Omong kosong lu baca yang kagak masuk akal jihadwatch.org sampah itu yang lu sumpelin keotak lu,buka otaklu lebar2 makanya debat kok cuma pantat melulu yang elu bawa2
sesuai dengan omongan Johnny indo.....kalo elu mau promosi agama elu (kresten protestan) ya tunjukkanlah bahwa umat kresten protestan itu cerdas dan santun. terus2an nyerang islam, atau bilang katolik itu brengsek, ngga bakalan bikin orang simpati sama agama yg lagi elu jual, yg terjadi malah jadi sebaliknya. elu itu salesman paling goblok yg pernah gua tau. ________________________________ From: item abu <item...@yahoo.com> To: "proletar@yahoogroups.com" <proletar@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:52 AM Subject: [proletar] Raymond Ibrahim: Are slave-girls in Islam equivalent to animals? Islam ngehalalin orang Islam (cowoknya, bukan ceweknya) ngembat apa yg jadi milik tangan kanannya. Kata ganti yg dipakai di "milik tangan kanan" adalah kata ganti unt benda atau binatang, bukan kata ganti unt orang. Apa artinya dgn dipakainya kata ganti unt benda atau binatang ini? Ada 2 kemungkinan, pertama budak itu dianggap sbg binatang, bukan sbg manusia. Ini masuk akal, krn kalo bini aja bisa digarap sesuka hati dan digebukin kalo dicurigai ga setia, apalagi budak. Yg kedua, auloh emang ngehalalin ngembat binatang milik tangan kanan orang Islam. Ini jg masuk akal, krn ahli2 Islam suka ngomong bhw kontol itu hrs dicuci kalo habis ngembat binatang yg berarti binatang itu emang boleh diembat. Tinggal pilih aja mau yg mana, kan di Islam itu banyak penafsiran Quran yg katanya detil dan jelas, orang Islam tinggal ngikutin aja penafsirannya masing2, ga usah takut unt dibantai oleh orang Islam yg ngikutin penafsiran yg lain selama ybs lbh kuat secara militer dibandingkan dgn yg lain. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/12/raymond-ibrahim-are-slave-girls-in-islam-equivalent-to-animals.html Raymond Ibrahim: Are slave-girls in Islam equivalent to animals? Many are now aware that the Koran—that is, Allah’s word—permits, not just polygamy, but forced concubinage (sex with captive women), according to Koran 4:3: “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then only one, or what your right hands possess [captive women taken in war].” There is, however, an interesting, and very telling, linguistic aspect to this verse that is often overlooked—or intentionally obscured. The Arabic states: “Ankahu [marry]…ma [what] malakat [possess] aymankum [your right hands].” Oddly enough, the Arabic relative pronoun used to indicate these captive women is "ma": ma malakat aymankum, literally, “what your right hands possess” (see Shakir’s acclaimed English translation which most literally translates this). In Arabic, when one refers to a rational being (i.e., a human), the word used is min, which means “who(ever)”; ma, on the other hand, refers only to things or animals—trees, rocks, dogs and cats—very much similar to the English “it.” Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: “who(ever) your rights hands possess.” For long I assumed this was but a stylistic matter. However, the highly revered Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi (d.1273) also makes this observation in vol. 5, p.12 of his authoritative 20-volume Tafsir Al Koran (Exegesis of the Koran). He points out that members of the human race should be referred to with min (who), whereas only “inanimate objects” or “brute beasts” should be referred to with ma (what). Does this suggest that the Koran’s Arabic—touted as the most perfect Arabic—is flawed? Of course, no Muslim would allow for that. Nor need they, as this phenomenon (portraying concubines as non-human) accords well with a number of hadiths that place females and animals in the same category. Musnad Ibn Hanbal (vol. 2, p. 2992), for example, records Muhammad saying “Women, dogs, and donkeys annul a man’s prayer.” Indeed, in Qurtubi’s same Tafsir (vol.15, p.172), after examining such hadiths, he writes, "A Woman may be likened to a sheep—even a cow or a camel—for all are ridden.” Posted by Raymond on December 14, 2008 5:25 PM | 37 Comments [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Post message: prole...@egroups.com Subscribe : proletar-subscr...@egroups.com Unsubscribe : proletar-unsubscr...@egroups.com List owner : proletar-ow...@egroups.com Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: proletar-dig...@yahoogroups.com proletar-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: proletar-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
