The Slam Dunk Show

[BMZ]

That was a good Slam Dunk, Ahmed.

These FFI clowns and goons are really clueless and hilarious. I read the thread at the FFI Cesspool.

Only one poster, The Cat gave a sensible reply and wrote:

"I think that 'sister of' should be understood as: from the clan, ancestry, tribe, descendance, which is common in Semitic languages."

And came in another clueless idiot Nosubmission and wrote this nonsense in response to The Cat:

"NO. This kind of a usage does not exist in Semitic languages. "



Yahya Snow and you have done a good job and the rest are clueless idiots, who are intellectually dishonest.

I really don't know how these FFI goons can even read and understand literature.

Salaams
BMZ

PS: Would like to keep the links here, which I copied from FFI:


Link




Link


The links did not turn up. Can you please fix those?

[BMZ]

That was a good Slam Dunk, Ahmed.

These FFI clowns and goons are really clueless and hilarious. I read the thread at the FFI Cesspool.

Only one poster, The Cat gave a sensible reply and wrote:

"I think that 'sister of' should be understood as: from the clan, ancestry, tribe, descendance, which is common in Semitic languages."

And came in another clueless idiot Nosubmission and wrote this nonsense in response to The Cat:

"NO. This kind of a usage does not exist in Semitic languages. "



Yahya Snow and you have done a good job and the rest are clueless idiots, who are intellectually dishonest.

I really don't know how these FFI goons can even read and understand literature.

Salaams
BMZ

PS: Would like to keep the links here, which I copied from FFI:


Link




Link


The links did not turn up. Can you please fix those?

[AhmedBahgat]

Fixed

Cheers

[AhmedBahgat]

Fixed

Cheers

[BMZ]

[BMZ]

[AhmedBahgat]

[AhmedBahgat]

[BMZ]

The FFI goons do not understand even simple English translations, Ahmed.

Here is something about FFI goons. Post and see if they can understand this!

[BMZ]

The FFI goons do not understand even simple English translations, Ahmed.

Here is something about FFI goons. Post and see if they can understand this!

[AhmedBahgat]

[AhmedBahgat]

[BMZ]

[BMZ]

[BMZ]

Good thrashing, Ahmed

I will write on this later, which will have these FFI goons baffled and confounded further.

Salaams, mate
BMZ

[BMZ]

Good thrashing, Ahmed

I will write on this later, which will have these FFI goons baffled and confounded further.

Salaams, mate
BMZ

[BMZ]

Hello, Ahmed

As most of the FFI's ex-Muslims, goons, Jesus Freaks and others recite your Slam Dunk Section bukrataun-wa-atheela, I thought it proper to post a copy here for the Ignorant Fools, here. Hope that is okay with you.

Here it is:

I have discovered a new style to refute and irritate goons and polemicists on other sites, when they fail to understand and continue to come up with idiotic questions.

Here is a new way to answer the goons and let us take the topic from the Slam Dunks here:

"Mary the sister of Harun, a Quran Alleged Contradiction"

The accusation: "In many places, the Qur'an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur'an has confused Jesus' mother with Aaron's sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur'an indicates that Mary (Christ's mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron ( chapter 19:28 ) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called "the wife of Imran" (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron."

New answer to shut up all freaks and goons:

19:28 يَا أُخْتَ هَارُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ امْرَأَ سَوْءٍ وَمَا كَانَتْ أُمُّكِ بَغِيًّا

"O sister of Aaron! Neither was your father a wicked man nor was your mother an unchaste woman."

66:12 وَمَرْيَمَ ابْنَتَ عِمْرَانَ الَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِنْ رُوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّهَا وَكُتُبِهِ وَكَانَتْ مِنَ الْقَانِتِينَ

"And Mary the daughter of Imran, was extremely chaste, so We breathed life into it and she was true to the words of her LORD and was among the most devout."

Now, instead of wasting time with the freaks and goons, we can tell them the following:

Look, goons! The Bible does not tell us the name of Mary's mother, father and brother. The Bible does not even know that Mary had a brother. Therefore:

Her father's name was Imran.

Her mother was called the wife of Imran, as Qur'aan does not name any other woman. Qur'aan only mentions one woman's name and that is Maryam aka Mary.

Her brother's name was Haroon.

End of the story and case closed.

I am now doing this with goons and freaks on other sites and it works.



Salaams
BMZ

[BMZ]

Hello, Ahmed

As most of the FFI's ex-Muslims, goons, Jesus Freaks and others recite your Slam Dunk Section bukrataun-wa-atheela, I thought it proper to post a copy here for the Ignorant Fools, here. Hope that is okay with you.

Here it is:

I have discovered a new style to refute and irritate goons and polemicists on other sites, when they fail to understand and continue to come up with idiotic questions.

Here is a new way to answer the goons and let us take the topic from the Slam Dunks here:

"Mary the sister of Harun, a Quran Alleged Contradiction"

The accusation: "In many places, the Qur'an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur'an has confused Jesus' mother with Aaron's sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur'an indicates that Mary (Christ's mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron ( chapter 19:28 ) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called "the wife of Imran" (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron."

New answer to shut up all freaks and goons:

19:28 يَا أُخْتَ هَارُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ امْرَأَ سَوْءٍ وَمَا كَانَتْ أُمُّكِ بَغِيًّا

"O sister of Aaron! Neither was your father a wicked man nor was your mother an unchaste woman."

66:12 وَمَرْيَمَ ابْنَتَ عِمْرَانَ الَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِنْ رُوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّهَا وَكُتُبِهِ وَكَانَتْ مِنَ الْقَانِتِينَ

"And Mary the daughter of Imran, was extremely chaste, so We breathed life into it and she was true to the words of her LORD and was among the most devout."

Now, instead of wasting time with the freaks and goons, we can tell them the following:

Look, goons! The Bible does not tell us the name of Mary's mother, father and brother. The Bible does not even know that Mary had a brother. Therefore:

Her father's name was Imran.

Her mother was called the wife of Imran, as Qur'aan does not name any other woman. Qur'aan only mentions one woman's name and that is Maryam aka Mary.

Her brother's name was Haroon.

End of the story and case closed.

I am now doing this with goons and freaks on other sites and it works.



Salaams
BMZ

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

One of the new ignorant on FFI spewed the following crap:

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

One of the new ignorant on FFI spewed the following crap:

[AhmedBahgat]

Ahmed chose to slam dunk hardcore enemy of Islam pisscohot:

[AhmedBahgat]

Ahmed chose to slam dunk hardcore enemy of Islam pisscohot:

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

Today�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s slam dunk is going to be a long one but worthy of slamming. In today�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s show I will slam dunk both the Kafirs and their fellow confused Muslims, so we should have a good show in hand. The subject is about �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??if the Quran allows fuking the captives of wars, or the prisoners of wars�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??; for simplicity, I will refer to them as POWs.

It seems to me that most Muslims are confused about what ما ملكت ايمان , Ma Malakat Ayman means. They interpret it literally as: What the right hands possess, which I donÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t oppose at all, however I see another literal meaning for it, which is: What the oath possess, this should not cause any conflict between my literal understanding and theirs concerning the aspect of Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Possessing/OwningÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? for the following logical reason:

Their understanding implies (metaphorically) owning someone by the right hand.

And:

My understanding implies (metaphorically) owning someone by taking an oath.

On the other hand my understanding and theirs conflict in one major issue:

Their understating can easily be manipulated to imply owning a person and do whatever they want with such person, for example, enslaving such person, or fuking that person anytime they wish. A weird consequence which certainly contradicts the teaching of the Quran.

My understanding however makes great sense and certainly complies with the teaching of the Quran. Simply, my understating implies taking an oath in front of Allah to care for a weak person who is deprived from all means of living needs.

In fact if possessing is meant to be only by hands and not by an oath, then I say, possessing by an oath still lead to possessing by hands but under the restriction of the oath taken before Allah. The restriction is simply to care for that person.

Their hand possessing of humans has no rules or restrictions or moralities or principals, knowing that we humans are all equal in the sight of Allah when it comes to judgement. On the other hand, my oath possessing will be restricted under the common laws of moralities and while Allah being sought to be Witnessing such possession of a poor and needy human who will be taken care of and will be provided with all means of living.

Also their understanding of possessing humans by hands renders the context of the words ما ملكت ايمان to explicitly mean Prisoners of wars, i.e. after a war, you end up owning a few prisoners of war. On the other hand, the Quran explicitly referred to the prisoners of war using the common and explicit Arabic word for it, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look shall we:

مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللّهُ يُرِيدُ الآخِرَةَ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (67)
It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land; you want the commodity of this world, while Allah wants the hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 8:67]

-> See the explicit word for Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Prisoners of warÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??: مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ , i.e. It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land. I.e. Prisoners of war mean أَسْرَى , Asraa in Arabic.

The Prisoners of war are mentioned again in the same sura:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّمَن فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى إِن يَعْلَمِ اللّهُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ خَيْرًا يُؤْتِكُمْ خَيْرًا مِّمَّا أُخِذَ مِنكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (70)
O Prophet! Say to whoever is in your hands from among the prisoners of war: If Allah knows good in your hearts, He will give you better than that which has been taken from you and He will forgive you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 8:70]

-> See: قُل لِّمَن فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى , i.e. Say to whoever is in your hands from among the prisoners of war, this is very important verse, because the hands are mentioned metaphorically to refer to the prisoners of war as being controlled by hands, not POSSESSED/OWNED by hands, see فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى , in your hands from among the prisoners of war , not ما ملكت ايديكم من الاسرى , i.e. not what your hands possessed from among the prisoners of war. This verse clearly proves that the prisoners of wars may only be a sub category from ما ملكت ايمان , i.e. the POWS may be a sub category from What the oath possess, or as the confused Muslims like to call it:What your right hands possess. Consequently it is a sub category that must adhere to the general rule of what your oath possess, which is to take care of such weak person, who is in our case happenes to be a prisoner of war. This fact is confirmed in the following verse in which Allah generally talked about an anonymous prisoner of war, in the following verses Allah is talking about the good believers, describing them and what they should be doing, so I am going to walk you through a few verses before and after the verse where the anonymous prisoner of war is mentioned:

5: Indeed, the righteous will drink of a cup whose taste is Kafur (something that is delicious).
6: A spring of which the servants of Allah will drink; they make it to gush forth with gushing.
7: They fulfil the vows, and they fear a day whose evil will be spread.
8: And they give food out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the prisoner of war.
9: (Saying:) We only feed you for the face of Allah; we do not want from you reward or thanks.

إِنَّ الْأَبْرَارَ يَشْرَبُونَ مِنْ كَأْسٍ كَانَ مِزَاجُهَا كَافُورًا (5)
عَيْنًا يَشْرَبُ بِهَا عِبَادُ اللَّهِ يُفَجِّرُونَهَا تَفْجِيرًا (6)
يُوفُونَ بِالنَّذْرِ وَيَخَافُونَ يَوْمًا كَانَ شَرُّهُ مُسْتَطِيرًا (7)
وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا (8)
إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ لَا نُرِيدُ مِنْكُمْ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُورًا (9)

[Al Quran ; 76:5-9]

-> These verses are compelling in proving that the good treatment of the poor and needy and POWs who all are sub categories falling under those who are possessed by an oath or by hands in order to care for them, has to be dedicated to Allah under the oath taken, See:

Indeed, the righteous will drink of a cup whose taste is Kafur
A spring of which the servants of Allah will drink; they make it to gush forth with gushing.
They fulfil the vows, and they fear a day whose evil will be spread.
And they give food out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the prisoner of war.


-> See how they ended saying that they only take care of them just to please Allah while at the same time they are not waiting from those poor or needy or POWs to pay the favours back: (Saying:) We only feed you for the face of Allah; we do not want from you reward or thanks. Certainly having sex with them should be considered paying the favour back, which should never happen with any pious Muslim, because a pious Muslim take care of the needy, poor and POWs without waiting for the favour to be paid back to them in whatever way.

-> And certainly the POW is referred to explicitly using the clear Arabic word meaning so: أَسِيرًا , Asira, i.e. Prisoner of war.

The above should be the first part of the slam, in which I proved the following:

>> Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Prisoners of warÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? (plural) means in Arabic أَسْرَى , Asraa
>> Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Prisoner of warÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? (singular) means in Arabic أَسِير , Asir

But before I move on to the second part of the slam which tackles the issue of the meaning of Ma Malakat Ayman as explained in Quran, let me check the above two Arabic words under Google online translator:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

How compelling, therefore Ma Malakat Ayman can never mean Prisoners or Captives, at least from the Quran context point of view because the Quran used the explicit word for Prisoners or captives three times in the Quran and in both plural and singular forms. Now, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s move on to the second part of the slam:

The problem here for many confused Muslims is this: They consider the words Ma Malakat Ayman to explicitly mean prisoners of wars, they also wrongly defend a clear cut lie that Quran allows having sex (without marriage) with the prisoners of wars, see what this confused Muslim said on www.faithfreedom.org:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery.
------------------------

Now, these are the sort of crap by the confused Muslims that really pisses me off, to come on anti Islam web sites and promote their crap then illogically defend it with nothing but rubbish and non sense. See his crap apology above: we don't call it adultery.

So what do you call it, you stupid confused horny Muslim punk?

Foreplay?

Orgy?

So I had to intervene and ask that confused Muslim:

Ahmed said to iffo:
Where is that in the Quran? Do you mind showing me?

And who is 'we'?
------------------------

And this is what he replied with:

iffo said to Ahmed:
@AB

You know which verse I am talking about.
-------------------------

Which is nothing but a poor and stupid reply by one who talks as if he knows what he is talking about concerning Quran, so I had to change the attitude a bit to make him walk his crap:

Ahmed said to iffo:
Oh please, stop mocking around, I dont mock around

You said the Quran allows fuking the CAPTIVE OF WARS,

Now I am telling you that I never read a verse in Quran allowing fuking CAPTIVES OF WARS, so the onus on you mister Muslim to bloody show me where I read in Quran the permission to fuk the CAPTIVES OF WARS

Put up, or shut the fuk up
-------------------------

See, this stupid confused Muslim like so many confused Muslims are missing a vital part concerning Ma Malakat Ayman, such vital part is simply this:

The Quran never ever allowed fuking Ma Malakat Ayman without marriage; however the marriage is a non written marriage but still consensual, like the de facto relationships in the west. However the Quran also encourages making such marriage written for which the wife from Ma Malakat Ayman will be entitled to all the rights of a wife that is not from Ma Malakat Ayman. Yet such wife from Ma Malakat Ayman must keep her previous status of being from Ma Malakat Ayman. This is very important because if such wife from Ma Malakat Ayman commits adultery after being married, then she should be punished with half the punishment of a wife who is not from Ma Malakat Ayman according to the following verse:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (25)
And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women. And Allah is most Knowing of your oaths between yourselves; so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully if they seek protection (for themselves) not fornicating or receiving paramours. And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women. That is for one who fears affliction from among you. And if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:25]

-> See above how the Quran encourages Muslim men who cannot afford marrying from the wealthy and free women to marry from among Ma Malakat Ayman (which covers the poor, needy weak and POWs):

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ

i.e.

And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women.

Therefore the relationship between Muslim men and Ma Malakat Aymanihum as encouraged by the Quran is to legally marry them. This should put those confused and horny Muslims like iffo to shame, because if Muslim men are allowed to freely fuk Ma Malakat Ayman, why the hell we are commanded to marry from among them?

On the same verse, we also read how Allah is commanding us to make sure that those weak women from Ma Malakat Ayman are sincerely desiring marriage, as well men should take the permission of their families before marriage, as well, paying to them all their rights , see:

فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ

I.e.

so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully if they seek protection (for themselves) not fornicating or receiving paramours.

We are certainly talking in here legal marriage with all its legal requirements:

1- The permission of their families
2- The desire and sincerity for marriage by both the man and the woman from Ma Malakat Ayman
3- Paying the dowries to the woman from Ma Malakat Ayman

What is also important is the fact that their status of being from Ma Malakat Ayman has to be well known to all especially after marriage, the reason for that is clearly explained in the same verse, see:

فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ

I.e.

And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women.

That is why stoning to death can never be a punishment in Islam to any crime of indecency, because any wife from Ma Malakat Ayman who commits indecency after marriage should be punished with half the punishment of a wife from among the well supported women (free women) who commits an act of indecency.

This is the fact that most Muslims ignorantly misunderstand, that sex with Ma Malakat Ayman is only after marrying them as explained in 4:25

4:25 is not the only verse that encourages men to marry from among Ma Malakat Ayman (the weak, needy, desperate, poor and captive women), so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at another verse in the same sura:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ (3)
And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry those who please you from the women, two and three and four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one or what your oaths possess; that is better than having dependants.
[Al Quran ; 4:3]

-> Marrying one woman should be the common law in Islam, however for those who strive to adhere to the words of Allah, then marrying one woman should be the only option available, this is because marrying 4 women is conditioned by being fair between all of them as stated above, however, because men will never be fair between women as stated in another verse in the same sura (4:129), then they should marry only one woman, such woman can only be either one from the free and well supported women OR from Ma Malakat Ayman, see:

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

I.e.

But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one or what your oaths possess;

And again, this verse should put those confused horny Muslims like iffo who desire to freely fuk women from among Ma Malakat Ayman to shame, as the verse above is talking about a legal marriage relation between men and Ma Malakat Ayman, if fuking Ma Malakat Ayman was ordained freely in the Quran as those perverts of Muslims like iffo allege, then the part of 4:3 above should be like this:

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً و مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

I.e.

But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one AND what your oaths possess;

I.e. Marry the free woman and freely fuk one from Ma Malakat Ayman (the poor woman), which makes absolutely no sense, and certainly a man who does that must be committing adultery contrary to what the horny and freak pervert of a Muslim iffo alleged, see again what he spewed:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery.
--------------------

Can you see that this stupid confused punk of a horny Muslim is talking on behalf of all Muslims, see: we don't call it adultery.

I tell him again, no, you horny pervert of a Muslim, this is a clear cut case of adultery. So if you want to fuk a poor woman from Ma Malakat Ayman, you must marry her first as you have been commanded by God twice in 4:3 & 4:25

And again, another verse in Quran encouraging marrying from Ma Malakat Ayman:

وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ ۚ وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (33)
And let those, who do not find (means of) marriage, be chaste until Allah enrich them out of His grace. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, make a (marriage) contract with them if you know in them goodness, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your young women to prostitution, if they desire protection (though marriage), to seek thereby the span of the life of this world; and whoever compels them, then indeed, Allah is, after their compulsion, Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 24:33]

See: وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ

I.e.

And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, make a (marriage) contract with them if you know in them goodness, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.

Another verse that should keep those horny and confused Muslim in shame; see, if we are allowed to fuk Ma Malakat Ayamn freely, why Allah commands us to marry them, three times so far?

Well, the Quran is full of verses confirming that Ma Malakat Ayman are not the captives of wars. But even if they are (wrongly assuming to satisfy iffo flawed argument), fuking them freely is not allowed, rather we have to marry them first before we touch them. Therefore iffo the confused Muslim and his fellow kafirs have absolutely no argument.

If you remember that I asked iffo to support his lies from the Quran, however when I did so, one of the FFI kafirs quickly posted the following as if it supports fuking the POWs:

Kafir pr126 of FFI said to Ahmed:
Quran 4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
---------------------

See what I am talking about, they spewed crap and lies about the Quran and POWs, then I ask them to show me such Quran verse about POWs, they bring to me a Quran verse talking about Ma Malakat Ayman, funny indeed, so I replied to such jerk of an FFI kafir:

Ahmed said to kafir pr126:
Well, I did not ask you, however I will allow your answer as a matter of courtesy. But the verse above never mentioned CAPTIVES OF WARS?

Are you drunk or something? Can't you concentrate while reading the words written by others?

iffo alleged that the Quran allows fuking the CAPTIVES OF WARS, so I asked him to show me the verse in Quran allowing fuking the CAPTIVES OF WARS

But what you brought in does not mention any CAPTIVE OF WARS, rather it says "according to the flawed translation you brought in "whom your right hands possess". Therefore, is your stupid argument that whom your right hands possess are CAPTIVES OF WARS? Well, then you need to elaborate and tell me what is the Arabic word for CAPTIVES OF WARS, and what exactly whom your right hands possess mean? And why not whom your left hands possess, and where exactly the verse said FUKING IS ALLOWED?
Back to you mister
------------------------

So he came back with more crap, see:

Kafir pr126 of FFI said to Ahmed:
�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Sirat e Rasulullah�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�� by Ibn Ishaq, p. 464:

After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¦ He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.
-----------------------

Funny indeed, I am asking them to show me where the QURAN allows fuking the POWs, they bring to me hearsay crap from what they call sirat Abn Ishaq, or Ibn Hisham or Ibn Wiskhah, which makes no difference, all are not Quran, and I am asking about Quran verse, how stupid these kafirs are. So I replied:

Ahmed said to kafir pr126:
You must be certainly drunk and possibly on strong medication as well

Again mister drunk:

1- iffo alleged QURAN ALLOWS FUKING THE POWs
2- I asked him to show the QURAN VERSE STATING SO
3- You bloody volunteered on his stupid arse behalf and showed me 4:24 which:

a- Never mentioned the POWs
b- Never mentioned fuking

Then I bloody asked you to elaborate by answering the following questions:

i- Are whom your right hands possess �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??CAPTIVES OF WARS�?????�????�???�??�?�¢???
ii- What is the Arabic word for CAPTIVES OF WARS?
iii- What exactly whom your right hands possess mean? And why not whom your left hands possess?
iv- Where exactly the verse said FUKING IS ALLOWED?

Then you bloody come and quote some hearsay from man made books called sirat Jerry Springer?

Look pal, I have no time to waste, you should consider yourself lucky that I am currently dialoguing with you at 4:15 AM instead of dismissing you, however I will give one more chance to continue the dialogue that you initiated voluntarily and answer the damn questions above; but as for the crap inadmissible hearsay evidence you provided, you may shove it in iffo�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s arse
-------------------------------

As you can see that I am very hard on the suppose to be my Muslim brother iffo, but again, this freak came on anti Islam web site designed to only attack Islam then spew his ignorance that Quran allows fuking the POWs. Certainly I must be very hard on him, I am not going to be the babysitter of all those confused Muslims who should have learnt their religion from the Quran as I did instead of parroting the same satanic crap established by most of Al-Mushrikoon over the years that fuking the POWs is allowed in Quran. So iffo fell in my trap and replied to me, I was really hoping that he shows me that verse in Quran where it allows fuking the POWs:, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see what he had to say:

iffo said to Ahmed:
@AB

I don't like to use foul language in Ramadan like you doing unless someone really force me to, and you will regret then, because I have the potential to be very nasty. Take manners 101 and then come and talk to me.
-----------------------

So I replied to iffo.

Ahmed said to iffo:
Good, you sound like me, I don't like to use foul language in Ramadan unless someone really forces me to. And guess fukin what? You forced me with your crap and confusion to come here spewing the lie that Quran allows fuking the captives of wars

Where the fuk FUKING is mentioned? So for you when the Quran says: 'Allowed to you that woman or this woman or whatever woman', it means for a confused freak like you, that: �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Allowed to you fuking this woman or that woman or whatever woman�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? ?

Why not: 'Allowed to you marrying this woman or that woman or whatever woman�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? ?

And btw, I never regret anything; in fact those who fall in my net always end up the regretful

Tell me again you confused liar, WHERE EXACTLY THE QURAN ALLOWED FUKING THE CAPTIVES OF WARS? PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUK UP
--------------------

One of the confused and ignorant kafirs of FFI volunteered to elaborate on the other kafir behalf, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see what he had to say:

Yohan of FFI alleged:
�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Right hand possess�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? meant �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??captured in war�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??. This narration also shows the origin of many of the Koranic verses.[/quote]

So I said to him:
Obviously you are a clear cut ignorant and do not know what you are talking about, however I am going to bed now, but tomorrow inshallah will slam dunk you with slam dunk # 93, I always wanted a clown like you in my show. Good night, clown
-----------------

As you can see that his ignorance was refuted before, but I am going to refute it further, I should have said, I will let the Quran to refute it further with so many verses about what the right hands possess (as they like to translate it), and we should see that they cannot be captives of war, rather, almost members of the same family:

وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ (31)
And say to the believing women to lower their visions and guard their private parts and not show their adornment except what appears thereof. And let them draw their veils over their bosoms and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those whom their oaths possess or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women) or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women. And let them (the believing women) not strike their legs to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And repent to Allah, all of you , O believers, that perhaps you will succeed.
[Al Quran ; 24:31]

-> The above verse is compelling because it is talking about Muslim women who have Ma Malakat Ayman, see:

وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ

I.e.

And let them draw their veils over their bosoms and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those whom their oaths possess

Obviously Ma Malakat Ayman above cannot be captives of war because the verse is allowing the Muslim women to expose their adornment to Ma Malakat Aymanihunna. Also according to the stupid and confused understanding of most horny Muslims, then Muslim women are allowed to fuk males from Ma Malakat Ayman.

The above verse proves that an oath was taken by those Muslim women to care for some weak, needy and poor people and they have become so close in the family that Muslim women are even allowed to show their adornment to them.

A very important point is this, if any POW is poor and needy, then he or she may be Ma Malakat Ayman if a Muslim man or woman took an oath before Allah to care for that person, however in that case the POW status has changed from POW to Ma Malakat Ayman, consequently all the rules of Allah concerning Ma Malakat Ayman should apply to him or her.

Here is another verse talking about the wives of the prophet, the mothers of the believers, the verse is telling us the same as was said about the believing women in 24:31,

لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِنَّ فِي آبَائِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَائِهِنَّ وَلَا إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ وَلَا نِسَائِهِنَّ وَلَا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ ۗ وَاتَّقِينَ اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدًا (55)
There is no blame upon them concerning their fathers or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those possessed by their oaths. And fear Allah; indeed, ever is Allah, over everything, Witness.
[Al Quran ; 33:55]

See:

لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِنَّ فِي آبَائِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَائِهِنَّ وَلَا إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ وَلَا نِسَائِهِنَّ وَلَا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ

I.e.

There is no blame upon them concerning their fathers or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those possessed by their oaths.

Continue below .....

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

Today�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s slam dunk is going to be a long one but worthy of slamming. In today�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s show I will slam dunk both the Kafirs and their fellow confused Muslims, so we should have a good show in hand. The subject is about �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??if the Quran allows fuking the captives of wars, or the prisoners of wars�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??; for simplicity, I will refer to them as POWs.

It seems to me that most Muslims are confused about what ما ملكت ايمان , Ma Malakat Ayman means. They interpret it literally as: What the right hands possess, which I donÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t oppose at all, however I see another literal meaning for it, which is: What the oath possess, this should not cause any conflict between my literal understanding and theirs concerning the aspect of Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Possessing/OwningÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? for the following logical reason:

Their understanding implies (metaphorically) owning someone by the right hand.

And:

My understanding implies (metaphorically) owning someone by taking an oath.

On the other hand my understanding and theirs conflict in one major issue:

Their understating can easily be manipulated to imply owning a person and do whatever they want with such person, for example, enslaving such person, or fuking that person anytime they wish. A weird consequence which certainly contradicts the teaching of the Quran.

My understanding however makes great sense and certainly complies with the teaching of the Quran. Simply, my understating implies taking an oath in front of Allah to care for a weak person who is deprived from all means of living needs.

In fact if possessing is meant to be only by hands and not by an oath, then I say, possessing by an oath still lead to possessing by hands but under the restriction of the oath taken before Allah. The restriction is simply to care for that person.

Their hand possessing of humans has no rules or restrictions or moralities or principals, knowing that we humans are all equal in the sight of Allah when it comes to judgement. On the other hand, my oath possessing will be restricted under the common laws of moralities and while Allah being sought to be Witnessing such possession of a poor and needy human who will be taken care of and will be provided with all means of living.

Also their understanding of possessing humans by hands renders the context of the words ما ملكت ايمان to explicitly mean Prisoners of wars, i.e. after a war, you end up owning a few prisoners of war. On the other hand, the Quran explicitly referred to the prisoners of war using the common and explicit Arabic word for it, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look shall we:

مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللّهُ يُرِيدُ الآخِرَةَ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (67)
It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land; you want the commodity of this world, while Allah wants the hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 8:67]

-> See the explicit word for Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Prisoners of warÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??: مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ , i.e. It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land. I.e. Prisoners of war mean أَسْرَى , Asraa in Arabic.

The Prisoners of war are mentioned again in the same sura:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّمَن فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى إِن يَعْلَمِ اللّهُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ خَيْرًا يُؤْتِكُمْ خَيْرًا مِّمَّا أُخِذَ مِنكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (70)
O Prophet! Say to whoever is in your hands from among the prisoners of war: If Allah knows good in your hearts, He will give you better than that which has been taken from you and He will forgive you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 8:70]

-> See: قُل لِّمَن فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى , i.e. Say to whoever is in your hands from among the prisoners of war, this is very important verse, because the hands are mentioned metaphorically to refer to the prisoners of war as being controlled by hands, not POSSESSED/OWNED by hands, see فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى , in your hands from among the prisoners of war , not ما ملكت ايديكم من الاسرى , i.e. not what your hands possessed from among the prisoners of war. This verse clearly proves that the prisoners of wars may only be a sub category from ما ملكت ايمان , i.e. the POWS may be a sub category from What the oath possess, or as the confused Muslims like to call it:What your right hands possess. Consequently it is a sub category that must adhere to the general rule of what your oath possess, which is to take care of such weak person, who is in our case happenes to be a prisoner of war. This fact is confirmed in the following verse in which Allah generally talked about an anonymous prisoner of war, in the following verses Allah is talking about the good believers, describing them and what they should be doing, so I am going to walk you through a few verses before and after the verse where the anonymous prisoner of war is mentioned:

5: Indeed, the righteous will drink of a cup whose taste is Kafur (something that is delicious).
6: A spring of which the servants of Allah will drink; they make it to gush forth with gushing.
7: They fulfil the vows, and they fear a day whose evil will be spread.
8: And they give food out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the prisoner of war.
9: (Saying:) We only feed you for the face of Allah; we do not want from you reward or thanks.

إِنَّ الْأَبْرَارَ يَشْرَبُونَ مِنْ كَأْسٍ كَانَ مِزَاجُهَا كَافُورًا (5)
عَيْنًا يَشْرَبُ بِهَا عِبَادُ اللَّهِ يُفَجِّرُونَهَا تَفْجِيرًا (6)
يُوفُونَ بِالنَّذْرِ وَيَخَافُونَ يَوْمًا كَانَ شَرُّهُ مُسْتَطِيرًا (7)
وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا (8)
إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ لَا نُرِيدُ مِنْكُمْ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُورًا (9)

[Al Quran ; 76:5-9]

-> These verses are compelling in proving that the good treatment of the poor and needy and POWs who all are sub categories falling under those who are possessed by an oath or by hands in order to care for them, has to be dedicated to Allah under the oath taken, See:

Indeed, the righteous will drink of a cup whose taste is Kafur
A spring of which the servants of Allah will drink; they make it to gush forth with gushing.
They fulfil the vows, and they fear a day whose evil will be spread.
And they give food out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the prisoner of war.


-> See how they ended saying that they only take care of them just to please Allah while at the same time they are not waiting from those poor or needy or POWs to pay the favours back: (Saying:) We only feed you for the face of Allah; we do not want from you reward or thanks. Certainly having sex with them should be considered paying the favour back, which should never happen with any pious Muslim, because a pious Muslim take care of the needy, poor and POWs without waiting for the favour to be paid back to them in whatever way.

-> And certainly the POW is referred to explicitly using the clear Arabic word meaning so: أَسِيرًا , Asira, i.e. Prisoner of war.

The above should be the first part of the slam, in which I proved the following:

>> Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Prisoners of warÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? (plural) means in Arabic أَسْرَى , Asraa
>> Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Prisoner of warÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? (singular) means in Arabic أَسِير , Asir

But before I move on to the second part of the slam which tackles the issue of the meaning of Ma Malakat Ayman as explained in Quran, let me check the above two Arabic words under Google online translator:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

How compelling, therefore Ma Malakat Ayman can never mean Prisoners or Captives, at least from the Quran context point of view because the Quran used the explicit word for Prisoners or captives three times in the Quran and in both plural and singular forms. Now, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s move on to the second part of the slam:

The problem here for many confused Muslims is this: They consider the words Ma Malakat Ayman to explicitly mean prisoners of wars, they also wrongly defend a clear cut lie that Quran allows having sex (without marriage) with the prisoners of wars, see what this confused Muslim said on www.faithfreedom.org:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery.
------------------------

Now, these are the sort of crap by the confused Muslims that really pisses me off, to come on anti Islam web sites and promote their crap then illogically defend it with nothing but rubbish and non sense. See his crap apology above: we don't call it adultery.

So what do you call it, you stupid confused horny Muslim punk?

Foreplay?

Orgy?

So I had to intervene and ask that confused Muslim:

Ahmed said to iffo:
Where is that in the Quran? Do you mind showing me?

And who is 'we'?
------------------------

And this is what he replied with:

iffo said to Ahmed:
@AB

You know which verse I am talking about.
-------------------------

Which is nothing but a poor and stupid reply by one who talks as if he knows what he is talking about concerning Quran, so I had to change the attitude a bit to make him walk his crap:

Ahmed said to iffo:
Oh please, stop mocking around, I dont mock around

You said the Quran allows fuking the CAPTIVE OF WARS,

Now I am telling you that I never read a verse in Quran allowing fuking CAPTIVES OF WARS, so the onus on you mister Muslim to bloody show me where I read in Quran the permission to fuk the CAPTIVES OF WARS

Put up, or shut the fuk up
-------------------------

See, this stupid confused Muslim like so many confused Muslims are missing a vital part concerning Ma Malakat Ayman, such vital part is simply this:

The Quran never ever allowed fuking Ma Malakat Ayman without marriage; however the marriage is a non written marriage but still consensual, like the de facto relationships in the west. However the Quran also encourages making such marriage written for which the wife from Ma Malakat Ayman will be entitled to all the rights of a wife that is not from Ma Malakat Ayman. Yet such wife from Ma Malakat Ayman must keep her previous status of being from Ma Malakat Ayman. This is very important because if such wife from Ma Malakat Ayman commits adultery after being married, then she should be punished with half the punishment of a wife who is not from Ma Malakat Ayman according to the following verse:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (25)
And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women. And Allah is most Knowing of your oaths between yourselves; so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully if they seek protection (for themselves) not fornicating or receiving paramours. And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women. That is for one who fears affliction from among you. And if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:25]

-> See above how the Quran encourages Muslim men who cannot afford marrying from the wealthy and free women to marry from among Ma Malakat Ayman (which covers the poor, needy weak and POWs):

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ

i.e.

And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women.

Therefore the relationship between Muslim men and Ma Malakat Aymanihum as encouraged by the Quran is to legally marry them. This should put those confused and horny Muslims like iffo to shame, because if Muslim men are allowed to freely fuk Ma Malakat Ayman, why the hell we are commanded to marry from among them?

On the same verse, we also read how Allah is commanding us to make sure that those weak women from Ma Malakat Ayman are sincerely desiring marriage, as well men should take the permission of their families before marriage, as well, paying to them all their rights , see:

فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ

I.e.

so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully if they seek protection (for themselves) not fornicating or receiving paramours.

We are certainly talking in here legal marriage with all its legal requirements:

1- The permission of their families
2- The desire and sincerity for marriage by both the man and the woman from Ma Malakat Ayman
3- Paying the dowries to the woman from Ma Malakat Ayman

What is also important is the fact that their status of being from Ma Malakat Ayman has to be well known to all especially after marriage, the reason for that is clearly explained in the same verse, see:

فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ

I.e.

And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women.

That is why stoning to death can never be a punishment in Islam to any crime of indecency, because any wife from Ma Malakat Ayman who commits indecency after marriage should be punished with half the punishment of a wife from among the well supported women (free women) who commits an act of indecency.

This is the fact that most Muslims ignorantly misunderstand, that sex with Ma Malakat Ayman is only after marrying them as explained in 4:25

4:25 is not the only verse that encourages men to marry from among Ma Malakat Ayman (the weak, needy, desperate, poor and captive women), so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at another verse in the same sura:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ (3)
And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry those who please you from the women, two and three and four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one or what your oaths possess; that is better than having dependants.
[Al Quran ; 4:3]

-> Marrying one woman should be the common law in Islam, however for those who strive to adhere to the words of Allah, then marrying one woman should be the only option available, this is because marrying 4 women is conditioned by being fair between all of them as stated above, however, because men will never be fair between women as stated in another verse in the same sura (4:129), then they should marry only one woman, such woman can only be either one from the free and well supported women OR from Ma Malakat Ayman, see:

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

I.e.

But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one or what your oaths possess;

And again, this verse should put those confused horny Muslims like iffo who desire to freely fuk women from among Ma Malakat Ayman to shame, as the verse above is talking about a legal marriage relation between men and Ma Malakat Ayman, if fuking Ma Malakat Ayman was ordained freely in the Quran as those perverts of Muslims like iffo allege, then the part of 4:3 above should be like this:

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً و مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

I.e.

But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one AND what your oaths possess;

I.e. Marry the free woman and freely fuk one from Ma Malakat Ayman (the poor woman), which makes absolutely no sense, and certainly a man who does that must be committing adultery contrary to what the horny and freak pervert of a Muslim iffo alleged, see again what he spewed:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery.
--------------------

Can you see that this stupid confused punk of a horny Muslim is talking on behalf of all Muslims, see: we don't call it adultery.

I tell him again, no, you horny pervert of a Muslim, this is a clear cut case of adultery. So if you want to fuk a poor woman from Ma Malakat Ayman, you must marry her first as you have been commanded by God twice in 4:3 & 4:25

And again, another verse in Quran encouraging marrying from Ma Malakat Ayman:

وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ ۚ وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (33)
And let those, who do not find (means of) marriage, be chaste until Allah enrich them out of His grace. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, make a (marriage) contract with them if you know in them goodness, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your young women to prostitution, if they desire protection (though marriage), to seek thereby the span of the life of this world; and whoever compels them, then indeed, Allah is, after their compulsion, Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 24:33]

See: وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ

I.e.

And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, make a (marriage) contract with them if you know in them goodness, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.

Another verse that should keep those horny and confused Muslim in shame; see, if we are allowed to fuk Ma Malakat Ayamn freely, why Allah commands us to marry them, three times so far?

Well, the Quran is full of verses confirming that Ma Malakat Ayman are not the captives of wars. But even if they are (wrongly assuming to satisfy iffo flawed argument), fuking them freely is not allowed, rather we have to marry them first before we touch them. Therefore iffo the confused Muslim and his fellow kafirs have absolutely no argument.

If you remember that I asked iffo to support his lies from the Quran, however when I did so, one of the FFI kafirs quickly posted the following as if it supports fuking the POWs:

Kafir pr126 of FFI said to Ahmed:
Quran 4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
---------------------

See what I am talking about, they spewed crap and lies about the Quran and POWs, then I ask them to show me such Quran verse about POWs, they bring to me a Quran verse talking about Ma Malakat Ayman, funny indeed, so I replied to such jerk of an FFI kafir:

Ahmed said to kafir pr126:
Well, I did not ask you, however I will allow your answer as a matter of courtesy. But the verse above never mentioned CAPTIVES OF WARS?

Are you drunk or something? Can't you concentrate while reading the words written by others?

iffo alleged that the Quran allows fuking the CAPTIVES OF WARS, so I asked him to show me the verse in Quran allowing fuking the CAPTIVES OF WARS

But what you brought in does not mention any CAPTIVE OF WARS, rather it says "according to the flawed translation you brought in "whom your right hands possess". Therefore, is your stupid argument that whom your right hands possess are CAPTIVES OF WARS? Well, then you need to elaborate and tell me what is the Arabic word for CAPTIVES OF WARS, and what exactly whom your right hands possess mean? And why not whom your left hands possess, and where exactly the verse said FUKING IS ALLOWED?
Back to you mister
------------------------

So he came back with more crap, see:

Kafir pr126 of FFI said to Ahmed:
�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Sirat e Rasulullah�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�� by Ibn Ishaq, p. 464:

After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¦ He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.
-----------------------

Funny indeed, I am asking them to show me where the QURAN allows fuking the POWs, they bring to me hearsay crap from what they call sirat Abn Ishaq, or Ibn Hisham or Ibn Wiskhah, which makes no difference, all are not Quran, and I am asking about Quran verse, how stupid these kafirs are. So I replied:

Ahmed said to kafir pr126:
You must be certainly drunk and possibly on strong medication as well

Again mister drunk:

1- iffo alleged QURAN ALLOWS FUKING THE POWs
2- I asked him to show the QURAN VERSE STATING SO
3- You bloody volunteered on his stupid arse behalf and showed me 4:24 which:

a- Never mentioned the POWs
b- Never mentioned fuking

Then I bloody asked you to elaborate by answering the following questions:

i- Are whom your right hands possess �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??CAPTIVES OF WARS�?????�????�???�??�?�¢???
ii- What is the Arabic word for CAPTIVES OF WARS?
iii- What exactly whom your right hands possess mean? And why not whom your left hands possess?
iv- Where exactly the verse said FUKING IS ALLOWED?

Then you bloody come and quote some hearsay from man made books called sirat Jerry Springer?

Look pal, I have no time to waste, you should consider yourself lucky that I am currently dialoguing with you at 4:15 AM instead of dismissing you, however I will give one more chance to continue the dialogue that you initiated voluntarily and answer the damn questions above; but as for the crap inadmissible hearsay evidence you provided, you may shove it in iffo�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s arse
-------------------------------

As you can see that I am very hard on the suppose to be my Muslim brother iffo, but again, this freak came on anti Islam web site designed to only attack Islam then spew his ignorance that Quran allows fuking the POWs. Certainly I must be very hard on him, I am not going to be the babysitter of all those confused Muslims who should have learnt their religion from the Quran as I did instead of parroting the same satanic crap established by most of Al-Mushrikoon over the years that fuking the POWs is allowed in Quran. So iffo fell in my trap and replied to me, I was really hoping that he shows me that verse in Quran where it allows fuking the POWs:, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see what he had to say:

iffo said to Ahmed:
@AB

I don't like to use foul language in Ramadan like you doing unless someone really force me to, and you will regret then, because I have the potential to be very nasty. Take manners 101 and then come and talk to me.
-----------------------

So I replied to iffo.

Ahmed said to iffo:
Good, you sound like me, I don't like to use foul language in Ramadan unless someone really forces me to. And guess fukin what? You forced me with your crap and confusion to come here spewing the lie that Quran allows fuking the captives of wars

Where the fuk FUKING is mentioned? So for you when the Quran says: 'Allowed to you that woman or this woman or whatever woman', it means for a confused freak like you, that: �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Allowed to you fuking this woman or that woman or whatever woman�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? ?

Why not: 'Allowed to you marrying this woman or that woman or whatever woman�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? ?

And btw, I never regret anything; in fact those who fall in my net always end up the regretful

Tell me again you confused liar, WHERE EXACTLY THE QURAN ALLOWED FUKING THE CAPTIVES OF WARS? PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUK UP
--------------------

One of the confused and ignorant kafirs of FFI volunteered to elaborate on the other kafir behalf, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see what he had to say:

Yohan of FFI alleged:
�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Right hand possess�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? meant �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??captured in war�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??. This narration also shows the origin of many of the Koranic verses.[/quote]

So I said to him:
Obviously you are a clear cut ignorant and do not know what you are talking about, however I am going to bed now, but tomorrow inshallah will slam dunk you with slam dunk # 93, I always wanted a clown like you in my show. Good night, clown
-----------------

As you can see that his ignorance was refuted before, but I am going to refute it further, I should have said, I will let the Quran to refute it further with so many verses about what the right hands possess (as they like to translate it), and we should see that they cannot be captives of war, rather, almost members of the same family:

وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ (31)
And say to the believing women to lower their visions and guard their private parts and not show their adornment except what appears thereof. And let them draw their veils over their bosoms and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those whom their oaths possess or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women) or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women. And let them (the believing women) not strike their legs to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And repent to Allah, all of you , O believers, that perhaps you will succeed.
[Al Quran ; 24:31]

-> The above verse is compelling because it is talking about Muslim women who have Ma Malakat Ayman, see:

وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ

I.e.

And let them draw their veils over their bosoms and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those whom their oaths possess

Obviously Ma Malakat Ayman above cannot be captives of war because the verse is allowing the Muslim women to expose their adornment to Ma Malakat Aymanihunna. Also according to the stupid and confused understanding of most horny Muslims, then Muslim women are allowed to fuk males from Ma Malakat Ayman.

The above verse proves that an oath was taken by those Muslim women to care for some weak, needy and poor people and they have become so close in the family that Muslim women are even allowed to show their adornment to them.

A very important point is this, if any POW is poor and needy, then he or she may be Ma Malakat Ayman if a Muslim man or woman took an oath before Allah to care for that person, however in that case the POW status has changed from POW to Ma Malakat Ayman, consequently all the rules of Allah concerning Ma Malakat Ayman should apply to him or her.

Here is another verse talking about the wives of the prophet, the mothers of the believers, the verse is telling us the same as was said about the believing women in 24:31,

لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِنَّ فِي آبَائِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَائِهِنَّ وَلَا إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ وَلَا نِسَائِهِنَّ وَلَا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ ۗ وَاتَّقِينَ اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدًا (55)
There is no blame upon them concerning their fathers or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those possessed by their oaths. And fear Allah; indeed, ever is Allah, over everything, Witness.
[Al Quran ; 33:55]

See:

لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِنَّ فِي آبَائِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَائِهِنَّ وَلَا إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ وَلَا نِسَائِهِنَّ وَلَا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ

I.e.

There is no blame upon them concerning their fathers or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those possessed by their oaths.

Continue below .....

[AhmedBahgat]

Read above first ^^^^^

Let me show you another compelling verse that proves two points at once:

1- That Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be captives of war
2- Sex with Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be allowed unless men marry them first

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِيَسْتَأْذِنْكُمُ الَّذِينَ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَالَّذِينَ لَمْ يَبْلُغُوا الْحُلُمَ مِنْكُمْ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ۚ مِنْ قَبْلِ صَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ وَحِينَ تَضَعُونَ ثِيَابَكُمْ مِنَ الظَّهِيرَةِ وَمِنْ بَعْدِ صَلَاةِ الْعِشَاءِ ۚ ثَلَاثُ عَوْرَاتٍ لَكُمْ ۚ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَا عَلَيْهِمْ جُنَاحٌ بَعْدَهُنَّ ۚ طَوَّافُونَ عَلَيْكُمْ بَعْضُكُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ (58)
O you who have believed! Let those whom your oaths possess and those of you who have not reached puberty ask your permission three times, before the dawn prayer (Fajr), and when you put aside your clothing at noon, and after the night prayer; (these are) three times of privacy for you. And there is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these (three times), (when) some of you move around others. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 24:58]

See how compelling this verse is concerning Ma Malkat Ayman:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِيَسْتَأْذِنْكُمُ الَّذِينَ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَالَّذِينَ لَمْ يَبْلُغُوا الْحُلُمَ مِنْكُمْ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ۚ مِنْ قَبْلِ صَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ وَحِينَ تَضَعُونَ ثِيَابَكُمْ مِنَ الظَّهِيرَةِ وَمِنْ بَعْدِ صَلَاةِ الْعِشَاءِ ۚ ثَلَاثُ عَوْرَاتٍ لَكُمْ

I.e.

O you who have believed! Let those whom your oaths possess and those of you who have not reached puberty ask your permission three times, before the dawn prayer (Fajr), and when you put aside your clothing at noon, and after the night prayer (Isha); (these are) three times of privacy for you.

See, Ma Malakat Ayman have to take permission before they enter upon their masters in three different times a day:

1- before the dawn prayer (Fajr),
2- at noon
3- after the night prayer (Isha)

In fact the verse even told us why? See: when you put aside your clothing.

Firstly, those Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be captives of war, because they are living in the same house as their masters. In addition to that, if sex is allowed freely with them, then why the hell they need to take permission to enter upon their masters just in case their masters removed their cloths for resting? I guess their masters fuk them naked, right you confused and pervert of horny Muslims?

There is no doubt that fuking Ma Malakat Ayman IS NEVER ALLOWED in Quran unless men or women marry them first. It is only the satanic perversity in the minds of most Muslims that entice them to believe such clear cut non sensible sexually motivated act of freely fuking Ma Malakat Aymanihum

An example of Ma malakat Ayman may be a house maid, in fact you find most Saudis bring house maids from Philippine and similar countries, very poor women who cannot support themselves so they work as maids serving other capable humans to make a living. A psychologically very tough job considering that all humans should be equal. Those Saudi men end up fukin those maids freely while thinking that they are not committing any sin, they think that the following verses allow them doing so:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (5)
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (6)

5: And those who are concerning their private parts guarding.
6: Except for their spouses or those whom their oaths possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed.
[Al Quran ; 23:5-6]

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (29)
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (30)

29: And those who are, concerning their private parts, guarding.
30: Except upon their spouses or what their oaths possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.
[Al Quran ; 70:29-30]

The perverts cannot understand that the verses above ARE TALKING ABOUT LEGAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND MA MALAKAT AYMANIHUM. I.e.:

Those pious Muslims are those who guard their private parts except upon their spouses from the FREE MEN AND WOMEN and their spouses from MA MALAKAT AYMANUHUM

The verses above in no way implies not protecting the private parts from Ma Malakat Ayman to whom we are not married, otherwise 24:58 will be non sensible because it states that Ma Malakat Ayman should take permission before they enter upon their masters just in case they removed their cloths so their private parts became visible. The important point is this, both spouses from the free women and from Ma Malakat Ayman must always be differentiated from each other by mentioning them separately as seen in the above verses, because according to 4:25 both of them have different punishment if they commit fahisha after marriage.

Here you have it all, you confused kafirs enemy of Islam and you confused and horny Muslims whom I also consider an enemy of Islam; in fact, a far worse enemy than the kafirs, because the confused kafirs base their stupid arguments upon flawed understanding and practices by the confused and horny Muslims. See what do you expect when a confused Muslim goes on a kafir web site that is only designed to attack Islam and Muslim, and say:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery
-------------------------

Shame on you, you confused and horny Muslim, but I really hope that this slam wake you up and reconsider that what you spewed was nothing but crap and ignorance. Here is the slam, and it has to be another mother of all slams because I left nothing for the kafirs and their fellow confused Muslims to refute:

[AhmedBahgat]

Read above first ^^^^^

Let me show you another compelling verse that proves two points at once:

1- That Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be captives of war
2- Sex with Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be allowed unless men marry them first

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِيَسْتَأْذِنْكُمُ الَّذِينَ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَالَّذِينَ لَمْ يَبْلُغُوا الْحُلُمَ مِنْكُمْ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ۚ مِنْ قَبْلِ صَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ وَحِينَ تَضَعُونَ ثِيَابَكُمْ مِنَ الظَّهِيرَةِ وَمِنْ بَعْدِ صَلَاةِ الْعِشَاءِ ۚ ثَلَاثُ عَوْرَاتٍ لَكُمْ ۚ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَا عَلَيْهِمْ جُنَاحٌ بَعْدَهُنَّ ۚ طَوَّافُونَ عَلَيْكُمْ بَعْضُكُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ (58)
O you who have believed! Let those whom your oaths possess and those of you who have not reached puberty ask your permission three times, before the dawn prayer (Fajr), and when you put aside your clothing at noon, and after the night prayer; (these are) three times of privacy for you. And there is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these (three times), (when) some of you move around others. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 24:58]

See how compelling this verse is concerning Ma Malkat Ayman:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِيَسْتَأْذِنْكُمُ الَّذِينَ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَالَّذِينَ لَمْ يَبْلُغُوا الْحُلُمَ مِنْكُمْ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ۚ مِنْ قَبْلِ صَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ وَحِينَ تَضَعُونَ ثِيَابَكُمْ مِنَ الظَّهِيرَةِ وَمِنْ بَعْدِ صَلَاةِ الْعِشَاءِ ۚ ثَلَاثُ عَوْرَاتٍ لَكُمْ

I.e.

O you who have believed! Let those whom your oaths possess and those of you who have not reached puberty ask your permission three times, before the dawn prayer (Fajr), and when you put aside your clothing at noon, and after the night prayer (Isha); (these are) three times of privacy for you.

See, Ma Malakat Ayman have to take permission before they enter upon their masters in three different times a day:

1- before the dawn prayer (Fajr),
2- at noon
3- after the night prayer (Isha)

In fact the verse even told us why? See: when you put aside your clothing.

Firstly, those Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be captives of war, because they are living in the same house as their masters. In addition to that, if sex is allowed freely with them, then why the hell they need to take permission to enter upon their masters just in case their masters removed their cloths for resting? I guess their masters fuk them naked, right you confused and pervert of horny Muslims?

There is no doubt that fuking Ma Malakat Ayman IS NEVER ALLOWED in Quran unless men or women marry them first. It is only the satanic perversity in the minds of most Muslims that entice them to believe such clear cut non sensible sexually motivated act of freely fuking Ma Malakat Aymanihum

An example of Ma malakat Ayman may be a house maid, in fact you find most Saudis bring house maids from Philippine and similar countries, very poor women who cannot support themselves so they work as maids serving other capable humans to make a living. A psychologically very tough job considering that all humans should be equal. Those Saudi men end up fukin those maids freely while thinking that they are not committing any sin, they think that the following verses allow them doing so:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (5)
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (6)

5: And those who are concerning their private parts guarding.
6: Except for their spouses or those whom their oaths possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed.
[Al Quran ; 23:5-6]

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (29)
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (30)

29: And those who are, concerning their private parts, guarding.
30: Except upon their spouses or what their oaths possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.
[Al Quran ; 70:29-30]

The perverts cannot understand that the verses above ARE TALKING ABOUT LEGAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND MA MALAKAT AYMANIHUM. I.e.:

Those pious Muslims are those who guard their private parts except upon their spouses from the FREE MEN AND WOMEN and their spouses from MA MALAKAT AYMANUHUM

The verses above in no way implies not protecting the private parts from Ma Malakat Ayman to whom we are not married, otherwise 24:58 will be non sensible because it states that Ma Malakat Ayman should take permission before they enter upon their masters just in case they removed their cloths so their private parts became visible. The important point is this, both spouses from the free women and from Ma Malakat Ayman must always be differentiated from each other by mentioning them separately as seen in the above verses, because according to 4:25 both of them have different punishment if they commit fahisha after marriage.

Here you have it all, you confused kafirs enemy of Islam and you confused and horny Muslims whom I also consider an enemy of Islam; in fact, a far worse enemy than the kafirs, because the confused kafirs base their stupid arguments upon flawed understanding and practices by the confused and horny Muslims. See what do you expect when a confused Muslim goes on a kafir web site that is only designed to attack Islam and Muslim, and say:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery
-------------------------

Shame on you, you confused and horny Muslim, but I really hope that this slam wake you up and reconsider that what you spewed was nothing but crap and ignorance. Here is the slam, and it has to be another mother of all slams because I left nothing for the kafirs and their fellow confused Muslims to refute:

[BMZ]

Well done, Ahmed

Salaams & Ramadan Mubarak,

The insanity of the FFI goons' mind knows no bounds.

The FFI goons have zero knowledge in Qur'aan and these freaks talk through translations.

Give them the 'biblical English' word Household to the Clowns.

Salaams, mate
BMZ

[BMZ]

Well done, Ahmed

Salaams & Ramadan Mubarak,

The insanity of the FFI goons' mind knows no bounds.

The FFI goons have zero knowledge in Qur'aan and these freaks talk through translations.

Give them the 'biblical English' word Household to the Clowns.

Salaams, mate
BMZ

[AhmedBahgat]

[AhmedBahgat]