[melvin2002]

A female Islamic scholar openly declares that Raping non-Muslim women is an act of worship for Allah.

Kuwaiti Political Activist and Islamic Scholar Salwa Al-Mteiri

Mutairi: “In the Chechnyan war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations.”

I hope Chris will allow me to upload these videos. If I break any rules, please forgive me. I want to expose some things here. Thank you.

[Mr.NoCredit]

This backwards fucking religion sucks life from these brainwashed idiots. Religion is bullshit mind control in any country. Sad that so many believe in some invisible nothingness and the ghost they believe in is better than another country’s version of their own ghost. Silly, ignorant fools.

[kellyhound]

She's not an Islamic scolar and real Kuwaiti scolars have condemned her dumb social media videos. The Ann Coulter of Kuwait she is sometimes called. She's a (failed) political activist as her political aspirations were permanently ruined after this. Every time she ran for office, Kuwaiti voters completely rejected her and she received virtually no support.

Actually under Islamic law, the primary lawful source of new slaves was captives taken during a legitimate war against non-Muslim states but/and the Quran explicitly encourages the freeing of slaves as an act of piety, an expiation for various sins, or through a formal purchase of freedom contract known as mukataba plus hadiths strictly command masters to provide their slaves with the same food and clothing they eat and wear themselves, prohibiting cruel physical abuse. Muhammad stated that the expiation for severely beating or slapping a slave is to grant them immediate freedom.

So, she's just doing it for the clicks and dumb as a rock

https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2...%2F06%2F152054

[v1r]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

She's not an Islamic scolar and real Kuwaiti scolars have condemned her dumb social media videos. The Ann Coulter of Kuwait she is sometimes called. She's a (failed) political activist as her political aspirations were permanently ruined after this. Every time she ran for office, Kuwaiti voters completely rejected her and she received virtually no support.

Actually under Islamic law, the primary lawful source of new slaves was captives taken during a legitimate war against non-Muslim states but/and the Quran explicitly encourages the freeing of slaves as an act of piety, an expiation for various sins, or through a formal purchase of freedom contract known as mukataba plus hadiths strictly command masters to provide their slaves with the same food and clothing they eat and wear themselves, prohibiting cruel physical abuse. Muhammad stated that the expiation for severely beating or slapping a slave is to grant them immediate freedom.

So, she's just doing it for the clicks and dumb as a rock

https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2...%2F06%2F152054

In classical Islamic law, female captives taken in a lawful war could be held as concubines ("what your right hands possess"), and their consent was not required in the way modern law understands consent. Their being non-Muslim was generally part of the legal framework, since Muslims could not ordinarily enslave free Muslims. However, the rules varied across legal schools and historical periods.

[kellyhound]

Originally Posted by v1r ↗

However, the rules varied across legal schools and historical periods.

Especially in the mid-8th to Mid-10th Century that was. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Muslim-majority nations and Islamic scholars universally abolished slavery and concubinage through international treaties and legal reforms.

Islamic authorities view these institutions as historical practices that are entirely obsolete and inapplicable in the modern world.

In the ancient and medieval worlds, incl. the Islamic world, the Roman Empire and ancient Persia, sexual access was regulated by ownership and legal status, not by the modern concept of individual consent.

In the Transatlantic slave trade and the American South, the sexual abuse and rape of enslaved women by white enslavers and overseers was widespread, institutionalized, and completely protected by western law.

In the American slave states, the rape of an enslaved woman was not considered a crime under the law. Courts around 1619 to 1865 explicitly ruled that rape laws only applied to white women.

The white father had zero financial or legal responsibility for his biological child. This created a massive financial incentive to commit rape, because enslavers could increase their workforce and wealth by breeding their own slaves.

The Western slave market openly commodified this abuse through the Fancy Trade.

Young, light-skinned enslaved women aka fancy maids were sold at premium prices at public auctions specifically to become sexual concubines or to be placed in high-class brothels for wealthy white men.

U.S. President Thomas Jefferson kept an enslaved woman, Sally Hemings, as his concubine for decades, fathering multiple children with her who remained his legal property until his death.

While classical Islamic law regulated concubinage through property rights but granted automatic freedom to the mother and legitimacy to the child upon the master's death, Western slavery weaponized reproduction.

Western law ensured that the victims of sexual violence remained slaves forever and their children became profitable capital for the rapist.

Good thing times did change yet some still want to live by the early rules.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by v1r ↗

In classical Islamic law, female captives taken in a lawful war could be held as concubines ("what your right hands possess"), and their consent was not required in the way modern law understands consent. Their being non-Muslim was generally part of the legal framework, since Muslims could not ordinarily enslave free Muslims. However, the rules varied across legal schools and historical periods.

I’m pretty sure that’s what it says in the Talmud..

[spycosis]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

hadiths strictly command masters to provide their slaves with the same food and clothing they eat and wear themselves, prohibiting cruel physical abuse.

They may be fed and clothed well but the accompanying schedule of rape seems to tick most people's boxes for physical abuse.

Excused cruelty is still cruelty in my eyes. I don't give a fuck how rosy the Qur'an, hadith or any of the various bullshit fatwas try to colour it.

I do realize the woman talking is a complete bell end but unfortunately, as is often the case, the bell ends often have loud voices.

[spycosis]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

I’m pretty sure that’s what it says in the Talmud..

I'm pretty sure none of that comment you quoted was in the Talmud.