The qur'an

[YmirGF]

I do not understand why you are confused. Let me repeat: If you understand Islam fully, you will see that in the absolute sense it is moot on validating or opposing slavery.

Because being a slave to Allah is seen as being the pinnacle of human potential.

 

[Autodidact]

I do not understand why you are confused. Let me repeat: If you understand Islam fully, you will see that in the absolute sense it is moot on validating or opposing slavery.

I don't even understand what you're saying. I'm more confused than ever. First, what do you mean by "understand Islam fully?" Does anyone "understand Islam fully?" Can someone understand Islam fully and disagree with you? Second, what does "in the absolute sense" mean? How is the absolute sense different from the regular old sense? And what does it mean for a religion to be moot on something? To me, moot means that something doesn't matter, no longer matters because it has been previously decided, or is purely hypothetical.

Please make it simple for me: Does Islam permit slavery? yes or no
Does Islam prohibit slavery? yes or no.
Thanks.

 

[croak]

Because you don't know what "morality" means?! Uh, o.k., morality "is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous."'concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct" In other words, in your view, why is it right to enslave a non-Muslim, but wrong to enslave a Muslim?

Well, I checked definitions, and my earlier post seemed to have answered your question according to those definitions.

Morality, ethics... these are not universal concepts. Different cultures have different ideas of what is right and wrong. In that sense, I feel I answered your question. If I haven't, really, what exactly are you asking for? I still don't see it. Are you trying to get me to say that by the standards of modern Western morality, such a distinction is wrong? I'm trying to understand you, really.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I checked definitions, and my earlier post seemed to have answered your question according to those definitions.

Morality, ethics... these are not universal concepts. Different cultures have different ideas of what is right and wrong. In that sense, I feel I answered your question. If I haven't, really, what exactly are you asking for? I still don't see it. Are you trying to get me to say that by the standards of modern Western morality, such a distinction is wrong? I'm trying to understand you, really.

I'm not asking about anyone's morals but yours. In your own view, not anyone's "general idea," why is it moral to enslave non-Muslims, but not Muslims?

 

[croak]

I'm not asking about anyone's morals but yours. In your own view, not anyone's "general idea," why is it moral to enslave non-Muslims, but not Muslims?

I didn't decide that non-Muslims could be enslaved and Muslims could not, therefore my view rests on my interpretation of why those rules for enslavement were set.

I really don't know how else to answer your question. I think that you would like me to answer that it shouldn't be moral, and therefore the Qur'an is bad and not the word of a loving deity, and thus make your argument for you.

Whether it should or shouldn't be wasn't the question, though.

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't decide that non-Muslims could be enslaved and Muslims could not, therefore my view rests on my interpretation of why those rules for enslavement were set.

I really don't know how else to answer your question. I think that you would like me to answer that it shouldn't be moral, and therefore the Qur'an is bad and not the word of a loving deity, and thus make your argument for you.

Whether it should or shouldn't be wasn't the question, though.

Wow, it's such a simple question. I don't know why religious people struggle with these simple moral questions. I don't care how you answer, as long as it is your answer to the question:

In YOUR view, is it moral to enslave non-Muslims but not moral to enslave Muslims?
If so, why?

Possible answers include: Yes, it is moral, and no, it is not moral. I'm not trying to dictate you answer, just find out what it is.

When I got to a similar point with SLMH, he resorted to saying "whatever" rather than answer this simple moral question.

 

[croak]

Wow, it's such a simple question. I don't know why religious people struggle with these simple moral questions. I don't care how you answer, as long as it is your answer to the question:

In YOUR view, is it moral to enslave non-Muslims but not moral to enslave Muslims?
If so, why?

Possible answers include: Yes, it is moral, and no, it is not moral. I'm not trying to dictate you answer, just find out what it is.

When I got to a similar point with SLMH, he resorted to saying "whatever" rather than answer this simple moral question.

How do you know if I'm religious or not? I tried to keep out any personal religious leanings or lack thereof in my arguments, just addressing points according to sources I have collected and trying to correct ideas I think are misguided.

Are you trying to address me as a Muslim? That question would mean nothing to a non-Muslim as the point is moot: a non-Muslim doesn't believe in the Qur'an or the laws laid down by that book; they can argue what a Muslim might believe, but otherwise, what can they say?

I overthink things; pardon me. I don't find moral or ethical questions to be simple.

 

[no-body]

Because being a slave to Allah is seen as being the pinnacle of human potential.

The crux I think is what exactly does being "a slave to Allah" really mean? As with most religions people are going to make it mean what they want it to mean and say it's divinely inspired.

It's sad that the fundamentalist nutballs overshadow the kind hearted more liberal persons.

 

[Autodidact]

How do you know if I'm religious or not? I tried to keep out any personal religious leanings or lack thereof in my arguments, just addressing points according to sources I have collected and trying to correct ideas I think are misguided.

Are you trying to address me as a Muslim? That question would mean nothing to a non-Muslim as the point is moot: a non-Muslim doesn't believe in the Qur'an or the laws laid down by that book; they can argue what a Muslim might believe, but otherwise, what can they say?

I overthink things; pardon me. I don't find moral or ethical questions to be simple.

I don't know what your religion is, or why that prevents you from answering my question.
Is it moral for a Muslim to enslave another Muslim?
Is it moral for a Muslim to enslave a non-Muslim?
Why?

 

[Looncall]

I didn't decide that non-Muslims could be enslaved and Muslims could not, therefore my view rests on my interpretation of why those rules for enslavement were set.

I really don't know how else to answer your question. I think that you would like me to answer that it shouldn't be moral, and therefore the Qur'an is bad and not the word of a loving deity, and thus make your argument for you.

Whether it should or shouldn't be wasn't the question, though.

Are you saying that muslims cannot form independent moral judgements on something so clear-cut as slavery? Is their only source of morality the quran and does their own humanity count for nothing?

This reminds me of a report I read from aid workers in Afghanistan. They found that the people there were able to reason about things only in reference to the quran.

 

[croak]

I don't know what your religion is, or why that prevents you from answering my question.
Is it moral for a Muslim to enslave another Muslim?
Is it moral for a Muslim to enslave a non-Muslim?
Why?

I'm sorry, but I can't think of any reply to your questions other than what I stated earlier. In Islam, it is moral, perhaps for the reasons I stated. Then again, you might find Muslims that disagree. Outside the scope of Islam, what does it matter? Morals and ethics for Muslims are in part set down by the Qur'an. For a non-Muslim, it can be set by anything. By a Western view, both may be seen as immoral, or maybe even the first as moral and the second as immoral. Practically any view can be taken.

My view is that I won't decide what's moral for someone else, only for myself and perhaps the occasional utopian view.

That's probably the straightest answer you'll get out of me.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry, but I can't think of any reply to your questions other than what I stated earlier. In Islam, it is moral, perhaps for the reasons I stated. Then again, you might find Muslims that disagree. Outside the scope of Islam, what does it matter? Morals and ethics for Muslims are in part set down by the Qur'an. For a non-Muslim, it can be set by anything. By a Western view, both may be seen as immoral, or maybe even the first as moral and the second as immoral. Practically any view can be taken.

My view is that I won't decide what's moral for someone else, only for myself and perhaps the occasional utopian view.

That's probably the straightest answer you'll get out of me.

O.K., well it's very easy for me:
It's immoral for a Muslim to own a Muslim as a slave.
It's immoral for a Muslim to own a non-Muslim as a slave.
That is because it's immoral for anyone to own anyone as a slave, and both of these are subsets of that rule.

Why does it matter? You honestly have no idea why it matters whether something as common and important as slavery is right or wrong?

You say it's moral in Islam, but A-Man-esl disagrees. Maybe. Actually, like every Muslim in this thread, he is bobbing and weaving, evading and dancing, neither answering nor not answering, while giving contradictory answers, to this question which again, for me as an atheist, is kindergarten simple. In fact, I bet any non-Muslim kindergartner could answer it.

 

[croak]

O.K., well it's very easy for me:
It's immoral for a Muslim to own a Muslim as a slave.
It's immoral for a Muslim to own a non-Muslim as a slave.
That is because it's immoral for anyone to own anyone as a slave, and both of these are subsets of that rule.

Why does it matter? You honestly have no idea why it matters whether something as common and important as slavery is right or wrong?

Ah, is slavery right or wrong for me? For me, I would prefer to do without slavery, but in situations where the alternatives are to kill the person or be killed, I would definitely prefer slavery.

Imprisonment, in a sense, is a form of legalized slavery. In some cases, prisoners actually work like slaves. In many, they are simply held for a predetermined period of time. It's interesting how imprisonment works, I really oughta to do more research into it.

You say it's moral in Islam, but A-Man-esl disagrees. Maybe. Actually, like every Muslim in this thread, he is bobbing and weaving, evading and dancing, neither answering nor not answering, while giving contradictory answers, to this question which again, for me as an atheist, is kindergarten simple. In fact, I bet any non-Muslim kindergartner could answer it.

Actually, like all human beings, Muslims differ in their views. If you're looking for a homogenous group of followers who never question what they read, look elsewhere.

 

[Autodidact]

Ah, is slavery right or wrong for me? For me, I would prefer to do without slavery, but in situations where the alternatives are to kill the person or be killed, I would definitely prefer slavery.

Imprisonment, in a sense, is a form of legalized slavery. In some cases, prisoners actually work like slaves. In many, they are simply held for a predetermined period of time. It's interesting how imprisonment works, I really oughta to do more research into it.


Actually, like all human beings, Muslims differ in their views. If you're looking for a homogenous group of followers who never question what they read, look elsewhere.

I'm tired of asking for an answer to my question. Let's just agree that croak prefers not to answer this question, and let us all draw our conclusions about what that says about the strength of your position.

 

[croak]

I'm tired of asking for an answer to my question. Let's just agree that croak prefers not to answer this question, and let us all draw our conclusions about what that says about the strength of your position.

I'm tired of trying to answer your question. Let's just agree that I've tried and failed to answer the question to your liking, and let us all draw our own conclusions about what that says about croak's mental stability— er, I mean, our different ways of defending our positions.

What is my position again?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm tired of trying to answer your question. Let's just agree that I've tried and failed to answer the question to your liking, and let us all draw our own conclusions about what that says about croak's mental stability— er, I mean, our different ways of defending our positions.

What is my position again?

You have not answered my question at all. You have said, over and over, that you cannot answer it. Now you want to claim that you have, but I didn't like it? Here, let's try it again:

Yes or no, is it moral for a Muslim to own a non-Muslim as a slave, in your view?

 

[croak]

You have not answered my question at all. You have said, over and over, that you cannot answer it. Now you want to claim that you have, but I didn't like it? Here, let's try it again:

Yes or no, is it moral for a Muslim to own a non-Muslim as a slave, in your view?

I have tried to answer it, that's all I'm saying. Whether those answers were valid is up for grabs. Also, I said 'answered it to your liking', as in meeting your standards or expectations for an answer. For someone else, it might have been sufficient as an answer. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike my answer.

Really now, why do we have to try this again? I was hoping we could reach some kind of agreement, maybe to agree to disagree?

 

[Autodidact]

I have tried to answer it, that's all I'm saying. Whether those answers were valid is up for grabs. Also, I said 'answered it to your liking', as in meeting your standards or expectations for an answer. For someone else, it might have been sufficient as an answer. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike my answer.

Really now, why do we have to try this again? I was hoping we could reach some kind of agreement, maybe to agree to disagree?

I don't know whether I agree with you or not, because I don't know what your position is.

 

[croak]

I don't know whether I agree with you or not, because I don't know what your position is.

In my opinion, slavery is not cut-and-dry. In a perfect world, it would not exist. However, I cannot say every single case of slavery is wrong. If enslaving someone were the only alternative to killing them or being killed, would slavery still be wrong? And in what sense?

I think, in the above circumstance and in possible other scenarios, slavery could be considered moral. For the most part, immoral.

I think of slavery, and I consider imprisonment, and I see parallels between them.

I would like to be able to have a nice, clear, black-and-white answer, but it's not in my nature. I could narrow my views to fit such an answer, but that wouldn't be truthful.

I could stay up all night wondering whether the answer really is that easy. If anything, I thank you for giving me something to think about.

 

[Autodidact]

In my opinion, slavery is not cut-and-dry. In a perfect world, it would not exist. However, I cannot say every single case of slavery is wrong. If enslaving someone were the only alternative to killing them or being killed, would slavery still be wrong?

Well that case is not before us, and I can not imagine how it would come up, so why go there? I mean, generally speaking, killing babies is wrong, but if I wrack my brain I suppose I could come up with a bizarre hypothetical in which it was morally justified.

And in what sense?

In the sense of your personal moral values.

I think, in the above circumstance and in possible other scenarios, slavery could be considered moral. For the most part, immoral.

O.K., slavery is usually immoral. Now if you have slavery you would otherwise consider immoral, and the only variable is the religion of the slave, does that have any effect on your evaluation of whether a particular enslavement is right or wrong?