ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[sun rise]

Just present a single Quran verse or sahih hadith that clearly states that slavery is wrong and should be abolished.

By extension the founders of the US are equally culpable because they owned slaves.

And the Bible? The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia
Matthew 18:21-35: Jesus' Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, wherein Jesus compares the relationship between God and humankind to that of a master and his slaves. Jesus offers the story of a master selling a slave along with his wife and children.

Matthew 20:20-28: A series of remarks wherein Jesus recognizes it is necessary to be a slave to be "first" among the deceased entering heaven.

Matthew 24:36-51: Jesus' Parable of the Faithful Servant, wherein Jesus again compares the relationship between God and humankind to that of a master and his slaves.

The Quran? 2:177

Khalifa
Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveling alien, the beggars, and to free the slaves; and they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous.

Yusuf Ali
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.

Pickthal
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.

"Progressive Muslims"
Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west, but piety is one who believes in God and the last day, and the Angels, and the scripture, and the prophets, and he gives money out of love to the near relatives, and the orphans, and the needy and the wayfarer, and those who ask, and to free the slaves, and he holds the assembly, and he contributes towards betterment; and those who keep their pledges when they make a pledge, and those who are patient in the face of good and bad and when in despair. These are the ones who have been truthful, and they are the righteous.

 

[Lain]

Though the majority laughed at Noah as Noah built his Ark, was the majority wrong or was God wrong? Does the majority determine falsehood?

The majority doesn't determine truth or falsehood.

 

[sun rise]

There is a limit. It is illegal for people to walk around naked, in a civilised society.
Some people don't want to display their bodies to others, while some do.
It is not just about women, although many have a nature that cause them to want to show the world how beautiful they are.
That is not always to the benefit of the individual or society in general.

I think it is a case of where you draw the line.
Extreme interpretions are not beneficial in the long run.

There are nudist areas for those so inclined.

And some men have the nature thus are likely to want to show others their '6 pack abs' and muscles.

But again, my point is not whether or not modest dress is a goal but that men should not tell women how to dress.

 

[firedragon]

The Quran clearly states that husbands can have sex with wives who have not yet started menstruating.

What is the word used there to address these little girls who have not started menstruating? Could you please advise? Is it Fathaaya, Thifel, Nisaa, Jaariah, Ukhth, which one?

 

[firedragon]

There is a limit. It is illegal for people to walk around naked, in a civilised society.
Some people don't want to display their bodies to others, while some do.
It is not just about women, although many have a nature that cause them to want to show the world how beautiful they are.
That is not always to the benefit of the individual or society in general.

I think it is a case of where you draw the line.
Extreme interpretions are not beneficial in the long run.

This is called Maslaha.

 

[firedragon]

Just present a single Quran verse or sahih hadith that clearly states that slavery is wrong and should be abolished.

It goes beyond that mate. If you actually take time to study the Quran, it goes beyond your request. It tells people to spend money to free slaves. You dont SPEND MONEY to free your own slaves if you have any. You spend money to free other slaves. Other peoples slaves.

Also, if you have some humility to actually study the language of the Quran, the word Rikaab/Rakaba stems from those who are under suppression, watched, trapped. So its blanket for all kinds of them.

 

[firedragon]

Imams said Hadithes must have a witness from the Quran.

Which Imam said that? Whats the context?

This is interesting.

 

[firedragon]

There are nudist areas for those so inclined.

And some men have the nature thus are likely to want to show others their '6 pack abs' and muscles.

But again, my point is not whether or not modest dress is a goal but that men should not tell women how to dress.

The thing is this. You are right. Men should not hold some monopoly in stipulating dress code to women.

BUT, the Qur'an clearly states "yadhribna bikumurihinna alaa juyoobihinna", so you have to cover your chest. It also says to dress modestly and which "AT LEAST MEANS DRESS".

You are directly told not to walk around naked.

 

[sun rise]

The thing is this. You are right. Men should hold some monopoly in stipulating dress code to women.

I stated that for me the opposite is true. Men should NOT stipulate a dress code for women.

 

[firedragon]

I stated that for me the opposite is true. Men should NOT stipulate a dress code for women.

Sorry sorry. I mean to say "should not".

But still, that does not mean nudity is a okay. I mean as I said not according to the Quran.

Cheers.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

That's ignorance of science. The Observer Effect - the Observer Effect

No it isn't. You're spouting off. I said nothing that contradicts the scientific method. Don't bother me with infantile crap. Rich coming from a believer in article of faith, (untestable unproven hypothesis)

 

[Azrael Antilla]

When I was growing up in America, women especially were to dress modestly to avoid giving the appearance of being sexually available. Modest dress codes are still true to day of the Amish. There are groups of Jews with strict dress codes as well. And when I was in India years ago with friends, women were given the same advice about modest dressing. I see no difference in Islamic countries except that the standard of modesty varies by country.

Whats wrong being sexually available and advertising the fact? To my mind it's just sexually insecure misogynistic bigots whom take an unhealthy interest in the lives of others and take issue with their appearance. Much to my personal disgust.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Any even slightly objective reading shows it was written by 7th century Arabs, for 7th century Arabs.
There isn't a single passage that makes more sense as the work of an infallible, omniscient, omnipotent, omni everything god.

There isn't a single passage that could be attributed to a supernatural controlling entity. As they don't exist! Obviously it was written by 7th century Arabs.

 

[firedragon]

There isn't a single passage that could be attributed to a supernatural controlling entity. As they don't exist! Obviously it was written by 7th century Arabs.

Hmm. So you made a claim here right? "As they dont exist". This is your claim. Can you prove that "they dont exist"?

I am not making a claim here of anything exists because its absolutely irrelevant to this thread. But you are making a claim. So just out of curiosity, what testable evidence do you have?

Thanks.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Hmm. So you made a claim here right? "As they dont exist". This is your claim. Can you prove that "they dont exist"?

I am not making a claim here of anything exists because its absolutely irrelevant to this thread. But you are making a claim. So just out of curiosity, what testable evidence do you have?

Thanks.

It's a claim founded on the rejection of a prior claim. That various Gods exist. For which no testable evidence exists.

In the same way I claim the Easter Bunny doesn't exist either.

Or even Santa!

 

[firedragon]

It's a claim founded on the rejection of a prior claim. That various Gods exist. For which no testable evidence exists.

In the same way I claim the Easter Bunny doesn't exist either.

Or even Santa!

So no evidence, just a claim in response to a claim? (Of course backed up with the typical church type, missionary memes of evangelical atheists).

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Hmm. So you made a claim here right? "As they dont exist". This is your claim. Can you prove that "they dont exist"?

I am not making a claim here of anything exists because its absolutely irrelevant to this thread. But you are making a claim. So just out of curiosity, what testable evidence do you have?

Thanks.

All I can prove is that your evidence for your supernatural controlling entities, is absent. Entirely. Wholly. Completely without merit.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

So no evidence, just a claim in response to a claim? (Of course backed up with the typical church type, missionary memes of evangelical atheists).

An empty claim without evidence. Like yours. Can be dismissed without evidence. It's simple logic. Suck it up.

 

[firedragon]

All I can prove is that your evidence for your supernatural controlling entities, is absent. Entirely. Wholly. Completely without merit.

I understand that it is a necessary need to bring the existence of God into this thread for whatever reason.

But your providence is that you have no proof to your claim, but your claim is that the other persons claim has no proof. Thats that.

In that case, you should not make such positive claims. When you make claims you should have evidence.

 

[firedragon]

An empty claim without evidence. Like yours. Can be dismissed without evidence. It's simple logic. Suck it up.

What claim did I make?

Try to answer that with out ad hominem. Im sure you can.