However, this debate between Robert Spencer and Nadir
Ahmed is useful in highlighting the utter lack of supporting evidence on the part of those who claim Muslims are allowed to rape captive women. So one wonders,
why do so many anti-Islam bigots on the net eagerly propagate such a claim? It’s simple;
firstly it fits their agenda of demonizing Muslims as hordes waiting to invade
the West to rape European and North American women, secondly they continually
repeat the claim with the hope that if they repeat a lie again and again people
will start to believe such a lie.
Robert Spencer v Nadir Ahmed - Does Islam teach rape of women captives of war?
Debate Review - an easy victory for the Muslim
Nadir Ahmed, the Muslim debater, actually won the debate in his
opening statement by making mention of the fact that the opposition (Robert
Spencer in this case) has NO evidence from the Islamic sources despite the
vastness of the Islamic sources.
Nadir Ahmed also alerts the audience to the fact that there is NO
teaching in Islam that justifies the rape of slave women. So here we see not
only is there no instance of rape recorded in the Islamic sources but there is
also no teaching allowing such rape!
Nadir goes further, he concludes from the fact that there is
no instance of rape in the Islamic sources that there must be a moral teaching
out there which does not allow Muslims to rape their captives.
[OUTSIDE OF DEBATE NOTE: A moral teaching can actually be
found in the Quran. The Quran
(4:36) teaches that one should be good to the slaves (obviously rape is not
treating slaves well thus rape does not seem to be allowed in Islam)
Worship Allah and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Verily, Allah does not like such as are proud and boastful [Translation of the meanings of Quran 4:36 by Muhsin Khan]
http://quran.com/4/36
Worship Allah and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Verily, Allah does not like such as are proud and boastful [Translation of the meanings of Quran 4:36 by Muhsin Khan]
http://quran.com/4/36
Also we have sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (p) which
forbid hurting the slaves physically and emotionally (see here) – thus obviously
raping of captive women is not allowed]
Nadir looks into the example of the Prophet Muhammad (p) and
finds 3 narrations of events in the life of Prophet Muhammad (p) regarding
slave women which he believes are evidence for a moral example which taught
people not to rape (see criticism section for more discussion on one of these narrations)
Robert Spencer has no evidence
Spencer makes the claim that as slaves are the ‘property of
another human being’ then they have no rights or will, Spencer then intimates the
slave can be raped as she cannot say no. This argument does not stand against
Islam as slaves do have rights in Islam and moreover the slave is not allowed
to be hurt and must be treated well. Thus Spencer’s intricately built argument
has no basis against Islam. Robert Spencer simply argues a straw-man here.
Robert Spencer makes a big play on the fact that Muslims are
allowed to have sexual relations with slaves. However, he offers no evidence
that these slaves can be raped. In fact Robert Spencer if he is consistent
would then also claim the Bible allows rape too (ref Numbers 31). The truth is
Robert had nothing. The mere fact that captives are people whom a man is
permitted to have sexual intercourse with does not mean rape is allowed. Most
rational people can see this. Somebody should tell Spencer.
Spencer veers off topic as he had no arguments or evidences
for his claims
Spencer goes off topic and starts talking about some
anti-slavery activists in Mauratania. This had nothing to do with the debate
topic (‘Does Islam permit rape of captive women of war?’). Robert Spencer also
used the term ‘sex slave’ to describe female slaves, I’m not too sure where he
got that term from and whether it’s some debate tactic he was employing.
Spencer brings up polygamy. Erm what has that to do with the
topic? Nothing. Yes polygamy is allowed in Islam. It’s allowed in
Christianity:
Spencer also brings up the issue of beating one’s wife. Again
nothing to do with the debate. In Islam the best of us are those who are the
best to their wives. For more on the wife beating issue see:
Spencer also claimed Prophet Muhammad hit Aisha. This is a
wrong translation. Spencer really does seem like the average shoddy Islamophobe
who grabs anything from the net to use regardless of how silly it makes him
look:
Robert Spencer being Deceptive!
Apart from Spencer continually claiming rape took place
(without offering any evidence of such) he also claimed that Prophet Muhammad had
relations with Safiyah whilst the battle was taking place. He offered no evidence
for this. In fact, Robert Spencer just highlighted his ignorance as Saffiyah
was given the choice between being set free and going back to her people or
marrying Prophet Muhammad (p). She chose to marry Prophet Muhammad (p), see
this citation from the biography writer Martin Lings:
He [the Prophet Muhammad -
Ed.] then told Safiyyah that he was prepared to set her free,
and he offered her the choice between remaining a Jewess and returning to her
people or entering Islam and becoming his wife. “I choose God and His
Messenger,” she said; and they were married at the first halt on the homeward
march.5 Sourced from:
Spencer also claimed 'Rayhana was raped later on’. He gives
no evidence for such. This is rank dishonesty – he makes claims without giving
evidence. He has no evidence at all. There’s nothing to suggest Rayhana was
raped later on. Nadir called this a 'lie' and challenged Spencer to bring some
evidence for this. Robert Spencer did not bring anything; in fact Spencer did not
even bring this subject up again!
Robert Spencer – concept of consent
Spencer again shows his ignorance as he claims there’s
nothing which comes close to the concept of consent. He was clearly unaware
that Islam does not allow hurting the slave physically and emotionally (rape
would contravene such teachings) and the Islamic teaching of treating slaves will
(rape would contravene such a teaching). Also the scholar in the link teaches any sex with a slave girl has to be done as if one is having relations with their wife (i.e. in a way which considers the woman's sexual pleasure, is romantic and respectful etc) so clearly this is something indicaing it has to be consensual too.
Robert Spencer's Arguments Against the Bible (Judaism and Christianity)?
Robert Spencer's claims would actually apply with greater force against his own faith (Christianity) as the captives are indeed married in Christianity and sex is allowed with such captives. As far as I am aware, Christianity does not have the same teachings of respecting the emotional and physical well being of slaves (which indicates rape is not allowed) that Islam does contain. Thus Spencer's claims without any evidence would be more of a problem for a Christian than a Muslim!
I do want to state I do NOT believe that Christianity, Judaism or any religion allows rape.
Robert Spencer's Arguments Against the Bible (Judaism and Christianity)?
Robert Spencer's claims would actually apply with greater force against his own faith (Christianity) as the captives are indeed married in Christianity and sex is allowed with such captives. As far as I am aware, Christianity does not have the same teachings of respecting the emotional and physical well being of slaves (which indicates rape is not allowed) that Islam does contain. Thus Spencer's claims without any evidence would be more of a problem for a Christian than a Muslim!
I do want to state I do NOT believe that Christianity, Judaism or any religion allows rape.
Criticisms of both speakers
Why in the world did Robert Spencer even bother to attempt
to debate this subject? He had no material to support his assertions. Spencer was off topic and also deceptive.
Nadir, though the clear victor in this debate, was a little repetitive
(like Spencer) and could have given the audience more evidence for rape not
being allowed in Islam. He could have cited Islamic sources which teach harming
slaves is not allowed (and such material as in the links below).
Nadir’s first example of the other woman in the hadith related
to Saffiyah (ra), does not appear to have been used correctly as the woman was
not crying due to her thinking she may be raped but rather she passed the body
of her dead husband, See:
Conclusion
The conclusion from this debate is simple, Islam does not
allow the rape of women captives of war!
It was demonstrated by Nadir and his opponent (Robert
Spencer) that there is no instance of rape in the Islamic sources and there is
no teaching justifying rape.
Robert Spencer had nothing. Absolutely nothing to support
his claim and ultimately decided to go off topic.
http://islamicresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html
Does Islam allow rape of captives:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/are-muslims-really-allowed-to-rape.html
Does Islam allow rape of captives:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/are-muslims-really-allowed-to-rape.html
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
1 comment:
Why are Hispanics Accepting Islam?
In this episode, Eddie interviews brother Daniel who talks about Hispanics embracing Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvWemWENWvQ
(33 minutes)
Post a Comment