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
Sign in to follow this  
koroigetsuga

Why Have An Old Testament At All?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Dude even I know that the catholic bible has more stuff in it than the protestant king james version

So christians don't follow the same gospels, and those same gospels contradict each other

Rubbish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic bible has more books, not different books. Actually it was mid 70's when the Catholics, and Protestants decided they could read the same bible. The outstanding oart of that was the Catholics were now able to read their Bible.

So the Shia and Sunni in Pakistan kill each other while reading the same book. They agree on what?

Pretty sure my Sunni friend said predestination. We were talking religious, not political.

I'll ask him again if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholic bible has more books, not different books. Actually it was mid 70's when the Catholics, and Protestants decided they could read the same bible. The outstanding oart of that was the Catholics were now able to read their Bible.

Thank you for admitting that different Christian sects have different books

So the Shia and Sunni in Pakistan kill each other while reading the same book. They agree on what?

Shia/Sunni violence and Catholic/Protestant violence

Actually even Karen Armstrong has said that the shia/sunni violence is nothing compared to violence committed by various christian sects upon each other. Frankly right now most christians in the west live very secular lives, so the lack of zeal might be why they aren't killing each other as much

Its only been in last 100 years that there has been any significant shia/sunni violence. Not much we can do when US sets up puppet rulers, ahem Saddam, who encourage sectarian strife.

But hey that hasn't stopped the baptists from sending missionaries to catholic countries like those in South America. hmmmmmm

Pretty sure my Sunni friend said predestination. We were talking religious, not political.

I'll ask him again if need be.

And like surfinjo I will tell you that asking any lay idiot about this stuff is pointless

The majority of shia/sunni SCHOLARS consider each other muslims

Islam is NOT calvinism. Don't expect me to take you seriously if you make such claims, because like I said there is no such thing as predestination in Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for admitting that different Christian sects have different books

That's a pretty thick observation. Maybe read what I wrote again. I've read the extra books the Catholics (used to have) and it's like your gospel according to Barney declarations. No wonder they left them behind. So what are you now saying?

Actually, to be honest, there is more wisdom to learn thru their extra books, but it does not contradict what Protestants already know, it's more re-iteration.

Protestants and Catholics are no better in Ireland than Sunni/Shia in Pakistan. One is no better than the other. People die, and that is not God's plan, is it?

I think you are under the impression that Christians don't have any real direction while you have all the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it is true that the differences between Sunni and Shias goes much deeper than just politics. And the issue of pre-destination and human will is one such issue.

For a decent article summarizing a number of the points of theological (that is, kalam) difference between the Mutazila (now largely gone), the Ashaira (mainstream theology of Sunnism) and the Shia, read this article by Shahid Mutahhari:

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/kalam.htm

For a somewhat more in-depth (but not very long) work on the issue of Divine Justice, comparing the Shi`i and Sunni stances on the nature of predestination, human will, good and evil, etc., look at this work by Sayyyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi:

http://al-islam.org/adl_ilahi/

Shahid Mutahhari has a much more detailed philosophical work on this topic which has received a good English translation (and which I purchased somewhat recently) available here:

http://www.academyofislam.org/shop/Product...asp?SearchID=59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of differences between the Hebrew "Tanach" and the Christian Old Testament, and between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles (it's actually more complex than that. the Ethiopic Orthodox church has even more than the Catholics, such as including the Book of Jubilees):

Jews around the time of Jesus (as) had largely stopped using Hebrew. The common language of the time was actually Greek by that point, with some areas still using other semitic languages such as Aramaic. Hebrew however was largely confined to scholars and priests. Around the third century BCE, Jewish scholars started translating their scriptures into Greek so that the average Jew might actually be able to read them. From this came the Septuagint in Alexandria. In this version, we find the "extra" books (called the deutorocanonicals by Catholics and apocrypha by Protestants) mentioned in regards to Christian differences, such as the books of Maccabees. By the time Christianity comes, the early Christians would have been using the Septuagint as it was the most commonly used text, not the Hebrew. Somewhat later, as Greek stopped being as common a language amongst Jews, and partly perhaps in reaction against the Christians who were now using the Septuagint, Jews decided to work on a new classification of scriptures, from which the Masoretic text came about. (In addition, translation into Aramaic found use). While the Masoretic (Hebrew) and Septuagint (Greek) are appear largely similar in terms of source material, there are differences, sometimes minor, sometimes substantial. Some of this would have been the Greek translators interpretations perhaps, but other parts demonstrate an actual difference in source text. Jews today now continue to use the Masoretic selection (which doesn't include those aforementioned "extra" books in the septuagint), as do Protestants who use the books included in it as the basis for their selection of texts. In terms of Bible translations out there, obviously with so many there's going to be variances in terms of what source was used or emphasized, but I would think that that most will largely use the Hebrew texts were available, while noting or maybe using variants that are known to exist, and consulting other works such as the Septuagint for interpretation.

(Another reason why the Catholics might still hold on the extra books and the Protestants don't is the former's belief in the concept of purgatory and praying for the dead. Catholics say that it's referred to referred to in a part in 2 Maccabees)

Now, to make matters even more complicated, there are other versions of the Hebrew scriptures out there as well. The Samaritans have their own version of the Torah which varies in some places from the Masoretic, and then there's the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran. Now, whether these were from the Essenes, the Saducees, or whoever, their importance lies in comparing with the other versions we have (the oldest Masoretic manuscript we have only dates to around the 9th century AD). They largely agree most with the Masoretic, but not completely. According to Shiffman, the breakdown runs about 60% proto-Masoretic, and a further 20% Qumran style with bases in proto-Masoretic texts, compared to 5% proto-Samaritan type, 5% Septuagintal type, and 10% non-aligned.

What this indicates is a fluidity in the texts as late even as the second temple period (150 BCE - 75 AD). This is why in modern translation of the Old Testament, one finds a number of footnotes marking variants in the texts.

Edited by macisaac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

koroigetsuga claim that the Muslims read exactly the same Quran is made in comparison to the Christian's Bible.

So some clarification is necessary.

The reason for the split between Sunni and Shia was not political at all. It came to the very heart of Muhammad's teachings and the beliefs of Muslims, even today.

Muhammad is considered infallible to his followers. He had decreed, in his will, that his son in law, Ali should succeed him.

When Muhammad died, his closest associates decided to over-rule Muhammad and appoint one of their number, Bakr to succeed.

The third Caliph, Uthman was the one who wrote the Quran. Muhammad never saw it.

During Muhammad's lifetime, when he gave one of his sermons, people would write down what they heard and remembered on anything to hand, bits of parchment, cloth even leaves. Some people had considerable collections of these recordings some had very few. But there were serious disagreements about what Muhammad had actually taught.

So Omar ordered all these collections to be taken to a central place where scholars, approved by him would compile a single Quran. All of the originals were then burnt.

Ali was the fourth caliph. His successors were appointed rather than being his relatives.

In addition to the Quran most Muslims also follow the teachings of the Hadith. These were compiled up to 300 years after Muhammad died. They were almost all passed down orally. Different groups of Muslims accept different Hadith as authentic. Sunni and Shia use entirely different collections.

The Books which record Jesus' teachings are the Gospels. All Christians use the same Gospels.

The remaining books of the New Testament are for background and reference. Not quite akin to Hadith as they were all written by those who were contemporaries of Jesus. The Old Testament is included for background.

Different people place different emphasis upon each of these supplementary books. But all accept the authenticity, if not the relevance, of all of the books.

(Edited for some silly spelling mistakes)

Edited by surfinjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koroigetsuga claim that the Muslims read exactly the same Quran is made in comparison to the Christian's Bible.

Christian bibles. There is one Quran for all muslims, there is no one Bible for all Christians

The reason for the split between Sunni and Shia was not political at all. It came to the very heart of Muhammad's teachings and the beliefs of Muslims, even today.

Don't talk of stuff you have little knowledge of. There were those who felt the leadership should pass to Imam Ali and those who chose to side with Abu Bakr. That's political, no matter how much you try to spell it out any other way.

Muhammad is considered infallible to his followers. He had decreed, in his will, that his son in law, Ali should succeed him.

Yes that is a shia concept.

When Muhammad died, his closest associates decided to over-rule Muhammad and appoint one of their number, Bakr to succeed.

Yes that is also a shia concept

The third Caliph, Uthman was the one who wrote the Quran. Muhammad never saw it.

WRONG

Uthman fostered the compilation yes but thousands upon thousands of muslims had already memorized what had been given to Muhammed (pbuh) from God. Thus bringing the word of God into written form was not hard at all, as there were many voices to consult from.

This matter is made much easier for shia because we believe an infallible Imam aka Imam Ali was there to ensure that nothing eronous entered the Quran.

During Muhammad's lifetime, when he gave one of his sermons, people would write down what they heard and remembered on anything to hand, bits of parchment, cloth even leaves. Some people had considerable collections of these recordings some had very few. But there were serious disagreements about what Muhammad had actually taught.

So Omar ordered all these collections to be taken to a central place where scholars, approved by him would compile a single Quran. All of the originals were then burnt.

LOL did you get this from sunnah.org; which does give a mainly sunni perspective

The Quran was an oral creation. People were speaking the Quran the way we are speaking english right now. So even if you do take the sunni perspective the fact remains that the general populace had the Quran memorized, so there was no room for error or standardization, because its like everyone knowing 1+1=2, so there was no room for Uthman to change anything.......even if a twisted leader won't be able to convince his people that 1+1=7....get it.

In addition to the Quran most Muslims also follow the teachings of the Hadith. These were compiled up to 300 years after Muhammad died. They were almost all passed down orally. Different groups of Muslims accept different Hadith as authentic. Sunni and Shia use entirely different collections.

sunnis and shias agree on some hadith and disagree on others

The Books which record Jesus' teachings are the Gospels. All Christians use the same Gospels.

Except that the there were various gospels available but were gotten rid of via the Council of Nicea...who were the ones that decided that out of the various gospels they would stick with the four known today

What we have today is Pauline Christianity...which at many levels contradicts the beliefs of early Jewish Christians aka the first Christians who we know hated Paul, and his perspective on Jesus' (pbuh) message

The remaining books of the New Testament are for background and reference. Not quite akin to Hadith as they were all written by those who were contemporaries of Jesus. The Old Testament is included for background.

Christians could very well just have made a reference to Tanakh and be done with it, instead they made it part of the Bible

Can the christian old testament be more accurate than the Tanakh from where it was copied? When there are discrepancies between two texts claiming to be the same literature, then suspicion comes upon the texts that came later.

Edited by koroigetsuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian bibles. There is one Quran for all muslims, there is no one Bible for all Christians,

The word Bible comes from a Latin root, Biblia which refers to books. You will often see the term bibliography which refers to a list of various books.

There are 4 Gospels. All are the same for all Christians.

Except that the there were various gospels available but were gotten rid of via the Council of Nicea...who were the ones that decided that out of the various gospels they would stick with the four known today

What we have today is Pauline Christianity...which at many levels contradicts the beliefs of early Jewish Christians aka the first Christians who we know hated Paul, and his perspective on Jesus' message

Christians could very well just have made a reference to Tanakh and be done with it, instead they made it part of the Bible

Can the christian old testament be more accurate than the Tanakh from where it was copied? When there are discrepancies between two texts claiming to be the same literature, then suspicion comes upon the texts that came later.

No. Of the four Gospels which were chosen, three were accepted as having the most authentic and reliable sourcing and background. The fourth was included as representing what the Council of Nicea felt was most representative of the teachings.

Those that were excluded were simply unauthenticated.

The problem with this rather tiresome claim, often made by Muslims is that it lacks credibility.

If the Council of Nicea had really wanted to distort Jesus message in the way you claim why would they produce apparent Gospels which say the sorts of things they do?

What would be their purpose in distorting Jesus' message?

Would they be attempting to justify their control over the Church?

If so, then why would they produce a message that specifically says they have no control?

Would they be attempting to justify Constantine's control?

If so why would they produce a message that specifically prohibits many of the activities that Constantine used to maintain his position as Roman Emperor?

I appreciate your desire to imply a tone of conspiracy to the early Christan's. However, your ignorance of the meaning of the word Bible demonstrates that you are not working from your own research at all, but rather are being spoon fed what you say and think by others.

Sorry, but while your masters may make an impression on you, they simply make me laugh.

I won't go any further into your astonishing defence of the origins of the Quran or the theological differences that created the split between Sunni and Shia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muslims read exactly the same Quran

Correct but there are differences in interpretation not only between Shias and Sunnis but between the various sub-sects of the Sunnis.

So some clarification is necessary.

Shoot

The reason for the split between Sunni and Shia was not political at all.

To the historian, it seems political. But at the heart of the split, as I have asserted before, is the Shia belief in the divine right of the twelve Imams to represent the Prophet after his death, which Sunnis do not share. The core beliefs are much the same, yet there are seminal differences.

It came to the very heart of Muhammad's teachings and the beliefs of Muslims even today.

What do mean 'even today' ? The Shia-Sunni differences today are the same as what they were in the beginning.

When Muhammad died, his closest associates decided to over-rule Muhammad and appoint one of their number, Bakr to succeed.

His name was not Bakr but Abu Bakr. It is one composite name. You cannot separate the two parts. In any case, the managers of the succession scene were not necessarily his closest associates but those that managed to get their way through. Many of his closest associates did not even know when the elction took place. They were not invited. They were informed later when the republic was announced. In any case, no votes were taken. Abu Bakr's name was proposed and pushed through in a hurry. It was somewhat like a coup d'etat.

During Muhammad's lifetime, when he gave one of his sermons, people would write down what they heard and remembered on anything to hand, bits of parchment, cloth even leaves. Some people had considerable collections of these recordings some had very few. But there were serious disagreements about what Muhammad had actually taught.

Some hadeethes may have been. Most were just passed on, sometimes with normal narrative flaws, to others. Subsequent compilers have been daunted with a very onerous task, producing a second rate job, at best.

But there were serious disagreements about what Muhammad had actually taught.

In regard to his succession and some other issues, there are big disagreements. Major teachings are the same though.

Ali was the fourth caliph. His successors were appointed rather than being his relatives.

The caliphate really ended with him. He was followed by his son, Hasan, who abdicated in six months. The caliphate was then systematically replaced by a string of monarchs, who still liked to be known as caliphs. So the word 'caliph' has contradictory overtones.

In addition to the Quran most Muslims also follow the teachings of the Hadith. These were compiled up to 300 years after Muhammad died. They were almost all passed down orally.

They were passed down orally generation after generation. And were compiled 200 - 300 years later.

Different groups of Muslims accept different Hadith as authentic.

Sunnis have sanctified six books as authentic. Shias don't view any particular book as completely flawless. But they do regard selected hadeethes as either correct or false or somewhere in between.

Sunni and Shia use entirely different collections.

Sometimes complimenting and sometimes contradicting each other.

The remaining books of the New Testament are for background and reference. Not quite akin to Hadith as they were all written by those who were contemporaries of Jesus.

I am given to understand they were not all written by his contemporaries. Some may have been his contemporaries, but not necessarily have known or met Jesus.

Those that were excluded were simply unauthenticated.

That is a matter of opinion.

Sorry, but while your masters may make an impression on you, they simply make me laugh.

There is nothing to laugh at.

It may be true that there is no consensus on the validity of all hadeethes as a package. But individual hadeethes have been authenticated even by all Muslims, though divisions are there in others.

As for the Quran, all evidence points to its being as true as the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surfinjo you have just demonstrated that not only do you have a very narrow understanding of islamic history and Quranic compilation, but apparently have been spoon fed much of your own Christian historical revisionism as well.

Right now I am even questioning whether you even had knowledge of the Council picking and choosing which gospels they would make official, before I brought it up. There's sooooo much stuff I could type right now, but what's the point.

Your fallacious arguments have gotten rather old, and there is no point in me continuing to entertain them.

Edited by koroigetsuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Korog. Its funny how surf tried to act like Uthman wrote the quran with no further description. There where many copies of surahs avaliable and also with the companians of the prophet, Uthman bought all the trusted companions togeather and they had the exact copies written down or memorized. The quran was complied and checked over by all the companians etc. Different copies around the communities where burned and everyone even those who had the copies AGREED with the burning unlike the canon where Christians where in disagreement in which gospals should go in the canon and where burned AGAINST their will.

One of Muhammed pbuh wishes was to comply the quran and Allah obviously promised to protect the Quran so that is why is is protected.

Also check this out which further proves the Quran was complied 100% correctly and at Gods protection.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HAfqmhc_TO0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly bro its like abc. I know my abc by heart and so does everyone around me. Now if my leader started adding or subtracting letters from the abc we all have memorized from a young age then obviously its impossible for him to do that.

That is the beauty of oral history. It serves as a way of ensuring that no false message entered the compilation, because every muslim was a witness to it. Every muslim had the Quran memorized, so even if there was any mistake it was quickly taken care of. That is why the Qurans with the mistakes agreed upon by the populace were gotten rid of.

How is it possible for those thousands upon thousands of muslims, all of whom had memorized the Quran to be wrong?

This is why liars like Rashid Khalifa will never be successful. He wasn't even able to take two verses out of the Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and there is no point in me continuing to entertain them.

As you say, what's the point.

Though I have a feeling your over-sized ego will force you to down from your pedestal to once again spread your version of Islam.

I look forward to that.

I've been dealing with people like you for many years. For centuries, we in Europe, have experienced one group after another, who come here, thinking they can cure all our ills.

I've met people with egos as big as yours before. They tell us what they think, what we think and when we refuse to listen they degenerate into arrogance and personal insults backed by an equally misguided companion.

It's so predictable it's actually quite funny.

You are so like some of the Hindus who came here in the 70s. With their notions of inner peace and flowers backed by expensive offers of meditation.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what it is you are offering.

We have one of the most successful, secure and peaceful societies in the history of the world. We have variations of community medicine. We have rule of law. We have freedom of thought for all. It's so good that millions of your people are desperate to come here.

And what is it you offer. Women in tents. Stoning and mutilation. Arbitrary rule by insane clerics. Banning this, banning that. Your own societies are riven with conflict, paranoia and extremes of poverty. You blame everyone except yourselves.

And you want us to adopt your way of life????

Hmmm..... Well...... Thanks, but no thanks.

Its funny how surf tried to act like Uthman wrote the quran with no further description.

The additional details were not relevant to the point I was making.

I appreciate that many Muslims relish each word of these stories treating any questioning as tantamount to blasphemy.

As Christians we reject such reverence for anything other than God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have one of the most successful, secure and peaceful societies in the history of the world. We have variations of community medicine. We have rule of law. We have freedom of thought for all. It's so good that millions of your people are desperate to come here.

Wow man, I saw that and felt I just couldn't let that go... See, my ancestry is also largely (if not entirely) European (Scottish, French (with some Irish and Welsh)), and I'm certainly not a "self-hating" white person (quite comfortable in my ethnicity actually), but come on... Most successful secure and peaceful societies in the history of the world?? How about some of the worst (if not, the worst), most violent and devastating wars, conflicts and atrocities in the history of the planet? And this is just the last century (wars so bad they were called "world" wars). Need we rehash all of the medieval and ancient stuff before that?

The history of Europe is largely one of one country (or a number them) trying to conquer and decimate the other. And then after that, trying to do the same to the rest of the world. And before you say that you've suddenly outgrown all that, need I remind you of what happened in the former Yugoslavia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most successful secure and peaceful societies in the history of the world?? How about some of the worst (if not, the worst), most violent and devastating wars, conflicts and atrocities in the history of the planet? And this is just the last century (wars so bad they were called "world" wars). Need we rehash all of the medieval and ancient stuff before that?

You are correct.

Our society has gone through so much to get where we are today.

It has much to face in the future, undoubtedly.

But, for all its faults, it is still a society where people can live according to their own conscience rather than the dictates of some self appointed Holy man.

It is still a society governed by established laws. Laws based upon justice rather than the traditions supported by gangs of drug crazed gun men.

It is still a society where the extremes of poverty have been largely eliminated.

It is still a society where women can express themselves as individual humans rather than as possessions of some mommy's boy with an ego.

It is still a society where people can hold any beliefs they wish. Or to reject spiritual belief altogether without fear of being attacked by hypocrites.

It is still a society which millions aspire to join yet sadly are followed by bug eyed, psychopathic clerics, who attempt to force the very systems and traditions that made their own societies intolerable upon people yearning for for the freedoms that God gave us all.

For all its faults it's a society which, it seems, most people prefer.

It's a society which I believe God would approve of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you say, what's the point.

Though I have a feeling your over-sized ego will force you to down from your pedestal to once again spread your version of Islam.

I look forward to that.

I've been dealing with people like you for many years. For centuries, we in Europe, have experienced one group after another, who come here, thinking they can cure all our ills.

I've met people with egos as big as yours before. They tell us what they think, what we think and when we refuse to listen they degenerate into arrogance and personal insults backed by an equally misguided companion.

It's so predictable it's actually quite funny.

You are so like some of the Hindus who came here in the 70s. With their notions of inner peace and flowers backed by expensive offers of meditation.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what it is you are offering.

We have one of the most successful, secure and peaceful societies in the history of the world. We have variations of community medicine. We have rule of law. We have freedom of thought for all. It's so good that millions of your people are desperate to come here.

And what is it you offer. Women in tents. Stoning and mutilation. Arbitrary rule by insane clerics. Banning this, banning that. Your own societies are riven with conflict, paranoia and extremes of poverty. You blame everyone except yourselves.

And you want us to adopt your way of life????

Hmmm..... Well...... Thanks, but no thanks.

The additional details were not relevant to the point I was making.

I appreciate that many Muslims relish each word of these stories treating any questioning as tantamount to blasphemy.

As Christians we reject such reverence for anything other than God.

(salam)

You are making the claim that "we" came to cure your ills?

Listen: read your history of blood that not only bled your continent (a peninsula realy but since you are white I guess who are special and get your own continent. You with your empires enslaved the world, made your fortunes off of the world's suffering. Comitted genocide against everyone from the Irish to the native Americans. You say you are peaceful which really means to take pieces of the world and play chess with it (by the way you God fearing christrians just tried to kill all the Jews just a few years ago-- and yes you all helped the germans and you know it.

You bathed the world in blood, destroyed the environment.

You claim you are peacemakers! Damn right: you tear the world to pieces.

But it is all OK because your white god died for your sins already (this is for that 2%of english people who actualy attend church.

Your arrogance is pathetic. Do you know why people want to come to your country? Why pick cocoa beans for english people to eat their [Edited Out]py cadbury chocolate when you can work and make money since they have rigged the world to make sure only they have good economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You with your empires enslaved the world, made your fortunes off of the world's suffering. Comitted genocide against everyone from the Irish to the native Americans...............(by the way you God fearing christrians just tried to kill all the Jews just a few years ago-- and yes you all helped the germans and you know it.

You bathed the world in blood, destroyed the environment.

You claim you are peacemakers! Damn right: you tear the world to pieces.

The people who ran the death camps where millions were murdered, including many Jews, were not fearing of God. If they had been they wouldn't have done what they did.

I will and did readily concede that we have had a difficult history. Though I take no responsibility since I didn't do any of these things.

But we have learnt from our past.

I find it particularly impressive when I hear ME Muslims attacking what some Europeans did in the past.

The reality is that most of the empires that Europeans built they took from the Muslim Empire which had invaded and colonised these places before us.

When I hear ME Muslim complaining about European slave trade the reality is that the first slaves were bought from Muslims slave traders. The Europeans eventually bypassed the Muslim slave traders and abducted these people themselves.

The same Europeans also enslaved fellow Europeans. At least one of my own ancestors, in the early 18th century, was bought from an orphanage at 5 years old to work in a factory. He, along with thousands of other young boys was forced to work long hours doing dangerous work. If they were injured they would be dumped in the gutter to die. (My ancestor successfully ran away, but that is another story).

Slavery has now been abolished in Europe. Shame the same cannot be said for Islam and many Islamic societies.

The point is that for many many years, Europe was dominated by evil people who treated everyone, regardless of where they were, as commodities.

Our society has grown to understand and amend its mistakes.

When will Islamic law abolish slavery?

When will Islam condemn the barbarity of the regieme in Sudan which regularly abducts young children from neighbouring communities to use as slaves including sex slaves, all over Sudan and the ME?

When will Islam stop the senseless violence encouraged by some who claim justification from Islamic texts in Palestine against Jews which had resulted in so much suffering to so many decent, ordinary people all over the Middle East?

Will Islam recognise the log in its own eye, or continue to be diverted by the apparent sight of the splinter in ours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people who ran the death camps where millions were murdered, including many Jews, were not fearing of God. If they had been they wouldn't have done what they did.

I will and did readily concede that we have had a difficult history. Though I take no responsibility since I didn't do any of these things.

But we have learnt from our past.

I find it particularly impressive when I hear ME Muslims attacking what some Europeans did in the past.

The reality is that most of the empires that Europeans built they took from the Muslim Empire which had invaded and colonised these places before us.

When I hear ME Muslim complaining about European slave trade the reality is that the first slaves were bought from Muslims slave traders. The Europeans eventually bypassed the Muslim slave traders and abducted these people themselves.

The same Europeans also enslaved fellow Europeans. At least one of my own ancestors, in the early 18th century, was bought from an orphanage at 5 years old to work in a factory. He, along with thousands of other young boys was forced to work long hours doing dangerous work. If they were injured they would be dumped in the gutter to die. (My ancestor successfully ran away, but that is another story).

Slavery has now been abolished in Europe. Shame the same cannot be said for Islam and many Islamic societies.

The point is that for many many years, Europe was dominated by evil people who treated everyone, regardless of where they were, as commodities.

Our society has grown to understand and amend its mistakes.

When will Islamic law abolish slavery?

When will Islam condemn the barbarity of the regieme in Sudan which regularly abducts young children from neighbouring communities to use as slaves including sex slaves, all over Sudan and the ME?

When will Islam stop the senseless violence encouraged by some who claim justification from Islamic texts in Palestine against Jews which had resulted in so much suffering to so many decent, ordinary people all over the Middle East?

Will Islam recognise the log in its own eye, or continue to be diverted by the apparent sight of the splinter in ours?

Muslims colonized the Americas?

Muslims colonized China?

Muslims colonized subsaharan Africa?

By the way it was secularization which ended many social ills. If it was up to you God fearing protestants the catholics would still not have been able to attend uni versity.

You have a "difficult history?" you have to be joking!

"They were not God fearing men" how convenient! I am sure many thought they were by killing. It was a belief that they were doing it for the glory of christendom.

Christians took slavery from muslims? Actually if you know anything about history, which you probably do not, you would know that slavery predated Islam and that the Muslims did not start the slave trade to the new world (new to you there were already people there )

You took colonization to a whole new level

You took genocide to a whole new level

Most people in the world suffer so you can have cheap goods. Be a good christian and make your own colthes.

I can only think of one Muslim country that practices slavery. I can name quite a few "christian" countries that have the whole world in a new form of slavery: care for some chocolate? a diamond? asian prostitutes? the wealth of imovershid nations?

Your civilization is made on the backs of the rest of the world. You are slave masters and the world is your plantation.

The 13 th century Rabbi Nachmanides said it best when he stated that you people preach love the most but are the most violent in the world.

It's OK! Jesus (as) died for your sins, you'll be OK

But do not forget that the world is suffering from your sins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"when will Islam condemn the barbaritry in the Sudan"

Islam condmes barbarity

When will christianity condemn the christian world for literally (environmentally speaking) destroying it?

As for Palestine: there are many christians who cheer the ocupation (millions) and call for the destructin of the palestinians.

Even the chief rabbi of the ashkenazic community has declared that there is no such thing as a civilian casaulity!

I am against suicide bombers; biut I ask you: what is the difference between that and bombing refugee camps and occuping a whole nation? NONE.

I am amazed that you christians now like JEws? You hated them. You call the Torah "death" and "bondage"

By the way, Jews know what kind of people you are. They know they cannot trust you and that your messianic favour give sthem time. I have news for you, Jews are not stupid enough to worship another Jew as God. They worship the God of Ibrahim (as) not one of the sons of Ibrahim (as)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When will Islamic law abolish slavery?

When will Islam condemn the barbarity of the regieme in Sudan which regularly abducts young children from neighbouring communities to use as slaves including sex slaves, all over Sudan and the ME?

When will Islam stop the senseless violence encouraged by some who claim justification from Islamic texts in Palestine against Jews which had resulted in so much suffering to so many decent, ordinary people all over the Middle East?

Will Islam recognise the log in its own eye, or continue to be diverted by the apparent sight of the splinter in ours?

So if i said i don't believe in slavery and the nonsense violent killings because Islam shows us the peace and sincerity then would you say that my scriptures are wrong and prove to me that Islam is anything but that? Your perspective is covered by your own insecurity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But do not forget that the world is suffering from your sins

I readily accept many of these criticisms.

But we are trying to make amends.

I was attempting to point out to koroigetsuga that his attempts to undermine my own image of myself and our way of life has been done many times before.

So if i said i don't believe in slavery and the nonsense violent killings because Islam shows us the peace and sincerity then would you say that my scriptures are wrong and prove to me that Islam is anything but that? Your perspective is covered by your own insecurity.

I appreciate that I cannot ever have any perspective other than my own. I attempt to make it as broad and comprehensive as I can. I speak to Muslims as often as I can, though they generally refuse to discuss anything other than frivolous matters. I read as many web sites as I can. I join Muslim forums. Sadly, I find that most are filled with over zealous individuals who treat any enquiry as some sort of conspiracy and attack me for being a Christian.

But I have ascertained that Islamic law does indeed recognise slavery. And that Islamic law is immutable. So it is effectively impossible to abolish slavery in Islam.

I fully accept that most Muslims abhorrer slavery but sadly, some seem to treat it as an objective rather than as relic of history.

To justify slavery by claiming it predates anything is a nonsense. Idol worship predates Islam.

This is the problem with this sort of justification. In sociology we call this selective rationalisation.

I will also point out that justifying the Islamic period of colonisation by citing the much larger colonies during Europe's colonial period is comparative rationalisation. Is someone who rapes and murders 10 women less guilty than someone who rapes and murders 11 women?

Slavery in Islamic law can be abolished by a simple device. That it was not possible to do so at the time of the Prophet but is now an out dated and insulting practise which demeans God's creations.

However, I cited slavery as a comparison. The issue of comparison was raised by koroigetsuga earlier. (#39)

I see, that now that he has managed to incite others he has backed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When will Islamic law abolish slavery?

When will Islam condemn the barbarity of the regieme in Sudan which regularly abducts young children from neighbouring communities to use as slaves including sex slaves, all over Sudan and the ME?

What Sudan are doing abducting children and putting them into slavery is so against the shariah its unbelieveable. Islam has already condemned Sudan. As for Slavery read up the shariah on that before you start spouting rubbish.

When will Islam stop the senseless violence encouraged by some who claim justification from Islamic texts in Palestine against Jews which had resulted in so much suffering to so many decent, ordinary people all over the Middle East?

If your provoked you will produce extrememists no matter what.

Jews and Muslims have had a great relationship for centries. The lived among us in nearly all of our great empires in Spain they thrived until the CHRISTIANS came to whip them out, In Jerusalem they where allowed to return and live in harmony and we even cleaned the temple from CHRISTIAN RUBBISH, but what happened? Oh yea the CHRISTIANS came to whip Jews and Muslims AGAIN but where destroyed by Saladin. What about even the most aggressive Islamic empire in the Ottmons? Even Jews lived peacefully under ottomon rulership and set up many successful successful business.

Jews Vs Muslims is only a recent fued but in actual fact we respected each other and at times where side by side against Christian murderers.

Edited by Abu Hurairah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Sudan are doing abducting children and putting them into slavery is so against the shariah its unbelieveable. Islam has already condemned Sudan. As for Slavery read up the shariah on that before you start spouting rubbish.

I am pleased that Muslims you associate with have condemned what is happening in Sudan. However, I have read opinions from Islamic scholars that say that slavery is justified under Islamic law. You may not agree with these scholars, you may eve decide they are not real Muslims. But as I have already said, I can only research the information that is available. I try very hard to find sources that are authentic.

But most importantly of all, I have accepted and do, that most Muslims will condemn slavery. I cited this as comparison. It was in response to koroigetsuga in #39 who initiated comparison. This discussion was with him.

Below are a few links which I've found on slavery. the 2ed, 3rd and 4th are from the same site. These happened to be the first that came to hand when I searched my Islam archive.

Slavery in Islam

Slavery in Islam 2

Slavery in Islam 3

Slavery in Islam 4

If your provoked you will produce extrememists no matter what.

Jews and Muslims have had a great relationship for centries. The lived among us in nearly all of our great empires in Spain they thrived until the CHRISTIANS came to whip them out, In Jerusalem they where allowed to return and live in harmony and we even cleaned the temple from CHRISTIAN RUBBISH, but what happened? Oh yea the CHRISTIANS came to whip Jews and Muslims AGAIN but where destroyed by Saladin. What about even the most aggressive Islamic empire in the Ottmons? Even Jews lived peacefully under ottomon rulership and set up many successful successful business.

Jews Vs Muslims is only a recent fued but in actual fact we respected each other and at times where side by side against Christian murderers.

Oh I see. It's us again!!!!

That is a pathetic justification for forcing some young girl to wrap a bomb around her waist and blow up a bus full of school children.

Presumably its a bit cheaper than finding her an abusive husband to beat her and force her to carry endless children.

But I suppose that for someone with as distorted view on life as you evidently have, any justification is acceptable.

I take it you won't be volunteering to wrap any bombs around your waist?

No, of course not. You will happily send your own kids and blame 'dat dam white guy'.

Your rosey view of history is as distorted as your morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen. Its against Islam to kidnap people and put them in slavery. Slavery was only permitted because it was so in the culture it could not be removed or it would cause diaster. Firstly all the thousands of Slaves would be in the streets etc. Islam permitted slavery but it is not the slavery that Christians started in England or America. Slaves in Islam infact your not suppose to call them slaves they should be called "my boy" or "my girl". Slaves where suppose to be part of the family. They eat with you when you eat on the same plate or table, they sleep in the same comfort as you, you cloth them how you cloth yourself you treat them with absolute kindness. It was almost like they where being paid through shelter, clothing, food etc. Having Slaves in Islam was not negative whatsoever because it was like the current buttler system people have now. You must forgive your slaves for every mistake they have done and also slaves are not a particular race. NOTHING like what is portrayed in the western culture. Also the Muslims had to release slaves for particular sins and through Islam slavery decreased greatly in arabia. Islam put a system that gradually decreased the practice.

By the way Slavery is permitted in your bible and your allowed to beat your slaves. Muslims are absolutely not allowed to lay a finger on them nor are we suppose to over burden them. A contrast to your books which allow the beating of Slaves.

Oh I see. It's us again!!!!

That is a pathetic justification for forcing some young girl to wrap a bomb around her waist and blow up a bus full of school children.

Presumably its a bit cheaper than finding her an abusive husband to beat her and force her to carry endless children.

But I suppose that for someone with as distorted view on life as you evidently have, any justification is acceptable.

I take it you won't be volunteering to wrap any bombs around your waist?

No, of course not. You will happily send your own kids and blame 'dat dam white guy'.

Why on earth are you talking about suicide bombs? Did i even mention the topic? It is not destortion of History what i stated was facts. And its backed up by the fact that the Jews experienced a golden age in Spain and the fact that Jews where successfully running great businesses under the ottomon empire and the fact that Muslims and jews stood side by side against the crusaders. There have been some moments but OVERALL the relationship between Jews and Muslims was good before the Israel vs Palestine issue something Christians could never claim.

Edited by Abu Hurairah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slaves in Islam infact your not suppose to call them slaves they should be called "my boy" or "my girl". Slaves where suppose to be part of the family. ..........Having Slaves in Islam was not negative whatsoever because it was like the current buttler system people have now.

Slavery is slavery however you colour it.

I've heard the argument before that Islamic slaves good, all other slavery bad.

Would you be happy for your daughter to be enslaved, raped by her owner, having no rights, no possessions?

Slavery is the disgusting act of a coward.

Why on earth are you talking about suicide bombs? Did i even mention the topic? It is not destortion of History

You responded to my citing the example of Palestine to launch one of your hypocritical racist attacks.

I was attemping to point out that the Islamic clerics who continue to send young men and women to attack Israelis are committing murder of Palestinians.

When will Islam stop the senseless violence encouraged by some who claim justification from Islamic texts in Palestine against Jews which had resulted in so much suffering to so many decent, ordinary people all over the Middle East?

Will Islam recognise the log in its own eye, or continue to be diverted by the apparent sight of the splinter in ours?

The reaction of the Zionists is predictable. No-one can be in any doubt.

The clerics just cite their ancient texts to justify the killing. Lying to people by claiming they will win in the end because the texts says so.

Your claims that everyone was just so happy under Islamic rule, paying the kaffir tax, and being oh so pleased to be ruled by a bunch of mad hairy heathans who stone people to death are ridiculous.

Perhaps you should keep your filthy racist mouth shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slavery is slavery however you colour it.

I've heard the argument before that Islamic slaves good, all other slavery bad

Would you be happy for your daughter to be enslaved, raped by her owner, having no rights, no possessions?

Dont you ever listen. Send my daughter to be raped? No you cannot rape your slave. And they have rights. Slaves have rights to get married and when they do they can be released. Slaves have rights to own businesses and property, slaves have rights to practice whatever religon they want, Slaves have rights to eat when you eat, to be clothed what you are clothed to sleep in the same comfort, not be harmed, and treated with total kindess.

SLAVES IN ISLAM ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO BUY THEMSELVES OUT!

How about the fact that slavery is in your bible?! And the fact that your allowed to Beat your slaves?

Your claims that everyone was just so happy under Islamic rule, paying the kaffir tax, and being oh so pleased to be ruled by a bunch of mad hairy heathans who stone people to death are ridiculous.

Perhaps you should keep your filthy racist mouth shut.

You are so full of [Edited Out] its unbelieable total ignorance.

1. Taxing non Muslims. Firstly only men had to pay, secondly the sharia states men who can afford to pay. Women and children are not under this rule.

Secondly Non Muslims are exempt from military action they do not have to fight.

So lets compare this to Muslims.

1. Muslim Men are OBLIGATED for military service so if there is a war they MUST fight.

Secondly Muslims who can afford MUST PAY ZAKAT. It is obligated that they pay Zakat.

So Muslims have to pay money and must fight in military service

Non Muslims must pay tax to support the state but are exempt from military service.

Secondly ruled by mad hairy heathan?

What ruled by the same Muslims who excelled in science, who invented hospitals, Universities. Same Heary Heavens who chased away the crazed catholics? Same hairy Muslims that where enjoyed so much by the spanish that the Gothic kings offered their most beautiful women to marry the Muslim rulers? Same Hairy heathens who taught the spainish people how to brush their teeth?

Same Hairy heathens that allowed the Jews to experience their golden age in europe. Same Muslims that allowed jews and christians to be part of the goverment? Same Hairy heathens that did not force convert the masses? Same Muslims that cleaned up the rubbish in the temple? Same Muslims that made Spain the "Jewel of Europe" Same Muslims that sent food to King Richard a crusader when his army was in the verge of starvation? Saladin a Hairy Heathen who was so respected by christians that his face was put on one of their coins after the crusade.

Also you silly little man stoning is also part of the Jewish law so why would they give a damn wether its done or not.

Edited by Abu Hurairah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. Slaves have rights to get married and when they do they can be released. Slaves have rights to own businesses and property, slaves have rights to practice whatever religon they want, Slaves have rights to eat when you eat, to be clothed what you are clothed to sleep in the same comfort, not be harmed, and treated with total kindess.

SLAVES IN ISLAM ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO BUY THEMSELVES OUT!

Slaves can be married but only with their owner's consent. The owner will find the partner and order the marriage.

An unmarried female slave must submit to her owner's sexual demands. The same also applies to a married slave who was captured and her husband given to someone else.

Islamic slaves cannot own anything. Everything, including them is owned by their owners. Slaves may start a business but it's the owner who owns it and the profits.

Slaves buying themselves out??????? They shouldn't be slaves in the first place.

In any case, an Islamic slave can't buy themselves out since they don't own anything. Their families can buy them but only with the owner's consent. Sort of sexual hostage.

All of this was clearly stated in the legal opinions which I linked to.

How about the fact that slavery is in your bible?! And the fact that your allowed to Beat your slaves?

Rubbish. There is no justification to own a slave in the teachings of Jesus, let alone hitting anyone.

However, a Muslim slave owner can also beat his slaves as he can beat his wife.

You are so full of [Edited Out] its unbelieable total ignorance.

I gave you links.

You don't follow them and accuse me of [Edited Out].

Is that sort of thinking in your Hadith?

1. Taxing non Muslims. Firstly only men had to pay, secondly the sharia states men who can afford to pay. Women and children are not under this rule.

Secondly Non Muslims are exempt from military action they do not have to fight.

So lets compare this to Muslims.

1. Muslim Men are OBLIGATED for military service so if there is a war they MUST fight.

Secondly Muslims who can afford MUST PAY ZAKAT. It is obligated that they pay Zakat.

So Muslims have to pay money and must fight in military service

Non Muslims must pay tax to support the state but are exempt from military service.

A state, based upon racism and killing.

Oh how exciting, can't wait.

Secondly ruled by mad hairy heathan?

What ruled by the same Muslims who excelled in science, who invented hospitals, Universities. Same Hairy heathens who taught the spainish people how to brush their teeth?

More garbage. Hospitals and universities were common in ancient Greece. As for cleaning teeth, the Romans were well known for this as were the ancient Greeks.

I appreciate that your leaders want you to think Muslims invented civilisation. The reality is that Muslims copied the civilisation that existed at the time and haven't moved on.

Same Hairy heathens that allowed the Jews to experience their golden age in europe. Same Muslims that allowed jews and christians to be part of the goverment?

They ALLOWED?

How charming. By what right did they assume the authority to be in such a position?

Also you silly little man stoning is also part of the Jewish law so why would they give a damn wether its done or not.

A barbaric practise is a barbaric practise which ever law it is apparently part of.

I don't think you'll find any Jews today who would support such primitive behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive already stated Islam set a System to end slavery. However it was so rooted in the country and the world it had to be gradual. Just like Muslims where first allowed to drink alcohol but not get drunk however soon afterwards when their faith grew stronger it was banned.

"Prohibiting slavery in the context of seventh-century Arabia apparently would have been as useful as prohibiting poverty; it would have reflected a noble ideal but would have been unworkable on an immediate basis without establishing an entirely new socioeconomic system.Jacob Neusner, Tamara Sonn, Comparing Religions through Law: Judaism and Islam, 1999"

As you see here it was impossiable so all Muslims at the time could do was moralize slavery treat them well and give them rights. Also freeing a slave is one of the most greatest acts to do in Islam.

Islam was successfull in the end because gradually it ended slavery in saudi Arabia in the caliphate period.

Umar Radhiallahu Anhu passed certain laws during his Khilafat which led to the emancipation of thousands of slaves, and to the prevention of certain specific forms of slavery. Some of the edicts that he issued:

1. All the apostate tribes that were enslaved during the Khilaafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu were to be freed.

2. A Zimmi (protected non-Muslim subject of an Islamic state) should not be enslaved.

3. Arabs will not be enslaved.

4. Those who had been enslaved during the days of ignorance (prior to the advent of Islam) and had lived to witness the Islamic era, should redeem themselves from slavery by paying their costs (their value) to their owners whether they were willing or not.

As a result of all these laws, there came a time when slavery was totally extirpated. But of course, this extirpation came about after a gradual process because that was the only safe and expedient way of tackling the problem

As you can clearly see her Islam set up a system to gradually reduce slavery and eventually ended it in Saudi arabia. This clearly shows that when the times came when it was right to end Slavery. Now Slavery is practically ended around the world so as Umar showed and agreed by the likes of Hazrat Ali ra we should adapt and continually reduce slavery. We do not need it now so it ends.

By the way you cant rape your slave sex has to be agreed. Because rape involves forcing and hurting your slave and this is against the sharia and the Slave has a right to take physical harm done to her to the head of the state.

Now Slavery was in arabia pre Islam and the slaves where treated horribly. Tourtured and over burdened.

However, a Muslim slave owner can also beat his slaves as he can beat his wife.

Again your showing total ignorance. Your not allowed to physcially harm your wife. The Prophet pbuh clearly explained the verse.

He said you must not leave a mark on your wife, you cannot hit her face and when asked what do you use he said a Miswak, a Miswak is basically a twig an small acient tooth brush size. This is not to harm the wife whatsoever this is unacceptable it is only t simply referred to a symbolic show of displeasure to be administered using a feather, handkerchief or a Miswak (tooth stick). This shows seriousness and passion.

Anyway its illogical to say it means beat them when the wife in Islam is permitted to devorce her Husband anytime she wants! So if she feels she is in danger then she can easily devorce her Husband! So it is illogical to say the verse meants phyically beat them as the prophet pbuh explained!

Rubbish. There is no justification to own a slave in the teachings of Jesus, let alone hitting anyone

Please read your own bible

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:

bullet Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:

bullet Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

bullet 1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

Beating and Killing Slaves: Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days:

bullet Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

bullet Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

And this is just a small collection.

A state, based upon racism and killing.

Oh how exciting, can't wait.

What? How is it racisit i clearly showed how fair it was considering muslims had to pay zakat and have to protect the country which non muslims are exempt from doing. What killing? More like defending the state "Crusaders". Non Muslims where not permitted to for military service because they may not want to fight a fellow Christian for example ie Palestine Christians would not want to fight a crusader.

More garbage. Hospitals and universities were common in ancient Greece. As for cleaning teeth, the Romans were well known for this as were the ancient Greeks.

Wrong firstly Greek temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius might admit the sick, who would wait for guidance from the god in a dream. The Romans adopted his worship. Under his Roman name Æsculapius, he was provided with a temple (291 BC) on an island in the Tiber in Rome, where similar rites were performed. Hardly a proffessional hospital.

Secondly a Hospital is not somewhere where you throw the sick in all togeather to heal them.

The earliest recorded hospitals in the medieval Islamic world refer to the hopital of al-Walid ibn 'Abdul Malik (ruled 705-715 CE) which he built in 86 AH (706-707 CE). It somewhat resembled the Byzantine nosocomia, but was more general as it extended its services to the lepers and the invalid and destitute people. All treatment and care was free of charge and there was more than one physician employed in this hospital.[8]

In the medieval Islamic world, the word "Bimaristan" was used to indicate a hospital in the modern sense, an establishment where the ill were welcomed and cared for by qualified staff. In this way, Muslim physicians were the first to make a distinction between a hospital and other different forms of healing temples, sleep temples, hospices, assylums, lazarets and leper-houses, all of which in ancient times were more concerned with isolating the sick and the mad from society "rather than to offer them any way to a true cure." Some thus consider the medieval Bimaristan hospitals as "the first hospitals" in the modern sense of the word.[9] The first public hospitals,[10] psychiatric hospitals[11] and medical universities[12] were also introduced by medieval Muslim physicians.

[13]

Islam seperated different illnesses in different sections of the hospital this is why it is considered the first modern Hospital.

As for universities there where some before Islam however Muslims created some of the most modern universities espeically in Baghdad which beats anything in Greece. Badghdad was the centre of knowledge.

You ever wonder what you wear when you graduate? Yep Arab clothing haha.

As for tooth brush the europeans kings had false teeth some made out of wood. Muslims introduced the tooth brush for destribution around Spain!

I appreciate that your leaders want you to think Muslims invented civilisation. The reality is that Muslims copied the civilisation that existed at the time and haven't moved on.

Nope Muslims borrowed from other civilisations however it did bring a great great deal to other cilivilisations who also borrowed from the Muslims.

They ALLOWED?

How charming. By what right did they assume the authority to be in such a position?

Yes. I though Muslims where this barabaric Human beings who hated the Jews! Hated the Jews so much that they experienced a golden age under Islamic rulership!

As for Stoning i dont fancy the practice myself but Its in your old testament your calling the God of Israel barbaric?

For me prevention is better then cure.

Edited by Abu Hurairah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive already stated Islam set a System to end slavery. However it was so rooted

Please read your own bible

I will resist getting into a discussion at this time over your assertions regarding medicine and universities as this will simply cloud the issue.

I will also resist getting into an argument over the rights of wives and female slaves to refuse sex

Your claims about slavery in the New Testament are incorrect. But, we can discuss that issue at another time.

I would like to concentrate upon the issue of slavery.

The society which predated Muhammad was barbaric and unacceptable. We can both accept this.

Muhammad reformed that society, abolishing many of the distasteful practises and instituting a society where each level of people knew their rights and obligations. We can both accept that.

At the time, it was one of the most benevolent and modern societies where academia and business flourished. We can both accept that.

In the present era, other societies have also moved on. Human rights have extended to most societies and while the practise is shaky in some, in many, including Europe, individual human rights have become established and practised.

Most Muslims would be appalled by slavery. Most Muslims would be appalled by many traditional Islamic practises. These have therefore, fallen into disuse.

But there exists today, a strong minority of Muslims who through general insecurity, are seeking to rediscover and re-establish their traditions.

When any society finds itself cast adrift from its traditional security it seeks to find an anchor. It seeks security. This is quite normal.

In sociology it is well documented. We call this Nationalism. Though I fully appreciate that Muslims dislike he word and its connotations, it is, never-the-less, a fact of human societies and is a feature of Modern Islam.

Islam was progressing quite well for hundreds of years until around the end of the 18th century when Europeans began to wander in. They saw a society which had become unable to defend itself and began a process of reorganisation. In India, for example, they sought to divide the area up into European style administrative blocks. In the ME, during the earlier part of the 20th century, they carved up the entire area and installed local leaders of their own choosing.

The Islamic societies crumbled. The leaders appointed by the Europeans were charged with maintaining European style order and did so oppressively.

These leaders were gradually replaced but the new leaders maintained the borders.

This style of government caused insecurity and led to the upsurge in Islamic nationalism. The reason is that to maintain this style of government the leaders, whoever they are, are more interested in maintaining their own power base than they are in answering the Islamic rhetoric they proclaim.

However, European government is based upon the principal of the dominant ruling class. The point about a ruling class in any society however is that it must be acknowledged by the mass of the people. (Dictatorships are in reality a nonsense. But don't tell the Americans.)

In Europe we have developed a system where several potential ruling classes can compete with each other for mass attention.

But in the ME are governments which maintain control using oppression and rhetoric. Alternative ruling classes compete for mass attention using their own rhetoric with promises of sunshine when they take over. (If you think about it, it is actually not that different from the European system except here we exercise and embrace that change whereas, in the ME, that change tends to come about through local revolution).

But the artificial borders, created by the Europeans, remain.

Islamic nationalism, which tends to be the predominant rhetoric of any potential ruling class in the ME attempts to claim that all the insecurities that are afflicting the Muslims people can be eliminated by a return to traditional Islamic values.

The Sunnah is seen by many Muslims as the objective. Living their lives according to the example of Muhammad.

But that also means the practises of Muhammad. Hence the justification that is so often cited by so many Muslims, for slavery.

I won't and have never criticised your faith. I personally hope that you all eventually achieve your objective of reviving the Ummah.

But in the short term, this is bound to fail. Quite simply because you are attempting to do this with the artificial borders created by the Europeans.

It is the borders that are causing you the problems. The local ruling classes won't agree to tear down these borders because they derive their own power and status from them. The potential ruling classes, for all their pious rhetoric and talk of Sunnah, have no intention of tearing down these borders either. This clearly demonstrates that these potential ruling classes are not the saviours of Islam they pretend to be. They are just another batch of dictators.

The only way for your to achieve your objectives of reviving the Ummah is for you to reject your leaders.

It is your leaders which are the real enemies of Islam.

The conflict in Palestine is a good case in point.

Those people live in a mass concentration camp, the largest in history. Millions have been exiled. those that remain are under constant oppression by Zionists, subjected to random killing and destruction of their homes.

The leaders of the other ME societies give them scant assistance. The reason is they fear for their own positions. They are more interested in maintaining their own power base than they are in defending fellow Muslims.

Saddam Hussein opposed Israel and paid the price. He may have been a dictator. He certainly wasn't interested in tearing down his borders and losing his power base. But his stance against Israel cost him and the Iraqi people dearly.

Iran may face the same fate, depending on what happens next in the US.

The local leaders in Palestine continue to encourage their peoples to launch pointless attacks on Israel. Attacks which achieve nothing other than further mass murder, further destruction and further confiscation of lands.

We should ask ourselves why the Leaders in Palestine are so obstinate. The answer is that they maintain their own power base by citing ancient texts to justify their orders. Objections to these claims is treated as heresy. These Palestinian leaders are leading their people to their destruction. But while they maintain their own power base they care little for the suffering of ordinary people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery is not needed anymore so there is no reason to bring it back. Its finished and that in my opinion is the objective Muslims set. We as Muslims should try our best to end it because that is what Allah would want. Allah does not want to see Slavery.

That is why during the Khilafat a great step was made to destroy Slavery new laws where set out. Now this clearly shows we must adapt and gradually work to destroy slavery until it has ended. And it has ended now therefore we must not bring it back.

Remember Islam is not only for the future but it was for the Past, present and future.

Now as for following Muhammed pbuh sunnah i will not stop me. There is nothing wrong with following Muhammed pbuh. Does not mean i have to bring back Slavery because Muhammed pbuh freed all of his slaves infact when he freed them the slaves objected and asked to stay with Muhammed pbuh but he still freed them! Infact if the Muslim world follow Muhammed pbuh example then that would be fantastic for the world as a whole.

One of the big reasons Europe became to wander in from the dark ages was because of the Muslims. These barbaric cave men where too busy using dead bones to heal people while the Muslims where carrying out their first successful eye surgery. Muslims contributed a great deal to the european renaissance.

I dont want to get into this leader business. Thats a whole new topic. I know who i prefer anyway. Like i said prevention is better then cure.

Edited by Abu Hurairah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does not mean i have to bring back Slavery because Muhammed pbuh freed all of his slaves infact when he freed them the slaves objected and asked to stay with Muhammed pbuh but he still freed them! Infact if the Muslim world follow Muhammed pbuh example then that would be fantastic for the world as a whole.

Strange that no other Muslim scholars who have expressed an opinion on Islamic slavery are aware of this.

One of the big reasons Europe became to wander in from the dark ages was because of the Muslims.

Oh dear. Here we go again. Jews are the rightful masters

Muslims are the rightful masters.

I suppose you got this from the same source as your claim that Muhammad abolished slavery.

I dont want to get into this leader business. Thats a whole new topic. I know who i prefer anyway. Like i said prevention is better then cure.

The problem is your leaders.

Until you face up to that reality Muslims will continue to suffer.

But hey. You may yet reach your ambition of being an even bigger sob story than the Jews.

Then you can avoid all guilt and responsibility by covering your eyes and ears in a swamp of self pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange that no other Muslim scholars who have expressed an opinion on Islamic slavery are aware of this.

I'm just following the example of the likes of Umar ra imo. He made steps to destroy slavery and did a great deal in Saudi Arabia to practically end it. It was not a common practice as it once was.

As for the scholer business well i know some but because this is a shia forum it will be difficult to express it here so i want to aviode that with the likes of Umar and the Salaf after Muhammed pbuh being involved.

Jesus never said anything against Slavery. Infact he was most likely for it since he came to fulfil and follow the Jewish law so he was probably all for beating the slaves.

Oh dear. Here we go again. Jews are the rightful masters

Muslims are the rightful masters.

I suppose you got this from the same source as your claim that Muhammad abolished slavery.

Jews did play a part in the development of Science and its also thanks to the Christian scholer Tomas who translated the greek and arab works. But it is a fact that the Muslims where developing greatly while Europe was in its "dark ages" Muslims contributed a great deal to the Renaissance this is a historical fact. Please do some research.

The problem is your leaders.

Until you face up to that reality Muslims will continue to suffer.

But hey. You may yet reach your ambition of being an even bigger sob story than the Jews.

Then you can avoid all guilt and responsibility by covering your eyes and ears in a swamp of self pity.

Muslim leaders? lol Majority of the current Muslim leaders are mere puppets to America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus never said anything against Slavery. Infact he was most likely for it since he came to fulfil and follow the Jewish law so he was probably all for beating the slaves.

Jesus didn't come to fulfil Jewish law, He came to fulfil God's law.

Muslim leaders? lol Majority of the current Muslim leaders are mere puppets to America.

Wow, he's finally got it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...