Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Systematic

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Systematic

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    None

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Oh, so a Sunni scholar living 400 years after Hijrah believed that the Earth was round? How amusing. Well, the Mu'talizilites knew that the Earth was round before ibn Hazm, and the Greek philosophers knew it a thousand years before the Mu'tazilites. But it's funny how none of your Imams were ever able to figure it out. The verse itself says nothing about the Earth being round. And none of your Imams ever explained this verse as confirming that the Earth was round. Listen, kid, stop wasting my time. Why don't you find me a SINGLE narration from your Prophet or your Imams where they explain that this verse is referring to the Earth being round? Why is there not even ONE hadith in any of your tafsirs where your Imams explain this verse (or any other verse) as confirming that the Earth is round? How is it that the Mu'tazilites scholars (and even non-Mu'tazilites like Ibn Hazm) could explain that the Earth is round, but neither your Prophet, nor any of your Imams ever did? The answer is simple. They just didn't know.
  2. My apologies for being rude. I thought you were deliberately trying to pass off that saying as relating to slaves and their masters. Apparently you were simply mistaken. First of all, anything that is not explicitly prohibited in Islam is permissible by default. So, even if there weren't any hadith that explicitly allowed the hitting of slaves, the fact that there are no ahadith that disallow this means that Islam allows the hitting of slaves. But there actually are ahadith about the permissibility of hitting one's slave if they are disobedient: In a tradition from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, it is stated that when a person hits his slave (male or female), without any legal justification, then the only way of accounting for that act is setting the slave free even if that act of hitting is within the limits fixed by God. In another tradition, Zurarah asked the same Imam about the attitude of a master towards the slaves. The Imam answered that "an act unintentionally done by the slaves is not punishable but when they are persistently and intentionally disobeying the will of the master, then they can be punished." http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/3.htm
  3. lol! You're so blatantly dishonest, it's funny. You just added "the slave" and "the master" into that quote yourself, even that that section has nothing to do with slaves and their masters. That section is referring to rulers of the state (Sultaan السُّلْطَانِ) and their subjects, NOT to free men and their slaves. You yourself have quoted the section that does talk about slaves, and that says nothing about masters being punished. So I guess you simply decided to make it up since you couldn't find what you were looking for, lol!
  4. So where exactly does it say that the master will be punished for harming his slave? Oh, right. It doesn't.
  5. I don't believe Jahangiram posted this hadith, he posted one from Sunan Abu Dawud thinking it is authentic (lol!). But nevertheless, this hadith is there, so let's take a look at it. It states that the worst of men is someone who hits his family members (ahluhu) or slaves. So do you agree that a man who hits his child for disobedience is the worst of men? Or a man who hits his wife (with a miswak) is also the worst of men (even though it is allowed in the Qur'an itself)? It also says that a man who eats alone is also included in this group, so is a man who eats alone also the worst of men? Yeah, I didn't think so. You should think a little before posting irrelevant stuff. If the Qur'an itself allows men to hit their wives (lightly/with a miswak), but a hadith seems to state that it is not allowed to hit one's wife, then either the hadith is rejected, or you've interpreted the hadith wrong. In this case, scholars agree that a man who hits his wife unjustly will be punished for it in hereafter (and also has to pay diyya if he bruises the wife), so this hadith is only referring to unjust beating, not justified beating. So the question is, if a person beats his slave-girl for refusing to have sex with him, does that count as unjust beating? Do you have any single reference for that claim? It's actually pretty simple. Find me the diyya a man has to pay for beating his slave-girl for refusing to have sex with him (not so severely so that it causes fractures, or permanent damage). If it actually is unjust, then like in other cases of wrongful beating, the man should have to pay diyya for it. For example, in the case of a wife who is beaten to the point of bruising, the man has to pay diyya for it. So, tell me, what is the diyya for a man who beats his slave-girl for refusing to have sex with him. Why is it so difficult for you to find this ruling? Please show me where he says that.
  6. Really? Please show me this "authentic" hadith, lol! Should not is not the same as not allowed. One should not urinate while standing either, but that doesn't make it haram or punished by God in the hereafter. My question was, is it impermissible for a master to beat his slave for refusing sex? Go ahead, do some research about your religion for once, and find me a ruling about the diyya a master has to pay for beating his slave for refusing to have sex with him.
  7. You keep claiming that Islamic law doesn't allow for the owner to harm his slave, but where exactly are you getting that from? Sure, I agree that there are traditions where it suggest that in Islam it is recommended not to harm your slaves, but where is it explicitly prohibited to do so? If it is strictly prohibited to harm one's slaves, then there would be diyya for doing so. So, tell me, what is the diyya for hitting one's slave girl for refusing to have sex with the master? I want to point out that there is indeed diyya for severely harming one's slave, like if an owner fractures the slave's head, cuts off his/her ear, etc. But the issue is, is there a diyya for hitting a slave girl for refusing to have sex with her master? Obviously the master can punch or kick his slave-girl repeatedly (for resisting his sexual advances) without necessarily fracturing her bones, blinding her, etc., and then force himself on her. Is this haram in Islam? Is there any punishment whatsoever for a master if he does so? I looked through the chapters on diyyaat in Wasael, but I wasn't able to find any reference for this, but there are a lot of ahadith there and maybe I'm bad at doing research. So, go ahead, you tell us know what the punishment is for a master who hits his slave-girl for resisting sex.
  8. lol! It's funny that you think that post of yours was worthy of a response. Clearly your opinion of yourself is undeservedly high. I never did. Don't let your blind loyalty color yours. Actually, it was proof that God cannot freely create. To no surprise, you still haven't been able to provide a refutation of it. Perhaps I should've referred you to something more suitable for a younger audience.
  9. That is a profoundly ignorant claim. I'm sorry to put it to you this way, but that's what it is. Please read up a little about the question of the basis of morality before making such absurd remarks. Here are a couple of places to start: http://www.patheos.c...eists-morality/ http://atheism.about...heistsMoral.htm Keep in mind that the issue of whether or not atheists have a basis for morality (they do) is not the same as whether or not objective/absolute morality exists (it doesn't). Every atheist has a basis for their morality, even though the scope of that moral code might be limited to just themselves.
  10. If you don't want to think about it in terms of consent, that's fine with me. Keep in mind that the comment of mine which you replied to to start this off was about whether or not consent is required. eThErEaL claimed that it is required, and that the husband will be punished by God for not seeking consent. I simply pointed out that he was wrong in this claim. It appears that we are in agreement here, regardless of whether or not you wish to discuss the consent angle. Right, they wouldn't. They take their taxes by force. The mukatabah contract is voluntary for the master. If he doesn't wish to enter it, then its tough luck for the slave-girl. She stays enslaved. That's right, there's no punishment for a man who forces himself on his slave-girl/wife to have sex with her. (If he doesn't bruise her, that is. And even if he does bruise her, the punishment upon him is for the bruising, not the rape.) As for the bruising, yes, there is indeed diyyah for beating up your wife to the point where marks are left on her body, but tell me, who gets this diyyah? Does the wife who was beaten up by her husband get any of this money? If not, why not? Was she not the one who was harmed? Why does the government get the money according to Islam when the person who suffered the abuse was the woman? If you say so.
  11. So you agree that consent of the slave/wife is NOT an Islamic requirement. That was exactly my point before you jumped in with your pointless denial. Please read the post carefully before replying. You're just wasting everyone's time. You think incorrectly. eThErEaL: "the Master is supposed to really have the consent of the woman" Khul' is only applicable to married women. You seem to forget that the slave-girl who the master decides to have sex with is NOT married to him. (She is married to someone else.) So, no, she cannot obtain khul` divorce from her master to save herself from having sex with him, because in your religion the master does not need to marry his slave girl in order to have sex with her. It's interesting that you bring this up. Do you know what the punishment is in Islam for a man who holds down his wife (or slave-girl) and has sex with her without her consent? For example, if a man grabs someone else's wife and holds her down while he has sex with her (non-consensual, of course), then this man's punishment is death (according to Islam). But can you tell me what the punishment is for this man if he holds his own wife (or slave) down and has sex with her without her consent? Go ahead, look it up, and report back what you find. A lot of people on this site already know the answer, but I doubt they will be eager to post it. Probably out of embarrassment is my guess.
  12. Precisely my point. If a slave/wife was allowed in Islam to refuse sex, then why is she being punished for refusing it? Oh, right, she isn't allowed to refuse sex. You might want to explain that to eThErEaL who seems to think otherwise.
  13. Total BS. Consent of the wife or a slave-girl is not required in Islam.
  14. Much appreciated. I doubt a typo was going to deter me anyway. Yes, that was just a joke. Too late now. But yes 'Systemic' would have been a good name too.
×
×
  • Create New...