Qur'an : Arabic Text and English Translation*.
> Islam International Publications Limited. 1997 (This is published under the
> auspices of the Ahmadiyya Muslims)
>
> Hasan, Prof. Ahmad. *Sunan Abu Dawud : English Translation with Explanatory
> Notes*. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters 1984 (three
> volumes)
>
> *>The History of al-Tabari*. Ihsan Abbas et al. editorial board. Volumes
> 1-11. SUNY Press.
>
> *>The Holy Qur-an : English translation of the meanings and Commentary*.
> Translated by 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali. Revised and edited by The Presidency of
> Islamic Researches, IFTA, Call and Guidance. King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing
> Complex. (no date)
>
> Khan, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin (translator) *The Translation of the Meanings of
> Sahih Al-Bukhari Arabic-English*. Islamic University, Al-Medina
> Al-Munawwara AL MAKTABAT AL SALAFIAT AL MADINATO AL MONAWART. No date, No
> copyright.
>
> Malik, Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam. English *Translation of the Meaning of
> AL-QUR'AN : The Guidance for Mankind*. Institute of Islamic Knowledge.
> 1997.
>
> *>Sahih Muslim* by Imam Muslim. Rendered into English by 'Abdul Hamid
> Siddiqi. International Islamic Publishing House. (no date)
>
> *>Sunan Ibn-i-Majah* by Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad b. Yazid ibn-i-Majah
> al-Qazwini. Translated by Muhammad Tufail Ansari. Kazi Publications
> 121-Zutgarnain Chambers, Ganpat Road, Lahore, Pakistan. Worldwide Copyright
> 1993 Zaki Publications Lahore Pakistan.
>
> *>Sunan Nasa'i* translated by Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqi. 1994 Kazi
> Publications.
>
> *>The NIV Study Bible : New International Version* Zondervan Bible
> Publishers. 1985.
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 6:21 PM Mustafa Almahdy
> <against.trump2001 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This doesn't make you look better. So, as you guys can see, he bases
>> his callous assault on mere entropy. I challenge him to cite one
>> reference for what he viciously claimed about the rulings of those
>> whom the right hand possesses in Islam. Hasn't he been intently
>> deceitful, he would have honestly cited his reference of such
>> disinformation. I sternly challenge you to show me in whichever
>> Islamic source, rape is permissible. Just show me one single
>> reference, even if it's counterfeit. Why hasn't he honestly mentioned
>> to you, that in various instances of perpetrating major offences,
>> emancipating slaves in general is recognised as a substantial
>> atonement, as derived from the two basic sources of Shariah and its
>> jural rulings. This leastwise applies to the following cases. First,
>> false oath. This is when someone swears formally, that he will do or
>> avoid doing something and he then doesn't fulfill his solemn plight.
>> Second, breaking the fast deliberately in Ramadan without valid
>> excuse. Third, slip murder. This is when someone is killed
>> incidentally. Fourth, Back ache. In the pre Islamic era, in mostly
>> pagan Arabia, if a man is enormously tempestuous at his spouse, he
>> could tell her, you're of me as my mother's back. This means, I intend
>> to avoid intimate engagement with you for indefinite period. So, she
>> is neither married nor divorced. She is rather utterly suspended.
>> Thence, Islam has strictly prohibited such brutal maltreatment of
>> women and enjoined believing men to totally refrain from doing so. It
>> has then demanded them to emancipate slaves as an act of atonement
>> from such disgraceful sin. So, is Ali Sina willing to be outspoken and
>> somewhat impartial regarding Islam? Well, up until  now, he absolutely
>> couldn't. He uses his detest of this broadly embraced faith to
>> bootlick westerns and to fallaciously gain fame among them. Is he
>> willing to schedule a publicly held debate next Saturday on the
>> subject of slavery and how Islam delt with it? I am fully prepared, so
>> is he? I personally consider racial disparity in the States and beyond
>> a form of modern slavery. When Ali Sina responds to me with his
>> typical evasion, he doesn't opt reply to all. Nonetheless, when he
>> destines to purposely defame Islam, he opts it quite plainly. I just
>> aimed to unambiguously exhibit before the masses, this is the low rate
>> of edification as it comes to common Islam haters. Ali Sina takes
>> advantage of people's unawareness of Islam's basics and intently poses
>> false information about it. If he doesn't, he would have not immorally
>> concealed the sources of what he has deliberately misrepresented. Did
>> you know though, that the Koran   in the chapter of light, prohibited
>> those who have right handedly possessed girls, to coerce them into
>> prostitution. And, if they have been compelled into that, which is
>> equal to ravishment, Allah is afterward all forgiving, all merciful.
>> Reference cited, the Noble Koran, chapter 24, verse, 32. Well, see it
>> yourselves. How on earth rape is permissible then? I am glad though,
>> that you're willingly exposing your ignorance about Islam and
>> concurrent hate of it. The way you insist to viciously affront prophet
>> Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him doesn't make you more than
>> just hatefully despicable swine. So, just proceed onto your hate, and,
>> flee the debate.
>>
>> On 12/10/19, FFI <faithfreedom2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Oh yeah. Looking at women is prohibited in Islam but raping non Muslim
>> > women is not only permitted it is recommended. Muslims are encouraged
>> > to
>> > fight and kill non Muslims and take their daughters and wives are
>> captives
>> > or as the Quran calls them "right hand possessions." There is no limit
>> > to
>> > how many women a Muslim man can have as his right hand possession and
>> > no
>> > restriction as what he can do with them. He can rape them, beat them,
>> sell
>> > them and even kill them.  Please spare us flaunting your holier than
>> > thou
>> > BS for us. You people are the scum of the earth and not the best people
>> as
>> > your pedophile prophet told you. Islamic societies are hellish and that
>> is
>> > why every Muslim wants to immigrate to a non-Muslim country only to
>> > bring
>> > with him his demonic faith and terrorism. Keep you beautiful religion
>> > to
>> > yourself and leave us alone.  The world is a hell because people who
>> > know
>> > least think they know it all and refuse to learn. The Germans were not
>> bad
>> > people, the communists are not bad people, the socialists are not bad
>> > people, the Muslims are not bad people. They are all stupid people who
>> > refuse to listen. They think they have found the truth and there is no
>> > reason to search more. It is others that have to be indoctrinated,  You
>> > prove this so clearly.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 4:59 PM Mustafa Almahdy
>> > <against.trump2001 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, you're in hell as of being such a miserable failure, not able to
>> >> respond to my longly held debating challenge. As for good looking
>> >> women, that's the maximum rate of someone at your disposal. I don't
>> >> know about these things. But I know, that staring at women illicitly
>> >> is strictly prohibited in Islam. Now, as these evangelists who
>> >> cluselessly fend for your plainly hateful attitude may have noticed,
>> >> you're not proselytising  to their faith in any manner. You're just
>> >> spreading hate and deceit about Islam. Nonetheless, that seems to be
>> >> quite sufficient for them to unconsciously endorse you. I think we're
>> >> fully aware as of right now, who is truly detestable, despicable and
>> >> immensely hypocritical. I still want to know, where did you earn the
>> >> 100000$ which you sardonically offered from? Is working for
>> >> Islamophobia and hatefully relevant industries eminently so profitable
>> >> in western culture? As you're currently residing in the region of
>> >> southeastern Europe, I wonder, what are you doing there? As Iranian
>> >> based who has been extremely notorious of intently spreading hate, I
>> >> couldn't unveil the nature of your work. Where does it fill? Ali Sina
>> >> aims to provoke attenuated Muslims until they ultimately apostate. Be
>> >> that as it may, he doesn't care about what do they embrace afterward.
>> >> Is he promoting western secularism? I wonder if he perhaps could
>> >> illustrate onto that. He says before that he is not an evangelist.
>> >> Fine, what is he then? As to the faith talk folks, well, someone there
>> >> has just told me, that I was demanded not to post to the list anymore.
>> >> Well, excuse me but, this request clearly contradicts with an explicit
>> >> statement that belongs to the list's essential guidelines. On your
>> >> main info page, it says, "Persons of all faiths are welcome. Feel free
>> >> to post, and have fun!". That what does it state there, very clearly.
>> >> You can go to the list's info page and verify this claim. So, you may
>> >> either remove the above statement and replace it with a statement that
>> >> informs all viewers, that this list is exclusively restricted to
>> >> Christian conversation and relevantly affiliated blindness interests.
>> >> Or, you may say, that each and everyone that is not believing
>> >> Christian is welcome to post except Muslims. We don't want them here
>> >> anymore. I bet you couldn't post such thing on your main page because
>> >> you will plainly violate allegedly embraced tenets of multiculturalism
>> >> and coexistence. No no, sure you could. Hasn't Trump, master of peace
>> >> and tolerance insistently declared such kind remarks about Muslims in
>> >> the States and other minorities? What happened when I posted to the
>> >> faith talk list stuff that may not necessarily concur with their
>> >> beliefs or convictions as of religious and political orientation?
>> >> Well, they immediately banned me from posting to the list. In other
>> >> words, forcefully unsubscribed me. Well, if I will anyway be
>> >> ostracised because of my religious and political opinion, what is then
>> >> the proper use of the following statement? As quoted above, it says on
>> >> your main info page, "persons of all faiths are welcome." So, it's
>> >> either I am welcome or not welcome. I wonder if it could be both? It
>> >> could be, as long as I speak against my own religion to please
>> >> Americans, lords of the world. I unfortunately couldn't cope with such
>> >> demand. So, I hope the temperament of the list's owners is clarified a
>> >> bit. As for Ali Sina, good luck at your glorious journey of courting
>> >> gorgeous women.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 12/2/19, FFI <faithfreedom2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > I am in Ukraine, If this is hell it is too cold this time of the
>> >> > year.
>> >> But
>> >> > the women here are actually very very beautiful.  Nice hell.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 9:45 PM Mustafa Almahdy
>> >> > <against.trump2001 at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> For nearly three successive months, I have been persistently
>> >> >> challenging Ali Sina to enter in a debate with me about the filth
>> that
>> >> >> he presumptuously writes about Islam. He obstinately calls the
>> >> >> lasciviously based soliloquy of his own sickened prejudice
>> >> >> worthwhile
>> >> >> critique. He thence is afraid of venturing into this altercating
>> >> >> field, so he may not lose his averred credibility among disinformed
>> >> >> audience. He runs a vicious website entitled Ali Sina dot org. At
>> >> >> its
>> >> >> inception he writes, everything you need to know about Islam. He
>> >> >> should have actually written, everything I intently lie to you
>> >> >> about
>> >> >> Islam. He unfortunately takes advantage of people's ignorance. He
>> >> >> deliberately misleads his indoctrinated viewers. On his detestable
>> >> >> website, he often writes about arbitrarily anonymous mortals who
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> allegedly Muslims. Therein, they have supposedly sought his eminent
>> >> >> advice which has led to their ultimate apostasy. He evades
>> >> >> conversing
>> >> >> with me because I massively resemble a major threat to his
>> reputation.
>> >> >> I discredited his character and have posed decisive rebuttals to
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> truthiness. First off, why couldn't he release his accredited
>> >> >> credentials or whatever that might be? Second, does he know Arabic?
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> previously demanded him to compose a basic sentence in Arabic, but
>> >> >> he
>> >> >> just couldn't. Third, in his recent message to me, he asked me to
>> >> >> bring him someone to debate with, and he proposed to pay us
>> >> >> 100000$,
>> >> >> arranged half to half, between me and the one that I will bring. My
>> >> >> question here is, why couldn't you just debate me for free? And,
>> where
>> >> >> did you get all this money from? Is working in the field of
>> >> >> Islamophobia that profitable in the west? I hope he bravely answers
>> >> >> any of these critical questions. Now, to those who purposely
>> >> >> harbour
>> >> >> such fugitives  and hatemongers, you must plainly fathom, that the
>> >> >> current situation won't ever be infinite in any manner. I one day
>> >> >> shall catch this Ali Sina and will then coerce him into direct
>> >> >> engagement, whereas people as of Muslims and others alike can
>> >> >> certainly see and judge. I genuinely believe that attainting this
>> >> >> person's competency is much worse than actually putting him to
>> >> >> death.
>> >> >> If you're truly a man, you may then accept debating me. As of right
>> >> >> now, he cowardly hides like a nasty mous. He is absolutely
>> >> >> terrified
>> >> >> of being caught and exposed. Had he been confident of himself, he
>> >> >> would have then accepted my longly suspended debating proposal. His
>> >> >> financial offer etc is just an enact to deride and avoid any
>> potential
>> >> >> confrontation. I, however, won't ever leave him on his own. Even if
>> he
>> >> >> hides below the seventh ground, I will chase him. I will keep
>> >> >> beating
>> >> >> him up until he is wholly destroyed. I knew where do you currently
>> >> >> reside in Europe. We're going to meet soon, so watch out, son of
>> >> >> Sina.,
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > alisina.org <http://www.alisina.org>
>> >> > faithfreedom.org <http://www.faithfreedom.org>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > alisina.org <http://www.alisina.org>
>> > faithfreedom.org <http://www.faithfreedom.org>
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> alisina.org <http://www.alisina.org>
> faithfreedom.org <http://www.faithfreedom.org>
>