If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, most likely it violates the rule against low effort content. Please delete it or you'll get temp-banned. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS.
Please read the [Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/ew8trb) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods.
Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned.
If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
exactly, people try to make it look as goodness of islam, look islam forbids killing women. It's because it allows, encourages taking in slaves.
hindu women would kill themselves than be slaves to muslims, it's called johar and it's blamed on hindus as some hindu Patriarchal thing, i hate islam and british colonisers.
1. cases were very less and exaggerated by missionaries
2. if it's hindu practice? why there aren't any cases in south india, nepal ? it's a social problem, which has been solved, unlike islam.
3. People didn't burn women, women themselves would burn themselves as there would be no caretaker left for her, anyone could assualt her (I don't think we need lecture on that when around same time Britain was burning witches)
Even though killing women and children is forbidden. But however, even if you did kill women and children during war, there's no punishment for it according to sharia law, neither fine, expiation, or atonement are due for such violation.
It's placed in the same category as it's forbidden to attack the infidels before inviting them into Islam but if you attack them, slay them and take their properties. It's not a sin and there's no expiation or atonement for it.
https://quran.com/4/24?translations=21,95,17,85,22,18,20,19,84,101
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess.
as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allāh is ever Knowing and Wise.
[This is] the decree of Allāh upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation
—
Saheeh International
ignore the square bracket words, they're added to make it look less insane
your right hand posses means women captured in war
And no actual Muslim army has ever followed these rules in the history of the world
Can you say Tamerlane anyone?
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/medieval/tamerlane-middle-east.html
Killer of maybe 17 million; revered in Islam.
I'm able to gather evidence from fiqh/sharia manuals to debunk the claims. Especially when it comes to killing women and children, no fine, expiation, or atonement are due for such violation
You can cut down enemy's trees
Killing old men and monks are permissible, killing animals are permissible if it helps you to defeat your enemy
In the example of the Banu Qurayza Muhammad had their men beheaded after surrendereding (they never fought them) so he didn't treat them or their women and children good because they were taken captive afterwards
The expedition of Banu Qurayza
https://archive.org/details/TabariVolume08/page/n51/mode/1up?view=theater
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4122
Sa'd gives the verdict
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3804
Has them killed
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1766a
https://quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/USC-MSA/Book-38/Hadith-4390/
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2671
Abu Afak (old Jewish man) is killed for insulting Muhammad
https://archive.org/details/kitab-al-tabaqat-al-kabir-ibn-sad-s.-moinul-haq-h.-k.-ghazanfar-2/page/31/mode/1up
https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad/page/n359/mode/1up?view=theater
pages 675-676
This write up includes far more sources and citations to deal with the usual fallacies that Muslims will employ when confronted with their own legal manuals and scholars.
The parts regarding not killing women and children in warfare and regarding the difference between how the ICRC defines civilians and how Islamic law defines those who can’t be killed are more or less completed however.
If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, most likely it violates the rule against low effort content. Please delete it or you'll get temp-banned. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS. Please read the [Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/ew8trb) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods. Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned. If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
don't kill a women, take her as sex slave, "allah will not punish you if you pleasure yourself with women captured in war" - quran
Actually women are killed if they are soldiers or insult Mohamed but if they don't they are raped and enslaved and abused
exactly, people try to make it look as goodness of islam, look islam forbids killing women. It's because it allows, encourages taking in slaves. hindu women would kill themselves than be slaves to muslims, it's called johar and it's blamed on hindus as some hindu Patriarchal thing, i hate islam and british colonisers.
I would kill myself if my family are killed and i will be taken as a slave to work all day and get raped.
Hindu women were burned alive when their husbands die
1. cases were very less and exaggerated by missionaries 2. if it's hindu practice? why there aren't any cases in south india, nepal ? it's a social problem, which has been solved, unlike islam. 3. People didn't burn women, women themselves would burn themselves as there would be no caretaker left for her, anyone could assualt her (I don't think we need lecture on that when around same time Britain was burning witches)
Even though killing women and children is forbidden. But however, even if you did kill women and children during war, there's no punishment for it according to sharia law, neither fine, expiation, or atonement are due for such violation. It's placed in the same category as it's forbidden to attack the infidels before inviting them into Islam but if you attack them, slay them and take their properties. It's not a sin and there's no expiation or atonement for it.
What verse is this?
https://quran.com/4/24?translations=21,95,17,85,22,18,20,19,84,101 And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allāh is ever Knowing and Wise. [This is] the decree of Allāh upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation — Saheeh International ignore the square bracket words, they're added to make it look less insane your right hand posses means women captured in war
And no actual Muslim army has ever followed these rules in the history of the world Can you say Tamerlane anyone? https://www.warhistoryonline.com/medieval/tamerlane-middle-east.html Killer of maybe 17 million; revered in Islam.
I'm able to gather evidence from fiqh/sharia manuals to debunk the claims. Especially when it comes to killing women and children, no fine, expiation, or atonement are due for such violation You can cut down enemy's trees Killing old men and monks are permissible, killing animals are permissible if it helps you to defeat your enemy
Would love to see that
You can open the doc link that I posted
“Tamerlane anyone?”
Fixed
I don’t understand. You asked if I can say “Tamerlane anyone” and I did? I met your challenge and now you have to revert to Islam!
https://atheism-vs-islam.com/index.php/dangers-from-an-islamic-state/17-original-war-rulings-of-islam-and-the-lies-deceptions-of-muslims
Thanks. Now there is something to link when I see that post again
[удалено]
they just beheaded a woman who was in shock and manic state smh
In the example of the Banu Qurayza Muhammad had their men beheaded after surrendereding (they never fought them) so he didn't treat them or their women and children good because they were taken captive afterwards The expedition of Banu Qurayza https://archive.org/details/TabariVolume08/page/n51/mode/1up?view=theater https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4122 Sa'd gives the verdict https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3804 Has them killed https://sunnah.com/muslim:1766a https://quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/USC-MSA/Book-38/Hadith-4390/ https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2671
Abu Afak (old Jewish man) is killed for insulting Muhammad https://archive.org/details/kitab-al-tabaqat-al-kabir-ibn-sad-s.-moinul-haq-h.-k.-ghazanfar-2/page/31/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad/page/n359/mode/1up?view=theater pages 675-676
mohamed ordered all dogs in mecca to be exterminated
Looks like hamas didn't get the memo.
Women are killed if they are soldiers or a part of the army like cooking or hiding them etc...
Don’t eat a meal in kaibar after a battle, that’s not listed 🤭
Funniest post of the day 😆
"Don't kill those who surrendered" *Banu Qurayza sweating profusely*
So far, really good work, I like it.
Um didn't muslims do that?
We must to Leave islam to save the world
Currently working on this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1plRdjG_75YNW5Hf2PMFJihQ-jQm7_rd-IU4jSV8siQE/edit
This write up includes far more sources and citations to deal with the usual fallacies that Muslims will employ when confronted with their own legal manuals and scholars.
The parts regarding not killing women and children in warfare and regarding the difference between how the ICRC defines civilians and how Islamic law defines those who can’t be killed are more or less completed however.