As I read the Quran, which parts should I ignore?

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to-Smart_Guy
If the Qur'an came down from heaven as you believe ?? ??
How to change the Omar bin Khattab provisions of the Koran ???
Especially in slaves ??
Provisions of sexual intercourse ?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Your view of Umar is untenable given history of slavery after his rule and his cause of death. The Muslim leaders which banned slavery did so with secular law not Islamic law. The Ottomans in particular used a loophole in Sharia to make the practice untenable not illegal. Muslims may have abolished it but it had nothing to do with Islam but secular law and influence. So it took non-Muslims to force the point on Muslim to get any results and made them bypass their own legal code.

So Saudi Arabia bring back slavery as legal was for the good of Muslims right? Along with the other states which reestablished slavery post Ottoman Empire. You can not have it both ways here.

Islam is a religion, a law and a way of life. Muslim leaders have the power to abolish something unclear like that, as the verse I provided more than once says.

You seem like you're trying to convince Muslims that it is okay to resort to slavery.

No, Saudi Arabia bringing back slavery is not a good thing. I actually do not know if they did. Giving how the world changed, slavery should not be legal again. If I can make sure of this, I would never hesitate. But who am I to do that!

 

[Smart_Guy]

Altkaah ( mean ) lying

You're giving Arabs and Christians bad reputation, and you lack the manners of discussion.

I told you many times that Taqiyyah (I believe this is what you mean) is different for me than with Shiaa yet you keep using the same trick.

Here you are basing your excuses against me with calling me a liar. Your hatred blinds your heart. No wonder other members ignore you. You need to improve.

 

[Union]

This has parameters which are solely judged by the master. If a master does not find good and trustworthy then no such contract need be made. The deed also has a parameter regarding the slaves cost so Islam sees slaves as property.

"And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing..." is in imperative mood , meaning a master must have to release his/her slave if the slave asks for the freedom . Hence this action has no alternatives nor unto the master's own judgment .

"...if you know any good in them, and (if not) give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you..."This clause is for making it sure that when they are freed , they have means to survive .

Any verse which covers a slave is an endorsement of slavery. Verses regarding conduct, practices and law regarding slaves are an endorsement of the practice. Rather there is no verse saying slavery is forbidden.

I discussed that already . Alternatively bring a verse from Qur'an like below , which will prove your point vigorously :

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. " (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Ignoring Muslim tradition is convenient but untenable. It is merely cherry picking and confirmation bias.

Those Muslim traditions have nothing to do with Islam . The whole of Islam is existing in between the first and the last pages of Qur'an . Simple .

 

[Shad]

"And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing..." is in imperative mood , meaning a master must have to release his/her slave if the slave asks for the freedom . Hence this action has no alternatives nor unto the master's own judgment .

"...if you know any good in them, and (if not) give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you..."

This clause is for making it sure that when they are freed , they have means to survive .

Brackets are additions by the author. Here are the same verse without said addition

YUSUFALI: 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),
PICKTHAL: And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Interesting, none say nay at all. In fact Ive looked at six different translations none say nay. I guess if you ignore every other translations you would have a point. However sadly I have seen 6, cited 3, which support my point.

Actually if a verse contains slavery in the form of emancipation or as a punishment of the masters crimes it is an endorsement of slavery. If it was no there would be no slave to free nor slave to use as a fine. Freeing of slaves is not done for the slave or community but for brownie point for the master. This is no more a verse about forbidding slavery than a verse about charity is an endorsement of socialism

I discussed that already . Alternatively bring a verse from Qur'an like below , which will prove your point vigorously :

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. " (Leviticus 25:44-46)

16:75 and 2:176. In one Allah clearly favours the believer over the slave. In the other the slave is property which can be seized as a fine for the crimes of the master. If slavery was not condoned neither would make sense. 2:176 especially. Heard of the Baqt treaty in which 360 slaves were given to the Islamic Empire. Run away slaves were to be extradited. Why were runs away slaves to be returned if freedom was easy to acquire. Seems like we have a contradiction of your modern views and a treaty made in 641 by the brother of Uthman and one that accept Islam from the Prophet directly.

No need to find a verse spelling it out. Maybe you lack the ability to read in depth, cross reference verses, history and ahadith but I do not. Especially when there are verse which directly state a slave is property and legal within the state. Open a history book once and a while... your ignorance of Islamic history is appalling

Those Muslim traditions have nothing to do with Islam . The whole of Islam is existing in between the first and the last pages of Qur'an . Simple .

Hilarious. You need tradition to even put forward the idea that the Quran is from Allah. Tradition to even put forward it has not been altered. Of course feel free to disregard tradition when it shows how odd Islam's moral compass is in comparison to today's values. However this is cherry picking and fallacious, you only convince yourself.

 

[psychoslice]

You're giving Arabs and Christians bad reputation, and you lack the manners of discussion.

I told you many times that Taqiyyah (I believe this is what you mean) is different for me than with Shiaa yet you keep using the same trick.

Here you are basing your excuses against me with calling me a liar. Your hatred blinds your heart. No wonder other members ignore you. You need to improve.

I like you, your honest and feel frustrated by these idiots who are ruining your religion, good on you.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I like you, your honest and feel frustrated by these idiots who are ruining your religion, good on you.

Heh

I'm not really frustrated at him here because of religion. I told him about that Taqiyyah point many times before and again now all he did was saying I was wrong because I was lying. Let alone his provoking and accusing posts all over. So many such posts of his were reported and deleted.

But now that you mentioned it, I guess I did sound rude to him. I'll have to apologize.

 

[Shad]

Islam is a religion, a law and a way of life. Muslim leaders have the power to abolish something unclear like that, as the verse I provided more than once says.

You seem like you're trying to convince Muslims that it is okay to resort to slavery.

No, Saudi Arabia bringing back slavery is not a good thing. I actually do not know if they did. Giving how the world changed, slavery should not be legal again. If I can make sure of this, I would never hesitate. But who am I to do that!

So since Muslim leaders also made slavery legal it was a;so according to Islam and backed by 13 centuries of history. While you may not see your cherry picking fallacies I do and find each one unconvincing.

I have no need to convince Muslims that slavery is okay. History proves that it was okay for 13 centuries within Islam. Rather I am only putting forward that Muslims show acknowledge their history which was in part guided by their religion.

You will have to cite the verse again since I can not find it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

So since Muslim leaders also made slavery legal it was a;so according to Islam and backed by 13 centuries of history. While you may not see your cherry picking fallacies I do and find each one unconvincing.

I have no need to convince Muslims that slavery is okay. History proves that it was okay for 13 centuries within Islam. Rather I am only putting forward that Muslims show acknowledge their history which was in part guided by their religion.

You will have to cite the verse again since I can not find it.

I'm in the favor of making it illegal. I see that in modern times slavery is a big no. In the past, Islam only came with ways to deal with slavery as it was everywhere, and not clear statements of allowing. Statements like that seafood was made halal for you as a general rule. It gave them rights unlike any other views. Why it did not forbid it clearly, I don't know for sure, but I know that with the nature of those old times, a slave, specially female and children, if left free, who knows what would happen to them with no where to live in. Now there are so many ways and wealth (relatively speaking, but are enough) that can take care of that. Muslims also kept freeing slaves in the past as Islam encourages to do that.

The verse says "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result." [Quran 4:59]

As for that cherry picking unconvincing point you mentioned, I'll have to be reasonalbe and re-read my previous posts, tho I don't see I cherry picked, but instead read different views (not verses) about it, and views vary, so I had to choose.

 

[Shad]

I'm in the favor of making it illegal. I see that in modern times slavery is a big no. In the past, Islam only came with ways to deal with slavery as it was everywhere, and not clear statements of allowing. Statements like that seafood was made halal for you as a general rule. It gave them rights unlike any other views. Why it did not forbid it clearly, I don't know for sure, but I know that with the nature of those old times, a slave, specially female and children, if left free, who knows what would happen to them with no where to live in. Now there are so many ways and wealth (relatively speaking, but are enough) that can take care of that. Muslims also kept freeing slaves in the past as Islam encourages to do that.

I do not find this convincing at all. Islam changed a number of social and economic practices such as usury yet was unable to even challenge slavery other than modest reforms. Enslaving the young and women due to an economic unknown, unknown since you are generalizing a group, is not justification especially considering Islam promote charity for the poor. Is the third pillar of Islam so ineffective that one must enslave the poor? If a master has the resources to take care of a slave why not skip the enslaving bit and give freely? You have made a core concept of Islam look ineffective and Allah inept for setting up a system which does not work properly. More so can one not use your justification in modern time? Poor and homeless face all sorts of "unknowns". Why not just let the 1% enslave them and provide a better living in exchange for one's freedom.

Moral relativism may be appealing to you but you create a hole in which any view can be put forward as true. You can not condemn any group external to your own. By your own I mean the views you happen to hold which others agree with. You can not condemn IS for example. They are justified in their action due to moral relativism.

The verse says "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result." [Quran 4:59]

Since none of the immediate authorities abolished slavery in their time there are 4-5 authorities keeping slavery as legal and 13 centuries of authorities agreeing with it's legal status. Do you accept the authority of those that kept it legal and those that made it legal again? There is also no single established Islamic authority, the last one had to bypass Sharia which does nothing to further your argument. Which authorities do you accept? The verse in modern time allows one to pick and choose their source of authority.

As for that cherry picking unconvincing point you mentioned, I'll have to be reasonalbe and re-read my previous posts, tho I don't see I cherry picked, but instead read different views (not verses) about it, and views vary, so I had to choose.

You put forward different views which contradicted established history. By ignoring history and picking a modern interpretation you have cherry picked. If you put forward your modern view was the view of Islam 14 centuries ago you are putting forward revisionist history solely based on your time isolated interpretation.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I do not find this convincing at all. Islam changed a number of social and economic practices such as usury yet was unable to even challenge slavery other than modest reforms. Enslaving the young and women due to an economic unknown, unknown since you are generalizing a group, is not justification especially considering Islam promote charity for the poor. Is the third pillar of Islam so ineffective that one must enslave the poor? If a master has the resources to take care of a slave why not skip the enslaving bit and give freely? You have made a core concept of Islam look ineffective and Allah inept for setting up a system which does not work properly. More so can one not use your justification in modern time? Poor and homeless face all sorts of "unknowns". Why not just let the 1% enslave them and provide a better living in exchange for one's freedom.

Moral relativism may be appealing to you but you create a hole in which any view can be put forward as true. You can not condemn any group external to your own. By your own I mean the views you happen to hold which others agree with. You can not condemn IS for example. They are justified in their action due to moral relativism.



Since none of the immediate authorities abolished slavery in their time there are 4-5 authorities keeping slavery as legal and 13 centuries of authorities agreeing with it's legal status. Do you accept the authority of those that kept it legal and those that made it legal again? There is also no single established Islamic authority, the last one had to bypass Sharia which does nothing to further your argument. Which authorities do you accept? The verse in modern time allows one to pick and choose their source of authority.



You put forward different views which contradicted established history. By ignoring history and picking a modern interpretation you have cherry picked. If you put forward your modern view was the view of Islam 14 centuries ago you are putting forward revisionist history solely based on your time isolated interpretation.

Slave = poor, but poor does not necessarily = slave. Your thought here is completely unconvincing too. This also negates the other claims you made related to it.

Now countries and people have more money and power to take care of the poor. The alms pillar of Islam now ensured the charity to be given to the poor accordingly, since the alms is a percentage of what wealth one can make, which means naturally increase of the amounts of alms (the pillar charity).

I S is out of the question completely. Simply burning a man alive while it is forbidden in Islam to (1) torture with fire, let alone ending it with a killing, and (2) if we have to kill, we have to make it quick and in the best possible way. If you see I S is justified by me, then it would be in controversial things you see real, yet tons of other acts they do automatically gets them out of the equation.

I said it before, Islam cannot be represented by people in full. No religion can. And I mean of course in secondary and controversial laws life slavery. The only choice we have is to see different major views and agree with one or some of them. What else can we do?

History contradicts itself, I don't. I explain it before that times change. The times in the past were of wars and insecurity. Those times had different cases than now. If the Quran itself came in installments in a short while (relatively) and after it had orders to kill the non believers when they were all at war against Muslims, then after that the same Quran came with verses to befriend non believers, why can't Islam have different cases after ~1400 years? Again, in controversial secondary aspects like slavery.

 

[Shad]

Slave = poor, but poor does not necessarily = slave. Your thought here is completely unconvincing too. This also negates the other claims you made related to it.

You were the one that put forward the idea that enslaving people was for their benefit. "Why it did not forbid it clearly, I don't know for sure, but I know that with the nature of those old times, a slave, specially female and children, if left free, who knows what would happen to them with no where to live in." If people have no where to live they are poor. Those with wealth can buy or rent housing. It negates nothing as you put forward this view. I am just pointing out it is not a justification.

Now countries and people have more money and power to take care of the poor. The alms pillar of Islam now ensured the charity to be given to the poor accordingly, since the alms is a percentage of what wealth one can make, which means naturally increase of the amounts of alms (the pillar charity).

Money only has value we assign to it. Economic trends tend to align currency value with the cost of living. This was also during a time of the Gold standard which Muslim Empires were the major economic powers of the world. For centuries even European standards were based on the Muslim dinar. Your comment also ignores the fact that if a master has food and housing for the slaves they likewise have it for the poor as a charity. So rather than being charitable they pick to enslave a person instead? Do you not see how contradictory your excuse is? The fact is if if Muslims had the resource to provide for slaves they could of abolished from the start. They did not because it was legally sanctioned. Only post hoc rationalization find slavery immoral so religions must adapt to the trends of society in the never ending game of playing catch up.

I S is out of the question completely. Simply burning a man alive while it is forbidden in Islam to (1) torture with fire, let alone ending it with a killing, and (2) if we have to kill, we have to make it quick and in the best possible way. If you see I S is justified by me, then it would be in controversial things you see real, yet tons of other acts they do automatically gets them out of the equation.

I am merely pointing that during period of greater unification of Muslims there was no movement to abolish slavery directly from Islam. Merely picking authority in modern time after the break down of all central authority is special pleading and cherry picking. No more than what IS nuts do. They pick their authority as you have, none is more valid than another, only more popular which is fallacious reasoning.

I said it before, Islam cannot be represented by people in full. No religion can. And I mean of course in secondary and controversial laws life slavery. The only choice we have is to see different major views and agree with one or some of them. What else can we do?

Yet you put forward a verse that clearly says there are authority figures which can represent Islam in full. Which is it then?

You can look at different views, just do not let your view create revisionist history as if your view in not post hoc rationalization. Perhaps removing the doctrine and dogma of God's direct words. Such literalism creates more problems than it solves, such as this conversation. If you take each and every verse as God's word then is no excuse to avoid the issue of slavery and that of a God which does next to nothing to stop it.

History contradicts itself, I don't. I explain it before that times change. The times in the past were of wars and insecurity. Those times had different cases than now. If the Quran itself came in installments in a short while (relatively) and after it had orders to kill the non believers when they were all at war against Muslims, then after that the same Quran came with verses to befriend non believers, why can't Islam have different cases after ~1400 years? Again, in controversial secondary aspects like slavery.

Cultural relativism is untenable especially for an all powerful God. One on side God become inept. On the other side I can equally claim Islam is only for the 7th century, cultural relativism, and thus has no view in the 21st century. Your reasoning opens far more holes than closes.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I like you, your honest and feel frustrated by these idiots who are ruining your religion, good on you.

My friend --- This is the Koran and Islam is this ???
Do you cancel teachings ??
Of his teachings ( Altkaah )
The meaning of lying or deception or camouflage ???
It is in the Sunni- Shiite school and the school also ??
And provided evidence of the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah , one of the most important pillars of the Sunni school ??
And the slaves
Presented to you from the Koran
So this is the product of dialogue

 

[Smart_Guy]

You were the one that put forward the idea that enslaving people was for their benefit. "Why it did not forbid it clearly, I don't know for sure, but I know that with the nature of those old times, a slave, specially female and children, if left free, who knows what would happen to them with no where to live in." If people have no where to live they are poor. Those with wealth can buy or rent housing. It negates nothing as you put forward this view. I am just pointing out it is not a justification.

Money only has value we assign to it. Economic trends tend to align currency value with the cost of living. This was also during a time of the Gold standard which Muslim Empires were the major economic powers of the world. For centuries even European standards were based on the Muslim dinar. Your comment also ignores the fact that if a master has food and housing for the slaves they likewise have it for the poor as a charity. So rather than being charitable they pick to enslave a person instead? Do you not see how contradictory your excuse is? The fact is if if Muslims had the resource to provide for slaves they could of abolished from the start. They did not because it was legally sanctioned. Only post hoc rationalization find slavery immoral so religions must adapt to the trends of society in the never ending game of playing catch up.

I am merely pointing that during period of greater unification of Muslims there was no movement to abolish slavery directly from Islam. Merely picking authority in modern time after the break down of all central authority is special pleading and cherry picking. No more than what IS nuts do. They pick their authority as you have, none is more valid than another, only more popular which is fallacious reasoning.

Yet you put forward a verse that clearly says there are authority figures which can represent Islam in full. Which is it then?

You can look at different views, just do not let your view create revisionist history as if your view in not post hoc rationalization. Perhaps removing the doctrine and dogma of God's direct words. Such literalism creates more problems than it solves, such as this conversation. If you take each and every verse as God's word then is no excuse to avoid the issue of slavery and that of a God which does next to nothing to stop it.

Cultural relativism is untenable especially for an all powerful God. One on side God become inept. On the other side I can equally claim Islam is only for the 7th century, cultural relativism, and thus has no view in the 21st century. Your reasoning opens far more holes than closes.

Calling my views excuses and hole openers does not mean they are.

You're equating the naturally lawless war-like insecure poor past with the present that has means to take care of all of those. I believe this is the real unconvincing excuse and hole opener.

God gives us choices in such unclear issues. As I said before, this is not a clear cut matter so different view would normally emerge. If you want slavery this much, take the views of those allowing it. If you want God to stop everything in a clear cut statements, then give up your naturally given freedom of choice instinct first.

 

[Shad]

Calling my views excuses and hole openers does not mean they are.

Considering I extrapolated on your views, pointed out logical conclusions and how your own argument can be used against you and Islam I think I have made my point that your reasoning is incorrect

You're equating the naturally lawless war-like insecure poor past with the present that has means to take care of all of those. I believe this is the real unconvincing excuse and hole opener.

Nope. I am taking a view between a master which provides for a slave is equally capable of providing for a free person via charity with the same resources. I am pointing out that there are two options for dealing with the poor. Charity or slavery. Which is more acceptable given the resources of a master? Why enslave anybody with such an easy choice available. The fact that the immoral choice was an option, and one for centuries, shows that slavery was fully supported by Islam. Not only that but it was morally acceptable. I need no mention anything in modern time, just merely the dynamic between master and slave which has escaped you. If a master can provide for a slave(s), a master can freely provide for the same amount of free people. More so it shows the moral relativism you use when approaching Islam created by a moral scope imposed on Muslims by non-Muslim in the last century and a half which contradict the 13 centuries of the opposite views.

God gives us choices in such unclear issues. As I said before, this is not a clear cut matter so different view would normally emerge. If you want slavery this much, take the views of those allowing it. If you want God to stop everything in a clear cut statements, then give up your naturally given freedom of choice instinct first.

God gave no choice for alcohol and polytheist idols in places which held these idols for centuries. I guess God can be straight forward when it comes to polytheists which may or may not be harmful to society yet is indecisive when it comes to enslaving a person and robbing them of their freedom. So God is inept for major issues? Rather it seems like Islam merely echoed ideas dominate at the time which is not unexpected if you credit Islam to a person of a time period rather than any all knowing God.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

You're giving Arabs and Christians bad reputation, and you lack the manners of discussion.

I told you many times that Taqiyyah (I believe this is what you mean) is different for me than with Shiaa yet you keep using the same trick.

Here you are basing your excuses against me with calling me a liar. Your hatred blinds your heart. No wonder other members ignore you. You need to improve.

1 - Altkaah word from the words of the Koran
2. one of the provisions of God as you believe ???
3. This school of Sunni
Ibn al-Qayyim may God have mercy on him , said:
" Pious slave says that contrary to what people think of prevention is hated it if it did not speak religiously sanctioned lying . "
Finished " provisions of the dhimmis " ( 2/1038 ) .

The origin of permissible words of God : ( believers do not take the unbelievers rather than believers and who does it is not of God in everything but the fatwa them Tqap ) Imran / 28
4. This intellectual and free dialogue

5. I am the oldest evidence in each thematic one of the Koran
6. I hold to love every human being
7. resistance to evil is one of the duties of each person
8. What do you mean bad reputation ???
Christian Arabs ???
9. I speak with you personally
10. What do you want from Christian to say you ??
That tells you ( Ayman )
11. The term Christian Arabs ??
The term is not true ??

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Calling my views excuses and hole openers does not mean they are.

You're equating the naturally lawless war-like insecure poor past with the present that has means to take care of all of those. I believe this is the real unconvincing excuse and hole opener.

God gives us choices in such unclear issues. As I said before, this is not a clear cut matter so different view would normally emerge. If you want slavery this much, take the views of those allowing it. If you want God to stop everything in a clear cut statements, then give up your naturally given freedom of choice instinct first.

I speak with you intellectually
I hope that react with the same style -
1. You talk about freedom of choice ?
2. The question is ( Is Islamic Thought knows freedom of choice )
3. Wait for the answer you ??
Then I will give you my position on the freedom of choice in Islam ?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Cultural relativism is untenable especially for an all powerful God. One on side God become inept. On the other side I can equally claim Islam is only for the 7th century, cultural relativism, and thus has no view in the 21st century. Your reasoning opens far more holes than closes.

Islamic Thought says what follows , O ??
1. The Islamic law is valid in every time and place
2. that the Koran is the word of God
3. The provisions of the Koran are valid at all times
4. The word of God does not change
5. he came down from heaven
6. Koran is the source of corned board
7. For these reasons fall Muslim argument
And a choice between two positions
Sh faith in the Koran as
Q. or reject the Koran and ordinances

 

[Smart_Guy]

Considering I extrapolated on your views, pointed out logical conclusions and how your own argument can be used against you and Islam I think I have made my point that your reasoning is incorrect

Nope. I am taking a view between a master which provides for a slave is equally capable of providing for a free person via charity with the same resources. I am pointing out that there are two options for dealing with the poor. Charity or slavery. Which is more acceptable given the resources of a master? Why enslave anybody with such an easy choice available. The fact that the immoral choice was an option, and one for centuries, shows that slavery was fully supported by Islam. Not only that but it was morally acceptable. I need no mention anything in modern time, just merely the dynamic between master and slave which has escaped you. If a master can provide for a slave(s), a master can freely provide for the same amount of free people. More so it shows the moral relativism you use when approaching Islam created by a moral scope imposed on Muslims by non-Muslim in the last century and a half which contradict the 13 centuries of the opposite views.

God gave no choice for alcohol and polytheist idols in places which held these idols for centuries. I guess God can be straight forward when it comes to polytheists which may or may not be harmful to society yet is indecisive when it comes to enslaving a person and robbing them of their freedom. So God is inept for major issues? Rather it seems like Islam merely echoed ideas dominate at the time which is not unexpected if you credit Islam to a person of a time period rather than any all knowing God.

I understand. I see that we are going in circles here as I talked about all of the above before. I don't have more to say, so I'll go back to our previous posts maybe I'll find something convincing.

Thank you for sharing your views, and I apologize if I sounded rude somewhere between the lines.

 

[icehorse]

Islam is a religion, a law and a way of life. Muslim leaders have the power to abolish something unclear like that, as the verse I provided more than once says.

You seem like you're trying to convince Muslims that it is okay to resort to slavery.

No, Saudi Arabia bringing back slavery is not a good thing. I actually do not know if they did. Giving how the world changed, slavery should not be legal again. If I can make sure of this, I would never hesitate. But who am I to do that!

Hi Smart_Guy,

Back to the OP, the sentence of yours that I bolded makes it seems like we cannot ignore any of the Quran's messages? It really does seem to me that, put together, all of the claims of Islam end up contradicting each other. That's why I put the list in the OP together - to try to determine which of the contradictory claims non-Muslims should believe, and which they can ignore.

This is all in the spirit of understanding. It's not my fault that Islam's messages self-contradict. It's on Muslims to either be misunderstood, or clear things up.