Rape India Rape | PKKH.tv

[lightoftruth]

why not make stiky rape section ?

defence forum .

 

[KRAIT]

Another gem from PKKH.

Did they ever published any article on violence against women in Pakistan ?

 

[Spring Onion]

GUWAHATI: A prominent Congress leader of lower Assam, who is the chief coordinator of the party in Bodoland Territorial Council area has been accused by a woman of attempt to rape in her house at Salbari in Chirang district on Wednesday night.

The accused politician Bikrmasingh Brahma was the Congress candidate from Sapaguri assembly constituency in Baksa district in the 2011 assembly election which he lost.The villagers of Salbari beat up the politician before handing him over to police. Though he has not yet been arrested, but he is in police custody.

Assam Police IGP in charge of BTC GP Singh told TOI, "Prima facie there is a case of sexual assault by Brahma. As soon as the FIR is lodged and the case is registered he will be arrested. He is now with the police."

The IGP said that Brahma might have been sexually abusing the woman for past several months in lieu of making her a beneficiary of government schemes. "After he forcibly entered her house last night, she raised an alarm and the villagers caught him and handed him over to police after beating him up," the IGP said.
Congress leader in Assam accused of rape, beaten by villagers publicly - The Times of India

 

[Cherokee]

Before you call it fake . Read about Dana Bakhdounis
@ajtr

visit this as well . https://www.facebook.com/intifadat.almar2a?ref=ts&fref=ts

Amal from Saudi Arabia

I strongly support the uprising of women in the Arab world because I am tired of asking my custodian permission for every single action
I need his permission to open a bank account
I need his permission to travel
I need his permission even for surgery
I need his permission to work
I need his permission to purchase of real estate
I need his permission for any any tiny transaction
I need his permission to bring driver “I’m NOT allowed to drive of course”

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Extending my previous post on how Women in India get a double whammy.....

Slave-girls as sexual objects in the Quran

Would you join a religion that permitted men to have sex with their slave-girls throughout their enslavement—if this religion codified this act in its holy book?

Many persons in the West (and elsewhere) who convert to Islam are women. I just got an email from a Muslim woman who said she converted to Islam two years ago. Would women do this if they knew about ALL of this religion? Reasonable women should stop and think a second time before taking this serious step (but a reversible one, albeit punishable by death in many Islamic countries).

Islam goes more deeply than just the benign Five Pillars. It has many unpleasant truths lurking in its sacred texts. The goal of this article is to bring out yet another of these truths, so people can make fully informed decisions from all of the facts.

Would the true God inspire the following verses six hundred years after Jesus showed us a better way?

Sex with slave-girls in times of peace

Sura (Chapter) 23 was revealed during Muhammad’s life in Mecca before his Hijrah or Emigration from his home city to Medina in AD 622. During the early years of his ministry, he never waged war on anyone, so these were times of peace, although he suffered from a measure of persecution. For more information on the historical and the literary topical contexts of Sura 23, click here.

The Quran in Sura 23:5-6 says:

5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

The key words are "those who are legally in their possession." Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave-girls is lawful.

Maududi writes:

Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)

The main point in this section, which Maududi overlooks or refuses to criticize, is that Muhammad himself endorses not only the entire institution of slavery, but also sex between male owners and their female slaves within this institution. But how can he and devout Muslims criticize their prophet without seriously damaging Islam? But Muslims must do this, if they think clearly and critically, and for the good of humanity.

It should be noted that Sura 70:29-30, also revealed in Mecca, uses nearly the identical words as Sura 23:5-6. Men must guard their private parts from everyone but their wives and slave-girls, meaning that men may have sex with both "categories" (Maududi’s word).

If readers would like to see these verses in multiple translations, they should go to this website. This one has three translations, and this one is funded by the Saudi royal family.

Sex with slave-girls in times of war

Now Muhammad has emigrated from Mecca to Medina. By the time Sura 4 is revealed, where our next Quranic verse is found, he has fought many wars and skirmishes. For example, he fights the Meccans in the Battle of Badr in AD 624 and again the Meccans at the Battle of Uhud in AD 625. He also exiles the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa in AD 624 and Nadir in AD 625. He carries forward this policy of sex between male owners and their female slaves to his new city of Medina, with the added twist of enslaving women prisoners of war and permitting his soldiers to have sex with them. For more information on the historical and literary topical contexts of this next sura, please click here.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319). (See also Suras 4:3 and 33:50)

Thus, women captives are sometimes forced to marry their Muslim masters, regardless of the marital status of the women. That is, the masters are allowed to have sex with the enslaved human property.

Maududi says in his comment on the verse that it is lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44).

But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge? The answer is obvious for those who understand simple justice. No sex should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords under any circumstance.

This sexual injustice is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so.

Predictably, the hadith perpetuate this Quran-inspired immorality.

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s actions and words outside of the Quran. The most reliable collector and editor is Bukhari (d. 870).

The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus).

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

Thus, Muhammad casually believes that slave women who are part of the one-fifth of the spoils of war can be treated like sexual property. Ali is a Muslim hero. He was the husband of Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter by his first wife Khadija. So why would the model prophet for the world scold his son-in-law for having sex with a slave-girl? After all, slaves are fair sexual game. The Quran says so.

Moreover, holy jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason one expects: simple justice.

While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists "received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus." They asked the holy prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say.

He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever, declaring it haram (forbidden). Rather, he gets lost in theology and the quirky doctrine of fate:

It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; for parallel hadiths go here and here)

That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born. Muhammad does not prohibit this extremely immoral practice just when the time was right to forbid it.

It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

Islam codifies and legalizes rape.

It is disappointing that the Quran does not abolish this sexual crime in the clearest terms: Thou shalt not have sex with slave-girls under any circumstance!

Conclusion

It may be argued that American slave-owners committed sexual crimes against their slaves before the Civil War (1861-1865), so who are Christians or Americans (the two are not identical) to complain about Islam?

In reply, however, the two situations are different. First, it is wrong to compare the US with the Muslim community founded by Muhammad, who claimed divine inspiration. Instead, it is best to compare the founder of a religion (Jesus) with another founder (Muhammad). Second, in no place in the New Testament does God give permission to men—Christian or secular—to have sex with slave-girls. This would violate the spirit of Jesus’ ministry and the entire writings of the New Testament authors, who understood Jesus as fulfilling the Old Testament. If Americans in a bygone era did this, then they were not following God’s law. The Quran, however, codifies and legalizes this sexual crime, and allegedly this book came down from Allah through Gabriel to Muhammad. Any clear-thinking individual can see that having sex with women in their most desperate condition (slavery) is wrong.

But the real issue is much larger than questions about American history.

The following question must be asked and answered: Is Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam the best prophet, book, and religion to lead humanity into the new millennium?

For those of us on the outside of Islam who examine the evidence with as much objectivity as we can and who have not been blinded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious: no, they are not the best to lead all of humanity into the new millennium.

Therefore, all clear-thinking Muslims who live under hyper-religious oppressors must throw them off and ignite secular revolutions, such as the one that happened in Turkey after World War I. Maybe this will happen in Iran, and maybe Iraq will steer clear of sharia (Islamic law), as Iraqis take their first baby steps towards democracy. They must get away from the Quran and Muhammad’s example.

Until these revolutions happen and until religious leaders renounce many verses in the Quran and the hadith, we on the outside of this religion are allowed to distrust Muhammad’s religion.

And women who are tempted to convert to this religion must stop and think a second time

So very right.. I posted a lot of such posts yesterday when this ajtr dude was going all over the place bashing Hinduism, but they were promptly deleted and my thread about Horror of being a woman in Pakistan was closed promptly. And here when it comes to India, even the administrators encourage trolling. Ha Ha

Anyway, extending your logic, here are some other references of how Islam too promotes prosecution of Women

 

[karan.1970]

The psyche of my post is very much on topic but then you wouldn't understand since you still pee in a cup.

Yup.. The same cup someone else drinks from

It's ironic that when members turn pink how they still linger about for days desperate to get back on line but hey tall talk and cheap banter doesn't cost a dime...as for the old saying...here's one that fits the bill..."Sou sunhar ki aur eik lohar ki".

I use an ip masking device at home to connect to defence.pk. That device is always logged into defence.pk site.. whether I am or not..

 

[Rusty]

to the Indian members, please stop deflecting the problems in your own country by pointing fingers at others.
We all know how much the Media "cares" about the women in Arab countries, now it's time for them to "care" about women in India too, which statistics say face a 1000x more dire situation.

So please take care of your own home first before pointing fingers.

 

[Azazel]

to the Indian members, please stop deflecting the problems in your own country by pointing fingers at others.
We all know how much the Media "cares" about the women in Arab countries, now it's time for them to "care" about women in India too, which statistics say face a 1000x more dire situation.

So please take care of your own home first before pointing fingers.

to the Pakistani members, please stop deflecting the problems in your own country by pointing fingers at others.
We all know how much the Media "cares" about the women in Arab countries, now it's time for them to "care" about women in Pakistan too, which statistics say face a 1000x more dire situation.

So please take care of your own home first before pointing fingers.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Rape in Islam - WikiIslam

slam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married...Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.

Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife
Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 10382, November 24, 2005

Verse 4:24
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Qur'an 4:24
What we see in the beginning of this verse as “forbidden” refers to sexual intercourse. The Qur'an dictates, women already married are forbidden for Muslims except those whom their right hands possess (sex slaves). It is the ordinance of Allah.

It is obvious from this verse, a Muslim can have sexual relations with his slave-woman. But it is important to know the context of this verse, as it sheds light onto the nature of allowance. If we go through a Sahih Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Abu Dawud 2:2150

Here in the above hadith from Abu Dawud, we understand why the Qur'anic verse 4:24 was allegedly revealed to Muhammad. It was to encourage his fighters to have sexual contacts with female captives even while their husbands were alive as prisoners of war. The hadith sheds some more light on this fact, when we read:
"Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers."
The Abu Dawud hadith is confirmed by the two Sahih collections, namely Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. There is a chapter devoted to this in the Sahih Muslim collection. The title of the chapter speaks in volumes as we read:

Sahih Muslim. Chapter 29: Title: It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is purified of menses or delivery. In case she has a husband, her marriage is abrogated after she becomes captive.

This practice of raping war captives was implemented by Islam’s very own prophet Muhammad, in his life. On two occasions, he married (for the sake of marriage only) war captives and raped them. Those victims were namely Safiyya and Juwairiyya.

Safiyah the daughter of Huayy was the wife of a Jewish Rabbi named Kinana. When Muhammad conquered the Jewish village of Khaibar, he tortured and killed the Jewish Rabbi and grabbed his wife. Sahih Hadith in Bukhari testifies to this fact:


[NOTE: This somewhat explains the propensity exhibited by Pakistani army in East Pakistan during 1971]


Claims about verse 24:33

Muslims will frequently quote the following when confronted with the passages provided in this article and others like it:

Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),

The first part of the verse is telling unmarried people to keep themselves chaste. Now, the important thing to remember is that the Islamic definition of chaste is different than the commonly agreed upon definitions of the word. According to Qur'an 23:6, Qur'an 33:50, Qur'an 33:52, and Qur'an 70:30 a Muslim man is considered "chaste" so long as he only has sex with his wives (of whom he may have up to four) and his right-hand possessions (female captives/slaves). An unmarried Muslim man who has sex with his slave girl is still considered to be "chaste" by Islamic standards.[1]

 

[Cherokee]

to the Indian members, please stop deflecting the problems in your own country by pointing fingers at others.
We all know how much the Media "cares" about the women in Arab countries, now it's time for them to "care" about women in India too, which statistics say face a 1000x more dire situation.

So please take care of your own home first before pointing fingers.

I completely agree with you . My problem starts when people start blaming similar rapes statistics in Pakistan on "Indianized culture" and hinduism oppreses women and ask them to be raped kind of verbal Diarrhea

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

to the Indian members, please stop deflecting the problems in your own country by pointing fingers at others.
We all know how much the Media "cares" about the women in Arab countries, now it's time for them to "care" about women in India too, which statistics say face a 1000x more dire situation.

So please take care of your own home first before pointing fingers.

As Karan.1970 pointed out, the rape statistics in Pakistan are twice as bad as those in India (4.7 rapes per 100,000 in Pakistan vs 1.8 in India). The difference being in India they are run up by the media and in Pakistan they are swept under the carpet

 

[Cherokee]

Rape in Islam - WikiIslam


[/B]

Don't Become a @ajtr .

 

[ajtr]

While India id grappling rape epidemic and nirbhaya's case has generated so much outrage that now we have to adress main reason for such incidents ie misogyny


Is Hinduism Misogynistic?
Is Hinduism misogynistic? While it is true that all the religions exhibit some amount of misogynistic tendencies, from the refusal of Vatican to ordain women priests and bishops to the overly oppressive stance taken by the Muslim mullahs when it comes to the treatment of women, I find the position taken by Hinduism on women particularly pernicious, as it goes to the very core of the religion, viz., the emancipation of the soul.

The issue at hand is this. Does Hinduism allow women to practice Hinduism in its purest? While Hinduism, as practiced by the common man had always been a barter system of quid pro quo, the philosophy and the idea behind Hinduism is anything but materialistic. Called the Vedanta it is concerned with the metaphysical aspects of our existence, our soul, the effect of our actions and thoughts on the soul and the issue of reincarnation and finally emancipation of our soul.

Vedanta in essence states, though there are a few variants of it, we are nothing but a forgotten aspect of God, the Brahman, who exists in all the life forms in this universe. The reason we have forgotten this is because in our ignorance, caused by Maya, we falsely associate ourselves with our physical bodies, instead of the eternal soul that is present in all of us. The moment we realize that our soul is eternal then we free ourselves from the cycle of birth and death, and reach a pure state of bliss, nirvana.

The one and only way for us to realize this, according to Vedanta, is by a focused study of the Vedas and by meditating on Brahman. Everything else we undertake, selfless action, conducting ourselves according to a strict moral code and acts of philanthropy are all just preconditions for purifying our mind to take on the final act of understanding Brahman through study and mediation. Without this final step, however meritorious our life might have been, we are condemned to be born again and again until we exhaust all our Karma.

Here is the catch though. Vedas states only certain people to study the Vedas and Women and Sudras (the lowest of the four castes in India) are persona non grata! While the authors of the Veda have the decency to explicitly prohibit the Sudras from learning the Vedas, they don’t even feel the necessity to do so when it comes to women. It is so obvious that women are not entitled to study it they don’t even feel compelled to deny it explicitly. They do it simply by stating that only after the performance of Upanayana, a religious ceremony exclusively for boys, can one start the study of Vedas, thereby denying entire female sex the opportunity to study the Vedas. Brahma Sutra 1.3.36 states only the twice-born who has gone through the purification ceremony of Upanayana is allowed to study the Vedas – thus effectively prohibiting Sudras and Women from any such attempts.

Griha Sastra clearly states in Sankhayana II-1 who are entitled for Upanayana.

In the eighth year after the conception, let him initiate a Brahmana, with an antelope-skin,
Or in the tenth year after the conception a Kshatriya with the skin of a spotted deer,
In the twelfth year after the conception a Vaisya with a cow-hide,
Until the sixteenth year the time has not passed for a Brahmana,
Until the twenty-second for a Kshatriya,
Until the twenty-fourth for a Vaisya
After that (time has passed), they become patitasavitrika (men who have lost their right of learning the Savitri).
Let them not initiate such men, nor teach them, nor perform sacrifices for them, nor have intercourse with them.

In addition, Manusmriti states unequivocally that ‘God’ for a woman is her husband and the only thing she can hope for is the privilege of being with her husband in her next life.

Chapter V.154 though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife.

Chapter V.165 She who, controlling her thoughts, words, and deeds, never slights her lord, resides (after death) with her husband (in heaven), and is called a virtuous (wife).

Chapter V.166 In reward of such conduct, a female who controls her thoughts, speech, and actions, gains in this (life) highest renown, and in the next (world) a place near her husband.

Needless to say, it is silent on the question of a husband who has the misfortune of going to hell or being born a Sudra in his next birth.

There are those who now want to denounce Manusmriti on the grounds that it is not part of Sruti – but Manusmriti is nothing but a distilled version of the Vedas, that deals with the code of conduct of the Hindus.

Even Sankara in his Bhasya on Brahma Sutra quotes the Smriti’s extensively in support of his arguments on the ground Smriti’s derive its authority from the Sruti’s.

This prohibition of women from reading the Vedas incidentally is why we don’t have any women priests in India.

Besides, the treatment of women as the property of man is codified in Vedas themselves. For example Brihadaranyaka 6.4.6 and 6.4.7 says how a man should overpower and rape a woman if she is unwilling to yield to his sexual advances.

Now, if a man sees himself (his reflection) in water, he should recite the following mantra: "May the gods bestow on me vigor, manhood, fame, wealth and merit." In praise of the wife who will bear him a son: She (his wife) has put on the soiled clothes of impurity; she is, verily, loveliness among women. Therefore when she has removed the clothes of impurity and appears beautiful, he should approach her and speak to her.

If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra: "With power and glory I take away your glory." Thus she becomes discredited.

If this is not pure misogyny then you must be from Saudi Arabia.

They say Hinduism is the most tolerant religion; a religion that condemns 62.5% of its population (50% women and 1/4th Sudra men) direct recourse to God. I would hate to think what we would do if we were any less tolerant.

 

[Rusty]

to the Pakistani members, please stop deflecting the problems in your own country by pointing fingers at others.
We all know how much the Media "cares" about the women in Arab countries, now it's time for them to "care" about women in Pakistan too, which statistics say face a 1000x more dire situation.

So please take care of your own home first before pointing fingers.

show me where I did, we have a whole thread started in 2010 about problems women have in Pakistan.
So please stick on the topic

and I think you are looking for this National Burns Centre ::: A 50 beded Burns Hospital at Airoli, New Mumbai :::

 

[Spring Onion]

Rape in Islam - WikiIslam



Verse 4:24
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Qur'an 4:24
What we see in the beginning of this verse as “forbidden” refers to sexual intercourse. The Qur'an dictates, women already married are forbidden for Muslims except those whom their right hands possess (sex slaves). It is the ordinance of Allah.

It is obvious from this verse, a Muslim can have sexual relations with his slave-woman. But it is important to know the context of this verse, as it sheds light onto the nature of allowance. If we go through a Sahih Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Abu Dawud 2:2150

Here in the above hadith from Abu Dawud, we understand why the Qur'anic verse 4:24 was allegedly revealed to Muhammad. It was to encourage his fighters to have sexual contacts with female captives even while their husbands were alive as prisoners of war. The hadith sheds some more light on this fact, when we read:
"Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers."
The Abu Dawud hadith is confirmed by the two Sahih collections, namely Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. There is a chapter devoted to this in the Sahih Muslim collection. The title of the chapter speaks in volumes as we read:

Sahih Muslim. Chapter 29: Title: It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is purified of menses or delivery. In case she has a husband, her marriage is abrogated after she becomes captive.

This practice of raping war captives was implemented by Islam’s very own prophet Muhammad, in his life. On two occasions, he married (for the sake of marriage only) war captives and raped them. Those victims were namely Safiyya and Juwairiyya.

Safiyah the daughter of Huayy was the wife of a Jewish Rabbi named Kinana. When Muhammad conquered the Jewish village of Khaibar, he tortured and killed the Jewish Rabbi and grabbed his wife. Sahih Hadith in Bukhari testifies to this fact:


[NOTE: This somewhat explains the propensity exhibited by Pakistani army in East Pakistan during 1971]


Claims about verse 24:33

Muslims will frequently quote the following when confronted with the passages provided in this article and others like it:



The first part of the verse is telling unmarried people to keep themselves chaste. Now, the important thing to remember is that the Islamic definition of chaste is different than the commonly agreed upon definitions of the word. According to Qur'an 23:6, Qur'an 33:50, Qur'an 33:52, and Qur'an 70:30 a Muslim man is considered "chaste" so long as he only has sex with his wives (of whom he may have up to four) and his right-hand possessions (female captives/slaves). An unmarried Muslim man who has sex with his slave girl is still considered to be "chaste" by Islamic standards.[1]

BS. thats not rape but sex after legal marriage.

anyway Indian Hindus if want to enjoy rapes in India we cant do anything . keep up the rape work.