Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Pakistan's Christian 'Sex-Slaves'


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#1 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 08:42 AM

Pakistan's Christian 'Sex-Slaves': A Case Study
by Raymond Ibrahim

Earlier we saw Egyptian preacher Huwaini and Kuwaiti political activist Mutairi call for the reinstitution of sex-slavery. Before dismissing their position as aberrant, that is "radical," for the record, here are respected Muslim scholar Majid Khadduri's thoughts on the matter:

The term spoil (ghanima) is applied specifically to property acquired by force from non-Muslims. It includes, however, not only property (movable and immovable) but also persons, whether in the capacity of asra (prisoners of war) or sabi (women and children). … If the slave were a woman, the master was permitted to have sexual connection with her as a concubine.

Still, some may seek to dismiss the notion of sex-slavery in Islam as theory, not actual practice, arguing that even if Sharia permits the sexual enslavement of infidel women, neither Egypt nor Kuwait formally permits it.

Let us therefore make an important distinction: While few Muslim governments would formally institute sex-slavery—thereby egregiously undermining their ongoing and very successful efforts at duping the West—the sort of supremacist culture Sharia breeds, wherein seizing anything from the infidel, including his women and children, is an everyday fact of life.

Thus in Huwaini's Egypt, the increasingly Islamist-leaning government does not have an institution to buy and sell infidel women; yet Egypt's Christian girls are constantly being abducted and, as one recent report puts it, "kept as virtual slaves." Likewise, in Gulf countries: while sex-slavery may not be formally recognized, the dirty little secret there is that impoverished and desperate women from places like the Philippines are often hired as "servants," effectively performing the functions of sex-slaves.

To better demonstrate that this Sharia-induced worldview permeates the Muslim world—that infidel women are seen as little better than sex-objects for Muslim men—let us briefly focus on one Muslim nation: distant Pakistan, where Christians make a tiny minority of less than 2%, and where at least 700 Christian girls are abducted annually.

Consider the following stories that never make it to the MSM—a sampling limited to just last month's grab-bag of atrocities committed against Pakistan's Christians (since anymore than that would be too immense to list):

A 9-year-old Christian girl was abducted, gang-raped, and murdered by repeated blows to her head, and then dumped into a canal.
A 24-year-old Christian woman who was kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam, and forced to marry a Muslim, is now reportedly on the verge of being "sold abroad."
At the same time that Muslims were desecrating a Christian cemetery, a Christian mother was abducted, drugged, and gang-raped all night long.
After brutally attacking a priest and his family, another young Christian woman was abducted and raped over several days by a man claiming to be a police officer.
Yet another Christian girl was raped by a Pakistani army major at gunpoint and then dumped off.
A powerful Muslim businessman had two Christian sisters kidnapped, forced them to convert to Islam, and marry him.
One may argue that rape is a phenomenon that affects every society, yet the fact that most women raped in Pakistan come from the mere 2% Christian minority speaks for itself.

Moreover, if you go to the links of these anecdotes, you will find that in every single case the Pakistani police either did nothing to apprehend the culprits or, more often, actually helped them while turning against the victims.

After all, even though Pakistan is not a full-blown Sharia state—you know, to save face in front of the international infidel—Sharia has nonetheless conditioned even the police to see infidel Christian women as little better than violable objects of pleasure, and to always side with fellow Muslims, according to the doctrine of wala wa bara, which commands Muslims to always be loyal to fellow Muslims against non-Muslims.

Nor are such atrocities confined to Pakistan; even in Europe, a Pakistani man recently raped a Norwegian woman, informing her that "he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman."

Focusing on Pakistan has the added bonus of demonstrating one more thing: that Pakistan is a non-Arab country dispels the notion that seeing women as sex-objects is an "Arab" phenomenon; that Pakistanis do not know Arabic dispels the notion that they are being "radicalized" by the likes of Huwaini or Mutairi.

What, then, does Pakistan share with these other Arab nations that advocate the institution of sex-slavery and are in the habit of abducting and raping Christian women? Islam.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

http://www.meforum.o...tian-sex-slaves

#2 msmoorad

msmoorad

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 231 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 02:21 PM

salaams to all

since its pakistan were talking about- nothing would surprise me.
but i dont believe that everything in this report is true.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
that was what me have even more doubts about the authenticity of the entire article.

its not like these zionists & their token "muslim" brownnosers would lie or exaggerate about muslims/islam, right?
we all know the west is now targetting Pakistan on behalf of Israel since they are the only muslim country with nuclear missiles- and they are within range of Israel.
again, im not saying its all lies but zionist controlled mainstream media & even many disinfo sites are good at taking a few facts then spicing them up to create a fantastic story which reflects Islam/muslims in a bad light.
thats in regard to the attacks on women/girls.
as for their interpretation of shariah- its a joke:
"To better demonstrate that this Sharia-induced worldview permeates the Muslim world—that infidel women are seen as little better than sex-objects for Muslim men"

actually the greatest number of brothels concentrated in one area is found in Tel Aviv- maybe theyre running them according to Sharia.

and Allah ta'ala knows best
jazakallah
very good site for English bayaans-by Ml Yunus Patel. Have any of u joined Ummah forums?- its muuuch better than islamica-there real muslims there.
http://www.musjidnoo....net/index.html

#3 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 02:39 PM

salaams to all

since its pakistan were talking about- nothing would surprise me.
but i dont believe that everything in this report is true.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
that was what me have even more doubts about the authenticity of the entire article.

its not like these zionists & their token "muslim" brownnosers would lie or exaggerate about muslims/islam, right?
we all know the west is now targetting Pakistan on behalf of Israel since they are the only muslim country with nuclear missiles- and they are within range of Israel.
again, im not saying its all lies but zionist controlled mainstream media & even many disinfo sites are good at taking a few facts then spicing them up to create a fantastic story which reflects Islam/muslims in a bad light.
thats in regard to the attacks on women/girls.
as for their interpretation of shariah- its a joke:
"To better demonstrate that this Sharia-induced worldview permeates the Muslim world—that infidel women are seen as little better than sex-objects for Muslim men"

actually the greatest number of brothels concentrated in one area is found in Tel Aviv- maybe theyre running them according to Sharia.

and Allah ta'ala knows best
jazakallah


It ultimately doesn't matter how true these stories are, since sex slavery is not endemic to Pakistan, nor is it endemic to Muslim cultures. The only real difference between these incidents in Pakistan and others elsewhere, is that Raymond wrote up an ignorantly sensationalized and exaggerated commentary about it, trying to conflate it with Islam and Muslims in general, while not doing so with the other well-documented cases in non-Muslim countries that don't involve Muslims.

#4 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:08 PM

It ultimately doesn't matter how true these stories are, since sex slavery is not endemic to Pakistan, nor is it endemic to Muslim cultures. The only real difference between these incidents in Pakistan and others elsewhere, is that Raymond wrote up an ignorantly sensationalized and exaggerated commentary about it, trying to conflate it with Islam and Muslims in general, while not doing so with the other well-documented cases in non-Muslim countries that don't involve Muslims.


Well that makes it okay;yeah

#5 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 16 July 2011 - 02:45 PM

Well that makes it okay;yeah


If you think that makes it okay, then there is something very wrong with you.

#6 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 16 July 2011 - 03:33 PM

If you think that makes it okay, then there is something very wrong with you.


You have little understanding of irony, or is this one of your devious attempts to avoid a reality which you cannot face

#7 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 17 July 2011 - 10:04 AM

It ultimately doesn't matter how true these stories are, since sex slavery is not endemic to Pakistan, nor is it endemic to Muslim cultures. The only real difference between these incidents in Pakistan and others elsewhere, is that Raymond wrote up an ignorantly sensationalized and exaggerated commentary about it, trying to conflate it with Islam and Muslims in general, while not doing so with the other well-documented cases in non-Muslim countries that don't involve Muslims.



Perhaps you would like to Google “Qur'an and sex slaves”, when I did I got these two
conflicting articles

I am posting as URL’s rather than opening them to avoid offence; to read or not to read is the choice of members

http://www.thereligi...015-slavery.htm

http://www.quranicpa...concubines.html

#8 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 17 July 2011 - 12:37 PM

You have little understanding of irony, or is this one of your devious attempts to avoid a reality which you cannot face


If you think the fact of sex-slavery being a global phenomenon makes it "okay", then there is obviously something very wrong with you. You are the one who said that it made it "okay", not me, and regardless of whether you were being facetious or not, you were still thinking along those lines.

Perhaps you would like to Google “Qur'an and sex slaves”, when I did I got these two
conflicting articles

I am posting as URL’s rather than opening them to avoid offence; to read or not to read is the choice of members

http://www.thereligi...015-slavery.htm

http://www.quranicpa...concubines.html


I really don't need to bother with google in this case, since it's already addressed here.

However, a google search also yields other responses to this issue:

Islam on slave girls/concubines

Concubines & Slavery The Islamic Position

Refutation of Muslim Wife or Concubine

Are concubines allowed in Islam?

Misconception: Men are allowed to have concubines or sex slaves

In reality, there is no "sex slavery" in Islam, since "sex slavery" is defined as "the organized coercion of unwilling people into different sexual practices" (source), which is in fact against Islam (Qur'an 24:33). Anti-Islam, anti-Muslim polemicists, like to sensationalize concubinage in Islam, with emotional buzzwords like "sex slaves", but in fact concubinage (especially in Islam) has nothing to do with "sex slavery".

As with any religion, Islam does not actually create social practices, it only regulates them, and slavery is just one more example of that (as is concubinage). In Islam, slaves were relegated to POWs from hostile enemy tribes that were then allotted by the state to individuals. Abuse wasn't allowed (and they were to be freed if it happened) and freedom was encouraged, and required in certain circumstances. Those slaves who were concubines essentially became common-law wives when they had children with those who they were relegated to.

Since slavery doesn't legally exist today, the rules for it can't legally apply, since the state is required in the process. Those who take slaves today, do so without the official sanctioning of the state (and against its laws), and are therefore criminals. Sex slavery is against Islam and against contemporary laws, so there is absolutely no sanctioning for it at all under any circumstances.

Hence, slavery and concubinage are not Islamic practices, but are archaic social practices that have been regulated in Islam at the time of revelation, when they were still being practiced. Islam would hardly be a complete religion at the time of its revelation, if it didn't address the contemporary social issues of that time. Furthermore, having rules that regulate it, doesn't necessarily mean that the practice itself cannot be abolished altogether at some point.

#9 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 17 July 2011 - 04:09 PM

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1310924254' post='441686']

If you think the fact of sex-slavery being a global phenomenon makes it "okay", then there is obviously something very wrong with you. You are the one who said that it made it "okay", not me, and regardless of whether you were being facetious or not, you were still thinking along those lines.


As I said you have little understanding of irony, or is this one of your devious attempts to avoid a reality which you cannot face.

The only other comment I would make is that it is extremely arrogant and stupid for you to tell me what I am thinking

I really don't need to bother with google in this case, since it's already addressed


Well I did say it’s up to members whether or not they open and read the URL's I posted , you obviously did not and as such you have avoided comment on the Quran passages referred to.

I guess for your peace of mind that was the only option open to you, which is rather sad

#10 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 17 July 2011 - 08:49 PM

As I said you have little understanding of irony, or is this one of your devious attempts to avoid a reality which you cannot face.


You are describing only yourself, not me.

The only other comment I would make is that it is extremely arrogant and stupid for you to tell me what I am thinking


I'm telling you what your comments imply, as I can only hope that you aren't unmindful of what you are posting.

Well I did say it’s up to members whether or not they open and read the URL's I posted , you obviously did not and as such you have avoided comment on the Quran passages referred to.


I obviously did, which is why I posted 6 different URLs, which address those passages from the Qur'an. You obviously did not even read them, as you haven't even acknowledged them, which implies that you are avoiding them. I've even explained those passages, which you have also failed to comment on.

I guess for your peace of mind that was the only option open to you, which is rather sad


Perhaps this is one of those "devious attempts to avoid a reality, which you cannot face" on your part?

#11 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 06:41 AM

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1310953790' post='441749']

You are describing only yourself, not me.



Unable to challenge you resort to your usual parroting

I'm telling you what your comments imply, as I can only hope that you aren't unmindful of what you are posting.



What comments imply is determine by the reader who needs to have an objective mind to have any hope of achieving a correct understanding, which you certainly do not have


I obviously did, which is why I posted 6 different URLs, which address those passages from the Qur'an. You obviously did not even read them, as you haven't even acknowledged them, which implies that you are avoiding them. I've even explained those passages, which you have also failed to comment on.


Well at least make a comment on the two I posted please

Is it really necessary for me to achnowlege your posting of URL's, can't you remember doing it

Perhaps this is one of those "devious attempts to avoid a reality, which you cannot face" on your part?


More parroting

#12 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 09:24 AM

Unable to challenge you resort to your usual parroting


Your imagining things again, as usual, since your description is only of yourself, not me.

What comments imply is determine by the reader who needs to have an objective mind to have any hope of achieving a correct understanding, which you certainly do not have


You are again only describing yourself, not me.

Well at least make a comment on the two I posted please


In fact, I've commented on the whole thing, as anyone who read what I posted can clearly see.

Is it really necessary for me to achnowlege your posting of URL's, can't you remember doing it


It is as necessary for me to acknowledge the URLs you posted, especially since the ones I posted were in response to the ones you posted.

More parroting


No it isn't.

#13 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 10:14 AM

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1310999095' post='441773']

Your imagining things again, as usual, since your description is only of yourself, not me

You are again only describing yourself, not me.

These have become frequently used op-outs when you cannot take the challenge :pityfool:

In fact, I've commented on the whole thing, as anyone who read what I posted can clearly see


Your being naughty again, you did not comment on the details contained in the URLS, you merely acknowledge that I had submitted them, now tell me do you think they were unfair in the claim that the Qumran supports sexual control over slaves?


It is as necessary for me to acknowledge the URLs you posted, especially since they were in response to the ones you posted.



What :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


No it isn't.


Parrot

#14 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 10:28 AM

These have become frequently used op-outs when you cannot take the challenge :pityfool:



They aren't "op-outs", and there is no "challenge". You projecting yourself onto me, isn't a "challenge", it's a waste of time, which is how I respond to it.

Your being naughty again, you did not comment on the details contained in the URLS, you merely acknowledge that I had submitted them, now tell me do you think they were unfair in the claim that the Qumran supports sexual control over slaves?


I've already explained this entire issue of sex slavery. If you don't feel like reading or responding to what I posted about it, then that's your problem.

What :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



The acknowledgement of what you posted is no more necessary than the acknowledgement of what I posted in response to it.

Parrot


Flamingo

#15 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 01:31 PM

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1311002898' post='441779']

They aren't "op-outs", and there is no "challenge". You projecting yourself onto me, isn't a "challenge", it's a waste of time, which is how I respond to it.


Idiot if it's a waste of time why do you respond

I've already explained this entire issue of sex slavery. If you don't feel like reading or responding to what I posted about it, then that's your problem.


You haven't responded at all to the nformation in the URL's I posted

The acknowledgement of what you posted is no more necessary than the acknowledgement of what I posted in response to it.


What you wrote did not make sense.I wondered if your fasting was the reason, but looking back over your post it has been mubo jumbo and so terribly childish for along time.

Now try to pull your self together and lets have at least a summery of your issues with thw URL's I posted

#16 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 18 July 2011 - 04:17 PM

Idiot if it's a waste of time why do you respond


To waste your time.

You haven't responded at all to the nformation in the URL's I posted


In fact, I've responded to all of it, which is what my response consisted of.

What you wrote did not make sense.I wondered if your fasting was the reason, but looking back over your post it has been mubo jumbo and so terribly childish for along time.


What I wrote made perfect sense, and that you can't construct a proper response to it, only further shows that you're just stalling.

Now try to pull your self together and lets have at least a summery of your issues with thw URL's I posted


I've already responded to those URLs, and the URLs I've posted, do so in more detail. Why don't you try actually responding to what I posted in response to them, instead of going off on another one of your detours?

#17 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 19 July 2011 - 04:41 AM

name='Kamasatti' timestamp='1311023842' post='441828']

To waste your time.




That’s self harm, do you whip yourself as part of you religious activities, it is a practice for some Muslims I believe

In fact, I've responded to all of it, which is what my response consisted of.


No you have not responded in your own words, now try to be constructive, let’s have your view in your own words, or is your conditioning such that you cannot

What I wrote made perfect sense, and that you can't construct a proper response to it, only further shows that you're just stalling.


Okay, what language were you using?

I've already responded to those URLs, and the URLs I've posted, do so in more detail. Why don't you try actually responding to what I posted in response to them, instead of going off on another one of your detours?


No you have not responded in your own words, now try to be constructive, let’s have your view in your own words, or is your conditioning such that you cannot

#18 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 19 July 2011 - 10:18 AM

That’s self harm, do you whip yourself as part of you religious activities, it is a practice for some Muslims I believe


It isn't self harm for me to waste your time. You don't know what you're talking about.

No you have not responded in your own words, now try to be constructive, let’s have your view in your own words, or is your conditioning such that you cannot


You're stalling by making up bogus excuses to avoid responding to what I've posted, because you are clearly unable to.

Okay, what language were you using?


One that you obviously seem to be having trouble with (i.e. English). It's stange to see someone from the UK struggling with their own native language.

No you have not responded in your own words, now try to be constructive, let’s have your view in your own words, or is your conditioning such that you cannot


You're stalling by making up bogus excuses to avoid responding to what I've posted, because you are clearly unable to.

#19 roberto

roberto

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 19 July 2011 - 03:04 PM

You're stalling by making up bogus excuses to avoid responding to what I've posted, because you are clearly unable to.

All you have posted is nothing more than cut and paste, now come on prove that you can actually construct some meaningful text in response to my URL’s.

#20 Kamasatti

Kamasatti

    Tireless Rebutter

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 19 July 2011 - 05:39 PM

All you have posted is nothing more than cut and paste, now come on prove that you can actually construct some meaningful text in response to my URL’s.


I've already posted a response to your URLs, and you continue to stall in responding properly (i.e. actually addressing the content), by going on another one of your inane detours.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users