KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
1. So you consider using female slaves captured during attacks for sex to be morally and practically acceptable. So presumably you do not condemn ISIS for doing it, especially as they cite those hadith as justification.
2. The Quran does not make that distinction. It simply refers to those "whom thy right hand possesses" - ie. slaves acquired through any legitimate Islamic means, which include trade and birth.
More whataboutery. Why do you think other people committing barbarism makes your barbarism ok?
And yes, any other ideology that allows using females slaves or captives for sex is just as bad as Islam.
You just spent a long post telling me I have no morals. Careful you don't use up the world's supply of irony. It is a finite resource, you know.
And yes, I am quite happy to claim that my own personal moral framework is superior to Islam's. For one, I would never allow or condone slavery. So that's 1-0 to me already. And a pretty big one at that.
I understand the context of the hadith.
You claimed that we can't judge Muhammad's actions by today's standards. Yet at the same time, you believe Muhammad is the perfect example for all Muslims to follow.
You need to make your mind up.
Interesting that you consider having sex with another man's wife to be immoral - and yet in those hadith I quoted, Muhammad explicitly allows his men to do just that.
So, where is your moral high ground now?
And again, you are implying that it is anyone else's decision other than the woman's. If the sex is adult, informed and consensual, it is morally acceptable. The issue of a failing marriage is something different.
But I do. I maintain that slavery is immoral. But you believe that it is morally acceptable.
So, who is the morally bankrupt one here?
I think the use of torture is immoral (especially as a punishment). Islam prescribes torture as a punishment. Therefore, to me, Islam is immoral.
Now, if you want to defend the morality of using torture as a punishment, go ahead.
Hmm, that didn't seem to address my main point - so I'll make it agains...
The point is that the hadith describe Muslim soldiers basically raping their new "desirable" captives. Muhammad has the opportunity to tell them not to, but he allows them to continue.
Of course if it was just some random warlord in the ANE allowing his men to rape their captives, then it wouldn't be noteworthy. Those were often brutal times. The problem is that Muhammad is supposed to be "the best of creation", the ultimate moral exemplar and role model for all Muslims to aspire to. So whatever he did is necessarily morally good.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of "debate". If you claim that a point I made is flawed, then you need to explain why. It's no good just repeatedly shouting "Ha! You're stupid!"
By doing this, you only make your own position look weaker. I made two specific point but you just dodged them. So let's have another go...
"You believe the Quran came from god, but there is literally no evidence or rational argument to support that claim, and much that disproves it."
"Was Zoroastrianism and Arab Paganism also from god, because Islam contains elements of those beliefs as well?"
It is perfectly apposite.
You argued that one immoral act excuses another.
My analogy explicitly illustrates the flaw in your argument.
I claimed that all Muhammad's "revelations" were in response to some event.
You claimed they weren't, and gave an example.
I explained the event that verse was in response to.
Ironically, it is you who seems to misunderstand context. You think that simply shouting "But Context!" is an argument in itself. It is not.
You need to explain what the context id and why it changes the apparent meaning.
You seem to have descended into a pattern of ignoring points and questions and instead just repeating "But you're illogical and irrational" as every response.
As I have explained, if you read that verse in context (ie. along with the verses around it and with a classical tafsir) you would see it is referring to all those who reject Islam. Allah specifically refers to those who "have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth". So anyone who disbelieves. He then says that Abraham's hatred for such people is a good example to follow.
Even given your narrow, out of context interpretation, you are still admitting that the Quran promotes hate against people because of their religious beliefs, which proves my initial point (you hadn't thought that through, had you?).
So you finally agree with me.
This is actually getting pretty amusing now.
I asked you to point out from a list of Muhammad's military actions, which ones were defensive.
You refused because the list was from Wikipedia.
I asked you...
"So what is your argument here? That the list of battles is wrong? That there are some missing of made-up ones added?
Or are you simply avoiding the issue - which is that after the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad did not fight any defensive battles?"
To which you gave the above response.
Fancy attempting an answer yet?
You seem to have lost track of the point here.
If Muhammad attacked a town and the inhabitants fought back against the Muslim army, who was the aggressor?
Did the inhabitants defensive action retroactively justify Muhammad attacking in the first place?
There are dozens of articles that refer to Putin's claim to be liberating Ukraine. It was the fundamental justification for the invasion - that the pro-Russian population was being oppressed by the illegitimate Ukrainian government. Really not sure where you are going with this.
Why does it matter what happened after he invaded and conquered it? The point is that he did invade and conquer it - as you have just admitted. Therefore it can't have been self-defence. It must have been aggressive action.
This keeps happening to you, doesn't it. You present some "argument" that merely proves my original point.
