Reminder that ISIS were based

so what if some scholars say that? are they god? no. they only interpreted it that way because they have sick views of themselves. you are relying on one translation of that verse but there are more translations. if you know about islam you know that forcing someone into doing something is totally against islam itself
what i am saying is what the scholars say you can have sex with your slave girl but not rape her so it is consensual. The early generation of scholars who are the most authentic all held this view
 
Thats an incredible lie jfl you don't need to marry sex slaves, you can have sex with them whenever you like WTF man

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Sa`id said, "We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Nowhere here did they marry their captive sex slaves jfl, they just had sex, stop coping with todays liberal agenda
its not coping with liberal agenda dude, its using logic. islam is first and foremost based on logic. you have a weird view of islam if you think you are allowed to rape people..
 
Thats an incredible lie jfl you don't need to marry sex slaves, you can have sex with them whenever you like WTF man

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Sa`id said, "We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Nowhere here did they marry their captive sex slaves jfl, they just had sex, stop coping with todays liberal agenda
do you believe you can have unconsentual sex with your slaves which is rape? Because i know you cannot
 
what i am saying is what the scholars say you can have sex with your slave girl but not rape her so it is consensual. The early generation of scholars who are the most authentic all held this view
can you have sex outside of marriage in islam? no, you cant. you must marry that person, and you can marry every unmarried woman and your slaves if you have them but NOT anyone whos married. islamically speaking a christian couple is seen as a genuine marriage between the two and you cant marry the woman just because her husband is christian, those relationships are 100% valid from an islamic perspective.
 
its not coping with liberal agenda dude, its using logic. islam is first and foremost based on logic. you have a weird view of islam if you think you are allowed to rape people..
Thats because it's not rape, those females will have sex with them cause in a trad society females weren't thought to be egoist maniacs like today. The aboce linked hadith is Bukhari
 
can you have sex outside of marriage in islam? no, you cant. you must marry that person, and you can marry every unmarried woman and your slaves if you have them but NOT anyone whos married. islamically speaking a christian couple is seen as a genuine marriage between the two and you cant marry the woman just because her husband is christian, those relationships are 100% valid from an islamic perspective.
have youve ever heard of concubinage
 
  • +1
Reactions: TsarTsar444
Thats because it's not rape, those females will have sex with them cause in a trad society females weren't thought to be egoist maniacs like today. The aboce linked hadith is Bukhari
answer me
 
do u think its okay to have sex with your slave girl without consent from her like brutally rape her? do u think thats islamic?
 
do u think its okay to have sex with your slave girl without consent from her like brutally rape her? do u think thats islamic?
I don't think so, if she extremely doesn't want it then it's unislamic to force yourself on her, thats rape, but there is no proof ISIS brutally raped the Yazidi women, it's just reported that they were sex slaves and that they were "raped" but thats reported by western media and westerners consider touching a women to be rape
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Baldingman1998
I don't think so, if she extremely doesn't want it then it's unislamic to force yourself on her, thats rape, but there is no proof ISIS brutally raped the Yazidi women, it's just reported that they were sex slaves and that they were "raped" but thats reported by western media and westerners consider touching a women to be rape
I agree with you on that first part but why waste time on these politics? Your only going to be asked about your own deeds, not your opinion on ISIS
 
  • +1
Reactions: TsarTsar444
Thats because it's not rape, those females will have sex with them cause in a trad society females weren't thought to be egoist maniacs like today. The aboce linked hadith is Bukhari
have youve ever heard of concubinage
yes concubines = harems, but since youre not married you arent allowed to have sex with them, you need to be married for that. this cannot be argued if you have the basic knowledge about islam.

as for the hadith, using that as a way to "prove" you are allowed to have sex with them is weird, heck even the conclusion is that they do not touch these women lol.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: TsarTsar444
yes concubines = harems, but since youre not married you arent allowed to have sex with them, you need to be married for that. this cannot be argued if you have the basic knowledge about islam.

as for the hadith, using that as a way to "prove" you are allowed to have sex with them is weird, heck even the conclusion is that they do not touch these women lol.
lets end this discussion
 
  • +1
Reactions: TsarTsar444
yes concubines = harems, but since youre not married you arent allowed to have sex with them, you need to be married for that. this cannot be argued if you have the basic knowledge about islam.

as for the hadith, using that as a way to "prove" you are allowed to have sex with them is weird, heck even the conclusion is that they do not touch these women lol.
No it's not, the prophet was referring to coitus interruptus which is a birth control, as we call it pulling out, he said that they shouldnt pull out cause if Allah has destined a child to come to this world it will come. And yes this is proof cause this is a Sahih hadith aproved by every scholar.

Also see my post above where i explained about the Yazidi case
 
No it's not, the prophet was referring to coitus interruptus which is a birth control, as we call it pulling out, he said that they should pull out cause if Allah has destined a child to come to this world it will come. And yes this is proof cause this is a Sahih hadith aproved by every scholar.

Also see my post above where i explained about the Yazidi case
so if the topic of conversation is coitus interruptus then why try to justify rape with it? lol it seems that hadith is just misplaced then.

ill read your post above for the yazidi case, then ill share my thoughts
 
I don't think so, if she extremely doesn't want it then it's unislamic to force yourself on her, thats rape, but there is no proof ISIS brutally raped the Yazidi women, it's just reported that they were sex slaves and that they were "raped" but thats reported by western media and westerners consider touching a women to be rape
so you think the yazidi women were lying about it? i mean its not like one yazidi woman said it, many of them said so. otherwise we could even say that rohingya women werent raped but they actually were, the fact their babies had typical mongoloid eyes instead of eyes like us it was proof. of course we cant compare the yazidi case with the rohingya case imho, rohingya was widespread compared to a smaller group like "isis"
 
Obama;s mercenaries
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: EverythingMattersCel, lutte and sytyl
sure, i dont mind. @TsarTsar444 thoughts?
Okay, i just want to tell my main point from all of this. Basically the French revolutionaries and Bolsheviks are considered the good guys and people who brought good to society even though they did much worse crimes then ISIS did, westerners consider that the bad they did is offseted by the good, while we muslims consider french revolutionaries and bolsheviks to be evil and demonic forces.

Yet when it comes to ISIS which is also a revolution againts what they and Islam believes in, you see westerners consider them demonic forces which is understandable cause they are kafirs, but whats extremely dumb is that muslims also think that. Even if isis did some bad things in the end if they captured Syria and Iraq the good they would bring there would far outweigh the bad just like in the westerners perspective on their revolutions.

Basically this is a case of "History is written by the victor"
 
Okay, i just want to tell my main point from all of this. Basically the French revolutionaries and Bolsheviks are considered the good guys and people who brought good to society even though they did much worse crimes then ISIS did, westerners consider that the bad they did is offseted by the good, while we muslims consider french revolutionaries and bolsheviks to be evil and demonic forces.

Yet when it comes to ISIS which is also a revolution againts what they and Islam believes in, you see westerners consider them demonic forces which is understandable cause they are kafirs, but whats extremely dumb is that muslims also think that. Even if isis did some bad things in the end if they captured Syria and Iraq the good they would bring there would far outweigh the bad just like in the westerners perspective on their revolutions.

Basically this is a case of "History is written by the victor"
lol the english are also considered the good guys but they committed many atrocities in south asia (pakistan, india, bangladesh) , theyre not the good guys and i know that, i know better than to trust the history books. regarding "isis" didnt they execute people who couldnt recite certain things when asked?? also whatever they did, it obviously didnt bring em anywhere because syria is a mess, actually id even say that they caused a lot of bad shit because lots of syrian refugees - women mostly - were sexually exploited in other countries in refugee camps etc. lots of honor was destroyed and all this because they wanted to escape the shithole they were.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: TsarTsar444
lol the english are also considered the good guys but they committed many atrocities in south asia (pakistan, india, bangladesh) , theyre not the good guys and i know that, i know better than to trust the history books. regarding "isis" didnt they execute people who couldnt recite certain things when asked?? also whatever they did, it obviously didnt bring em anywhere because syria is a mess, actually id even say that they caused a lot of bad shit because lots of syrian refugees - women mostly - were sexually exploited in other countries in refugee camps etc. lots of honor was destroyed and all this because they wanted to escape the shithole they were.
Syria became a mess long before them since the Ottomans lost that place. After their independence they got into control by demonic commies who spread degeneracy and led many people to hell. Also the migrant crisis already started 2 years before ISIS got into the field.

"Whatever they did it didn't bring them anywhere cause Syria is a mess" JFL well ofcourse it won't when jewish controlled arab countries attacked them, what kind of logic is this? If arab countries supported the muslim brothers they would have taken Iraq and Syria and installed sharia law, and led many people on the correct path. Don't understand your point

The recitation killings are not true jfl, maybe some lunatics did it, but it definitely wasn't supported by the government
 
Syria became a mess long before them since the Ottomans lost that place. After their independence they got into control by demonic commies who spread degeneracy and led many people to hell. Also the migrant crisis already started 2 years before ISIS got into the field.

"Whatever they did it didn't bring them anywhere cause Syria is a mess" JFL well ofcourse it won't when jewish controlled arab countries attacked them, what kind of logic is this? If arab countries supported the muslim brothers they would have taken Iraq and Syria and installed sharia law, and led many people on the correct path. Don't understand your point

The recitation killings are not true jfl, maybe some lunatics did it, but it definitely wasn't supported by the government
okay i just wanna know when you will get arrested for these posts ngl tbh ded srs
 
  • JFL
Reactions: TsarTsar444
okay i just wanna know when you will get arrested for these posts ngl tbh ded srs
Why arrested tho? I don't support the evil stuff they did, just saying they are no different then any other revolution in history, the main point of this thread for any secret agents reading this
 
nope its not, jfl thats what horny imams will tell you. its not allowed because rape is never permitted islamically. you think sex slaves = consensual? seems like you dont know about islam if you think we can force people, might as well revert the entire world by sword
>seems like you dont know about islam if you think we can force people, might as well revert the entire world by sword


You literally can
 
  • +1
Reactions: TsarTsar444
wtf? r u dumb?
 
Bump
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Baldingman1998
  • JFL
Reactions: Tallooksmaxxer, EverythingMattersCel and Baldingman1998
One of the biggest propagandas of the 21th century is that they were bad, even based muslims bought it up. Muh terrorists, every single desperate political groups started out with terrorism cause of necessity, you heard about the Bolsheviks? They killed thousands of people but today they are supported by every feminist with blue hair and western cuck.
ISIS was mainly composed of members from families murdered by burgers in their jewish wars, you seriously think if they took over Syria and Iraq they would continue with terrorism? They would just become a based theocracy similar to todays Saudi Arabia but 10x more based.
Muh they didn't attack Isreal, yes bro just attack the most powerful military in the middle east with nukes, smart move man
/thread
 
  • Love it
Reactions: Aladin
Destroyed too many historical artifacts of superior mogging civilizations
 
One of the biggest propagandas of the 21th century is that they were bad, even based muslims bought it up. Muh terrorists, every single desperate political groups started out with terrorism cause of necessity, you heard about the Bolsheviks? They killed thousands of people but today they are supported by every feminist with blue hair and western cuck.
ISIS was mainly composed of members from families murdered by burgers in their jewish wars, you seriously think if they took over Syria and Iraq they would continue with terrorism? They would just become a based theocracy similar to todays Saudi Arabia but 10x more based.
Muh they didn't attack Isreal, yes bro just attack the most powerful military in the middle east with nukes, smart move man
news at INSHALLAH ITS AMERICA
 

Similar threads

Subhra26
Replies
78
Views
5K
curryascenderr
C
heightmaxxing
Replies
56
Views
5K
lurking truecel
L

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top