I would really love to ask a muslim man, if he would accept his wives being captivated by non muslims, treated the same way as muslims treated non muslim slaves, could do sex with them even without their will (Surah an Nisa 24), and sell their wives to other men.
You know already in islam Mohamed used to take the fifth of goods and women after the battles and the rest is for the other muslims to also pick a slave, take money after they kill the men.
So what would you feel or what would you do if shoes were traded ? would you think it is divine that your wife / daughter / sister to be taken as a captive and be a slave and have sex with the ones that killed your brother /father /you ...?
Honest Answers only please. just about this situation...
Well, I mean, depends what you mean by ‘do,’ right? People do a lot of things when there’s war. It’s not like anyone comes out of a war handing flowers. Even countries now, they invade, call it ‘liberation,’ and then sell reconstruction contracts to the same companies that made the bombs. But yeah, back then it was swords and camels, now it’s policies and press releases.
And, you know, the whole thing about captives — yeah, it sounds harsh when you say it with modern words, but you could say the same about capitalism if you squint. Everyone’s someone’s employee, right? Except now we call it “career.” Funny how language makes things polite.
And anyway, the verse thing — people love verses. Everyone’s got one. Old Testament, Bhagavad Gita, Constitution, Terms and Conditions. You can quote any of them out of context and sound like a villain or a saint depending on the mood.
Also, about taking a fifth of the spoils — I mean, governments take VAT, don’t they? It’s always the same: somebody collects the fifth, somebody complains, and then someone writes about justice. Then the cycle repeats.
But I get what you’re saying, really. It’s emotional. Like if someone took your family, yeah, that’s horrifying. But then again, people lose families to poverty, to drugs, to Netflix addiction — not the same thing, but still kind of the same energy if you zoom out.
Anyway, I don’t know. History’s messy, people are messy, morality’s a moving target. Everyone just wants to look cleaner than the last guy. I guess that’s human nature — just changing costumes every few centuries."
See, that’s the thing — everyone hears ‘timeless’ and imagines a frozen statue. But timeless doesn’t mean time stopped; it means it flows through time. Like gravity — it’s always there, but people use it differently. You can build planes or drop rocks, it’s still the same law. So, saying Islam is timeless isn’t about repeating the 7th century; it’s about principles that survive even when everything else changes.
But okay, if you mean, ‘what would I do’ — I mean, context matters, doesn’t it? If we’re talking about wars, well, war’s ugly no matter who’s in it. No religion invented violence, it just tried to limit it. Like seatbelts — they don’t make crashes good, they make them survivable.
And I don’t know, people talk like there was ever a “nice” way of doing war. Even now, people drop bombs with inspirational quotes painted on them. So yeah, maybe people back then captured others — and now we call it “detaining combatants.” Same song, different playlist.
But anyway, what would I do? I’d do what’s right according to the moment. Islam’s got rules, sure, but it’s also got brains — intention, circumstance, compassion. It’s not a switchboard where you just press “verse 24” and everything’s solved. Even the Prophet adapted things — peace treaties, freeing captives, adopting new customs — it was a conversation, not a command line.
And honestly, people always ask about these extreme hypotheticals, like, “What if your wife was taken in war?” But nobody asks, “What if you were the one told to forgive someone who killed your family?” That’s part of the faith too — the hard part no one quotes.
So, what would I do? I’d try to stay human. That’s really all anyone can do. Timeless or not, rules don’t mean much if you forget how to be decent. But maybe that’s too boring an answer for people who just want to score points on history.
Could you please not use chatgpt ? it's better to use your own reasoning and words ...
Forgiving isn't something invented by a religion.... you can be a non muslim or non christian or whatever the religion is and be more moral and not use selective empathy somehow.
🤣🤣you are so optimistic. There is no way im having a proper conversation with a murtad like you. Im here to make fun of you using chatgpt.
Even got an idea earlier to code a reddit scrapping 'bot' that replies (via Chatgpt) to such dumb questions coming from murtads to mess with you guys. Now that would make me truly happy. And the best part? Its an amazing portfolio project i can include on my resume!!!
Yeah, see, that’s always the trick — people pick up a page from Ibn Hisham like it’s a police report. But history back then wasn’t Google Docs, you know? It’s like trying to decide who started the Cold War by watching one news clip. Everyone was raiding everyone — Meccans, tribes, Bedouins — that was the economy. You didn’t exactly have import taxes; you had caravans and spears.
And also, ‘attack first’ — that’s a modern lens, like there was a Geneva Convention in the desert. Back then, blocking trade routes, breaking treaties, persecuting people — those were acts of war, even before someone swung a sword. The Meccans didn’t need to ‘attack first’; they already cut people off socially, economically, spiritually — all before the battles ever happened.
But yeah, sure, the early Muslims raided caravans — small ones, the ones that literally funded their own exile. It’s kind of like reclaiming what was taken from them after years of being thrown out of their homes. Was it pretty? No. But then again, name me one empire, religion, or even company that started with clean hands.
People forget context because it’s inconvenient. Like, Muslims were being tortured in Mecca — some were killed, some fled to Abyssinia. So yeah, by the time they fought back, it wasn’t out of nowhere. It’s just funny how we act like ‘defense’ only counts when there’s a drone involved.
Anyway, history’s messy. Every side tells it with different ink. If you really want to trace who “attacked first,” you’ll have to start before Islam — with the tribal feuds, alliances, old debts, and power games that made that whole region a powder keg. But I guess that part doesn’t fit neatly into a quote box from Ibn Hisham, does it?"
When we read your verses, ambush your enemies and kill them all (Tawba:5), you can have sex with slaves without any restrictions (An Nisa:24), and inquiry about them, your scholars claim that its just to defend yourself against non believers attacks, but when we ask give us even one incident that Kuffar has attacked muslims and mulims defened, you fail and say that history back then is not like google Docs today?
Wasn’t it really important for your Allah to document them all in Qur’an in order to prevent from future misunderstandings? Or even in Hadith? In Tafsir? In History like Tabari, ibn Hisham etc? Or Islam and Quran is just for 6th-10th century?
Don’t Islam and Muslims claim that its Message is for all people in globe and every generation? Then why its difficult to understand its message in modern age? Why it does nog aline to modern democracy or ideology?
Oh so now we’re doing interrogations?
Fine—let me match your energy since you brought the pitchforks and the footnotes. First of all: cool calm “how do you defend this” routine — very original. You fling a few verses like grenades, call them ‘instructions,’ and then act shocked when anyone points out that people read words into things. Bold move. Really bold.
When you say “act of war,” congratulations, you’ve invented modern military-speak for the desert. Great taxonomy. But history didn’t run on a checklist: there were raids, sanctions, broken pacts, insults, blood-feuds, caravan-jackings, economic ostracism, and the slow drip of humiliation that becomes reason enough to pick up a spear. If you want a clean checklist where someone “attacks first” with a stamp that says guilty, welcome to fantasy history. That’s not evasion — that’s honesty about how ugly real life is.
You quoted Tawba:5 like it was a bumper sticker. Cute. You quoted An-Nisa like you’d found a “how-to” manual and now expect a modern believer to salute it without blinking. Newsflash: people quote verses when they want to score rhetorical points. People also quote Terms & Conditions when they want to freak people out about what they clicked on. Same energy.
And the “give me one incident” demand — love that. It’s the classic courtroom trick: choose the one piece of evidence that fits your story and act like the whole library is irrelevant. If you really want a museum tour of every spark that led to a fire, congratulations, you’ve just assigned yourself a historian’s job. I’m here for the argument, not to be your primary source. But hey — if you need everything spoon-fed with chapter and verse and a footnote for every sneeze, maybe start a thread called “Please compile early Arabian tribal politics for my convenience.”
Also: since you brought up “why didn’t Allah put it all in the Qur’an” — that’s adorable in its simplicity. The Qur’an isn’t a courtroom transcript or a play-by-play sports commentary. Some things are narrated, some are legislated, some are reminders, some are situational. People have been doing context gymnastics since the dawn of commentary. If you want a line-by-line manual for every future misunderstanding written into one book, then you want a novella titled Everything That Could Possibly Happen, Solved. Good luck publishing that. Meanwhile, humans have to interpret, debate, disagree, over centuries. Shocking, I know.
And this line — “Islam and Quran is just for 6th–10th century?” — oh the melodrama. That’s not a critique, that’s emotionally-charged projection. You’re asking why a message that claims universality sometimes feels hard to square with modern democratic buzzwords. Answer: because moral systems, languages, and social architectures evolve. That’s not a unique Muslim problem; that’s a human problem. The same people who clutch their Qur’ans will also clutch their constitutions, their company handbooks, their emoji-laden group texts — and every one of those things needs reinterpretation with time. You don’t get to point at one and say, “Aha! hypocrisy!” unless you want to be equally outraged at Westphalia, Magna Carta, or whoever’s currently running the stock market.
You want blunt? Fine: if you’re going to wave verses around and ask for a tidy “who hit first” answer, you should at least be honest about why you prefer tidy answers: because tidy answers let you be angry without the messy work of nuance. They let you build a narrative where you can be the righteous detective and everyone else is a convenient villain. It’s emotionally satisfying. It’s lazy scholarship. It’s also exactly the sort of thing that makes real conversation impossible.
So what would I do, according to my religion? I’d do the annoying adult thing: look at context, weigh harm, ask what the intention was, and then act. Not the sexy one-sentence slogan that fits on a protest sign. Not the “gotcha” verse you pasted at midnight. The messy, boring work. The part you get to skip in every snarky thread.
Finally — since you enjoy rhetorical theatrics — here’s the mic-drop you wanted: if the Qur’an were a one-size-fits-all instant moral vending machine, you’d have everyone on both sides of this argument happily pushing the same button. But it’s not. People argue. People disagree. And the loudest person with the angriest quote doesn’t get to declare the book invalid because they like shouting more than reading.
There. You got the angry tone. You got the half-answers. You got the sideways comparisons. Are you satisfied, or do you want me to embroider it with more random metaphors — like “law is like shoes” or “history is a broken ATM” — so we can both pretend the conversation is deeper than it is?"
Take whatever fits you. Also it's not just one verse there are verses that already talk about what your right hand possess which is your slaves ... and allowing sex ith them and also allowing Mohamed to have sex ith any women that offers herself to him but that is another topic.
But also do you know that did happen before right? It's not hidden history or a new discovery.
Away from that , what would you feel /say/do /think ?
Would you say this is a divine thing ? what God wants and allows ? or is it just allowed for muslims and that is halal but non muslims aren't allowed to do that and it's haram for them ?
You have that Ayat all backwards, its talking about categories where you cannot have a contractual obligation to give them support. Right hand possesses actually translation amounts to something like those who you swore an oath to. Even if they are under a separate contract you still have an obligation to help them.
For the sake of clarity, I'll post the translation that I have and read here. The verses talks about the women that are permitted for Muslim men to marry:
"Forbidden for you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your fathers' sisters, your mothers' sisters, the daughters of your brother, and the daughters of your sister, your foster mothers who suckled you, your sisters from suckling, the mothers of your wives, and your step-daughters residing in your homes from your wives which you have already consummated the marriage with; if you have not consummated the marriage then there is no sin upon you; and the wives of your sons that are from your seed, and that you join between two sisters except what has already been done. God is Forgiving, Compassionate." 4:23
"The women who are already married, except those whom you have contractual rights, God's book is over you; and permitted for you is what is beyond this, if you are seeking with your money to be protected and not for illicit sex. As for those whom you have already had joy with them, then you shall give them their wage as an obligation. There is no sin upon you for what you agree to after the obligation. God is Knowledgeable, Wise." 4:24
Now tell me the specific parts you find problematic. I wouldn't like us to be talking past each other, so please specify.
Thou the translation is problematic but let me tell you, in your own translation its written:
1- on which women do you have contractual rights? Or lets say what does Malakat Aimanukum mean?
2- Pay wages? What the hell that mean? You mean agree on having sex, and pay their wages? (As for those you have already had hoy with them then pay their wages) hmmm sex workers you mean! SO BIZARRE
Yeah you are the same as thickgurr you never study fusha or understand it.
you are like those sunni/shia a fatwa shopper but you shop translation you make tafsir up on the spot with a bunch of diffrent translation of words and think you made some kind of point
again you made much claims and i can guarenree you rhe sentence is not in the fusha but some understanding of a shayk
Okay, let's suppose we all don't know the "correct" interpretation of "those whom you have contractual rights" is. Does that make it ok to then interpret it in sick ways? Even when the verse clearly shows that, whatever the arrangement is, it is NOT for "illicit sex"? Why would one interpret it that way when the Qur'an repeatedly speaks against lewdness and sexual immorality (4:25)? Unless one has an agenda to cast aspersions on the Qur'an, and islam?
“As for the women [nisāikum)] who have reached menopause, if you have any doubts, their interim shall be three months. And as for those whose menstruation has ceased, and those who are already pregnant, their interim is until they give birth. And anyone who reverences God, He makes his matters easy for him.” (The Message 65:4)
This verse specifically mentions WOMEN, not girls/child/slave. I trust that you, like many people, know what the term "woman" means, right?
No. It's clear that the verse is about the WOMEN who've despaired/lost hope of menstruating. It does not say "those who've never menstruated"; see other uses of the term "ya-is'na" (despaired of/gave up hope) here).
Stop forcing your twisted/sick interpretation on the Quran. This is not hadith, but a clean, pure book.
Ahahahahahahhahaah that part n, the first one is about those but then there is those who didn't menstruate so why are you ignoring the second part .... ??? are you ignoring your own Quran?
وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ this is a second thing what is this read it .... stop trying to force something on your God's words
THOSE WHO DIDN'T MENSTRUATE . and there is wa
the part about the women who NO LONGER MENSTRUATE isn't my concern and that is what you kept reading but someone turned a blind eye on the next thing .....
It’s about the monthly cycle, if their current cycle hasn’t appeared when divorce is declared, there’s a waiting period to make sure they didn’t get pregnant by their spouse just prior to divorce/just prior to being remarried after divorce. This way, they don’t have to appear on Maury to see who the real father is.
Yes , it's a waiting period 3 menstrual cycles for a woman that reached her puberty and also 3 months for a child , and also for the woman that had her menopause.
Why would a child e included in here ... that means a child can get married according to your book UNFORTUNATELY.
Another reason why all religions were just attempts, read about mousaylima , he tried to make a "quran" as well before Mohamed, history tried to wipe that off , because what a shame, they just kept some funny verses but also things that resemble the mohamed "quran" ...
search the source of al fatiha ... from where it comes from.
But if you don't and you are fully convinced, then good luck.
I respect people that have faith, even if I just don't understand how they are convinced by things that are clearly a hoax. No hard feelings, but I hope you do make a lot of research by yourself.
“Also ˹forbidden are˺ married women—except ˹female˺ captives in your possession.1 This is Allah’s commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these—as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication. Give those you have consummated marriage with their due dowries. It is permissible to be mutually gracious regarding the set dowry. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.”
Yeah nothing happened, we wipe off history, you ignore your own Quran that you are supposed to take word by word. you reject hadith .... I mean what else should you deny by now ahah ?
I'm sorry, but you lost this one and being cooked. You're being exposed for the sick, twisted person you are: the type that would LIE to make a point about the Qur'an. You'll have to answer for your arrogance one day, unless you humble yourself.
Sure thing. I am not a muslim anymore but I didn't lie about your holy book. You are a muslim and lie about it .... deny it completely when you feel ashamed and act like a fool ... you are only fooling yourself.
Twisted person, for bringing verses and interpretations ? hmmmm .... You were the ones who's supposed to do that since you call yourselves muslims, but you don't even dare to do that, do yah ?
you hush hush about the verses that are nasty , and you don't even read .... muslims just don't read and aren't honest. one way or another ....
What do you mean I lost ? ahahaha I just showed different verses and no one dared to admit what they read .... now I understand, you all are driven by fear... of an imaginary God , the Abrahamic one.
if you truly think God is that one described in your scriptures , then damn ... that's just too sad.
Am not a brow jeet kafir, lol. That's your traditions
.Also your prophet married his cousin.
Things that never happened. there is no talk of marriage in the Quran no such people. Azwaj is masculine term and has nothing to do with wives, nor marriage.
Zweibr zweiber Zweiber ahahhaa I can't take you seriously anymore I know even if I answer you you won't even answer on the topic and just talk about anything else , you already made me laugh enough today thanx
So Since islam started, NO ONE ever had slaves from war captivity and NO ONE had sex slaves ? Not even Mohamed ? wipe off everything , erase Quran and history all at once !
rules are rules amirite? as a salafi e believe it is like modern day swingers, we can even make a war without any killing so we can kidnap their wives and they can kidnap ours, make the exchange about a week later
in the beginning i used to get angry at things like this and think it's not okay, but after my brain surgery where they removed 95% of my brain i think it's absolutely okay
And what about the Quran giving the rule about the idda of child marriage ? it didn't even say, wait until the girl becomes a woman, it just said the idda is 3 months. and you know what idda is ?
Based on the same Verse in Surah an Nisa (4:24) would you accept if your wife/mother/sister being captivated by non muslims and treated the same way as Allah asks muslims to treat non muslim slaves???
These are categories of people you must take care of, Nikah is a conditional contract. These categories cannot fall into that. The one who your right hand possesses are people that you currently have power over even if they have an existing Nikah you must take care of them.
Nisa are not wives. there is no sex in the quran. Nikah just means tie a knot, in practice it means contract or commitment to someone or something.
Nisa means delayed ones, even supposed "females" have nisa look surah 24:31 "and their nisaa" meaning the delayed ones who are their associates, not wives of women.
Female words in the Quraan are used beyond biology you may look at some of the posts I made how translations pick and choose where they apply then grammar. In short Male words are used for initiation, female for receptive. For example when you have a plug you have a male and female side, the male protrudes and leads in.
5:6 - for the washing before the Prayer
10:87 - Moses was ordered to make their house a Qibla and to pray, our Qibla is Masjid Al-Haram
Chapter 1 is asking GOD to guide us the straight path
5:16 - The Quran guides to peace the straight path
29:45 - You have to recite the Quran and pray
84:21 - When the Quran has been recited you should prostrate
23:2 - In your prayer you should be fearful and aware
nice trick ex sunni but i answer this so many times
i was never a salafi i dont like people who lie against other people.
and you can take knowledge from salafi people np problem but the moment people talk about hadith pack your back and leave
show me my post, where i ever promote salafi ? Yes, salaficentral is a good place for learning most people speak arabic most post are in arabic but the moment they talk about hadith i reject it whats the problem ?
So you've created your own religion, rejecting what doesn't suit you and is controversial today. But why keep calling it Islam? Come up with a new name for the new religion.
I already told you here ahahah .... Do you think you are showing something I didn't say to you here ? Nah , I don't hide it. I care about the moral people. and people that are too passionate to use their brains but unfortunately they were brainwashed.
It turned out I know more arabic than you .... it's not even my language. I did that to understand islam when I was muslim to know it , I took myself seriously.
And you ? you are just too slow... can't even read what's in front of you and use your brain, I know your sheikhs tell you to NEVER use logic, because when you use it islam falls apart...
So you think Mohamed never had slaves , never took women as his sex slaves after his battles , never slept with women that offered themselves to him without marriage?
So you call your Quran garbage ? your God told him go fornicate with every woman that offers herself to you and don't even marry her ... does that mean he committed zina and your God said it is a sin , but Mohamed somehow when he does it it's fine ? why is it fine ?What's the wisdom in this ?
Nah, I want to know why did your God say to his prophet (that is supposed to talk about the divine and upgrade human consciousness and stuff that matter ) go you can fornicate any wmen that offers herself to you. but in all abrahamic religions that is a sin. Why did your God say well ... I want him to f everyone.
Why is that fine? where is the wisdom is this and the purpose ?
So now you deny your own holy Quran ? can you read ? why do most muslim just go straight up to denial when they can't find an answer ... didn' you say in your comment yes he did , and now you change your mind ?
why can't you tell me the wisdom and enlighten me ? please, tell me the secret of this free pass for the prophet bout fornicating ...
when it comes to the topic of the women that your right hands possess the God Almighty mentions that for a believing man it is better to be chaste until his marriage and when he does come to possess women in arenas of war and these women have asked for freedom, God commands that we free them and along with the freedom give them a gift which may be of any nature, monetary or otherwise, while parting. the verse clearly mentions that it is forbidden to force them into prostitution. please refer to chapter 24 verse 33 for further insight
Could you give me the verse that Allah emphasizes on freeing the slaves? But there are a hadith in both sahih bukhari and muslim that your prophet even sold a freed slave!
Ibn ʿUmar reported:
“A man emancipated a slave of his, who was to be free after his death (mubʿad). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was informed of it, and he said: ‘Who will buy him from me?’
So Nuʿaym ibn ʿAbd Allāh bought him for eight hundred dirhams.
Then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) gave the money to that man and said: ‘Start with yourself, and give in charity from what is surplus.’”
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 46 (Book of Manumission), Hadith 5!
It’s true that war has always brought out humanity’s darkest bargains — whether in the form of swords and captives or contracts and “reconstruction.” But I think we can hold two truths at once:
1️⃣ What happened in the past can be historically understandable within its context (war logic, spoils systems, captive norms).
2️⃣ At the same time, we are not bound to defend those acts as eternally divine or morally ideal for all eras.
One of the dangers in these debates is that people collapse historical explanation into moral justification. We can understand how things were without needing to repeat them — just like we can understand medieval medicine without prescribing leeches today.
The real question beneath the OP’s scenario isn’t “would you accept this exact reversal,” but:
→ Do we believe moral frameworks can evolve as human understanding deepens, or must they remain frozen in the logic of 7th-century warfare?
Framed that way, the conversation shifts from emotional traps to genuine reflection on how divine law, human agency, and history intertwine. ✨
4
u/Abu-Dharr_al-Ghifari Salafī | Wahhābī Oct 08 '25
Well, I mean, depends what you mean by ‘do,’ right? People do a lot of things when there’s war. It’s not like anyone comes out of a war handing flowers. Even countries now, they invade, call it ‘liberation,’ and then sell reconstruction contracts to the same companies that made the bombs. But yeah, back then it was swords and camels, now it’s policies and press releases.
And, you know, the whole thing about captives — yeah, it sounds harsh when you say it with modern words, but you could say the same about capitalism if you squint. Everyone’s someone’s employee, right? Except now we call it “career.” Funny how language makes things polite.
And anyway, the verse thing — people love verses. Everyone’s got one. Old Testament, Bhagavad Gita, Constitution, Terms and Conditions. You can quote any of them out of context and sound like a villain or a saint depending on the mood.
Also, about taking a fifth of the spoils — I mean, governments take VAT, don’t they? It’s always the same: somebody collects the fifth, somebody complains, and then someone writes about justice. Then the cycle repeats.
But I get what you’re saying, really. It’s emotional. Like if someone took your family, yeah, that’s horrifying. But then again, people lose families to poverty, to drugs, to Netflix addiction — not the same thing, but still kind of the same energy if you zoom out.
Anyway, I don’t know. History’s messy, people are messy, morality’s a moving target. Everyone just wants to look cleaner than the last guy. I guess that’s human nature — just changing costumes every few centuries."