Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

event horizon wrote:I'm still trying to understand how this is 'un-Islamic'.

desertdudeshj wrote:

event horizon wrote:I'm still trying to understand how this is 'un-Islamic'.

No mate you're not not trying to understand anything, Your just waiting so you can't a chance to dish out your tripe to "prove" how it is i.e being your usual self a troll.

Mr. al-Tamimi,

First, the MP is Shiite. So unless Wahhabis are suddenly making kissy-face with Shiites, I'd suspect that she's not Wahhabi. As for her young male friend, the one with the seeming inability to commit the sin of onanism, he may well be Wahhabi.

Secondly, MP al-Mutairi is giving an outline of the traditional ahkam on the treatment of captive women. Nothing remarkable or unusual about it. It's certainly not distinctively Wahhabi, nor was it invented by Ibn Taymiyah or Ibn Hanbal. You'll find the same in the other three Sunni schools, as also in the Ja'fari tradition.

If you'd like to learn more, have a look at a text like Quduri's Mukhtasar. Raping rights for female captives will be discuss in all its vile detail. That's about as mainstream a fiqh manual as you'll find. It's usually the first text a Hanafi student studies. I know dozens of Hanafi students who had it memorized by 10 or 12. Even here in the US, it is probably the most popular guide to Islamic law. Even the mosque up the road has its students memorize it.

In short, you've got no justification for saying that the venerable institution of female sex slaves is anything less than fully Islamic.

I suspect you feel uncomfortable for two reasons:......

desertdudeshj wrote:LOL ! When you didn't get a bite, you couldn't bear not to get a chance to dish out your "answer" eh !
Typical troll.

shafique wrote:^err, I don't think it refers to angels, but rather 'pure companions'.. .and the 72 virgins thing is not in the Quran. Hazelton summed it up nicely in the following (well worth another listen):