The qur'an

[YmirGF]

To understand the Quran, spiritual thinking is a must of which a little is present in everyone. The more this spirituality develops, the more is the amount of knowledge one can glean from it.

I understand what you are trying to impart here, A-ManESL, but feel that this is also quite possibly little more than self-hypnosis. If one were to relentlessly pour over a copy of Moby Dick, in a valiant pursuit of spiritual truths they thought it may contain, subsequent readings of it would likely reveal results that supported their initial assumptions. In effect, it is a self-fulfilling fantasy that tells us more about the psyche of the beholder than it does about that which they are beholding. Belief is the key here.

 

[MathewJames]

Whereas the husband can divorce her on his own say so, with permission from no one, for no reason whatsoever. Inequality over and over.

You look for fault just like a lawyer, and that will never let you see the forest because the trees are in your way.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whereas the husband can divorce her on his own say so, with permission from no one, for no reason whatsoever. Inequality over and over.

I have to agree. Reading the article from Islamweb, it seems that there are unfair differences in the rights of men and women to divorce in Islam. For women:

In the case that the husband is at fault and the woman is interested in divorce, she can petition a judge for divorce, with cause. She would be required to offer proof that her husband had not fulfilled his marital responsibilities. If the woman had specified certain conditions that are Islamically accepted in her marriage contract, which were not met by the husband, she could obtain a conditional divorce.
​

But the man is not required to petition a judge or provide proof, apparently. All he has to do is declare his intentions to divorce and abstain from sexual relations for 3 months. The article admits men have greater divorce rights than women, but says this is because men are leaders, not because women are inferior:

Thus, it is clear that there is a 'degree' of difference with regards to the rights of men and women in divorce, and that the greater right that men were given is due to their being the leaders and financial supporters of the household. This, however, does not mean that women are inferior to men or that they are second-class human beings.
​

Men have greater rights, and they are the financial supporters, and they are the leaders. Women have fewer rights, and they are not the leaders, but that doesn't mean they are second-class human beings .... hmmm .... It seems to me like the article wants fairness and equality, but it is constrained by the verses from the Qur'an. So the article tries as hard as it can to fit the Qur'an and modern ideas of equality together, like a man trying to squeeze into an old suit that no longer fits him, but it's bursting at the seams.

 

[Looncall]

I don't think you're really thinking this through. Do you think Egypt is like Afghanistan? Or that Turkey is like Saudi Arabia?

I don't think you're really experienced with societies who have a majority of Muslims, because if you did, you would've known that they are not all alike in this aspect and many others.

I think that there are common threads.

I gather that in Eqypt women are finding it necessary to band together to deal with constant sexual harassment from men in the streets.

I read of muslims in Britain sending their daughters to forced marriages in places such as Pakistan. One report mentioned that the Britich embassy in Pakistant finds it necessary to maintain a special group of agents to combat these forced marriages.

I read that a large proportion of convicted rapists in Scandinavia are muslim immigrants.

Islam is toxic. That is very clear.

 

[croak]

Yes, that's what we observe.

And how do you observe that?

It is a fact that Muslim majority countries tend overwhelmingly to be among the most ignorant, impoverished, violent, oppressed and miserable on earth. I don't think it's coincidence. I think it's the result of a basically backward looking culture, a primitive, tribal, approach to morality and governance. It may have been a golden age compared to the primitive conditions Europe was experiencing at the time. For us, today, it would be a huge step backward.

'Tend'. 'Think'. I would think you would be beyond equation correlation and causation, even if it seems really, really likely.

What if I said Native Americans were the same because of a culture and crazy religious beliefs they refuse to let go of? (I don't personally believe this; I'm just trying to create a similar comparison).

And of course, say, 800 C.E. would be a step backwards in many regards. Never said otherwise. But what's your point? If not for the Islamic Golden Age, we would not have progessed to this point. Muslims saved Roman and Greek works (they actually were interested in the words of infidels. Amazing, isn't it?) that would almost certainly have been destroyed by Christian fundamentalists in Europe. Algebra, various advances in medicine... basic hygeine even are some of the gifts the Muslims offered the modern world. And yet you make little of it. Going back to the pre-Civil Rights era would be a huge step backwards; yet, would you refuse to admire those individuals who successfully struggled to bring equality? Would you make light of their contributions? If not for that point in time, the world would be very different.

Islam was progress forward from 6th century Arab nomadic raiding tribes. It's a step backward from modern, secular, enlightenment society.

And that is a valid opinion, if you're dragging along cultural baggage. Are Muslims incapable of being modern, secular, and enlightened while professing a belief in Islam? I'd say, from posters in this thread, that's clearly not true.

Exactly. Within a Muslim majority country, killing someone for merely advocating freedom of speech is not crazy; it's normal, even admirable.

Lebanon is a Muslim majority country (with very complicated religious fabric, I admit). Advocating freedom of speech is not out of the ordinary here. In fact, to a certain extent it's required.

Also, the reason I brought up Afghanistan and Pakistan is really, really simple. Afghanistan is a war zone. War zones don't tend to be freedom of speech zones. Pakistan borders Afghanistan, with militants and terrorists regularly crossing over. In fact, parts of Pakistan could probably be close to being called war zones in themselves. Hell, some cities in the States have their own war zones.

Let's think of a few other Muslim majority countries. Turkey. Turkey practically (not quite, at risk of offence) worships secularism, and is definitely a fan of modernization.

Now, after the customary reference to Turkey, let's look at general geography.

How many Muslim majority countries are in Africa? How many countries in Africa are so-called first or second world countries?

How many Muslim majority countries were part of the Soviet Union? How many former states are so-called first or second world countries?

How many Muslim majority countries are former colonies, formerly under occupation, or were part of an empire?

But I'm sure none of that matters. It's that wretched book's fault!

Oh, and as a fun question: how many so-called first or second world countries are not comprised mainly of European descendants, or have those individuals in high-ranking positions?

To continue, how many first and second world countries are resource-wealthy? How many third world countries are resource-wealthy?

It's fun to ponder. If you actually want to gather statistics, that could be interesting. I'm just posing questions that follow what I generally think is the case.

Apparently you thought it did when a Muslim made it here in this thread. When I point out the differences, suddenly it doesn't?

This thread's been moving so quickly, so I'd really appreciate a reference, to either explain what I said or redact a possible faulty statement.

Islam is just one variety of human insanity.

I could say civilization is a variety of human insanity, but you might just call me crazy.

 

[Bismillah]

[FONT=&quot]On the question of slavery.

I will start with verses from the Qur'an and the hadith that quite resolutely reject the racists and ignorant viewpoint of the West that was held on for so long and still is in many places.

"O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and have made you into nations and tribes for you to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you with God is the most pious.2 Truly, God is All-Knowing, All-Aware".
(49:13)

There is also the hadith of the Prophet

"O people! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person,3 except in piety."

From this standpoint it is clear that it is ridiculous for any man to justify his belief of the inferiority of one human to another, on the basis of his race, with Islamic ruling.

Moving on.

Looking at the concept of slavery in the West, it is beyond sickening to see the implementation of the modern equivalent of factory farming of humans in the past. From the slaves of the Roman Empire to those of the Spanish, it is a testimony to one of the most barbarous treatment of fellow humans in our history.

For example in the mines of Potosi, the "mouth of hell", slaves routinely descended down precarious rotten ladders, prone to breaking and throwing the climbers to their deaths, swim in pools of Mercury, inhales fumes of Mercury, carry heavy loads up and down the steep mountains of Peru, and bouts of starvation that quite effectively decimated the local population and subsequent shipments of slaves and stole the wealth of the biggest silver mine in history.

Literally the legal position of a slave was the absolute right of the master to kill, torture, or by any other means to take advantage of them without any rights on the part of the slave.

This status was not anything particular as it was common from all empires from India to England, the slave's lot was unbearable.

In contrast to these views which were also staunchly held in pre-Islamic Arabia, Islam discarded these notions.

'You are (sprung) the one from the other'

(4:25)

and the sayings of the Prophet

'He who kills his slave, we shall kill him; who mutilates his nose, we shall cut his nose; and who gelds our slave, we shall get him gelded in return.'

'You all are sons of Adam and Adam was created from dust'.

As you see, there is no superiority from one than another save his piety and humanity (as shown by the earlier quotes that I posted)

We can see that the underlying theme in Islam's stance is not of subjugation but of humanity and kinship.

'let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness'
(4:25)

As well as the Hadith:

'They (your servants and slaves) are your brothers. Allah has put them in your care, so feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear. and do not burden them beyond their capacities; but if you burden them (with an unbearable burden), then help them (by sharing their extra burden).'

From this we know that, under Islam, slavery was never meant to encompass an economic motivation. From the example of the Prophet and the rightly guided Caliphs it is clear that making slaves work to the standards of Western nations would be against Islam. Indeed the owners would have been working and dying with their slaves in Haiti and Dominican Republic had they been following Islamic principles.

The slave is not a machine from which you reap bounty, but a fellow human with which we all share a common ancestry and humanity.

The stigma of slavery was also never seen in Islam. Freed slaves were not demeaned nor were they intended to be seen as anything lower than any free Arab. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example the Prophet joined together Zaid (a freed slave) with Humza (the Prophet’s uncle) and Kharijah (the son of Zaid) with Abu Bakr (one of the most prominent of the Sahaba and the first Caliph after the Prophet’s death). In this case these relations of brotherhood took the same precedence as blood relations and served to place men on equal footing regardless of their backgrounds. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
There was also Zaid’s marriage to Zainab (the Prophet’s cousin). This act is very important because it shows that a former slave can marry and attain the status of the most noble and prestigious of Quraish, even though Zaid was worlds below in social and material status. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Then there is also the fact that former slaves were instituted as commanders of Islamic armies such as Zaid’s generalship and upon his death the appointment of Usama by the Prophet who led Muslims such as Abu Bakr and Umar.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is also the case when Umar could not find an appropriate successor he is known to have said that were Salim, a slave of Abu Hudhaifa, still alive he would have given him the Caliphate. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The theme of this is all indicative that a former slave is not barred from the highest of all occupations and status in a Muslim society. Compare this with the abolition of slavery in the United States that resulted in “freedom” for African Americans when they were still regarded as inferior and segregated like contagious animals. Islam provided the correct mindset to dispel these racist assumptions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Bismillah]

[FONT=&quot]By now we can easily distinguish the factors of slavery in Islam and everywhere else. We can see that slaves were protected, to the extent that a master could not even slap a slave out of cruelty, given their appropriate status as humans, and their positions elevated to that of anyone else and recognizing that through no inherent defect of their own, but from external factors that lead to their enslavement.

From then Islam moved on to free these men and women through either voluntary emancipation (al-itq) or the personal writing and negotiation of their freedom (mukatabah).

Al-itq required that an owner voluntary free his slave, a practice highly encouraged and replicated by the Prophet the companions and the tenants of Islam. The Prophet freed all the slaves he had and his household has freed more than thirty thousand slaves.

Another example would be Abu Bakr (R.A) who spent exorbitant amounts of money to buy slaves from the polytheistic Quraish and then free them.

Furthermore, there was money set aside from the public fund to free these slaves. For example Yahya ib Sa'eed recalls the exchange "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Umar Ibn Abdel Aziz sent me to collect Zakah from Africa. I did so, then I asked for the poor who should receive it. I did not find any because Umar Ibn Abdel Aziz had made every one rich. I used the money to free some from slavery".

There is another example of the Prophet setting free slaves who would teach ten Muslims how to read or perform any other beneficial service to society. Another precedent set would be that the Qur'an states that freeing slaves would guarantee mercy for the most serious of sins as well as for any sins that one might commit. This alone contributed more to the movement of freeing one's slaves than anything else.

For example, if a man were to accidentally kill a fellow Muslim, reparations in the form of freeing a slave and paying blood money would be sufficient to attain mercy. In this sense because the services of the murdered man are reinstituted with the freed man and the family who is deprived of a livelihood is compensated. From here you can assume something very important, that the status of slavery is seen as something close to death. That freeing a slave is equivalent to bringing a man back from the dead.

History alone judges the vast numbers of slaves freed from this noble idea.

Secondly is the matter of mukatabah which entailed that a master free his slave, at the request of the slave, by way of an agreement of returning a certain amount of money. In this case the master is obligated to neither refuse this request, nor delay his emancipation. If these terms are broken, the slave is entitled to appeal the issue to a court to address his issue of liberty. The moment the slave presented his plea his master could neither turn down the offer nor should he fear any repercussions because the Islamic government guaranteed that he would work for his master for freedom or if they could not be reconciled to work for anyone else, for payment, until the time that he could win back his freedom.

Please look to the European recognition of indentured servants (with the exception that indentured servants were often worked to death something that Islamic law abhors), a principle applied in Europe hundreds of years after Islam recognized the need, practicality, and humanity in such a law. However the underlying difference being that Islam, again, put funds out to aid these slaves in their workings for freedom. This is pointed out by the verse from the Qur'an that describes zakat as deployed as:

'Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives'
(9:60)

Even when it was of no interest and certainly no material gain of the State did Muslims so vigorously put money aside for these causes in the time of enlightenment![/FONT][FONT=&quot] This of course hundreds of years before the cherished Enlightenment that Auto drones on and on about that were motivated solely for Political and Economic reasons, if these are the humanistic causes for which Europeans celebrate then we must reflect the moral distance between the two societies of Europe and the flawless Ummah of our Prophet. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
So now that I have cited how the slave’s lot was tremendously increased from the standards of the West, as well as how slavery was undoubtedly led to be abolished if the two rules of emancipation within Islam were adhered, comes the point of from where and why were slaves kept in the first place.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If looking at the causes of slavery you look to the Romans, for example, you will see that slaves were in positions of abject pity used to allow the Roman public to continue their public indulgences and luxuries. In the perspective of the New World they were treated as a mere chattle to harvest resources and crops from the land. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
From the standards set by the Prophet and the rightly guided Caliphs, none of these factors of material gain ever presented themselves as motivation for the influx of greater number of slaves. The fact of the matter is that during the time of the Prophet the Ummah was fragile and always in constant danger from belligerent tribes. The Muslims who fell under the hands of these enemies were routinely killed and their women gang raped and then murdered. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
For all practical purposes Islam is not a purely pacifistic religion. It is one established on common sense that will allow its people to flourish in this world as well as the next. Therefore it would have been foolish to set free prisoners of war while the enemies routinely captured and enslaved those Muslims who fell under their hands. For the sake of leverage and the fates of those Muslims who were in the hands of the enemy of the Ummah, slavery was a necessary condition imposed by the belligerents. But though this condition was a necessity the fact of the matter is that they were incomparable to the extreme, as was pointed out earlier. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In fact it is recognized that slavery is not meant for as an eternal condition and a byproduct of strategic warfare. The only verse dealing with the captured belligerents which states
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘afterwards, (release them, a must), either by way of grace or by (accepting) ransom. (That is the law,) until war lays down its weapons (and it is over).’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](47:4)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
As to those Muslims, who later on, conducted wars and encouraged the traffic of slavery for no reason they are outside the fold of Islam. They had no justification from our laws and were motivated by their own expansionist ideals and want for luxury. Indeed their heretical actions are evident as they took strides to limit the contact of foreign people to Islam and imprisoned converts still, in the name of profit, so as to limit the number of new Muslims of whom they were legally obliged not to enslave. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
(I would like to give credit to both Mr Afzalur Rahman and Dr. Qutb for their extensive collection of hadith and verses relating to the subject and for enormously shaping my thinking and providing the structure for my argument)[/FONT]

 

[Bismillah]

Islam was progress forward from 6th century Arab nomadic raiding tribes. It's a step backward from modern, secular, enlightenment society.

It is delightful to note that you really believe that political Islam is alive and well today when in fact the leaders of the Ummah abandoned its teachings from the onset of Banu Umayya consistently through the annals of history with notable exceptions such as Umar ibn Abd Aziz.

Don't worry the majority of backwardness that results in so many Muslim countries is a result of your most heralded Enlightenment that held so many races, with the exceptions of whites of course, to be inferior and the colonial rape of its people. The despotic leaders, turbulence, and poverty is not something that dropped down from the sky.

 

[Badran]

I have to agree. Reading the article from Islamweb, it seems that there are unfair differences in the rights of men and women to divorce in Islam. For women:

In the case that the husband is at fault and the woman is interested in divorce, she can petition a judge for divorce, with cause. She would be required to offer proof that her husband had not fulfilled his marital responsibilities. If the woman had specified certain conditions that are Islamically accepted in her marriage contract, which were not met by the husband, she could obtain a conditional divorce.
​

But the man is not required to petition a judge or provide proof, apparently. All he has to do is declare his intentions to divorce and abstain from sexual relations for 3 months. The article admits men have greater divorce rights than women, but says this is because men are leaders, not because women are inferior:

Thus, it is clear that there is a 'degree' of difference with regards to the rights of men and women in divorce, and that the greater right that men were given is due to their being the leaders and financial supporters of the household. This, however, does not mean that women are inferior to men or that they are second-class human beings.
​

Men have greater rights, and they are the financial supporters, and they are the leaders. Women have fewer rights, and they are not the leaders, but that doesn't mean they are second-class human beings .... hmmm .... It seems to me like the article wants fairness and equality, but it is constrained by the verses from the Qur'an. So the article tries as hard as it can to fit the Qur'an and modern ideas of equality together, like a man trying to squeeze into an old suit that no longer fits him, but it's bursting at the seams.

The part about men being "in charge" of women, and that this is why they supposedly have more rights, is a conclusion in the article, not what the Quran actually says. The verse they translated to "in charge" actually have many interpretations and translations. But even if it means that, thats not really the problem.

The financial issues are the main thing here. Being that if the woman is the one who wants a divorce, there are two possibilities as to whats going to happen with regard to the dowry, and the husband's possible fiinancial responsibility for her. Which requires a judge. While if a man wants the divorce, thats not the case.

However, she can & will have a divorce if she wants to, whenever she wants to.

 

[Badran]

I think that there are common threads.

I gather that in Eqypt women are finding it necessary to band together to deal with constant sexual harassment from men in the streets.

There are common threads everywhere. Are women not sexually harassed where you live? The fact that there is a problem in Egypt with this right now doesn't mean that women are treated like animals in general.

What you said was that Muslim women are treated like livestock in Muslim countries, which is not true in anyway.

I read of muslims in Britain sending their daughters to forced marriages in places such as Pakistan. One report mentioned that the Britich embassy in Pakistant finds it necessary to maintain a special group of agents to combat these forced marriages.

I read that a large proportion of convicted rapists in Scandinavia are muslim immigrants.

And?

Islam is toxic. That is very clear.

No, not really. Its only clear if you want it to be clear.

 

[Badran]

[FONT=&quot]By now we can easily distinguish the factors of slavery in Islam and everywhere else. We can see that slaves were protected, to the extent that a master could not even slap a slave out of cruelty, given their appropriate status as humans, and their positions elevated to that of anyone else and recognizing that through no inherent defect of their own, but from external factors that lead to their enslavement. [/FONT]

Lets hope the slavery issue is out of the way now.

 

[Autodidact]

You look for fault just like a lawyer, and that will never let you see the forest because the trees are in your way.

You need to go a little further than just making declarations, MJ, and actually demonstrate that this is the case.

The forest = oppression of women.

 

[Autodidact]

And how do you observe that?

Because, as I say, Muslims and Muslims countries are disproportionately represented among the most miserable, impoverished, oppressed (by their Muslims leaders) and least happy people in the world. I can provide statistics if you like. Overall, the happiest, most prosperous and free people live in secular democracies.

'Tend'. 'Think'. I would think you would be beyond equation correlation and causation, even if it seems really, really likely.

I think it is causation, because we can see the connection. Islam draws its culture from the past. It has not caught up to more successful, modern approaches. It disdains democracy. It obliterates individual liberty. And IMO crucially, it oppresses women. What we see the world over is that the better a society is for women, the happier and more prosperous it is for everyone.

What if I said Native Americans were the same because of a culture and crazy religious beliefs they refuse to let go of? (I don't personally believe this; I'm just trying to create a similar comparison).

You would be mistaken.

And of course, say, 800 C.E. would be a step backwards in many regards. Never said otherwise. But what's your point? If not for the Islamic Golden Age, we would not have progessed to this point.

Who knows. It's hard to say, as well as irrelevant. I would put much more emphasis on the Enlightenment.

Muslims saved Roman and Greek works (they actually were interested in the words of infidels. Amazing, isn't it?) that would almost certainly have been destroyed by Christian fundamentalists in Europe. Algebra, various advances in medicine... basic hygeine even are some of the gifts the Muslims offered the modern world. And yet you make little of it. Going back to the pre-Civil Rights era would be a huge step backwards; yet, would you refuse to admire those individuals who successfully struggled to bring equality? Would you make light of their contributions? If not for that point in time, the world would be very different.

Meanwhile, in the modern world, Islam is overwhelmingly a force that contributes to and perpetuates human suffering.

And that is a valid opinion, if you're dragging along cultural baggage. Are Muslims incapable of being modern, secular, and enlightened while professing a belief in Islam? I'd say, from posters in this thread, that's clearly not true.

Hard to say. It seems remotely possible. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be moving in that direction.

I guess I think there is a conflict developing now between Conservative, fundamentalist Muslims and those who would like to reform Islam in a modern, secular direction. Unfortunately, Islam is not quite a compatible with this approach as Christianity eventually turned out to be. I guess I still think it's possible, not certainly not inevitable.

Lebanon is a Muslim majority country (with very complicated religious fabric, I admit).

Barely.

Advocating freedom of speech is not out of the ordinary here. In fact, to a certain extent it's required.

Would there were more countries that take this approach.

Also, the reason I brought up Afghanistan and Pakistan is really, really simple. Afghanistan is a war zone. War zones don't tend to be freedom of speech zones. Pakistan borders Afghanistan, with militants and terrorists regularly crossing over. In fact, parts of Pakistan could probably be close to being called war zones in themselves. Hell, some cities in the States have their own war zones.

First, we also observe that Muslim countries are among the most violent and war torn in the world. Second, I can't think of a reason that a war against the Taliban would repress freedom to criticize Islam, can you?

And then there's Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan...The correlation is extremely high. Either misery causes Islam, or Islam causes misery. Or possibly there is a third factor that causes both, but I have no idea what that might be.

A good comparison is India to Pakistan. Which one is more prosperous, more free, and happier? Which has made the most progress? Which is not Muslim? Do you think it's mere coincidence?

Let's think of a few other Muslim majority countries. Turkey. Turkey practically (not quite, at risk of offence) worships secularism, and is definitely a fan of modernization.

And as a result, is one of the most prosperous, free, and modern of all Muslim majority countries, especially in that part of the world. Of course, it's government is the least Islamic, isn't it? No coincidence.

How many Muslim majority countries are in Africa? How many countries in Africa are so-called first or second world countries?

Good example. Which African countries are the most impoverished, war-torn, repressive and miserable? Which are the most prosperous, free and happy? Break it down. Again, no coincidence.

How many Muslim majority countries were part of the Soviet Union? How many former states are so-called first or second world countries?

How many Muslim majority countries are former colonies, formerly under occupation, or were part of an empire?

But I'm sure none of that matters. It's that wretched book's fault!

Oh, and as a fun question: how many so-called first or second world countries are not comprised mainly of European descendants, or have those individuals in high-ranking positions?

I hope you're advocating racial superiority. It's not race that makes the difference, it's ideology. After all, Europe went through a horrible, decimating, destroying war. It has recovered, because of its secular, Enlightenment values. The same could happen to any people. It's about culture, values and beliefs, not race.

To continue, how many first and second world countries are resource-wealthy? How many third world countries are resource-wealthy?

No relationship there. Switzerland, Finland, Germany, Spain, even Japen are resource poor compared to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, even Nigeria. Where is there freedom and relative happiness? Where is there repression and suffering?

It's fun to ponder. If you actually want to gather statistics, that could be interesting. I'm just posing questions that follow what I generally think is the case.

O.K., I'll grab a few.

 

[Autodidact]

[FONT=&quot]On the question of slavery.

I will start with verses from the Qur'an and the hadith that quite resolutely reject the racists and ignorant viewpoint of the West that was held on for so long and still is in many places.

irrelevant.

Moving on.

Looking at the concept of slavery in the West, it is beyond sickening to see the implementation of the modern equivalent of factory farming of humans in the past. From the slaves of the Roman Empire to those of the Spanish, it is a testimony to one of the most barbarous treatment of fellow humans in our history.

And who captured those slaves and sold them to them? Muslims.[/FONT]

So what's your position on slavery, Abibi? For, or against?

 

[nameless]

By now we can easily distinguish the factors of slavery in Islam and everywhere else. We can see that slaves were protected, to the extent that a master could not even slap a slave out of cruelty, given their appropriate status as humans, and their positions elevated to that of anyone else and recognizing that through no inherent defect of their own, but from external factors that lead to their enslavement.

pls explain why muhammad captured Juwayriya bint al-Harith from her father and protected her as a slave while her father was alive .....

 

[Autodidact]

It is delightful to note that you really believe that political Islam is alive and well today when in fact the leaders of the Ummah abandoned its teachings from the onset of Banu Umayya consistently through the annals of history with notable exceptions such as Umar ibn Abd Aziz.

Don't worry the majority of backwardness that results in so many Muslim countries is a result of your most heralded Enlightenment that held so many races, with the exceptions of whites of course, to be inferior and the colonial rape of its people. The despotic leaders, turbulence, and poverty is not something that dropped down from the sky.

Actually, I think Abibi presents one of the biggest obstacles to Muslim progress--an absolute refusal to take any responsibility, which of course leads to an inability to solve problems.

Despotic leaders, turbulence and poverty did not drop down from the sky. They are a result of Islam and Sharia.

Do you think India had less colonial history than Pakistan? Which one is mired in violence, poverty and ignorance? Which one is moving into the modern world?

I don't know why Islam seems to lead to this evasion of responsibility and maturity. I suspect it's related to the concept that Islam is the one true religion, Muslims the only people following God's true path. Therefore, if Muslims are worse off than other people, it cannot be because Muslims are in error; that would violate their religious superiority. It must be someone else's fault. Next step: conspiracy thinking.

Let me ask you this, Abibi? How's that working for you?

 

[Autodidact]

The part about men being "in charge" of women, and that this is why they supposedly have more rights, is a conclusion in the article, not what the Quran actually says. The verse they translated to "in charge" actually have many interpretations and translations. But even if it means that, thats not really the problem.

The financial issues are the main thing here. Being that if the woman is the one who wants a divorce, there are two possibilities as to whats going to happen with regard to the dowry, and the husband's possible fiinancial responsibility for her. Which requires a judge. While if a man wants the divorce, thats not the case.

However, she can & will have a divorce if she wants to, whenever she wants to.

Really?
So this is wrong:

Tafriq is a divorce obtained through a judicial ruling issued pursuant to a petition by a wife or husband. While most of the juristic schools today allow tafriq, they differ regarding the circumstances in which this type of divorce may be obtained. The Shia Ithna-Asharis allow tafriq only in certain cases where the husband is impotent.[78] Likewise, most Hanifi jurists accept tafriq only if the husband has a serious genital defect such as impotency or castration.[79] However, the Maliki, Hanbali, and Shafii schools allow a wife to apply to a court for divorce on other specific grounds. Modern laws based on one of these three schools generally allow a spouse to apply for divorce on the following grounds:

• Injury or discord;
• A defect on the part of the husband;
• The husband's failure to pay maintenance;
• The husband's absence without a proper excuse;
• The husband's imprisonment

Expert law.

Not to mention:

Under Shari'a, a father is the natural guardian (al waley) of his children's persons and property. Shia doctrine also gives the child's paternal grandfather joint guardianship.[83] According to Shari'a, a child's paternal grandfather is his or her natural guardian after the father.[84] Under the laws of countries such as Kuwait , guardianship passes to the next relative on the father's side if the father and paternal grandfather are unable to act as guardian.[85] Depending on local laws, a father may be able to transfer his power of attorney over his child to other family members. In custody abduction cases, a father brought into court may use this as a means of keeping the child in the custody of his relatives and he may claim that he lacks legal authority to return the child to its mother.

And this:

In addition, according to the Målikí and
¯anbalí schools of law, the wife can ask the judge to divorce her from her
husband (tañlíq), if she provides acceptable reasons for her request. The judge
can also end the marriage by repudiating (faskh) the marriage contract in certain
cases, such as in incestuous marriages, when a Muslim woman is married to a non-
Muslim man, or when a Muslim man is married to a woman who is neither a
Muslim nor a Scriptuary (Jewish or Christian).Divorce in Islamic Law.

 

[Autodidact]

Lets hope the slavery issue is out of the way now.

Yes. The qur'an authorizes human slavery, and slavery has only been outlawed because of secularism. If the whole world was in Dar al Islam, slavery would be legal throughout the world. That's out of the way.

Shall we move on to inequality of the sexes?

Just as Muslim majority countries tend to be among the most impoverished, illiterate and oppressive, they also tend to have the worst records on oppression of women. This can be traced directly to the qur'an, where the second-class status of women is made clear.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Abibi,

That was a very long reply! While I did find it interesting, it didn't fundamentally tell me anything new, or contradict what I have already said. Sure, Islam has a very charitable and humane view of slaves, perhaps much more humane than other philosophies. But, the ancient Islamic view towards slaves is not so charitable, and not so humane, as the view that most rational people accept today. To "possess" people "by your right hand" is wrong in itself, even if you treat your property humanely and even if you eventually set them free. Surely you agree?

The other thing I would say, is that while I agree slavery as condoned by Islam was much more humane than other forms of slavery (the American slave trade of the 1800s for example) some of your arguments show your bias. For example, in some cases you have chosen to compare the theory of Islamic slavery, with the practice of European slavery. You neglected the practice of Islamic slavery, and the theory of Christian, Roman, Greek, and Jewish slavery.

If we are going to talk about theory, many philosophies and laws hundreds of years before the flawless Ummah -- Christian, Greek, Roman, Jewish, etc. -- taught that slaves should be treated humanely, all human beings are created equal, freeing slaves is a good thing, etc. Some philosophers in Greece opposed slavery entirely, for example Alcidamas around 400 B.C.E. said "God has set everyone free. No one is made a slave by nature." You say slavery would have eventually been abolished if people had listened to Muhammad's teachings. Perhaps, but then we have to give even greater credit to people like Alcidamas, because if people had followed his teachings then slavery would have been abolished immediately, one thousand years before the flawless Ummah gave us the wisdom that we should only heap bearable burdens on our slaves.

You say the regulations of Islam would have phased out slavery eventually, but this too was not the first time law had taken this trajectory. The trajectory of Roman law was also to grant more rights to slaves, make it easier for them to become free, make it harder to become enslaved, and give them greater legal recourse to address grievances against their masters. You mentioned slaves were allowed to buy their freedom ("[FONT=&quot]mukatabah")[/FONT] in fact slaves could buy their freedom long before Islam. Emperors and Popes and Kings freed slaves as acts of generosity. Freed slaves rose to high positions. The famous philosopher Epictetus for example (~100 C.E.) was born a slave, he was freed and went on to become friends with the Roman Emperor. A freed slave, Callixtus, became Pope of the Catholic Church. This was around 200 C.E. One would hope that 400 years later, it would still be true that slaves could rise to positions of power.

You mention that keeping slaves captured in war was a necessity. But the majority of slaves were captured in war in many ancient societies. Does the Qur'an say you may not keep slaves unless they are captured in war? That would be an important thing to leave out of a book of timeless wisdom.

These criticisms I have with your argument don't affect your basic conclusion: I agree with you, the Islamic version of slavery was a huge improvement. But the modern view is an even greater improvement. In fact the modern view is a return to ideas that were developed a thousand years before Muhammad, ideas which opposed slavery instead of regulating slavery. I disagree with you that possessing another human being and taking women captives as war booty should be described as a "flawless" state of affairs.

 

[Bismillah]

[FONT=&quot] irrelevant.

You would wish for it to be irrelevant, yet Islamic society rejected the racist connotations that held every other part of the world in ignominy. Quite relevant indeed when you look at the history of cherished secular societies that justified their continual repression of others based on a false sense of superiority.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And who captured those slaves and sold them to them? Muslims.[/FONT]

So what's your position on slavery, Abibi? For, or against?

I have no business talking to people who ignore my posts. Reread what I said, reread what I said of slave traffickers. Do not come to me with a snide attitude and for me to take your ignorance in stride.

My position on slavery is the same as that of Islam's which has proven to be both more forthcoming and understanding on the matter. Secular law is by nature flawed by the humans who create them.

Actually, I think Abibi presents one of the biggest obstacles to Muslim progress--an absolute refusal to take any responsibility, which of course leads to an inability to solve problems.

And you represent the worst that I see in the West a blind eye towards their years of colonialism. How pathetic, that one would deny their role in the destruction of so many communities, Islamic, Christian, and Polytheistic they all suffered under your cherished secular law.

Despotic leaders, turbulence and poverty did not drop down from the sky. They are a result of Islam and Sharia.

From here on out you lose any shred of credibility you once had. Anyone with a partial knoweldge of Islamic jurisprudence knows that the application of Islamic law and Shariah ended with the death of Ali and only briefly resurfaced under the most pious of Caliphs.

And ultimately what leads us down to the troubled state of Islamic countries today are the mishmash between half Islam and half European laws imposed on an unwilling populace by the occupiers. The Shariah courts have been abandoned the puppets are in place and we are watching them dance around.

Do you think India had less colonial history than Pakistan? Which one is mired in violence, poverty and ignorance? Which one is moving into the modern world?

Do not lecture me on India and Pakistan I know full well the history of both. And I know that you are speaking from an untenable position that holds no regard to the actual history of Pakistan and that in your attempts to slander Islam you negate the responsibility of the people who are responsible for the deaths and destruction there.

I don't know why Islam seems to lead to this evasion of responsibility and maturity. I suspect it's related to the concept that Islam is the one true religion, Muslims the only people following God's true path. Therefore, if Muslims are worse off than other people, it cannot be because Muslims are in error; that would violate their religious superiority. It must be someone else's fault. Next step: conspiracy thinking.

Let me ask you this, Abibi? How's that working for you?

How is Islam working for me? Islam is working for me perfectly and I cannot imagine my life without it. I do not drink, I do not pursue girls for hookups, and I have never encountered the need for the word "sober" in my lexicon.

I used to be a half Muslim, a Muslim in name. My parents raised me and taught me the obligatory statutes of their duty and yet I did not embrace my faith. I would rather be Western and my company in high school was less then pious.

Mashallah when the time came and I entered University, alone for the first time, I fled to my faith and it propped me up. My faith is responsible for all my good deeds and my lapses in it are responsible for my mistakes.

So how is it working for me? It has lead me to be ten times more aware than the average American my age and is the reason for my success in this life. It is working beautifully.

Yes. The qur'an authorizes human slavery, and slavery has only been outlawed because of secularism. If the whole world was in Dar al Islam, slavery would be legal throughout the world. That's out of the way.

Of course you have empty accusation and hate to fill the way to your judgments pitiful.