In reply to ADVO's topic and Jugjugwacwac

[TheMailMan]

Actually they were. The siege of the Banu Qurayza, as well as the numerous battles against the Hawazin and the Pagan Meccans testify this fact. The women and children of the enemy combatants often accompanied their menfolk--more often than not--and this was standard custom. When the enemy lost the battle, the remaining soldiers as well as any women and children present were enslaved. This is valid.

What's NOT valid is the capturing of people who have nothing to do with you.

Here is a video describing this:

[zumaale]

Actually they were. The siege of the Banu Qurayza, as well as the numerous battles against the Hawazin and the Pagan Meccans testify this fact. The women and children of the enemy combatants often accompanied their menfolk--more often than not--and this was standard custom. When the enemy lost the battle, the remaining soldiers as well as any women and children present were enslaved. This is valid.

What's NOT valid is the capturing of people who have nothing to do with you.

Here is a video describing this:

Mailman, the Bani Qurayzah surrendered after being subjected to a siege, there was no pitched battle with women in tow. They were under attack and fighting for their lives and defeat resulted in their innocent womenfolk and children being enslaved.

There are other countless exames of similar circumstances whereby a defeated city or state would be subjected to slavery. The Byzantines, Sassanids etc...

History does not lie.

[ciddhartha]

Bro, lets keep it real, women and children would not have been captured on the battle field. They would have been enslaved after their menfolk had been routed. Don't 'sanitise' events bro for those that cannot 'stomach' the truth.

He's delusional but he is a troll after all. Slaves only exist as prisoners of war, he says. So, according to him the children of slaves are freeborn. Slave markets did not exist governed by Shariah.

[Leftist]

What's NOT valid is the capturing of people who have nothing to do with you.

Which has been happening for only 14 f-king centuries. Only.

"The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean"[73]

But slavery is still halal, amirite doqon?

Caqli-xoolo talo malahan.

[Leftist]

People not at war with the Muslims could never be enslaved or harmed.

Except that's exactly what's been happening over the past 14 centuries.

Slavery still halal, shaykh?

Bro, lets keep it real, women and children would not have been captured on the battle field. They would have been enslaved after their menfolk had been routed. Don't 'sanitise' events bro for those that cannot 'stomach' the truth.

I sincerely doubt Zumaale is a muslim. His writing style and choice of words are highly reminiscent of an athiest troll who was banned early in 2014(name escapes me), and then came back in the garb of a hyper-salafi.

Very smart & very shrewd. He decided that if he was gonna be banned for speaking his mind honestly(atheism), he was gonna beat them at their own game by gathering the most outrageous claims, gathering up a few fabricated hadiths and antiquated words of dead men from a different century and lay it down as a litmus test: "This is Islam. If you disagree with one aspect of it, then you are a murtad. Take it as whole or reject it as a whole. No cherry-picking."

Smart dude. He's achieving his objective, as all of you seem to have fallen for the bait.

[Cherine]

I sincerely doubt Zumaale is a muslim. His writing style and choice of words are highly reminiscent of an athiest troll who was banned early in 2014(name escapes me), and then came back in the garb of a hyper-salafi.

Very smart & very shrewd. He decided that if he was gonna be banned for speaking his mind honestly(atheism), he was gonna beat them at their own game by gathering the most outrageous claims, gathering up a few fabricated hadiths and antiquated words of dead men from a different century and lay it down as a litmus test: "This is Islam. If you disagree with one aspect of it, then you are a murtad. Take it as whole or reject it as a whole. No cherry-picking."

Smart dude. He's achieving his objective, as all of you seem to have fallen for the bait.

THANK YOU!
It was him i was alluding to in my previous post. Other members also arrived at that same conclusion. I feel sorry for the genuine Muslims who are entertaing this fraudster.

[zumaale]

I sincerely doubt Zumaale is a muslim. His writing style and choice of words are highly reminiscent of an athiest troll who was banned early in 2014(name escapes me), and then came back in the garb of a hyper-salafi.

Very smart & very shrewd. He decided that if he was gonna be banned for speaking his mind honestly(atheism), he was gonna beat them at their own game by gathering the most outrageous claims, gathering up a few fabricated hadiths and antiquated words of dead men from a different century and lay it down as a litmus test: "This is Islam. If you disagree with one aspect of it, then you are a murtad. Take it as whole or reject it as a whole. No cherry-picking."

Smart dude. He's achieving his objective, as all of you seem to have fallen for the bait.

I thought you were smarter than that, when have I ever presented Islamic evidence that has no basis in the Quran or Sunnah. I dare you to bring up an 'outrageous claim' or a fabricated hadith in any of my posts about Islam. If you are going to do Takfir on me because I say it like it is how does that make you any different than the khawarij?

Lastly, I never identified myself as a Salafi and never claimed to be one. Just because I seek to practise Islam in its purest forms without 'modern' alterations does not make me a Salafi and nor does it give you the authority to label me as a deviant.

[zumaale]

I sincerely doubt Zumaale is a muslim. His writing style and choice of words are highly reminiscent of an athiest troll who was banned early in 2014(name escapes me), and then came back in the garb of a hyper-salafi.

Very smart & very shrewd. He decided that if he was gonna be banned for speaking his mind honestly(atheism), he was gonna beat them at their own game by gathering the most outrageous claims, gathering up a few fabricated hadiths and antiquated words of dead men from a different century and lay it down as a litmus test: "This is Islam. If you disagree with one aspect of it, then you are a murtad. Take it as whole or reject it as a whole. No cherry-picking."

Smart dude. He's achieving his objective, as all of you seem to have fallen for the bait.

THANK YOU!
It was him i was alluding to in my previous post. Other members also arrived at that same conclusion. I feel sorry for the genuine Muslims who are entertaing this fraudster.

La Xowla Wala Quwata Ila Billah, keyfa bimkinak an taqul ana kafir wa ma cindak dalil. Ma khadabt calal Islam wala waaxid mara, arju minka la takdhib cani. Allah yarak.

If you do not have the intellectual ability to disprove any statements I have made about Islam or highlight how they have no Islamic foundation, then please leave me be and refrain from spreading malicious lies that I am not Muslim and stop doing Takfir on me. Otherwise may Allah curse you for your transgressions against me.

[TheMailMan]

Actually they were. The siege of the Banu Qurayza, as well as the numerous battles against the Hawazin and the Pagan Meccans testify this fact. The women and children of the enemy combatants often accompanied their menfolk--more often than not--and this was standard custom. When the enemy lost the battle, the remaining soldiers as well as any women and children present were enslaved. This is valid.

What's NOT valid is the capturing of people who have nothing to do with you.

Here is a video describing this:

Mailman, the Bani Qurayzah surrendered after being subjected to a siege, there was no pitched battle with women in tow. They were under attack and fighting for their lives and defeat resulted in their innocent womenfolk and children being enslaved.

There are other countless exames of similar circumstances whereby a defeated city or state would be subjected to slavery. The Byzantines, Sassanids etc...

History does not lie.

Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie? The Banu Qurayzah fought in the Battle of the Trench against the Muslims and worked with the Pagan Meccans to annihilate the nascent Muslim State in Medina during the year 627. The Muslims were justified in besieging them, and initially wanted to execute their leaders only, but this judgement passed onto ALL of the warriors of that tribe as a result of the long siege. The Jewish women and children were enslaved after the siege was completed, but my point still stands.

Here is the Hadith that forbids it:

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said that Allah the Almighty said:
There are three (1) whose adversary I shall be on the Day of Resurrection: a man who has given his word by Me and has broken it; a man who has sold a free man (2) and has consumed the price; and a man who has hired a workman, has exacted his due in full from him and has not given him his wage.

(1) i.e. types of men.

(2) i.e. a man who has made a slave of another and has sold him.

It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Ibn Majah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal).

And here is a video talking of it in more detail:

[zumaale]

Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie? The Banu Qurayzah fought in the Battle of the Trench against the Muslims and worked with the Pagan Meccans to annihilate the nascent Muslim State in Medina during the year 627. The Muslims were justified in besieging them, and initially wanted to execute their leaders only, but this judgement passed onto ALL of the warriors of that tribe as a result of the long siege. The Jewish women and children were enslaved after the siege was completed, but my point still stands.

Here is the Hadith that forbids it:

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said that Allah the Almighty said:
There are three (1) whose adversary I shall be on the Day of Resurrection: a man who has given his word by Me and has broken it; a man who has sold a free man (2) and has consumed the price; and a man who has hired a workman, has exacted his due in full from him and has not given him his wage.

(1) i.e. types of men.

(2) i.e. a man who has made a slave of another and has sold him.

It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Ibn Majah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal).

And here is a video talking of it in more detail:

Mailman, read carefully what I said. I never implied that they were not at war with Muslims. I was pointing out the error of your argument that women and children were taken as slaves only in a pitched battle. When a town or city is besieged such as the Bani Qurayzah and they do not surrender, they can be subjected to slavery as this particular example evinces.

I have not for once argued that people not at war with Muslims can be enslaved. My argument has been that slaves were taken during the time of Islam from conquered people and they are recognised as Xalal bounties of war.

Please, don't jump the gun son.