Manumission was for - male - slaves, not female. And “peace” was convert or die, then we will be friends. I accept that after conversion you really could be on good terms with Mohammed, but, that is only if you converted. (He did accept jews and christians, but not pagans or polytheists)
Right
So why then is Mohammed not thrown onto the trash heap of history if he is not an actual real prophet?
What other philosophies of slave traders and warmongers are we still clinging too, over 1000 years after the fact?
Except that Mohammed himself - took - slaves, so I’d say his commandments for how to - treat - slaves is a direct endorsement of slavery.
And, it has been attested to many times on this very thread that Mohammed fought both offensive and defensive battles. Please stop pretending that his battlefield actions were only in self defense.
I don’t have any problem doing exactly and precisely that. Because the Koran actually is filled with violent passages and commandments and Mohammed actually was a violent (excessively so) person.
I’m not either. I’m pointing out that to call Mohammed/Allah peaceful is not only a contradiction in terms but also a flat out lie. It is just simply not the truth. (Moderators, I am talking in general terms here, I am not calling anyone on this thread a liar).
Uh, no. Just the opposite, really. There’s an entire discipline of fiqh called naskh, or “abrogation”, which is nothing but altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God, by identifying which verses of the Qur’an have been “canceled”.
Islamophobes even love to cite it as “proof” that all the peaceful verses of the Qur’an have been negated and leaving just the violent ones in effect.
Muhammad accepting the status quo of his time regarding slavery does not mean that modern Muslims have to accept slavery any more than Jesus accepting the status quo of his time regarding slavery means that modern Christians have to accept slavery. And ISIS engaging in the practice of slavery doesn’t mean that they’re the only real followers of the One True Islam any more than the Confederate States of America engaging in the practice of slavery meant that they were the only real followers of the One True Christianity.
There’s an entire discipline of fiqh called naskh, or “abrogation”, which is nothing but altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God
Quite honestly, I can think of no more glaring a contradiction than altering, editing, and revising the final instructions of the final Prophet of God. Your analysis of the situation is simply not objective.
And confederates taking slaves means they were following the example of Moses, not Jesus.
And Mohammed - was - an excessively violent man even for his day. History is full of - normal - people who get up and go to work or plant crops or hunt or build something or do whatever they do. Normal people doing normal things. Most people had neither the time, inclination, nor ability to become slave traders and warmongers. They may of been - dragged - into such conflicts but the average person has pretty much allways just gotten up and went to work everyday. That, is history. Mohammed’s actions were on the tip of the bell curve even for 1400 years ago.
Cite? I’m not seeing that in the relevant passages.
Cite? Mohammad said there was no compulsion in religion.
Because some people believe that he was an actual, real prophet.
The Founding Fathers? And that’s less than 250 years.
That doesn’t follow, especially given the aforementioned urging toward manumission. Endorsement of slavery isn’t accompanied by the idea that freeing slaves forgives your sins, or raising a tax to free slaves.
That’s every war. Whether it was a defensive struggle depends on how the war started. Consider the Pacific Theater. The U.S. obviously launched offensives and staged attacks, but in the context of responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Based on our earlier exchange re: the passages about self-defense and mercy, I have no confidence in your interpretation being the correct one. Further, I, like many others, don’t consider violence itself to be wrong or sinful. Self-defense is morally fine; defense of others is morally fine. The mere act of fighting doesn’t make one a bad person or discredit one’s ideas.
You said he didn’t act like a man of god. You can drop that point if you wish, but it’s separate from the “peaceful” argument.
“Narrated Ibn Umar: That he used to give his verdict regarding the male or female slaves owned by more than one master, one of whom may manumit his share of the slave. Ibn Umar used to say in such a case, ‘The manumitter should manumit the slave completely if he has sufficient money to pay the rest of the price of that slave (which is to be justly estimated) and the other shareholders are to take the price of their shares and the slave is freed (released from slavery).’ Ibn `Umar narrated this verdict from the Prophet.” (Sahih Bukhari 2525)
“Narrated ‘Ā’isha: I bought Buraira but her masters put the condition that her Wala’ would be for them. I told the Prophet about it. He said (to me), ‘Manumit her as her Wala’ will be for the one who pays the price.’ So, I manumitted her. The Prophet called Buraira and gave her the option of either staying with her husband or leaving him. She said, ‘Even if he gave me so much money, I would not stay with him,’ and so she preferred her freedom to her husband.” (Sahih Bukhari 2536)
“Narrated Abu Huraira: I have loved the people of the tribe of Bani Tamim ever since I heard, three things, Allah’s Messenger said about them. I heard him saying, ‘These people (of the tribe of Bani Tamim) would stand firm against Ad-Dajjal.’ When the Sadaqat (gifts of charity) from that tribe came, Allah’s Messenger said, ‘These are the Sadaqat (i.e. charitable gifts) of our folk.’ ‘Ā’isha had a slave-girl from that tribe, and the Prophet said to ‘Ā’isha, ‘Manumit her as she is a descendant of Ishmael (the Prophet).’” (Sahih Bukhari 2543)
“Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said, ‘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 2544)
Please, stop talking about things of which you have zero knowledge. Especially talking so authoritatively.
Do you think I’m just making up the entire abrogation thing or something?
A) Moses and his commandments are an inextricable part of Christianity, and B) Jesus certainly didn’t do anything to protest or command against the institution of slavery. He even commended the behavior of slave owners towards their slaves in the New Testament!
:smack:
He was the leader of a city-state that was at war. You can’t compare him to J. Random Farmer, you have to compare him to other equivalent leaders at the time. And he was far more peaceful than they were.
Typical. You are going to lecture me on my “ignorance” instead of admitting Mohammed took slaves and kept slaves. Of course I’m not an expert but the facts at hand are not in dispute. Or are you denying that Mohammed took slaves and kept slaves?
We can quibble about his attitude - towards - slaves if we are in agreement on the basic facts.
Yes, because you keep making blanket, confident assertions about Islam that simply aren’t true, and then try to build an argument around them. You will only fail miserably doing that, so for your own sake please stop!
Muhammad took and kept slaves because that was what everyone else did at the time. It’s the same reason Jesus commended slave owners’ treatment of their slaves, because that was the way things were done back then.
Muhammad was actually better than Jesus in this regard, because at least Muhammad encouraged the manumission of slaves. Jesus never once did that.
No, it was Paul who said “slaves obey your masters”. And he did say that about Mosaic Law, but, he also prevented the stoning of the adulteress. There is a - difference - between a passing reference to set of laws and actually mentioning one of said laws specifically. When you refute these laws, as he did on many occasions (well, a handful) that is one step further in the other direction.
I am no fan of christianity. I simply am not. I’m quite hostile to the philosophy as a matter of a fact. But to say that the attitude towards violence and slavery of Mohammed and Jesus is essentially the same is simply not accurate.
So? So what? You are wrong, by the way. Not everyone kept slaves.
Again, so what? The way things were done was the way - some - people did things. Plenty of people never had - any - slaves and never made war on - any - of their neighbors. Why do you keep going on and on and on with this incredibly specious detail.
specious
spēSHəs/Submit
adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
Of some slaves. He had a lot of very very detailed comments about what you could do with sex slaves. I do not know all the details about Mohammed’s attitude towards manumission, true, but I know his attitude towards sex slaves is absolutely horrific.
You said only males slaves were to be freed; she pointed out that you were wrong; you change the subject while acting like she’s the evasive one.
Typical.
I know. I’m not referring to Paul, I’m referring to slavery under Mosaic law: non-Hebrews and their children may be enslaved indefinitely, daughters may be sold as slave-wives, and so on. Fun stuff!
Oh, Jesus refuted the law on slavery? Please, enlighten me, where did he do so and what did he say?
And yet your argument here is indistinguishable from an evangelical Christian urging Muslims to convert…
Mohammed engaged in violence, but in a comparatively limited and justified form. Jesus didn’t, save for the money changers. Mohammed engaged in slavery, but was critical of it. Jesus, being broke, didn’t engage in slavery, but wasn’t critical of it.
“Manumission was for male slaves, not female” was not a fact.
“Jesus never commanded anything violent” was not a fact.
Quit while you’re behind.
Which has precisely zip to do with the fact that slavery was common and accepted by everyone who lived at the time. For both Muhammad and Jesus. Including both Muhammad and Jesus.
It’s not specious. You’re comparing apples to 747s. To repeat, since it was the last post on the previous page and you may not have seen it: Muhammad was the leader of a city-state that was at war. You can’t compare him to J. Random Farmer, you have to compare him to other equivalent leaders at the time. And he was far more peaceful than they were.
I’ve already posted a number of quotes regarding Muhammad’s attitude towards the manumission of slaves. If you’d be so kind, please post quotes regarding Jesus’ attitude towards the manumission of slaves.
Wow!!! What a victory you have won! My point was Mohammed’s attitude was significantly different to sex slaves (females) than males.
What command is that?
Actually, it wasn’t accepted by everyone. In fact, in Rome, (I don’t know if it was the city or the country) there were so many slaves set free that they made a law/proclamation that asked people to - stop - setting their slaves free. And the majority of people did not own slaves. And of those who did own slaves, very few went out and actually made war and captured slaves.
So, yes, indeed, lets stop comparing apples to bananas and calling them the same.
Yes. Right. 100%. He was a - leader. The common person went about their daily life without taking slaves or making war.
Jesus’s attitude towards slaves was, well I don’t know what his attitude was. He mentions slaves a couple of times in parables. He didn’t OWN any slaves.
Your use of the phrase “sex slaves” is erroneous and deliberately distorts the actual statement to which you refer.
Your use of the word “murder” to refer to actions taken in a time of war is notjhing more that an attempt to poison the well of the discussion.
Your claim that Mohammed wanted “unbleievers” to be put to death is also taken from mistranslations and deliberately corrupted interpretations of phrases from the Qur’an.
If your best attack is based on corrupted reading and deliberate falsehoods, you really have no business attacking anyone else’s arguments in this thread.
I am sure that you believe all the nonsense you have posted, but that is based on the fact that you began your “analysis” by starting from an emotionally twisted perspective and have deliberately chosen to use only Islamophobic sources for you information.
Your claims to an “objective analysis” made me laugh. Attempting an “objective analysis” from twisted facts and outright lies is doomed to failure, yet you persist.
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
That is not from a biased source. Check the cite if you don’t believe me.