Nozzi: By Islamic law captive women and children are property and can be sold or distributed like cattle

Submitted by Plato (India), May 11, 2009 at 09:41

Nozzi: By Islamic law captive women and children are property and can be sold or distributed like cattle

Nozzi, you write:

>>If guessing is correct, your another name is Proud India and that Daniel Pipes seems to cite you as terrorism.<<

How does it matter what my name is. Respond to the matter in my posts.

>>You indeed have abused the history of Islam, You have quoted from Tabaqat that Muhammad slaughtered the woman with a few children. However, you have abused the history of Islam in the sense that that woman was powerful that she could direct non-muslims to fight against muslims and that includes Prophet Muhammad.<<

You are now repeating what you said in a previous post (http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/154986 ). No wonder Danielpipes sometimes passes them up.

>>As she had the power to direct non-muslims and to make a plan for non-muslims to fight against muslims, she was not an ordinary woman and that shows that she was the leader, or the so-called, General in army nowadays.<<

As said in my previous post by claiming that Asma bint Marwan was a powerful woman you are falsifying Muslim claims that women were oppressed in jahiliya and that Islam gave them rights unheard of in ancient times. What Islam did was deprive them of the rights they enjoyed in jahiliya.

>>As she was holding a significant power to influence non-muslims to fight against muslims, she was really bad.<<

To paraphrase you: As Muhammad was holding significant power to influence Muslims to fight against pagans, he was really bad. Can you find anything wrong in my statement? If yes, what?

>> Not only that, it also shows that she was a woman with power to direct non-muslims to fight and that was why Prophet Muh ammad did the right job to slaughter her.<<

Again to paraphrase: Not only that, it is known that Muhammad was a man with power to direct Muslims to fight and that was why Asma Bint Marwan did the right job to incite the non-Muslims to attack Muhammad. Again can you find anything wrong in my statement. If yes, what?

>>I have a few questions to raise for your reply:

a) If your government send you to be a soldier to fight against another country, would you slaughter women soldiers in case if the government in another country cleverly call married woman with children to fight with you in the war and you know it since he publicized it to let you know?<<

Of course I will attack the women soldiers if they attacked my country. But I will not take the soldiers or civilian women and children or even men as slaves. This is something that the Koran allows Muslims to do. You are allowed to take booty in the form of women and children. Let me quote from The Legacy of Jihad, page 169 which quotes from Al Siyasa Al Shariyya of Ibn Taymiyya:

…Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them (prisoners) may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.

Your great jurists are telling you that women and children need not be killed if taken prisoner because for Muslims they are just property. They will either be sold to someone else as slaves or the Muslims will use them as sex slaves as allowed by the Koran and the Prophet.

>>b) You say that it is cruel to kill women with children. Howabout, men with children then. Don't tell me you would spare the lives of married men with children if your Governemnt call you to carry weapons to fight against the married men with children from another country in which your government to decide to fight with?<<

That is not what I said. I said it was cruel for Muhammad to have a woman killed because she criticized him for killing a fellow poet who had also criticized him.

You keep going off track either deliberately to confuse the issue or you have failed to understand what is being discussed. No, I would not spare the lives of married men with children if they invaded my country (most male soldiers are married men) especially if they happen to be Muslims because I know they will take the women in my family and children and make them into slaves.

>>c) You have mentioned that Prophet Muhammad was cruel since he killed Asma. However, he did not kill her husband, Yazid Ibn Hisn Al-Khatm. Her husband could take care of the children. He did not kill her relatives and her relatives could take care of the children.<<

Do you understand now why Danielpipes sometimes does not publish your posts. Here you are like a broken record asking the same thing again and again with only slight variations. How does leaving Asma's husband, children and relatives alive make the prophet a saint? He had a woman cruelly murdered for writing a poem about him. That is the cruelty I am talking about. Would you consider a man who murdered your married daughter (hypothetical) and left alive her children and husband not guilty of the crime of murder. Truly, Islam has robbed you of even the basics of logic.

>>d) Now please answer me this question. Do you consider Prophet Muhammad was doing the right thing when he spared the lives of the innocent people, the children? Just answer to me, Yes, or, No, and no further explanation.<<

Another track on the broken record. Yes, Muhammad did the right thing.

>>e) Do you consider a man is cruel if he spares not even the lives of children?<<

Yes he is cruel.

Do you consider the man who murders your daughter is cruel if he spares not even the lives of her children?

f) Do you consider a man is merciful if that man spares the lives of innocent people, children?

Which mad man would want to kill innocent people and children? Nozzi, I suggest you think a little more before tossing meaningless questions like these.

>>g) As Asma was killed by Muhammad, her children could still live since her children could be taken care by her husband or friends or relatives?<<

The great deduction using Islamic logic. Since Muhammad slaughtered only Asma and did not slaughter her husband and children he was being extremely merciful as the children would be cared for. Now Nozzi, what about your hypothetical daughter who got murdered? Their grandparents, father and uncles and aunts are alive so the murderer was showing great mercy towards your daughter as he has thrown the responsibility of taking care of her children on to the relatives.

>>h) It is not justifiable to mention that Prophet Muhammad was bad since he did not trace back all his relatives, friends and her husband to kill them all.<<

Paraphrasing again. It is not justifiable to mention that your daughter's murderer was bad since he did not trace back all her relatives, friends and her husband to kill them all. Your daughter's murderer should indeed be honoured as a very merciful person. Right or wrong Nozzi??

>>i) If you trace back the history of China, you would discover the emperors in China were the worst since they would slaughter even the lives of children. Not only that, they would slaughterall the nine generations of that person concerned. However, Muhammad was willing to spare the lives of children.<<

I have given you the reason Muhammad was WILLING to spare the lives of children. They are property of Muslim conquerors and they can be sold or used as slaves. See above for Ibn Taymiyya's ruling on women and children being property.

>>You have abused the book of the Holy Quran. You see the word, fight, in the Holy Quran and you keep on saying that the Holy Quran is violence. You did not even examine the sentences around to give conclusion.<<

Examine the verses around 9:29, Nozzi. You (rather the non-Muslims) will not find any solace in the verses surrounding 9:29:

009.028 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
009.029 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
009.030 YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

>>We, moderate muslims, do not like violence, vandalism, and etc. you keep on sending message in the comments here to encourage moderate muslims to fight and this shows that you are violent and you like to see muslims to killl non-muslims without reasoning.<<

Not I, Nozzi, but it is Allah who wishes to see Muslims kill non-Muslims without reason. Read 9:29. Not believing in Allah is a good enough reason for Him to ask Muslims to kill us all. He encourages this further in 9:111 by promising Muslims they will be rewarded either in this life with booty or great physical pleasures in paradise if they are killed when trying to kill kafirs like me.

>>You have abused the history of Islam. You simply use the year 624 to comment that Muslims were the first to start fighting. However, you did not support the truth that Muhammad began to preach to the Meccans in year 610. They were indeed persecution from Meccans to Muhammad and his followers and this occurred just after year 610 and right before year 624.. As a result of the persecution from Meccans, Muhammad began to ambush and fought against the Meccans as you have mentioned for the year 624.<

Another broken record, Nozzi. How many do you have to pull out of your stock to keep this thread going? Haven't you asked this question and haven't I answered it?

Did I ever say that Muhammad did not start preaching in 610? What I did say was that the Meccans did not take umbrage at Muhammad's preaching until he started abusing their religion. I quoted Muslim sources to prove it. You have quoted the Cambridge history about Muhammad, but nothing about why and when the Meccans were maddened by Muhammad's preaching. Show me from your favourite book that Muhammad did not insult their idols.

>>The word, preaching, is mentioned in the history of Islam and you just argue that no, muslims, should not preach but fight just because the word, fight, is stated in the Holy Quran.

You tell muslims not to preach to the muslims and you're just quoting verses to want them to fight.<<

Search for the words 'preach' and 'fight'. You will find the word fight occurs many more times than preach (I have shown you this before, in another post). So by your logic the Koran is more for fighting than preaching.

>>You indeed have mislead many muslims.<<

No, Nozzi. It is the Koran which encourages Muslims to fight as showed you above.

>>.... You have another nickname and that is Proud India.<<

You can't answer my questions nor can you prove any of your claims. Is that why you make this new claim about my identity. You cannot prove this statement of yours either! LOL

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".