Chuckie
Member
I mean, no. That's the problem.
That is not the problem. The problem is their literal and extremist intepretation.
I mean, no. That's the problem.
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.Have these people picked up a Quran? How disgusting.
Except you know none of that is in either the Quran or the Bible. Nice try though
Have these people picked up a Quran? How disgusting.
No.
I read the letters section on slavery, which relies entirely on two arguments.
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?So it's legit then?
I mean, it didn't just occur to ISIS randomly one day.
You're kidding me right? Are you even serious with this question?
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 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.
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?
There's a special place in hell for them. Fucking 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.
Interesting background info, thanks.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.
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.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
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?!
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
Isn't freeing a slave contradictory to taking them in the first place?!
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: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.
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)
Ijtihad has the power to reverse the status of an edict in the Quran from halal to haram?But Ijtihad is also core part of Islam, which is broad consensus among the jurists. Slavery was abolished through ijtihad.
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.
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.
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.
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.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."
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
Thanks, that makes more sense.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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."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"
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
But you just dismissed the criteria of one such decision making system as hogwash...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.
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.
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