Support NeoGAF

[Chuckie]

I mean, no. That's the problem.

That is not the problem. The problem is their literal and extremist intepretation.

 

[Famassu]

Have these people picked up a Quran? How disgusting.

A vast majority of these people probaby can't read all that well, so I'd wager a guess that no, none of these people have read it. They are probably just repeating the preachings of some sick individuals who claim to speak the word of Quran.

 

[dabig2]

Except you know none of that is in either the Quran or the Bible. Nice try though

Read your bible more. This was commonplace back then and encoraged by God all throughout the OT, the same OT that is revered by all the other abrahamic religions...and apparently really a lot by Isis and other terrorist assholes.

 

[kitch9]

Have these people picked up a Quran? How disgusting.

No.

In your interpretation of the words you are correct....

Unfortunately this guy was using a different interpretation.

 

[Shmuppers]

Heartbreaking indeed.

 

[quaere]

Www.lettertobaghdadi.com

Islamic sources are fine but they need to placed in correct context

I read the letters section on slavery, which relies entirely on two arguments.

1) Muhammad said it would be a nice thing to do if you freed your slaves.

2) Islamic countries haven't practiced slavery for a century so that's why you shouldn't either.

Both of these arguments are pretty damn weak in the face of the opposing evidence presented so far in this thread.

If that's the best defense leading Islamic scholars can come up with, then it's pretty clear Islam permits slavery.

 

[RustyNails]

So it's legit then?


I mean, it didn't just occur to ISIS randomly one day.

Prof. Jonathan Brown is doing an AMA today on reddit. He is a scholar of Hadith and Islamic sources and has written a bunch if books. Why dont you join the AMA and ask him about it?

https://m.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/3gd61t/jonathan_brown_ama_confirmed_for_next_friday/

In fact I suggest everyone join ask him whatever tough questions on Islamic law and jurispudence you have. AMA will begin this evening. Be respectful!

 

[TimeEffect]

You're kidding me right? Are you even serious with this question?

What's wrong with the question? Undoubtedly the text of religions have some incredibly cruel, sexist, and horrible stuff that are in times with the period they were written.

It isn't shocking then, that people who believe these books to be timeless will interpret some of this writing as true today. Are you denying that there aren't any atrocious or questionable things in the Quran? Or are you going to say that there is a justification or bigger picture to the text that is used by these nutjobs to support their rape?

And a more general question, do all Muslims regard the Quran as perfect? I know Christians that do, but also a lot of Christians that don't. I find that western society pokes enough holes in the bible to make them take that stance, yet I often find that critics of the Quran are disregarded with one particular line "they are not experts or scholars on the Quran"

 

[Chaplain]

These ISIS men do not believe that all people are created in the image of God: moral beings with intrinsic value and worth. Its hard to comprehend how they come to believe that de-humanizing women will make these women want to surrender their lives to the god they believe in.

 

[Drencrom]

I like when people are outraged over how they abuse Islam for their own gains only to be replied with texts from the Quran that references or fairly easily rationalizes their actions (at least for fundamentalists).

 

[Duji]

To any Muslims out there:

Is there any way in which you can use the Quran/Hadith to argue that slavery is forbidden/haram and having sex slaves is also forbidden?

 

[RustyNails]

I read the letters section on slavery, which relies entirely on two arguments.

1) Muhammad said it would be a nice thing to do if you freed your slaves.

2) Islamic countries haven't practiced slavery for a century so that's why you shouldn't either.

Both of these arguments are pretty damn weak in the face of the opposing evidence presented so far in this thread.

If that's the best defense leading Islamic scholars can come up with, then it's pretty clear Islam permits slavery.

But Ijtihad is also core part of Islam, which is broad consensus among the jurists. Slavery was abolished through ijtihad. Slavery was permitted in Islam, but it added several stringent rules to it, one of which was you dont rape or hit them, which would result in them becoming free. Other rules included feeding them your own food, and clothing them your own clothes, being kind and freeing them if they desire. Manumission ogf slaves was seen as a highly good deed. These "rules" allowed slaves to achieve social mobility, recognition and even an empire which they called "slave dynasty" (the mamlukes, if i am not mistaken). In 10th century, the first emperess of Delhi Sultanate, Razia Sultan was from a slave dynasty, and she ruled India for 4 years. Mamlukes ruled egypt and Maghreb.

I am not justifying old or new slavery, just throwing some light on the subject. Of course many slaves were treated like chattel and were denied their rights, but that went against the doctrine.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

To any Muslims out there:

Is there any way in which you can use the Quran/Hadith to argue that slavery is forbidden/haram and having sex slaves is also forbidden?

Yes, there are passages that dictate kindness and contradict the nastiness

You won't find them quoted on GAF though

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2013/...erses-about-compassionate-living-in-the-quran

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

There are no words. In the time I have been alive, I don't think there has been anybody who has been this evil. Perhaps except for North Korea.

 

[tearsintherain]

It is pretty fun to see Islamic preachers have convoluted reasons as to why the many, many passages in the Quran that allow slavery and rape are justified in a "historical context". For example, this guy lets us know that the Quran is good because the rape passages meant the women who became slaves were treated better after Islam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpdUVHSlbg

And there are dozens of youtube videos like this. Its undeniable that there are passages in the Quran that justify slavery and rape, just like there are in the Bible. The key difference is that the actions like killing infidels, taking slaves, and raping women were done by Muhammed in the Quran so its hard to contextualize that as "well, we don't do that anymore" the same way you can do that against Lot or David in the Bible, who were basically just men not the Final Prophet.

 

[RoadHazard]

There's a special place in hell for them. Fucking disgusting.

It's at times like these I become just a little bit sad that there almost definitely is no such thing as hell. Because if there was, these worms would undoubtedly be condemned to burn there for eternity, and that's just a nice thought. Oh well, all we can really hope for is that they die in terrible pain and agony.

 

[superseohyun]

A vast majority of these people probaby can't read all that well, so I'd wager a guess that no, none of these people have read it. They are probably just repeating the preachings of some sick individuals who claim to speak the word of Quran.

well even if they can read, with the source material so vague and up to interpretation, i see them having no problem to justify their beheavior using a book written 1400 years ago.

 

[quaere]

But Ijtihad is also core part of Islam, which is broad consensus among the jurists. Slavery was abolished through ijtihad. Slavery was permitted in Islam, but it added several stringent rules to it, one of which was you dont rape or hit them, which would result in them becoming free. Other rules included feeding them your own food, and clothing them your own clothes, being kind and freeing them if they desire. Manumission ogf slaves was seen as a highly good deed. These "rules" allowed slaves to achieve social mobility, recognition and even an empire which they called "slave dynasty" (the mamlukes, if i am not mistaken). In 10th century, the first emperess of Delhi Sultanate, Razia Sultan was from a slave dynasty, and she ruled India for 4 years. Mamlukes ruled egypt and Maghreb.

I am not justifying old or new slavery, just throwing some light on the subject. Of course many slaves were treated like chattel and were denied their rights, but that went against the doctrine.

Interesting background info, thanks.

Yes, there are passages that dictate kindness and contradict the nastiness

You won't find them quoted on GAF though

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2013/...erses-about-compassionate-living-in-the-quran

The only reference to slavery on that page is saying you can repent for your sins by freeing a slave. Says nothing contradicting the other passages permitting slavery.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Interesting background info, thanks.


The only reference to slavery on that page is saying you can repent for your sins by freeing a slave. Says nothing contradicting the other passages permitting slavery.

Isn't freeing a slave contradictory to taking them in the first place?!

 

[Drencrom]

Isn't freeing a slave contradictory to taking them in the first place?!

It just means they didn't consider getting a slave a sin.

 

[clove]

Yes, there are passages that dictate kindness and contradict the nastiness

You won't find them quoted on GAF though

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2013/...erses-about-compassionate-living-in-the-quran

The question was whether the Quran specifically forbids slavery. At best, your link has a quote that prescribes the freeing of a slave as a punishment. You have to question the morality of any text that seems to understand how much it sucks to give up a slave. For what it's worth, I don't think Islam is especially guilty among religion, here.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Isn't freeing a slave contradictory to taking them in the first place?!

You can only free a slave if you acquire one so the two go hand in hand. If you don't condone slavery then you have no slaves to free.

 

[RustyNails]

Interesting background info, thanks.


The only reference to slavery on that page is saying you can repent for your sins by freeing a slave. Says nothing contradicting the other passages permitting slavery.

Slavery was permitted, no one can deny that, but provided you adhere to laws governing it. As an example, one hadith says the people who enslave a freed person is going to hell. The largest source of slaves came from PoWs, your former enemies in battle. But you had to adhere to the Sunnah. Here are some hadiths:

Jabir Ibn Abdullah narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) used to recommend Muslims to treat slaves well and say: "Slaves are your brothers. Allah has put them to serve you. So, feed them with your food; clothe them as you clothe yourselves and burden them not with what they can not do….” (Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad)

"He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward." (Sahih Bukhari)

 

[Duji]

But Ijtihad is also core part of Islam, which is broad consensus among the jurists. Slavery was abolished through ijtihad.

Ijtihad has the power to reverse the status of an edict in the Quran from halal to haram?

Can it also be used to make alcohol halal? I mean, how does this even work? It seems really sketchy from a Divine Command Theorist's standpoint (I'd imagine), and I'm betting ISIS probably laughed at the rebuttal that "slavery has been abolished by universal consensus."

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

I wish there was a weapon that could single handily wipeout all of isis and it's supporters with zero collateral damage and death of innocents.

where are the damn nano machines...

 

[TimeEffect]

The key difference is that the actions like killing infidels, taking slaves, and raping women were done by Muhammed in the Quran so its hard to contextualize that as "well, we don't do that anymore" the same way you can do that against Lot or David in the Bible, who were basically just men not the Final Prophet.

I find this very interesting. What's the response from moderate Muslims with how Muhammad lived his life anyway? Is it framed as a history of the times, much like the god of the Old Testament?

 

[Mr. Giggles]

The question was whether the Quran specifically forbids slavery. At best, your link has a quote that prescribes the freeing of a slave as a punishment. You have to question the moral underpinnings of any text that seems to understand how much it sucks to give up a slave. For what it's worth, I don't think Islam is especially guilty among religion, here.

Not as punishment for your sins but atonement for them

You can only free a slave if you acquire one so the two go hand in hand. If you don't condone slavery then you have no slaves to free.

It just means they didn't consider getting a slave a sin.

if it was never a sin then it shouldn't account for atonement of your sins when you let them go.

Sorry guys but, I see a contradiction here so I guess it's how you want to interpret it

Edit: and my link was just an example that the whole Quran is not just kill the infidels, kill the infidels, kill the infidels since that is what gets quoted so often (even by the owner of this site). Thus why I said there are contradictions

 

[Hexa]

Ijtihad has the power to reverse the status of an edict in the Quran from halal to haram?

Can it also be used to make alcohol halal? I mean, how does this even work? It seems really sketchy from a Divine Command Theorist's standpoint (I'd imagine), and I'm betting ISIS probably laughed at the rebuttal that "slavery has been abolished by universal consensus."

Itjihad essentially just comes down doing what seems right when things aren't explicitly stated. Alcohol has been explicitly stated as banned, so that is set in stone. AFAIK slavery hasn't explicitly been described as a right, just rules related to it mentioned, so the state can ban it and people are free to make moral judgements on it with their own reasoning.

 

[RustyNails]

Ijtihad has the power to reverse the status of an edict in the Quran from halal to haram?

Can it also be used to make alcohol halal? I mean, how does this even work? It seems really sketchy from a Divine Command Theorist's standpoint (I'd imagine), and I'm betting ISIS probably laughed at the rebuttal that "slavery has been abolished by universal consensus."

Tbh, I'm not sure how it works. All I know is that the jurists follow the hadith by Muhammad that said "My ummah will never agree upon error", which led to constant evaluation of law and reasoning by the jurists. Someone with more knowledge may chime in. Also, i would not dismiss the lettertobaghdadi easily. It has some extremely high authoritative figures in Sunni orthodoxy attesting to it, such as the grand mufti of Azhar, sheikh Bin Baiyyah, and others that have individually researched and composed 100s of pages of Fatwas against terrorism and violence.

Why dont you join the AMA on reddit and ask Dr. Jonathan Brown? Seems like a good question

 

[More Fun To Compute]

if it was never a sin then it shouldn't account for atonement of your sins when you let them go.

Sorry guys but, I see a contradiction here so I guess it's how you want to interpret it

In the ancient world slavery was not considered a sin. It was considered bad to treat slaves worse than would reasonably be expected in the society or not respect the laws about acquiring or releasing slaves.

Really the Bible is also quite bad at condemning slavery and even seems to endorse it. But in western countries people who want Biblical law to replace the current legal systems are seen as nutjobs or extreme outliers. Defending an ancient system of slavery because it didn't actively encourage extreme sadism is not much of a defence these days.

 

[RustyNails]

Itjihad essentially just comes down doing what seems right when things aren't explicitly stated. Alcohol has been explicitly stated as banned, so that is set in stone. AFAIK slavery hasn't explicitly been described as a right, just rules related to it mentioned, so the state can ban it and people are free to make moral judgements on it with their own reasoning.

Thanks, that makes more sense.

 

[Duji]

I find this very interesting. What's the response from moderate Muslims with how Muhammad lived his life anyway? Is it framed as a history of the times, much like the god of the Old Testament?

Honestly, growing up as a moderate Muslim, ... slavery in regards to how Muhammad and his companions practiced it in regards to non-Muslim "infidel" slaves wasn't really touched upon.

What was stressed was how the Muslims freed many *Muslim* slaves who were owned by (and sometimes persecuted by) the polytheist Arabs, notably the black slave Bilal. Basically only half the story is told.

 

[RoadHazard]

Itjihad essentially just comes down doing what seems right when things aren't explicitly stated. Alcohol has been explicitly stated as banned, so that is set in stone. AFAIK slavery hasn't explicitly been described as a right, just rules related to it mentioned, so the state can ban it and people are free to make moral judgements on it with their own reasoning.

= making shit up as they go along.

It's all utter hogwash. Either follow what your magic book says (which would be absolutely horrible), or realize it's a load of crap. Offensive? Perhaps. But the whole "we'll take what sounds good and pretend the rest doesn't exist, while we make other stuff up to fill in the gaps" thing makes the whole endevour so ridiculous. But I guess when you're deep inside it you can't see that. You know, because of all the indoctrination and brainwashing.

 

[Joe]

I really do dislike ISIS as much as the next person but I can't help but feel that in the past week that media outlets are deliberately and increasingly trying to start up the war drums.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

In the ancient world slavery was not considered a sin. It was considered bad to treat slaves worse than would reasonable expected in the society or not respect the laws about acquiring or releasing slaves.

Really the Bible is also quite bad at condemning slavery and even seems to endorse it. But in western countries people who want Biblical law to replace the current legal systems are seen as nutjobs or extreme outliers. Defending an ancient system of slavery because it didn't actively encourage extreme sadism is not much of a defence these days.

Im not defending any system of slavery, just wanted to point out that I believe contradictions exist and it's how the person wishes to interpret it.

I think slavery is wrong and can look to the Quran to justify my perspective just like someone who thinks it's right can look to the Quran to justify their actions.

 

[Duji]

Im not defending any system of slavery, just wanted to point out that I believe contradictions exist and it's how the person wishes to interpret it.

I think slavery is wrong and can look to the Quran to justify my perspective just like someone who thinks it's right can look to the Quran to justify their actions.

Nothing is stopping you from doing that, yes, but at the end of the day if we agree with the premise that Muhammad practiced the truest form of Islam, the answer lies in the pages of history.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Im not defending any system of slavery, just wanted to point out that I believe contradictions exist and it's how the person wishes to interpret it.

I think slavery is wrong and can look to the Quran to justify my perspective just like someone who thinks it's right can look to the Quran to justify their actions.

It really doesn't matter how you interpret it because the laws are totally outdated and the focus should be on abandoning them in favour of more humane laws. Defending them using very selective interpretations because you want to replace the current law with ancient law is problematic to say the least.

 

[clove]

Really the Bible is also quite bad at condemning slavery and even seems to endorse it. But in western countries people who want Biblical law to replace the current legal systems are seen as nutjobs or extreme outliers. Defending an ancient system of slavery because it didn't actively encourage extreme sadism is not much of a defence these days.

It's a shame they couldn't find a place in 10 whole commandments to say "Don't enslave people" but somehow found, like, three for Yahweh to say "DON'T YOU LEAVE ME"

 

[dabig2]

It's at times like these I become just a little bit sad that there almost definitely is no such thing as hell. Because if there was, these worms would undoubtedly be condemned to burn there for eternity, and that's just a nice thought. Oh well, all we can really hope for is that they die in terrible pain and agony.

yeah, but on the flip side, you know that quite a lot of Old Testament leaders and followers would be chilling up in heaven too. Guys who did unbelievably psychotic, malicious, and evil stuff that even ISIS doesn't have the balls to do in this present day. I rather take nonexistence than party and worship with those guys. Or just send me to hell where I can chill with noted evildoers like carl sagan and Democritus.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It's a shame they couldn't find a place in 10 whole commandments to say "Don't enslave people" but somehow found, like, three for Yahweh to say "DON'T YOU LEAVE ME"

Yeah. Wars of aggression and slavery are fine with God according to the 10 commandments. Just as long as you don't get naked and dance around a brass bull statue.

 

[Duji]

It's a shame they couldn't find a place in 10 whole commandments to say "Don't enslave people" but somehow found, like, three for Yahweh to say "DON'T YOU LEAVE ME"

So much for them having the moral high ground along with their prized "objective morality."

The Abrahamic traditions couldn't even get slavery right. What a shame.

 

[RoadHazard]

It's a shame they couldn't find a place in 10 whole commandments to say "Don't enslave people" but somehow found, like, three for Yahweh to say "DON'T YOU LEAVE ME"

Yep. He's a jealous, petty, selfish god. A real asshole.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Read your bible more. This was commonplace back then and encoraged by God all throughout the OT, the same OT that is revered by all the other abrahamic religions...and apparently really a lot by Isis and other terrorist assholes.

Your referring to the rape and pillaging right?
There is no reference or sanction for rape in the bible. In fact if you were guilty of raping anyone you were stoned to death.

I'm not understanding where your getting this?

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Nothing is stopping you from doing that, yes, but at the end of the day if we agree with the premise that Muhammad practiced the truest form of Islam, the answer lies in the pages of history.

Agreed.

It really doesn't matter how you interpret it because the laws are totally outdated and the focus should be on abandoning them in favour of more humane laws. Defending them using very selective interpretations because you want to replace the current law with ancient law is problematic to say the least.

Lol, I think there is a little confusion I'm not advocating for replacing current laws with those of the old.

All I'm saying is that people will use the old outdated parts to fit justify their actions. That's it.

 

[Jedi2016]

God and Islam has nothing to with it at this point... they should be slaughtered like animals for this, regardless of how they try to justify it.

 

[RoadHazard]

Agreed.



Lol, I think there is a little confusion I'm not advocating for replacing current laws with those of the old.

All I'm saying is that people will use the old outdated parts to fit justify their actions. That's it.

Who decides which parts are "outdated", and based on what? On what society in general deems acceptable these days I'd guess, which would mean that it's actually people and not "God"/the book determining what's good and what's bad. So... why do people bother with these fairytales at all? But again, I guess this whole ridiculousness is something you're blind to if you're deep inside it.

 

[RustyNails]

Who decides which parts are "outdated", and based on what? On what society in general deems acceptable these days I'd guess, which would mean that it's actually people and not "God"/the book determining what's good and what's bad. So... why do people bother with these fairytales at all? But again, I guess this whole ridiculousness is something you're blind to if you're deep inside it.

But you just dismissed the criteria of one such decision making system as hogwash...

 

[entremet]

So much for them having the moral high ground along with their prized "objective morality."

The Abrahamic traditions couldn't even get slavery right. What a shame.

Well the Early Abolitionists used the Bible to promote freeing the slaves.

Part the problem is that these religions developed in antiquity were slavery and indentured servitude were socially normal. I know the Old Testament has provisions for freeing slaves after service of some years.

 

[dragonzdogma]

Even the more mundane shit they do is awful.



Yeah. In this aspect, at least, ISIS is pretty much in line with the "good guys" of the Bible. (See: Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

Here's a counter argument against
Deuteronomy 20:10-14


"First off, rape is not mentioned or even hinted at. That's a presumption people make which is unfounded.

The immorality of rape is immediately given in the seventh of the Ten Commandments “You shall not commit adultery.”

Any sexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage is proscribed by the Bible
So rape is always regarded as immoral in the Bible.

The people mentioned in (Deuteronomy 20:10-14 ) were the enemy of the Israelites and worshipers of false gods/and barbarians. Rather than just destroy them all, God told the Israelites to offer them a peace proposal. They refused, and they chose war.

Slavery in those days by the way, is not what you think. Slaves were more like hired hands. Certainly better treated than the stereotypical black slave of the South. So that presumption is unfounded as well.

It has been common practice throughout eternity for the spoils to go to the victor in battle."


Full read at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Here's a counter argument against
Deuteronomy 20:10-14


"First off, rape is not mentioned or even hinted at. That's a presumption people make which is unfounded.

The immorality of rape is immediately given in the seventh of the Ten Commandments “You shall not commit adultery.”

Any sexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage is proscribed by the Bible
So rape is always regarded as immoral in the Bible.

The people mentioned in (Deuteronomy 20:10-14 ) were the enemy of the Israelites and worshipers of false gods/and barbarians. Rather than just destroy them all, God told the Israelites to offer them a peace proposal. They refused, and they chose war.

Slavery in those days by the way, is not what you think. Slaves were more like hired hands. Certainly better treated than the stereotypical black slave of the South. So that presumption is unfounded as well.

It has been common practice throughout eternity for the spoils to go to the victor in battle."


Full read at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument

That is a horrible defense, wtf.