The qur'an

[Autodidact]

What it would cost you if you ask me why ?, however
you used this as to prove that there is connection between Islam and Muslim's action.

If I go back through the thread, IIRC you said there was no connection between Islam and Muslims. That's just plain crazy.

This doesn't prove me wrong because this what suppose to be, it is a theoretical principle which may or may not clash with reality. It is just like when you say Muslims aren't supposed to have sex before marriage, but in reality you can see many of them doing exactly the opposite.

So Islam is just utterly ineffective? It has no effect on the lives of Muslims?

Can you see my point now ?

Yes. Your point is that all Muslims are hypocrites, and none of them actually practice their religion.

The thing I like about the secular systems that it keeps doing the same thing, but with a different envelop. Just look at how pensioners of war are treated to understand what I mean.

Can you bring up anything less relevant? Here's what's relevant:

Islam permits slavery. Secular laws outlaw it. Therefore, secular laws are superior to Islamic laws.

Show me what is wrong with my logic, if you can.

Fine you want a simple answer, it is Wrong.

Ta dah! O.K., next: the qur'an permits slavery, does it not?

Ok ,fine. Somehow, seems like I was wrong.

I think you were talking about the system which means to Islam, I don't think you were talking about slavery itself.

Slavery is wrong, all slavery, including Islamic slavery. Do you disagree?

 

[Autodidact]

To you maybe. But It is the beauty of the Quran that it appeals equally as much to a highly intellectual person as it does to a village uneducated person. You will find many distinguished Phds and highly educated Muslims and you will see a dessert Bedouin equally inspired with it with however limited understanding he has of it.

That is called Absolute philosophy, catering to both ends of the intellectual span, with its simple ramifications applying and encompassing All aspects, not just one segment of the privileged educated.

Yes, all Muslims may own slaves, the rich and the poor. All Muslim men may have sex with their wives whenever they wish, rich and poor. All Muslim women enjoy second-class status, the high and the low. All Muslims are prohibited from being friends with non-Muslims. And so forth.

 

[Autodidact]

btw, Muslims, it may interest you to learn that Christians make the exact same arguments regarding slavery. The OT specifically says "You may buy slaves" (foreign only). It also contains many restrictions and protections for slaves, especially Hebrew slaves, who can only be kept, even in debt bondage for a maximum of 7 years. They argue that Hebrew slavery was a huge improvement on the horrible slavery practiced by their neighboring countries, that the Bible sees all people as equal, that slaves had rights and were protected, so that Hebrew slavery was much more humane than modern slavery, and that God intended to outlaw slavery, somehow, at some point, just as the Muslims in this thread are arguing.

In reality, of course, the Bible merely encoded the customs of the day, which permitted slavery, just as the qur'an does.

Somehow each can see this about the other, but neither can see this about their own religion.

Atheists have no problem condemning slavery, because we are not forced to work in the confines of an ancient tribal system.

 

[A-ManESL]

Yes, all Muslims may own slaves, the rich and the poor. All Muslim men may have sex with their wives whenever they wish, rich and poor. All Muslim women enjoy second-class status, the high and the low. All Muslims are prohibited from being friends with non-Muslims. And so forth.

These arent there in my understanding of Islam. Are these the injunctions of your version of Islam?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey Abibi,

You reposted your thoughts on Islamic slavery in posts #389 and #390, because you said Autodidact "cannot point out where and how [your] conclusions based off this evidence are wrong".

However, I think you missed my rebuttal in post #250. I think I pointed out where and how some of your conclusions are wrong.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How far is forgiveness supposed to go. How long can you give someone to ask for it? Right up until the very end of their life is not long enough? If we were to be granted paradise after we enter the next life and have the proof we decide was enough, then why should we even have to go through the hardship of living anyway? People say God doesn't exist, He would have made it clear to everyone. So if He did, then we would have no need for faith and we could just skip this part.
I believe in Allah. I have faith. I don't think existence was random and I don't think a Creator would leave us without some instruction. I think that the non-material part of people have everlasting potential, that Allah wanted us to be part of His eternal presence. I think He has a reason that we need to confirm our acknowledgment of His sovereignty before we enter the next paradigm where we can meet the potential he would like for us. I am grateful we have as long as we do.

I think you avoided the question my friend.

The Qur'an says Allah will put them in shackles, throw them in a fire and not forgive them, ever. Is that merciful?

That sounds like the exact opposite of "merciful" (not to mention "reasonable").

In fact the Qur'an says that Allah deliberately "leads people astray" and causes them to question the Qur'an, then he puts them on trial for this crime.

Would you do that? If it was in your power to do so, if I died in an accident would you really throw me in shackles and fire, even if I asked for forgiveness? Wouldn't it be more merciful, and more reasonable, to judge a person based on their sincerity, their intentions, their actions in life, etc. than to judge based on whether or not they picked the right religion to have faith in? A wise creator would not withhold direct proof and then punish people for thinking.

 

[Looncall]

My point is that their condition didn't hinder them, most of them were leaders and scholars and were considered to be very well respected people during that time.

This statement would have have come as a big surprise to the galley slaves, and the concubines, and the poor folk collected all over Africa and herded to the coast to be sold out to America.

 

[TJ73]

I think you avoided the question my friend.

The Qur'an says Allah will put them in shackles, throw them in a fire and not forgive them, ever. Is that merciful?

That sounds like the exact opposite of "merciful" (not to mention "reasonable").

In fact the Qur'an says that Allah deliberately "leads people astray" and causes them to question the Qur'an, then he puts them on trial for this crime.

Would you do that? If it was in your power to do so, if I died in an accident would you really throw me in shackles and fire, even if I asked for forgiveness? Wouldn't it be more merciful, and more reasonable, to judge a person based on their sincerity, their intentions, their actions in life, etc. than to judge based on whether or not they picked the right religion to have faith in? A wise creator would not withhold direct proof and then punish people for thinking.

Well what is the intention? I can't reasonably answer that because it is hidden from me in the heart of the individual. But I might think that one demonstrates a bit of arrogance. They assert they have the ability to decern the truth strictly through intellect. God say you have to use faith. So the option of seeking God through faith isn't even attempted while living. If someone sincerely tried to invoke faith and was only able to muster the smallest amount, in all sincerity, the are promised the reward as well. I think it is a matter of "don't knock it till you try it"
Judgment according to what one did: If you could use those good things as a means to attempt to muster even a little faith I think it would garner a sympathetic judgment.

 

[Autodidact]

These arent there in my understanding of Islam. Are these the injunctions of your version of Islam?

Well, they're in the qur'an, hadith and life of the prophet. Where are you getting your version from?

 

[SLAMH]

You don't understand how the qur'an allows Muslims to capture a woman in war, kill her husband, and keep her as their sex slave for the rest of her life? I really have to cite the sura again? Are you denying that this is the case?!?

Either that you don't understand or you don't want to understand, just tell me which part of circumstances that you can't understand, and also how about that they can sue for their freedom, so how they will be kept as slave for the rest of their life. I think you need to re-read my comments again.

You said that monogamy was required. Muslim men are not required to be monogamous. So I'm not following you.

I said for the slave women the relation has to be monogamy.

 

[SLAMH]

Yet, oddly, I have encountered the most anti-scientific views I've ever experienced among Muslims right here at RF. Worse even than fundamentalist Christians. I blame that ya-ya, Harun Yahya.

Meaningless statement.

 

[SLAMH]

If I go back through the thread, IIRC you said there was no connection between Islam and Muslims. That's just plain crazy.

I meant some of Muslim's action that has nothing to do Islam.

So Islam is just utterly ineffective? It has no effect on the lives of Muslims?

Irrelevant.

Yes. Your point is that all Muslims are hypocrites, and none of them actually practice their religion.

It doesn't really matter how you understand it, though, my point stands.

Can you bring up anything less relevant? Here's what's relevant:

Islam permits slavery. Secular laws outlaw it. Therefore, secular laws are superior to Islamic laws.

Yeah, superior and it does something that is even worse than slavery, so it outlaws slavery and bring up something new. It is so horrible that it defies description.

Show me what is wrong with my logic, if you can.

Ta dah! O.K., next: the qur'an permits slavery, does it not?

I think you need to check out the meaning of circumstances.

Slavery is wrong, all slavery, including Islamic slavery. Do you disagree?

Yes.

 

[SLAMH]

This statement would have have come as a big surprise to the galley slaves, and the concubines, and the poor folk collected all over Africa and herded to the coast to be sold out to America.

So.........

 

[Autodidact]

Either that you don't understand or you don't want to understand, just tell me which part of circumstances that you can't understand, and also how about that they can sue for their freedom, so how they will be kept as slave for the rest of their life. I think you need to re-read my comments again.

Slave women were required mainly as concubines and menials. A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#cite_note-60 The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history.[62] The property of a slave was owned by his or her master unless a contract of freedom of the slave had been entered into, which allowed the slave to earn money to purchase his or her freedom and similarly to pay bride wealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#cite_note-Sikainga-48 Islam permits sexual relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage. This is referred to in the Qur'an as ma malakat aymanukum or "what your right hands possess".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#cite_note-62http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#cite_note-63

[wiki] Do you take issue with any of this?

Another method is the mukataba contract: Levy states that "the slave may redeem himself if his master agrees and contracts to let him go on payment of a stipulated sum of money, which may be paid in two or more instalments, or on the giving of stipulated services or other consideration. If the consideration is a sum of money, the master must grant the slave the right to earn and to own property.

key phrase: "If his master agrees." In other words, the master owns the slave, and may free him or her, or make an agreement to free him or her, if he so desires. The slave has no right to demand her freedom.

So, what happens, according to Islamic law and practice is that a woman is captured in war, or a girl is born to a captive or descendant of a captive and a man buys her, and he can use her for sex as much as he wants. She is a sex slave, with no rights to her own body or freedom, for the rest of her life and her children's lives. We have a word for this. We call it slavery. I think it's wrong. In fact, I think it's horrible, and as immoral as any behavior can possibly be. What do you think?

I said for the slave women the relation has to be monogamy.

Uh, o.k., so pimping is not allowed. But owning a sex slave is. Are you arguing that is moral?

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah, superior and it does something that is even worse than slavery, so it outlaws slavery and bring up something new. It is so horrible that it defies description.

And what does secular law permit that is "worse than slavery" in your eyes? I can't wait to find out.

I think you need to check out the meaning of circumstances.

The circumstances are (1) not Muslim (2) captured in war, or descended from someone captured in war. There are no other circumstances. Please explain to me how these circumstances justify enslaving someone.

Yes.

Well, if you, as a Muslim, believe that it is moral for one person to own, control, buy and sell another, then:
(1) There is no point in discussing the issue with you. We have no common ground.
(2) You have once again demonstrated why every right-minded person must combat Islam with every breath in our bodies.
(3) I would be happy to make you my slave. I have quite a lot of digging needed for my garden.

 

[SLAMH]

[wiki] Do you take issue with any of this?


key phrase: "If his master agrees." In other words, the master owns the slave, and may free him or her, or make an agreement to free him or her, if he so desires. The slave has no right to demand her freedom.

So, what happens, according to Islamic law and practice is that a woman is captured in war, or a girl is born to a captive or descendant of a captive and a man buys her, and he can use her for sex as much as he wants. She is a sex slave, with no rights to her own body or freedom, for the rest of her life and her children's lives. We have a word for this. We call it slavery. I think it's wrong. In fact, I think it's horrible, and as immoral as any behavior can possibly be. What do you think?

The problem with you is that you don't want to see the whole picture, you choose to take what you want to take and ignore what you want to ignore. As I said, but you don't understand. I said before there are many ways by which someone can be liberated. Even if he didn't agree, there are other ways and sometimes for silly reasons that for the master to expiate it, he might have to freed a slave. And, don't forget that he is being responsible of them and sometimes it seems that keeping them has no benefit, and especially if the slave is married and has children. In addition to what I have said, you keep ignoring that if the slave begets children, then she is not slave anymore and must be treated the same way someone would treat his wife.

Uh, o.k., so pimping is not allowed. But owning a sex slave is. Are you arguing that is moral?

I'm not saying it is moral. During that time, it was the rule of the war that if someone was captured in war, he would either be kept as hostage or otherwise he would be sold as slave. Islam recognizes rights for them, which can be seen as moral. However, I don't expect someone who hate Islam to do so, it is just how hate sometime can be extremely blind.

 

[SLAMH]

And what does secular law permit that is "worse than slavery" in your eyes? I can't wait to find out.

Yeah, capturing people without ever laying charges against them.

Sexual assault and humiliation and torture.

AHA, I forgot they only do this with Muslims, so there is nothing wrong with it. Though, good definition to morality.

The circumstances are (1) not Muslim (2) captured in war, or descended from someone captured in war. There are no other circumstances. Please explain to me how these circumstances justify enslaving someone.

Not every one would be enslaved, please don't tell me that you think that Muslims would enslave all the people of the country.

Well, if you, as a Muslim, believe that it is moral for one person to own, control, buy and sell another, then:

Don't put words in my mouth. If you don't understand what I say, you may ask me to explain to you again.

(1) There is no point in discussing the issue with you. We have no common ground.

I'm glad that you finally made a point that it does make sense.

(2) You have once again demonstrated why every right-minded person must combat Islam with every breath in our bodies.

Thoughtless reasoning.

(3) I would be happy to make you my slave. I have quite a lot of digging needed for my garden.

Conclusion to be made here,

First, you aren't Idealistic.

Second, I wouldn't expect you to do better than this.

 

[no-body]

I'm not saying it is moral. During that time, it was the rule of the war that if someone was captured in war, he would either be kept as hostage or otherwise he would be sold as slave. Islam recognizes rights for them, which can be seen as moral. However, I don't expect someone who hate Islam to do so, it is just how hate sometime can be extremely blind.

God seems like an ineffectual bureaucrat if the best way he can tame a bunch of barbarians wrong doings is by planting little seeds of etiquette in his supposed most holy book.

 

[SLAMH]

God seems like an ineffectual bureaucrat if the best way he can tame a bunch of barbarians wrong doings is by planting little seeds of etiquette in his supposed most holy book.

Ok, Mr.God. If you were alive during that time, what would you do ?

Please, try to put some thought, instead of boasting about nothing.

 

[YmirGF]

Ok, Mr.God. If you were alive during that time, what would you do ?

Please, try to put some thought, instead of boasting about nothing.

Outlawing slavery, like the outlawing of eating pork, might be an idea. Apparently not consuming the flesh of pigs is more important to this bizarre little god than the capturing of other human beings and holding them against their will.