Islam - The Religion of Slavery.
TR
Slavery in Islam
All the ancient as well as the contemporary scholars acknowledge the
fact of slavery in Islam and
clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of the most
famous scholars to shed light on
their position.
The Scholars of al-Azhar in Egypt
In his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers", Dr. 'Abdul-Latif Mushtahari,
the general supervisor
and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says
(pp. 51,52),
"Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The
first reason is war
(whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is
either killed or
enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each
other - it is not
acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are
Muslims. Only
non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is
the sexual
propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their
owner."
The text is plain that all prisoners of war must either be killed or
become slaves. The ancient
scholars are in full agreement over this issue, such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn
Hisham, Malik etc. Ibn
Timiyya says (Vol. 32, p. 89),
"The root of the beginning of slavery is prisoners of war; the
bounties have become
lawful to the nation of Muhammad."
Then (Vol. 31, p. 380), he indicates clearly and without shame,
"Slavery is justified because of the war itself; however, it is not
permissible to enslave
a free Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him,
and it also makes it
lawful to take his offspring into captivity.
In Part 4, p. 177 of the "Prophet Biography" (Al-Road Al-Anf'), Ibn
Hisham says,
"According to Islamic law concerning prisoners of war, the decision
is left to the
Muslim Imam. He has the choice either to kill them or to exchange
them for Muslim
captives, or to enslave them. This is in regard to men, but women
and children are not
permitted to be killed, but must be exchanged (to redeem Muslim
captives) or enslaved -
take them as slaves and maids."
This is the statement of Ibn Hisham, on whom all Muslims and students of
Muhammad's biography
rely. Of course, these matters which Ibn Hisham recorded used to take
place continuously in all of
Muhammad's wars and invasions. All of Muhammad's people (his wives, and
Muhammad himself)
owned many slaves - males and females. In his campaign against the
children of Qurayza (the
Jewish tribe), Muhammad killed all the males (700-900) in one day. Then,
he divided the women
and the children among his people.
The Caliphs across the ages followed Muhammad's footsteps and enslaved
(by hundreds and
thousands) men and women who were captured in wars. Many of them were
Persians and
Byzantines. All the Islamic Chroniclers without exception have recorded
these facts. The way
Arab Muslims invaded Africa and killed and enslaved Africans is a
well-known, historical fact.
In Vol. 2, Part 3, p. 13, Malik Ibn Anas repeated the same text as did
Ibn Hisham who is also
quoted by Ibn Timiyya, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his book, "Zad
al-Ma'ad" (part 3, p. 486).
All of them taught the same principle and said the same words.
This question was delivered to Ibn Timiyya who was Mufti of Islam (Vol.
31, pp. 376, 377),
"A man married a maid-slave who bore him a child. Would that child
be free or would
he be an owned slave?"
Ibn Timiyya says emphatically,
"Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her
master according to
all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the
child follows the
(status) of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of
the race of Arabs, then
he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the
scholars disputed (his
status) among themselves if he was from the Arabs - whether he must
be enslaved or not
because when A'isha (Muhammad's wife) had a maid-slave who was an
Arab,
Muhammad said to A'isha, `Set this maid free because she is from the
children of
Ishmael.'"
Then Ibn Timiyya states (Vol. 31, p. 380) that the legist Abu Hanifa
says, "Muhammad is an Arab;
thus it is not admissible to enslave Arabs because of the nobility of
this race since Muhammad is
from them." Yet other scholars disagree with him, emphasizing that
Muhammad (in one of his
campaigns) enslaved Arabs, too. However, it is evident from Muhammad's
traditions that he
regarded Arabs to be the most noble race, especially the Quraysh, his
tribe. His famous saying
(that the caliphs must be elected from the Quraysh tribe) is
acknowledged by all translators of the
tradition without exception.
He should have told A'isha, "Set her free because she is a human being
like you. It is not important
whether she is a descendant of Ishmael or of Isaac!"
Islam Encourages Muslims to Keep Slaves - No Liberation
All Muslim scholars acknowledge that Islam has retained the principle of
slavery, though some of
them claim that Islam encourages the liberation of slaves. Maybe some of
Muhammad's sayings
and a few Qur'anic verses indicate so, yet from a practical point of
view, we realize that the
liberation of slaves was a rare occurrence. The reason is well known.
Neither Muhammad nor his
wives or companions were a good example in this regard. Sometimes,
Muhammad used to talk
about the merits of liberating a slave, yet he himself owned dozens of
slaves and maid-slaves.
However, we encounter a strange opinion spelled out by Muhammad's wives
and his friends in
which he encourages them to retain their slaves. In Vol. 33, p. 61 Ibn
Timiyya says,
"Anyone who says, `If I do so (such a thing), every slave I own will
become free' is not
obligated by his oath and he can redeem his oath by any means and
retain his slaves.
(He can do that) by fasting a few days or by feeding some hungry
people."
On the same page Ibn Timiyya stresses that this is what all Muhammad's
friends said (such as Ibn
'Abbas and Ibn 'Umar) as well as his wives (such as Zaynab, A'isha, and
Um Salama).
Is the liberation of slaves a bad thing so that it is possible for a man
who swears he will liberate
his slaves to renounce his oath and retain them? It should be said that
whoever takes an oath to free
his slaves if so and so happens, is obliged to fulfill his oath and
liberate his slaves, but we see that
Muhammad's wives, his great companions and his relatives say something
different according to
the testimony of Ibn Timiyya.
The Qur'an itself (in several places) approves of slavery and assures
the Muslim the right to own
dozens of male and female slaves either by purchasing them or as bounty
of war. The Qur'an talks
about the possession of slaves as "the possession of their necks"
(Chapter 58:3, Surah
Al-Mujadilah).
Slaves of Muhammad - Prophet of Freedom and Equality!
Muhammad himself owned numerous slaves after he proclaimed himself to be
a prophet. I would
like here to quote Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya who is one of the greatest
scholars and chroniclers of
Islam. In his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), he says,
"Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell
them, but he
purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered
him by His
message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold
one black slave
for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were
more (than he
sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he
hired more slaves than
he rented out.
This trading used to take place in the slave market in the Arab
Peninsula and in Mecca.
Muhammad was accustomed to sell, purchase, hire, rent, and to exchange
one slave for two. Thus,
he had an increasing number of slaves, especially after he claimed to be
a prophet, and after his
immigration from Mecca to escape death at the hand of his tribe Quraysh.
Also, the slaves of
Muhammad and his followers were constantly increasing as the result of
those who were captured
in wars and not only by purchase. This should alert those who have
accepted Islam - the Muslims
of New York, Chicago, Georgia, Detroit, Los Angeles as well as all the
Africans and all Muslims
of the world. Even among the Arabs are Muslims who are not aware of
these facts concerning
Muhammad. Sadly, this is only a small part of the facts of which they
are unaware concerning
Muhammad.
The Names of Muhammad's Slaves
A) Male Slaves:
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relies always on the prophet's biographies
written by great ancient
scholars. Therefore, he is regarded by Muslims as an authority, a
primary source and a leader
among the students of the Islamic religion. This scholar tells us in his
book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (part
1, pp. 114, 115, and 116), the following,
"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh,
Aflah, 'Ubayd,
Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha
al-Hadi,
Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara
Nubyan, Fadila,
Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn
Haritha, and
also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad)
Safina
(`ship').
He himself relates his own story; he says:
"The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. (When) their
belongings
became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, `Spread your
garment.' They
filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle
of God told me, `Carry
(it), for you are a ship.' Even if I was carrying the load of six or
seven donkeys while
we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes
or his shield or
his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet
told me, `You are a
ship"' (refer to Ibn Qayyim, pp. 115-116; al-Hulya, Vol. 1, p. 369,
quoted from Ahmad
5:222).
The story shows their ruthlessness and does not need explanation or
clarification. The ill treatment
Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive. Ibn Qayyim
al-Jawziyya is not
the only one who recorded this episode and the list of names of
Muhammad's slaves. The Tabari
also (in his Chronicles, Volume 2 p. 216, 217, 218) presents us with
these accounts. No one
among the contemporary Muslim leaders denies these matters, especially
if he is faced with the
Tabari's and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's records.
Still, in regard to Muhammad's slave Zayd Ibn Haritha, Muhammad set him
free and adopted him,
then he married him to his (Muhammad's) cousin Zaynab. Later Zayd
divorced her after he realized
that Muhammad was captivated by her. The scandalous story is documented
by verses in the
Qur'an, and Muslim scholars admit it.
B) Maid Slaves:
In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as
other Muslim authors of
chronicles recorded the list of names of Muhammad's maid-slaves. They
are Salma Um Rafi',
Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa,
Razina, Um Damira,
Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of
them given to him as a
present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.
The Status of the Slave Under Islam's Unjust Laws
Let us survey together some strange things embraced by Muhammad and
Islam pertaining to slaves.
Then let us shed some light on the attitude of Christianity towards this
issue.
The Freeman Should Not Be Killed For A Slave
The Qur'an as well as Muslim scholars are explicit in this regard The
Qur'an (the Chapter of the
Cow:178) shamelessly says,
"O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter
of the murdered - the
freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female
for the female."
The reader does not need the interpretations of the scholars to
understand these explicit words
which indicate that the freeman should be killed only for another
freeman, a slave for a slave, and
a female for a female. Still, I promised to stick to the interpretations
of the great expositors of
these Qur'anic verses from among the Muslim scholars because they are
more knowledgeable of
their Book and its verses. We rely on their interpretations and not on
our own. In the commentary
of the Jalalan (p. 24), we read the following regarding the above
mentioned verse,
"The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to
the act of the
crime in the case of a homicide, by virtue of description or
actuality. A freeman should
be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a
female, but a Muslim
(even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if
that infidel is a freeman."
What kind of equality is this between human beings!
To explain the aforementioned verse (2:178), the Baydawi relates what
really happened with the
prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and 'Umar. This is recorded in his book
entitled, "The Commentary
of al-Baydawi". On p. 36, we read,
"The Shafi'i and Malik prohibit the killing of a freeman if he slays
his slave or other
men's slaves. This is because 'Ali Ibn Abi-Talib mentioned that a
man had killed his
slave and Muhammad scourged him only; he did not kill him. It was
related on the
authority of Muhammad that he said a Muslim should not be killed for
a non-Muslim, nor
a freeman for a slave; also because Abu Bakr and 'Umar Ibn
al-Khattab did not kill a
freeman for a slave. (This was said) in the presence of all
Muhammad's companions,
and no one disapproved or objected to it."
These are the verses of the Qur'an and this is the attitude of Muhammad
himself as well as Abu
Bakr and 'Umar after him.
The Muslim legists
The Shafi'i, Malik and Ibn Timiyya, pronounce the same principle as in
the Qur'an
(2:187).
The Imam Shafi'i tells us plainly and decisively in Part I of his book,
"Ahkam al-Qur'an" ("The
Ordinances of the Qur'an", p. 275),
"A man is not to be killed for his slave nor the freeman for a
slave."
On the same page he adds,
"A believer is not to be killed for a non-believer, nor a man for
his son, or a man for his
slave or for a woman."
What justice! What equality! Then he adds,
"The freeman is not to be killed for a slave according to the
scholars."
Malik Ibn Anas was asked: "What is the punishment of a master who beats
his slave to death?" He
answered: "Nothing!" (Vol. 6, Part 15, p 164).
In Vol. 28, p. 378, Ibn Timiyya also says:
"What we mentioned in regard to the believers whose blood is treated
equally is
restricted to the free Muslim against another free Muslim."
I do not have better witnesses in this regard than these scholars: Abu
Bakr, 'Umar, 'Ali and
Muhammad's deeds, and all great, popular Muslim scholars.
A Slave Is Not Entitled To Property Or Money
Ibn Hazm says in Vol. 6, Part 9,
"The slave is not permitted to write a will when he dies, nor can he
bequeath (anything)
because his entire possessions belong to his master."
In part I, p. 180 of his book, "The Ordinances of the Qur'an", the
Shafi'i also says,
"The Qur'anic verse; `Marry of the women who seem good to you, two
or three or four
are meant for the freeman only and not for the slaves because he
says in it that the one
who acts fairly is the person who owns money and slaves do not own
money."'
He also indicates in Part II, p. 21, "The owned one does not have
money." Besides, according to
the Islamic law, all Muslims receive portions of war bounty except
slaves and women. Malik Ibn
Anas says (Vol. 2, Part 3, pp. 33,34),
"Slaves and women do not have any portion in the bounty."
This is true even if they have been fighting with the rest of the
Muslims. In Part III of the
"Prophetic Biography" (p. 386), Ibn Kathir says,
"The slave does not get anything from the bounty whether the bounty
is money or
women."
The Testimony Of The Slave Is Not Admissible
In Vol. 35, p. 409 Ibn Timiyya remarks,
"The Shafi'i, Malik, and Abu Hanifa, who are the legists of Islam,
assert that the
testimony of the slave is not acceptable."
If we also turn the pages of the "Ordinances of the Qur'an" by the
Shafi'i (part II, p. 142), he
determines,
"The witnesses must be from among our freeman, not from our slaves,
but from freeman
who belong to our religion! "
The testimony of a Jew or a Christian is not acceptable, as we have
mentioned before, even if
justice would be hindered for lack of their witness. This is not
important. In his "Sahih" (Part III,
p. 223), Al-Bukhari remarks,
"The testimony of a slave is not acceptable in marriages."
What is the meaning of the Shafi'i's statement,
"A witness should not be from our possessed slaves."
Does not Mr. Shafi'i know that God only is the One who owns people? How
dare he utter the
phrase, "our possessed slaves."
There Is No Punishment For One Who Makes False Accusation Against Slaves
It is well known that if a Muslim falsely accuses another free Muslim
and slanders his honor, he
will be punished by being flogged with eighty lashes. This is what
happened when some of
Muhammad's companions and relatives accused A'isha, his wife, of
adultery with one of the young
men because they stayed behind after the departure of the caravan, then
later in the morning they
arrived together. Muhammad ordered each one of them flogged with eighty
lashes. But if a Muslim
calumniates a slave, he would not be punished.
This is the opinion of all the scholars.
For instance (Vol. 8, Part II, p. 27 1), Ibn Hazm asserts that this is
the opinion of Abu Hanifa,
Shafi'i, Malik, and Sufyan al-Thawri and not only his own opinion. This
is what the Sharawi
shamelessly remarks,
"Female slaves are deprived of dignity and subject to abuse because
they are not `an
honor' to anyone (that is, they are not free, respectable women who
belong to a free
man). These arc the same words reiterated by the Shafi'i (Part I, p.
307) in his book,
`Ahkam of the Qur'an'; thus a female slave must not be veiled. When-
ever Muhammad
took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil on her, Muslims
would say he took
her as a wife, but if he left her unveiled they would say, `He owned
her as a slave'; that
is, she became a property of his right hand."
A good example is the incident of Safiyya, daughter of Hay, who was
taken as a bounty in the war
of Khaybar. All the chronicles (as well as the biographies without
exception) have recorded, "We
wonder why it is said about women and girls that they are of `shed
dignity'." The Shafi'i and the
Sharawi state this word for word. Is it necessary for us to repeat that
Islam sheds the dignity of
man under the pretense that he is a slave, that she is a woman, or that
he is a non-Muslim?
On Matters Of Sex And Marriage - and About Black Slaves
1. The Slave cannot choose for himself.
This was confirmed by all the Muslim scholars on the authority of
Muhammad. In Vol. 6, Part 9, p.
467, Ibn Hazm said,
"If a slave gets married without the permission of his master, his
marriage will be invalid and he
must be whipped because he has committed adultery. He must be separated
from his wife. She is
also regarded as an adulteress because Muhammad said, `Any slave who
gets married without the
approval of his master is a prostitute.'"
The same text is quoted by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (Part 5, p. 117 of
"Zad al-Maad"), as well as
Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 32, p. 201). Malik Ibn Anas relates (Vol. 2, Part 4)
more than that. He says (pp.
199, 201, 206),
"The slave does not get married without the approval of his master.
If he is a slave to
two masters, he has to obtain the approval of both men."
2. The male slave and the female slave are forced to get married.
Malik Ibn Anas says explicitly,
"The master has the right to force his male or female slave to marry
without obtaining
their approval" (Vol. 2, p. 155).
Ibn Hazm says that Sufyan al-Thawri, too, has said that the master has
the right to force his male or
female slave to marry without securing their approval (Vol. 6, Part 9,
p. 469). Ibn Timiyya is of
the same opinion.
I must not fail in this regard to mention that Malik Ibn Ons, who (after
agreeing with the other
scholars that the master has the right to force his male or female slave
to get married) added,
"The master does not have the right to force the female slave to wed
to an ugly black
slave if she is beautiful and agile unless in case of utmost
necessity" (refer to Ibn Hazm,
Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469).
We wonder here, what did Malik Ibn Anas mean when he said, "An ugly
black slave"? Is a man
valued on the basis of the color of his skin? Do you say that, O Malik
Ibn Anas, and you are one of
the great four legists? Or is a man valued on the basis of his
personality, reasoning, and heart? We
also have the right to wonder why Mihran, the black slave, suffered the
humiliation afflicted on
him by Muhammad and his companions when they made him carry their
belongings in the burning
desert while Muhammad was saying to him, "Carry them, for you are a
ship." Thus he became
known by that surname. Did they not have dozens of other slaves?
Muhammad even discriminated (in Islam) between a black dog and a white
dog! Yet, what
concerns us here is what I pointed out about slaves in general, their
masters treat them as if they
are not human beings who have feelings, desires and self-will.
Let us continue our discussion in order to have a more complete picture
about how the Islamic
religion abuses the dignity of men and women under the pretense that
they are slaves and not free
human beings.
3. The Arab freeman does not marry a slave unless it is inevitable:
In Vol. 31, p. 383, Ibn Timiyya says,
"It is not permissible for the Arab freeman to marry an owned slave
unless it is
inevitable, such as being unable to get married to a free woman. If
it happened and he
were wed to a slave, her children would be slaves, too, because they
follow (the status)
of the mother in slavery."
Malik Ibn Anas notes,
"It is not allowable for a man to wed a slave besides his freewoman
wife. In this case, his wife
has the right to divorce him. Likewise, if he marries a freewoman while
he is already married to a
slave and he fails to tell her so, the freewoman has the right to leave
him" (Malik, Vol. 2, p. 204).
I do not have any comment on these strange principles, yet I wonder why
an Arab freeman cannot
marry a slave. Is not he a man and she a woman? And why (if it is
inevitable that he should marry
her) should all her descendants be slaves? These are iniquitous and
ruthless ordinances. It is
obvious that Muhammad failed to change the traditions of the tribal
society of the pre-Islamic
period. Most Arab Muslims had slaves. His companions, wives and he
himself owned and
retained dozens of them. He bought more after he claimed his prophethood
and declared his
message - the message or equality, and freedom, and human rights!
What Would Happen If A Freewoman Married Her Slave?
She might be an open-minded woman who did not discriminate between one
man and another.
Thus she might have fallen in love with her slave who also loved her and
they intended, officially,
to get married. What is the attitude of Islam in this case? If something
like that took place in
Islamic society, it would be a disaster! Let us see the reaction of Umar
Ibn Khattab in these
situations. In Vol. 8, Part 11, pp. 248, 249, Ibn Hazm remarks,
"A woman was wed to her male slave. Umar intended to stone her, but
instead he made
them separate and sent the slave to exile. He told the woman, `It is
unlawful for you to
get married to your owned slave!' Another woman got married to her
slave. Umar
scourged her with a whip and forbade any man to marry her. Another
time, a
freewoman came to Umar and told him, `I am not a pretty woman and I
have a slave to
whom I would like to get married.' Umar refused to do so. He whipped
the slave and
ordered him to be sold in a foreign country. He told the woman, `It
is unlawful for you to
get married to what your right hand owns. Only men have the right to
get wed to what
their right hand owns. Even if you set him free in order to marry
him and he becomes a
freeman, the manumission will be invalid and the marriage is not
valid."'
Is there any comment on the ruthlessness of this second caliph who was
Muhammad's father-in-law
and one of the ten to whom Muhammad promised paradise? He is one of the
two whom
Muhammad requested the people to follow as a model when he declared,
"Emulate Abu Bakr and
Umar." Yet Umar was a tyrant, a ruthless man without a heart who
attempted to stone a woman for
no reason except she married a man who was her slave. He also scourged
another woman,
forbidding any other man to marry her, and beat and exiled a slave. And
when a third woman
wanted to free her slave in order to marry him and live happily
together, especially after she lost
hope in getting married to a freeman, Islam and Umar intervened and
said, "No, this is not
permissible." He scourged the slave and sold him into a foreign country.
By that, he became an
example of relentlessness, a hard heart, and detestable oppression.
In matters of sex and marriage, Ibn Timiyya states:
"The one who owns the mother also owns her children. Being the
master of the mother
makes him the owner of her children whether they were born to a
husband or they were
illegitimate children. Therefore, the master has the right to have
sexual intercourse
with the daughters of his maid-slave because they are his property,
provided he does
not sleep with the mother at the same time" (Vol. 35, p. 54).
The Value Of The Slave - What Is His Price In Dinars?
"If an owned slave assaults somebody and damages his property, his
crime will be tied
to his neck. It will be said to his master, `If you wish, you can
pay the fine for the
damages done by your slave or deliver him to be sentenced to death.'
His master has to
choose one of the two options - either the value of the slave and
his price or the damage
the slave has caused" (Vol. 32, p. 202, Ibn Timiyya).
Is this how the value of a man is calculated? If the loss amounted, for
example, to 600 dinars and
the value of the slave in the estimation of the master did not exceed
more than 400 dinars because
he was sick or weak, his master would, in this case, deliver him to be
killed!
We have looked at six points concerning the status of slaves in the
Islamic religion. Actually, any
one point, if we ponder it, is sufficient to clarify the truth. It
reveals to us how human dignity is
crushed in the practice of slavery. From the very beginning, we referred
to the principle of slavery
as it is manifested in this religion, and we have listed the names of
Muhammad's slaves, the master
and the "apostle of God!"
I.R.
Mike the Kiwi
> "Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The
> first reason is war
So when did they have this 'war' against their own women and turn *them* into slaves??
Ninure Saunders
SLAVERY: A MORAL QUESTION FOR OUR TIME
At the tail end of the 20th century slavery, the ownership of one person
by another, is alive and kicking. Reports in liberal newspapers have
highlighted places where slavery is still practised. It is a practice that
has been around for thousands of years. It is without doubt one of the
most profound moral issues of the last few thousand years. A slave could
be bought, sold and inherited. Slavery degraded a person to mereproperty
and it sometimes denied people even the most basic of rights. Slavery per
se, was and is, a profound moral evil that deserves clear condemnation.
Furthermore, the way slavery operated was and is a further moral evil.
Slave owners were almost always men; women and children frequently their
property. Slaves were frequently mistreated.
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY
So what does the Old Testament have to say about slavery? The book of
Leviticus (25:44) commands that Israelites must not be sold as slaves but
: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you,
from them you may buy slaves"
So far from saying one must not engage in the practice of slavery this
command, which is a direct command from God (25:1), allows it. Note slaves
are to be drawn from other races i.e. people are to be treated differently
according to their race. Leviticus also states "You can will them to your
children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" (25:45).
Exodus (22: 1-4) also contains a direct command from God : "In case a man
should steal a bull or sheep and he does slaughter or sell it, he is to
compensate with five of the herd for the bull ....he is to make
compensation without fail. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the
things he stole". The passage advocates slavery as a punishment for
property crime. Exodus (21:1-6) allows Hebrew slaves to go free after the
sixth year (but not his wife and children if the wife was originally the
property of the slave owner). In contrast the pagan Laws of Hammurabi (in
the second millennium BC) allow the release of slaves after the third year
(Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J Prichard, 1950, p170). There is also a
direct command from God :
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his
hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no
vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21).
Passages in the Old Testament allow that slaves and other "property" can
be plundered from other tribes. Other passages however command the killing
of slaves as part of genocide. In a direct command from God the Israelites
are told : "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is
giving you as inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breaths.
Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites,
Hivites and Jebusites as the Lord your God has commanded you" Deuteronomy
(20:16-17). Similarly in Deuteronomy 7:1-5 the Hittites and other groups
are to suffer genocide by command of God "you must destroy them totally.
Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy." Ironically the Hittite
civilisation was rather elevated for its time. Hans Guterbock, Professor
of Hittitology at the Oriental Institute,
University of Chicago writes of the Hittites "the most outstanding
achievement of the Hittite civilisation lay in the fields of legislation
and the administration of justice. The Hittites rarely resorted to the
death penalty or to bodily mutilation, both of which were characteristic
of other civilisations of the ancient Middle East. Furthermore, Hittite
justice rested in the main on the principle of restitution rather than on
retribution or vengeance." (Encarta CD ROM Encyclopedia 1994).
Deuteronomy 13:12-16 commands that where a town has "been led astray" into
worshiping other gods then "you must certainly put to the sword all who
live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its
livestock." So slaves, if they were unfortunate enough to be owned by
someone in one of these towns, were marked down by command of God for
slaughter (together with all the children and animals).
Before moving on it is important to state that there was nothing
compelling God to give such morally reprehensible advice. It might be
argued that what is in Leviticus and Exodus is not God's view at all. If
this is the case, why did God allow such disgraceful teaching to be in his
book in the first place (he is, let us not forget, supposed to be all
powerful).
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY
There is not a single condemnation of slavery by Jesus in the entire
gospels. Yet it is inconceivable that Jesus was unaware of slavery and the
moral issue since "Jesus lived in a world where slavery was common. There
seem to have been slave revolts in Palestine and Jordan in Jesus' youth.
There were innumerable slaves of the Emperor and the Roman state; the
Jerusalem temple owned slaves; the High Priests owned slaves (one of them
lost an ear in Jesus' arrest); all of the rich and many of the middle
classes owned slaves." Yet "Jesus never attacked the practice. He took the
state of affairs for granted" Professor Morton Smith, Columbia University,
What The Bible Says 1989 p143.
What of the attitude of Paul ? He wrote : "Those who are slaves must
consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak
evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to Christian
masters must not despise them, for they are their brothers." (1 Timothy
6:1-2).
Paul's reference to "Christian masters" immediately reveals that early
Christians owned slaves. But far from condemning the practice amongst
fellow Christians and in the wider world, Paul does the opposite by
arguing that slave masters, be they Christians or non-Christians, must be
given respect by their slaves. It is striking just how emphatic Paul is
about this, particularly in his use of words such as "must" and "all".
Paul's letter to Titus tells slaves in no uncertain terms that : "Slaves
are to submit to their masters and please them in all things. They must
not answer them back or steal from them. Instead, they must show that they
are always good and faithful, so as to bring credit to the teaching about
God our Saviour in all they do." 2: 9-10.
In Colossians (3:22-4:1) Paul clearly tells Christian slave masters to be
"fair and just in the way you treat your slaves". Yet there is no
condemnation of slavery. A slave may become a "brother" in the faith, but
he or she is still nevertheless a slave, still a piece of property. Rather
than condemn slave owning by Christians, Paul tells the slaves they own to
"obey your human masters in all things" (the NEB translates this as "give
entire
obedience"). This is a quite staggering thing to command a person to do
and beggars belief. Far from encouraging a slave to challenge his status
he does the very opposite : "Whatever you do, work at it with all your
heart, as though you were working for the Lord". Working hard as a slave
has thus become a religious duty. Paul then writes that if they work hard
as a slave they will be rewarded in the next world. He thus helps to
underpin slavery. Paul repeats these commands in his letter to the
Ephesians.
The first letter from Peter (1 Peter 2:18-19) tells slaves to: "submit to
your masters and show them complete respect, not only to those who are
kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. God will bless you
for this, if you endure the pain of undeserved suffering because you are
conscious of his will." The biblical writer is
unequivocal in demanding respect for slave owners.
COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE
John Stott, a popular evangelical author admits "Scripture regulates but
nowhere condemns slavery" (Issues facing Christians Today 1984 p195).
Richard Holloway, the Bishop of Edinburgh speaking to the Sunday Times
about the Bible was blunter when he stated "We have recently abandoned the
text's tyranny over women as we abandoned its justification of slavery"
(11-10-98).
Professor JL Holden, former Principal of Cuddesdon Theological College
writes of Paul "He voices no hint of objection to slavery in itself, and
in this respect falls below the humane ideals of Stoics of his time like
Seneca" (Ethics and the NT 1973 p25).
Don Cupitt, Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, states (in a book he
wrote before he became a heretic) : "slavery is commanded in the Old
Testament, accepted in the New, and coexisted with Christianity for
eighteen centuries." (Crisis of Moral Authority 1972 SCM Press p90).
Robin Fox, Reader in Ancient History at Oxford writes "As for slavery:
Christian slaves should abide in their social position, according to Paul,
and 'serve the more.' A slave's obedience to his master was a religious
duty " (The Unauthorised Version 1991 p401).
The writer Chapman Cohen (1868-1954) noted in his essay Christianity and
Ethics (1945) "In all the recorded utterances of the Gospel Jesus, there
is not a single condemnation of slavery as an institution. In the Pagan
world the question of the legitimacy of slavery was already beginning to
excite interest; slaves themselves were exhibiting symptoms of unrest.....
Further, we find St Paul commanding slaves to be obedient to their
masters, in fear and trembling, whether they be good or bad, and to count
them as "worthy of all honour" whether the masters be believers or
unbelievers; while to bear unmerited punishment in silence...is to be
counted to their honour hereafter."
Professor Morton Smith notes that "With all these clear passages, there is
no reasonable doubt that the New Testament, like the Old, not only
tolerated chattel slavery but helped to perpetuate it by making the
slaves' obedience to their masters a religious duty. This biblical
morality was one of the great handicaps that the emancipation movement in
the United States had to overcome. The opponents of abolition had clear
biblical evidence on their side...as one said in 1857:"Slavery is of God".
(What the Bible Says 1989 p145/146).
Dr Margaret Knight in her pamphlet "Christianity : The Debit Account"
(1975) comments about Pauls promise of heavenly rewards generally: "To a
privileged minority this attitude has obvious advantages, in that it helps
to keep the unprivileged majority resigned to their lot, but it has
retarded human progress for centuries" (p7)
Some Christian writers try to excuse the Bibles attitude on slavery. One
book even suggests that "Paul's brief was not to engage in political
campaigning" (The Lion Guide to the Bible p625). Such excuses are morally
objectionable. Slavery is not a matter of mere politics, it is one of the
most profound and fundamental of moral issues.
The Bibles attitude to slavery has not been lost on Christians throughout
the ages. Professor Carl Lofmark in his book "What is the Bible?" writes
:" Christians accepted slavery....the Church itself soon became the
biggest slave-owner in the Roman Empire. Slavery was approved of by the
Church's teachers, such as St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and many
others....The slave trade flourished with the approval of the Church ....
Slaves have been bought and sold by the popes and they continued to keep
slaves until the late 18th century. The Bible texts I have quoted were
used constantly to support slavery. Opponents of slavery including
Wilberforce and Paine .... were savagely attacked by the churches for
presuming to know better than the Bible, and the anti-slavery attitude of
the Quakers made them unpopular with orthodox Christians. The first
country to abolish slavery was France..." (1990, RPA. p97)
And Don Cupitt claims "It was not Wilberforce the Christian who
pioneered abolition, as popular legend has it. On the contrary, as
Wilberforce himself told the Commons on February 18, 1796, revolutionary
France had already freed its slaves overseas: Christian England was not to
free them for 37 years. It was the same revolutionary Assembly which gave
Jews the citizen-ship which Christian France had denied them." (1972 p90)
And Chapman Cohen noted in his essay on Christianity: "The modern
black-slave trade, it must be noted, was pre-eminently a Christian traffic
- instituted by Christians.....And it remained, backed up by Christians,
who quoted the New Testament....as their authority."
WHO DID CONDEMN SLAVERY ?
The Jewish religious sect the Essenes condemned slavery (Karen Armstrong
The End of Silence 1993 p47 ). Its interesting that the Lion Guide to the
Bible describes this group as a "rather shadowy party" who kept themselves
to themselves "loving one another and hating all those outside" (p495).
What the Guide carefully omits to tell its readers is that the Essenes
opposed slavery. The classical writer Philo of
Alexandria recorded (approvingly) that they possessed no slaves and that
they denounced slave-owners ("Philo of Alexandria" Samuel Sandmel 1979 p
33 ). However they may have gone further than this. Dr Abram Leon Sacher
former Chancellor Emeritus, Brandeis University, writes of the Essenes "As
a society, the Essenes were the first to condemn slavery as a violation of
human fellowship. It is reported that they bought and freed slaves owned
by others" 1994 Encarta CD Rom
Encyclopedia.
The Essenes were not however the first to condemn slavery. Writing about
Antisthenes, of the Cynic school of philosophy (4th century BC) , Bertrand
Russell notes "His followers, if not he himself, condemned slavery." (A
History of Western Philosophy 1946 p241).
According to the 1991 Hutchinson Encyclopedia the pagan Stoics "emphasised
human brotherhood, denounced slavery, and were internationalist" p788.
This is probably overstating the case, however. It is true that the fifth
century Macedonian writer Strobaeus attributes a passage condemning
slavery to the Stoic Epictetus but there is some doubt as to the veracity
of this. Nevertheless Stoics such as Seneca certainly championed the
rights of slaves. Seneca induced Nero, in his early years, to grant slaves
the right to appeal to the Roman courts against cruelty for example. The
Stoic lawyer Ulpian was able to make it illegal for parents to sell their
children into slavery. Yet" Constantine annulled much of the beneficent
work of his Paganpredecessors by allowing poor parents to sell their
children into slavery" (J McCabe, A Rationalist Encyclopaedia 1948 p96).
IMPLICATIONS
For a man to own children or other adults as his property is profoundly
wrong. Slavery was and is a moral evil. The Bible is therefore wrong on
one of the most fundamental matters of human morality. In the light of the
Bibles attitude to slavery, claims that the Bibles moral teaching is
special, or contain the "infallible Word of God" flounder. Far from being
the "infallible Word of God", on this fundamental matter of morality the
Bible actually falls well short of the ideal of its time. Moreover most
Christians argue that Jesus was the "Son of God". But how could he be the
"Son of God" when he failed to say a single word against the evil of
slavery? And how could he be the "Son of God" when mere men, both before
him and contemporary with him, did condemn slavery?
================================================
Christian prelates quoted the Bible in defence of slavery at considerable
length )andodlu enough there is a GROWING movement among American
Conseratives to justify and defend slavery in micern times!!):
Here is an excerpt from "Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology",
by M.I. Finley, (Chatto & Windus, 1980) Finley is Professor Emeritus
of Ancient History in the University of Cambridge.
"The American Churches, Anglican, Methodist, and Baptist, owned
600,000 slaves, and 'the authority of nearly all the leading
denominations was against the abolitionists,' says J. Macy in the
chief and impartial recent American work (The Anti-Slavery Crusade,
1920, p. 74). The Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian authorities, he
shows, expelled any minister who advocated abolition. It was the
Deists Franklin and Paine, inspired by the 'infidel' literature of
France, who initiated the protest-- the first shot was Paine's African
Slavery in America (1775)--and the effective Abolitionist movement in
the nineteenth century was led by Rationalists [see Garrison;
Lincoln; etc.] In England, Locke [see] first attacked slavery (in his
Treatise on Civil Government, 1689), calling it a 'vile and miserable
estate of man.' The church still remained silent--Tabrum sophistically
quotes clerics, whose protest was against the cruelties practised in
the trade--while the Deistic and Atheistic protest in France gathered
strength and was echoed in England (Pope, Adam Smith, etc.). The
standard authority on the English movement is the History of the
Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave
Trade (2 vols., 1808) of T. Clarkson, who, with Wilberforce, organized
the first committee. It does not tell that Wilberforce [see] derived
the idea from Rationalist literature in his sceptical youth, or that
Clarkson was inspired by the Quakers. It is enough here to say that a
few clergymen out of the many thousands, joined the movement, but it
was powerless until it was taken up by the great Rationalists, Fox and
Pitt, in the Government, and by Bentham in the country. The Churches,
with the story of three centuries of barbarism unfolded before them,
were still dumb, and one has the usual difficulty, of understanding
the mentality of Christian writers who boast that a dozen ministers,
out of the tens of thousands who had seen the horrors of slavery,
concluded that it was not in accord with Christian principles."
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Town Kraaier
63.208.70.107.dial1.chicago1.level3.net>,
RainbowChri...@hotmail.com says...
> I++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++START ARTICLE+++++++++++++++
[ 300+ lines snipped ]
Conclusion ?
Ninure Saunders
<townk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-In article <RainbowChristiannohate-1501020943330001@dialup-
-63.208.70.107.dial1.chicago1.level3.net>,
-RainbowChri...@hotmail.com says...
-> I++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++START ARTICLE+++++++++++++++
-
-[ 300+ lines snipped ]
-
-Conclusion ?
That a to claim that Islam is 1 "religion of slavery", while ognoring
the Biblical texts and the history of "Christianiity" is hypocritical.
The person who started this thread, has started similar threads which seek
to paint Islam as "evil"....every evil he woshes to calim to be inherent
to Islam can also be shown to have been practiced, justified, and condoned
by "christianity" and/ir the Bible.
Town Kraaier
65.56.133.52.dial1.chicago1.level3.net>,
RainbowChri...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.16ae4bd5a...@news.earthlink.net>, Town Kraaier
> <townk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> -In article <RainbowChristiannohate-1501020943330001@dialup-
> -63.208.70.107.dial1.chicago1.level3.net>,
> -RainbowChri...@hotmail.com says...
> -> I++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++START ARTICLE+++++++++++++++
> -
> -[ 300+ lines snipped ]
> -
> -Conclusion ?
>
> That a to claim that Islam is 1 "religion of slavery", while ognoring
> the Biblical texts and the history of "Christianiity" is hypocritical.
It seems to me that one can discuss subjects stand-alone.
> The person who started this thread, has started similar threads which seek
> to paint Islam as "evil"....every evil he woshes to calim to be inherent
> to Islam can also be shown to have been practiced, justified, and condoned
> by "christianity" and/ir the Bible.
>
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
I guess I did not see the beginning of the thread. At the
time when it started the newsgroups that I frequent were
probably not yet addressed. I wish that were still the case.
--
Townkraaier
I.R.
ir
"Town Kraaier" <townk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16ae4bd5a...@news.earthlink.net...
Mike the Kiwi
It's *RELIGION* man, there is no conclusion!
It's all designed to keep you going round and around in circles and giving your hard earned money to a bunch of 'Shysters'
promising something they cannot deliver!!
Town Kraaier
i...@newly.com says...
If it is so obvious to you would you please take
a moment to post it ?
--
Townkraaier
Zeke
It will feature the "maid/slave" of the Saudi princess arrested in Florida
for beating and throwing her down the stairs. The princess tried for
diplomatic immunity but was refused. The court is holding her passport
until after the trial
Z
"TR" <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C43BD59...@aol.com...
I.R.
news:u4c48nt...@corp.supernews.com...
> Watch 20/20 on ABC 10:00 PM EST Friday night for more on Islam slavery.
>
> It will feature the "maid/slave" of the Saudi princess arrested in
Florida
> for beating and throwing her down the stairs. The princess tried for
> diplomatic immunity but was refused. The court is holding her passport
> until after the trial
Good for the court.
ir
Tim Scrivens
"I.R." <i...@newly.com> wrote in message
news:yJo18.6426$gf1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Zeke" <Ze...@BearHoller.net> wrote in message
> news:u4c48nt...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Watch 20/20 on ABC 10:00 PM EST Friday night for more on Islam slavery.
> >
> > It will feature the "maid/slave" of the Saudi princess arrested in
> Florida
> > for beating and throwing her down the stairs. The princess tried for
> > diplomatic immunity but was refused. The court is holding her passport
> > until after the trial
>
> Good for the court.
>
>
> ir
>
religion.
Please snip extraneous material - like the 28 kb I took out of this, before
I posted it.
Thanks.
TR
> -Conclusion ?
>
> That a to claim that Islam is 1 "religion of slavery", while ognoring
> the Biblical texts and the history of "Christianiity" is hypocritical.
>
> The person who started this thread, has started similar threads which seek
> to paint Islam as "evil"....every evil he woshes to calim to be inherent
> to Islam can also be shown to have been practiced, justified, and condoned
> by "christianity" and/ir the Bible.
If your posts are in objection to what I say then post them to me,
not to Mike the Kiwi or Town Kraaier.
Your argument is that Christianity has the same problems as Islam.
My response is, "so what?"
My point is that Islam is a violent, sexist, degenerate and barbaric
religion. I give evidence to prove my point. How does your material
on Christianity change one iota of the truth that I have given about
Islam. Are you so stupid that you think you can erase the crimes of
Islam by pointing to the crimes of Christianity?
I'm not a Christian, and I could care less about any points that
you wish to make about it. So don't give give me your material as
though it were an answer of some kind for mine.
You may think that I have an obligation to attack Christianity as
well. But that is pointless, since it has been largely defanged.
The Christian fundamentalists are powerless. The amount of
Christian terrorist are small compared with the large number of
Muslim terrorists. Slavery is still prevalent in Islam. It
exists in Mauritania and Sudan. Mujahedeen in Chechnya still
frequently use slaves. Some Islamic clerics still advocate a
return to using non Muslims as slaves. The attraction of slavery
is much stronger and much more likely to return in Islam than it
is in Christianity because the founder of Islam was a slave trader
who owned 28 slaves of his own. Muslims around the world seek to
emulate the Sunna of their prophet. Jesus did not set the same
example, so the attraction isn't as strong. In fact, while
Christians purged themselves of the crime of slavery, the Muslims
never did. The Islamic world was forced to give up slavery by the
European colonists. There is every reason to believe that if they
had not been bullied into it, it would still be prevalent today.
And there is every reason to believe that that Muslims seeking to
return to what they call the "pure" Islam of the rightly guided
Caliphs will also want to return to slavery.
So if you wish to bash Christianity, be my guest, but don't
pretend that it's some kind of answer to my post.
TR
I.R.
news:a25den$i18$1...@hermes.nz.eds.com...
28kb ? How did that much weight
get tagged on to this little lightweight
note?
ir
TR
All the ancient as well as the contemporary scholars acknowledge the
fact of slavery in Islam and
clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of the most
famous scholars to shed light on
their position.
The Scholars of al-Azhar in Egypt
In his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers", Dr. 'Abdul-Latif Mushtahari,
the general supervisor
and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says
(pp. 51,52),
"Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The
first reason is war
Ibn Timiyya says emphatically,
A) Male Slaves:
B) Maid Slaves:
The Muslim legists
Malik Ibn Anas notes,
The Position of Christianity - the Teaching of the Gospel
Christianity is very decisive in this matter. The words and the spirit
of the Gospel are very clear.
From the very beginning, we have used a fundamental principle in this
study and research; namely,
the comparison must always be between the Gospel and the Qur'an -
Christianity as religion and
teachings and Islam as religion, in order to see which one of the two
reveals the thoughts of the
true, living God. Also, the comparison should be between Muhammad, his
life and his sayings on
the one hand, and Christ, His life and teachings on the other.
If we were to find (for example) some Europeans or Americans who allowed
themselves to
acquire slaves, we should not blame Christianity for that because we
must realize that the Gospel
teaches something different. We see that Jesus and His disciples did not
possess slaves.
We do blame Islam in this regard because Muhammad himself acquired male
and female slaves by
dozens. All his friends, his wives and most Muslims of his time and
after owned slaves. The
Qur'an encourages that and the scholars do not negate it. We blame
Islamic thought and the
behavior of Muhammad in regard to this matter and other issues recorded
in the most authentic
Islamic sources.
We should not, in any subject, dwell on the behavior of some Christians
or some Muslims but
rather try to examine the attitude of Islamic thought (or Christian
thought) toward the issues under
discussion. Some people, for instance, believe that a man like Khomeini
is an extremist because of
Islam, the religion of tolerance, love, and reason. We, for our part,
feel surprised to hear that,
because who says that this statement is true? Islam is not the religion
of tolerance, love, or reason.
Not at all! Islam is the exact opposite of this claim.
Did we not see that this religion humiliates and persecutes women and
non-Muslims as well as
waging offensive wars and encouraging Muslims to kill apostates? Is
Muhammad, who ordered the
killing of a woman who insulted him, the prophet of tolerance? Why
should we blame Khomeini
when he issued an order to kill Rushdie? Does not Rushdie (according to
the law of Islam and
Muhammad, not the law of the United Nations) deserve death for attacking
the Qur'an, Muhammad
and his wives? Khomeini was never radical; he was always a true student
of Muhammad. He
intended to enforce the Islamic laws and to fight nations which do not
comply with them - such as
Iraq (even though Islam is its official religion).
When Muslims kill one another, it is because Muhammad's friends and
disciples did so
immediately after his death, each one of them trying to force his friend
to go in the right way.
Khomeini is a true Muslim who follows Muhammad and his friends. Thus, we
hear about
"exporting the Islamic revolution" to other countries. All these things
are compatible with the
views of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs who succeeded him such
as Abu Bakr, Umar
and Ali. When Khomeini slaughtered his opponents, he was following the
footsteps of Ali who
killed the dissenters, like Talha, Al Zubair and Al Khwareg, even though
they were faithful
Muslims.
Now, what does the New Testament say about slaves? If we turn in the
pages of the New
Testament we read these verses:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor
female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
Christ was always warning his disciples and all believers from calling
themselves masters. He
said to them:
"But you, do not be called `Rabbi' [master]; for One is your Teacher
[master], the
Christ, and you are all brethren" (Matt. 23:8).
"But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever
exalts himself will be
abased (humbled); and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Matt.
23:12).
By these last words Christ has turned over all the feeble human
standards - The "... greatest among
you shall be your servant." How profound and deep are these wonderful
words!
This truth is clearly taught in the New Testament by the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. It happened
that there was a slave called Onesimus who ran away from his master,
Philemon. Onesimus met
the apostle Paul in Rome and was converted to Christianity. Paul sent
him back to Philemon with a
very impressive letter which is included in the New Testament and in
which we read these shining
words,
"I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own
heart. Receive him
... no longer as a slave but ... as a beloved brother, ..., both in
the flesh and in the Lord"
(Chapter 1).
Paul, Peter and the rest of the disciples did not have the authority to
abolish slavery within the
Roman Empire. Paul was not one of the Roman governors, but a fugitive
and a persecuted man.
Later he and most of the disciples were killed at the hands of the
Romans along with thousands of
their Christian brothers. Muhammad and his successors were rulers and
could have outlawed
slavery. Instead, they retained it and kept their slaves.
In another letter, Paul urged the Christians to "give your servants what
is just and fair" (Col. 4:1).
The text emphasizes these two words - brotherhood and justice - because
there is neither slave
nor freeman, but all arc one in Christ.
Egyptian history relates a story about a courageous man who stood in
front of his tyrannical rulers
who mistreated people and wondered in agony, "Why have you enslaved
people whose mothers
gave birth to them as free persons?" This brave man did not know that he
was addressing
multitudes of people across the ages, whether ruthless Westerners in
Europe and America or the
prophet of Islam himself who failed to liberate the slaves because he
himself had acquired dozens
of them.
Christian religious leaders such as John Wesley boldly condemned slavery
in Europe and sent
strong messages to the rulers of Europe and America. They led the
movement of slaves' liberation
during the day of Abraham Lincoln. Now there are multiplied black men
who hold various
positions of honor and respect in America. They teach in colleges and
universities. They sit on the
bench of the courts of the land-even the Supreme Court. They are freely
elected to local, county,
state and federal positions. They hold high military offices. They build
their own fortunes with
which they do as they wish. They freely marry and raise their families
without fear.
This is what Jesus taught - "There is no difference ...."
Tim Scrivens
"TR" <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C465FBD...@aol.com...
> Slavery in Islam
>
> All the ancient as well as the contemporary scholars acknowledge the
> fact of slavery in Islam and
> clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of the most
> famous scholars to shed light on
> their position.
If you want to disseminate all this text, set up a website.
You are only demonstration that you can copy and paste, at the moment.
TR
stuff that I have posted you will see that I am quite willing
to defend any material that I have cut and pasted.
TR
Veronica
Good question, but then remember we are talking "religion" not reality.
Veronica
Veronica
Or more often, its for keeping women oppressed.
Veronica
Glenn Few
"TR" <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C46523A...@aol.com...
> Ninure Saunders wrote:
>
> > -Conclusion ?
> >
> > That a to claim that Islam is 1 "religion of slavery", while ognoring
> > the Biblical texts and the history of "Christianiity" is hypocritical.
> >
> > The person who started this thread, has started similar threads which
seek
> > to paint Islam as "evil"....every evil he woshes to calim to be
inherent
> > to Islam can also be shown to have been practiced, justified, and
condoned
> > by "christianity" and/ir the Bible.
[convenient deletion]
> Your argument is that Christianity has the same problems as Islam.
> My response is, "so what?"
>
> My point is that Islam is a violent, sexist, degenerate and barbaric
> religion. I give evidence to prove my point. How does your material
> on Christianity change one iota of the truth that I have given about
> Islam. Are you so stupid that you think you can erase the crimes of
> Islam by pointing to the crimes of Christianity?
>
> I'm not a Christian, and I could care less about any points that
> you wish to make about it. So don't give give me your material as
> though it were an answer of some kind for mine.
[convenient deletion]
> So if you wish to bash Christianity, be my guest, but don't
> pretend that it's some kind of answer to my post.
>
> TR
I'm not sure this was precisely Ninure's point, but as I see it, the fact
that predominately Christian nations don't practice slavery or oppression of
women nowadays to the extent many modern Islamic nations still do, despite
having abundant justification for such practices in the Bible and a past
track record of allowing them, is evidence that other variables are more
important than the foundational tenets of the respective religions. Think
of it as a lab experiment -- if Religion A and Religion B begin with similar
characteristics but diverge in later development, then it's reasonable to
conclude that the religions themselves aren't the most important
developmental factor.
All the city-states of ancient Greece, often proclaimed to be the cradle of
Western civilization, practiced slavery extensively. Furthermore, Athens,
generally considered to be the most innovative and sophisticated of the lot,
was also the most oppressive of women. Should we blame that on the Pandora
and Medusa myths, or on polytheism in general, or on other factors unrelated
to their religion?
Some might say that religion didn't occupy as central a place in those
societies as it does in most Islamic nations, or as it has in some Christian
nations in the past, but even if I were to grant that questionable assertion
(the Athenians put an awful lot of work into building temples on their
city's highest real estate, and most of their literature was replete with
references to their deities), it would still leave unanswered the question
of WHY it didn't occupy as central a place. And it would only further
reinforce my point that regardless of how central a place religion holds or
doesn't hold in a society, practices such as slavery and oppression of women
are largely due to other factors.
You said in a response to me in Shivkumar Singh's "Afghanistan and Islam"
thread, "The learning that occurred within the Muslim portion of the world
usually occurred in spite of Islam, not because of it." Immediately after
that you cited a chapter in Ibn Warraq's book, "Why I Am Not A Muslim," in
support of that statement. As I pointed out there, Warraq wrote early in
that book, "All religions are sick men's dreams, false - demonstrably
false - and pernicious." For that reason, I suspect he believes that any
learning that occurs anywhere in the world occurs in spite of religion, not
because of it.
Do you also believe that? Is your antagonism to Islam a subset of your
antagonism to religion in general, as it evidently is in Warraq's case? And
if it is, why not make your main agenda as clear as Warraq has?
Of course, as I'm new here, I realize that you may already have made it that
clear and I've just missed it.
Zeke
They will feature the "Slave/Maid" of the Saudi princess that was arrested &
put
in jail in Florida. The princess tried to get diplomatic immunity & the
court refused. They took her passport until after the trial.
She is charged with beating & throwing the "slave/maid" down the stairs.
Z
*** REMEMBER THE TWIN TOWERS ***
"Veronica" <vle...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vlemans-A9E897...@nntp.mindspring.com...
TR
>
> > So if you wish to bash Christianity, be my guest, but don't
> > pretend that it's some kind of answer to my post.
> >
> > TR
>
> I'm not sure this was precisely Ninure's point, but as I see it, the fact
> that predominately Christian nations don't practice slavery or oppression of
> women nowadays to the extent many modern Islamic nations still do, despite
> having abundant justification for such practices in the Bible and a past
> track record of allowing them, is evidence that other variables are more
> important than the foundational tenets of the respective religions. Think
> of it as a lab experiment -- if Religion A and Religion B begin with similar
> characteristics but diverge in later development, then it's reasonable to
> conclude that the religions themselves aren't the most important
> developmental factor.
That would be true if religion A and B did in fact have similar
characteristics. But all that you have shown is that the Quran and
the OT have similar characteristics. Were it not for the moderating
influence of the NT and the example of Jesus - as opposed to
Mohammed; and if the Hadith did not exist, your argument might
have some validity.
> All the city-states of ancient Greece, often proclaimed to be the cradle of
> Western civilization, practiced slavery extensively. Furthermore, Athens,
> generally considered to be the most innovative and sophisticated of the lot,
> was also the most oppressive of women. Should we blame that on the Pandora
> and Medusa myths, or on polytheism in general, or on other factors unrelated
> to their religion?
I think that injustice has always been an element of mankind and
life on earth. Still, people can evolve. But when injustice is
strongly codified in religion then a people must either evolve out
of their religion or retain the injustice. In the case of
Christianity the people could allow themselves to evolve out of
the barbaric elements of the OT by looking more strongly to the NT.
And they could also look to the example of Jesus. When the Muslims
look to the example of Mohammed, it reduces their humanity.
In my opinion, the early Greeks would have eventually purged
themselves of slavery had their society lasted long enough.
The primacy of democracy and reason would have eventually
brought that change about.
> Some might say that religion didn't occupy as central a place in those
> societies as it does in most Islamic nations, or as it has in some Christian
> nations in the past, but even if I were to grant that questionable assertion
> (the Athenians put an awful lot of work into building temples on their
> city's highest real estate, and most of their literature was replete with
> references to their deities), it would still leave unanswered the question
> of WHY it didn't occupy as central a place. And it would only further
> reinforce my point that regardless of how central a place religion holds or
> doesn't hold in a society, practices such as slavery and oppression of women
> are largely due to other factors.
Slavery and oppression of women can be due to any number of factors.
But in Islamic societies the lack of progress in these areas is due
to Islam.
> You said in a response to me in Shivkumar Singh's "Afghanistan and Islam"
> thread, "The learning that occurred within the Muslim portion of the world
> usually occurred in spite of Islam, not because of it." Immediately after
> that you cited a chapter in Ibn Warraq's book, "Why I Am Not A Muslim," in
> support of that statement. As I pointed out there, Warraq wrote early in
> that book, "All religions are sick men's dreams, false - demonstrably
> false - and pernicious." For that reason, I suspect he believes that any
> learning that occurs anywhere in the world occurs in spite of religion, not
> because of it.
>
> Do you also believe that? Is your antagonism to Islam a subset of your
> antagonism to religion in general, as it evidently is in Warraq's case? And
> if it is, why not make your main agenda as clear as Warraq has?
I have a difficult time thinking of situations where religion has
helped the road to scientific progress. As far as your quote from
Warraq goes, I agree with him to a point. Religions like Hinduism,
Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity were created by people with a
desire to teach spiritual knowledge. For the most part they
were a huge failure. The resulting religions usually became little
more than mass exercises in pointless rituals. Often the rituals
became destructive. Seldom did they succeed in teaching the
spiritual wisdom of their originators. So, since you are asking
for my personal opinion, I have no use for religion. I do,
however, feel that there is worthwhile spiritual material to
be found in the teachings of the Buddha, the Upanishads, the
Bhagavad Gita, Lao Tse, and Jesus. I think that it is possible
to distill that knowledge and ignore the religious baggage. In fact
such a step would be exactly what those early teachers would want.
None wanted followers. Their desire was to give what they knew
and nothing else. In a nutshell, religion is superfluous, but
spiritual knowledge is fulfilling.
So you see where I differ from Warraq. But I don't blame Warraq
for his opinion. The problem of understanding and realizing that
there is spiritual knowledge that is worthwhile an extremely
difficult one. All conventional knowledge stands in the way.
The lowest level of development is to accept the tenants of
religious dogma. An atheist clearly surpasses a religious person
in the clarity of his thinking. But even more difficult is to
be able to think outside the appearances of conventional
reality and realize that what we experience is a subset, or
continuous creation, of a more extensive reality.
Now, returning full circle to Islam, one of it's biggest problems
is that it's founder had absolutely no spiritual knowledge that
he could pass on. Religion was simply a vehicle to power for him.
As a result, the people that are trapped in Islam have no chance
of reaching for anything within Islam that is redeeming. And
in addition, there is much too much there that is destructive.
Along with the problems that Islam is causing for the rest of
the world, it's primary victims are Muslims themselves.
Surprisingly a few Sufis did break through and gain spiritual
insight, but it came to them from non Islamic sources. When
they tried to integrate this material into their own religion
they were usually persecuted and often killed. They were never
able to imbue their religion with what they learned because their
religion was so "counter spiritual".
TR
Tim Scrivens
TR <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C47B051...@aol.com...
You commit three of the cardinal sins of NG posting.
One is the cut and past of huge wads of material - which are almost without
exception ignored, by the way.
Second, you top-post - not so much of a cardinal sin, this one, but a
flouting of convention.
Third, you crosspost. to groups that REALLY are inappropriate to your text.
The combination of these three leads one to an inevitable conclusion, from
almost everyone on Usenet.
That conclusion? "Nutter with an agenda - ignore him".
Just so as you know.
If you want genuine dialog on your beliefs, restrict yourself to only one or
two NGs, post at the bottom, and summarise the 30 k of text into two or
three salient points - you can always use the rest for back-up.
Thanks.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.311 / Virus Database: 172 - Release Date: 27/12/01
Tim Scrivens
ANYONE's
> > religion.
> >
> > Please snip extraneous material - like the 28 kb I took out of this,
> before
> > I posted it.
>
> 28kb ? How did that much weight
> get tagged on to this little lightweight
> note?
kb, not kg, dude.
Zeke
Z
"Tim Scrivens" <scri...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:GDn28.553$Lv.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Sandar
> Watch ABC 20/20 Friday night at 10:00 PM EST.
>
> They will feature the "Slave/Maid" of the Saudi princess that was arrested &
> put
> in jail in Florida. The princess tried to get diplomatic immunity & the
> court refused. They took her passport until after the trial.
> She is charged with beating & throwing the "slave/maid" down the stairs.
>
> Z
That's not Saudi thing, or Arab thing or Islam thing. A lot of rich
and powerful people from ALL cultures do that to their employees (in
US, it may be ina different form, not physical) and get away with it.
Sandar
> If you don't like it, don't read it. If you look at the other
> stuff that I have posted you will see that I am quite willing
> to defend any material that I have cut and pasted.
>
> TR
>
But you are not willing now.
Sandar
> > If you don't like it, don't read it. If you look at the other
> > stuff that I have posted you will see that I am quite willing
> > to defend any material that I have cut and pasted.
> >
> > TR
> >
> > Tim Scrivens wrote:
> > >
> > > "TR" <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C465FBD...@aol.com...
> > > > Slavery in Islam
> > > >
> > > > All the ancient as well as the contemporary scholars acknowledge the
> > > > fact of slavery in Islam and
> > > > clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of the most
> > > > famous scholars to shed light on
> > > > their position.
> > >
> > > If you want to disseminate all this text, set up a website.
> > >
> > > You are only demonstration that you can copy and paste, at the moment.
>
> You commit three of the cardinal sins of NG posting.
>
> One is the cut and past of huge wads of material - which are almost without
> exception ignored, by the way.
> Second, you top-post - not so much of a cardinal sin, this one, but a
> flouting of convention.
> Third, you crosspost. to groups that REALLY are inappropriate to your text.
>
> The combination of these three leads one to an inevitable conclusion, from
> almost everyone on Usenet.
>
> That conclusion? "Nutter with an agenda - ignore him".
That's the bottom line.
Thadeus Margrove
"Sandar" <mip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5dc0f156.02011...@posting.google.com...
Yep. You could say it is a spoiled princess thing.
Eagle Eye
Take Malcolm X, for example. He was in the NOI, which looked at women
like cattle.
Strange that so many weezils defending Jim Kennemur's racial slurs
actually say that Kennemur was citing Malcolm X (lie) or that Jim was
using the term ("house nigger") the way that misogynist and racial
separatist Malcolm X used it.
Nobody said you weezils were very smart.
=====
EE
Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
Glenn Few
> > If you don't like it, don't read it. If you look at the other
> > stuff that I have posted you will see that I am quite willing
> > to defend any material that I have cut and pasted.
> >
> > TR
>
>
> One is the cut and past of huge wads of material - which are almost
without
> exception ignored, by the way.
> Second, you top-post - not so much of a cardinal sin, this one, but a
> flouting of convention.
> Third, you crosspost. to groups that REALLY are inappropriate to your
text.
>
> The combination of these three leads one to an inevitable conclusion, from
> almost everyone on Usenet.
>
> That conclusion? "Nutter with an agenda - ignore him".
Everybody's got an agenda, even if it's only remaining free of agendas. As
for "nutter," well... I prefer the terms "zealot" or fanatic" in TR's case,
because either is more specifically descriptive.
Glenn Few
"TR" <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C49119A...@aol.com...
As I said today in my response to you in the "Afghanistan and Islam" thread,
I agree with what Hoffman said in his Foreword to Warraq's book, regarding
the very similar development of the two religions until the late Middle
Ages.
> > All the city-states of ancient Greece, often proclaimed to be the cradle
of
> > Western civilization, practiced slavery extensively. Furthermore,
Athens,
> > generally considered to be the most innovative and sophisticated of the
lot,
> > was also the most oppressive of women. Should we blame that on the
Pandora
> > and Medusa myths, or on polytheism in general, or on other factors
unrelated
> > to their religion?
>
> I think that injustice has always been an element of mankind and
> life on earth. Still, people can evolve. But when injustice is
> strongly codified in religion then a people must either evolve out
> of their religion or retain the injustice. In the case of
> Christianity the people could allow themselves to evolve out of
> the barbaric elements of the OT by looking more strongly to the NT.
> And they could also look to the example of Jesus. When the Muslims
> look to the example of Mohammed, it reduces their humanity.
As I also said in that thread, I agree with Hoffman that the Reformation was
more of a radical and original restructuring of the religion, rather than a
retrospective movement.
> In my opinion, the early Greeks would have eventually purged
> themselves of slavery had their society lasted long enough.
> The primacy of democracy and reason would have eventually
> brought that change about.
Your faith in the evolutionary power of democracy and reason is touching,
especially since it includes the city-state of Athens, which reserved
democracy only for a small class of slaveholders and regarded only men as
being capable of true reason. But since the relatively egalitarian Romans
(who were also somewhat more liberal in their attitudes toward women)
intervened before we could progress further along that hypothetical
timeline, I'm afraid your faith (aka "unsubstantiated guesswork") will
forever remain just that.
[convenient deletion]
> Slavery and oppression of women can be due to any number of factors.
> But in Islamic societies the lack of progress in these areas is due
> to Islam.
Yeah, who needs other factors, once we've got Islam to blame?
[convenient deletion]
> I have a difficult time thinking of situations where religion has
> helped the road to scientific progress.
I'm sure you do. I responded more at length in this context in the
"Afghanistan and Islam" thread.
> As far as your quote from
> Warraq goes, I agree with him to a point. Religions like Hinduism,
> Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity were created by people with a
> desire to teach spiritual knowledge. For the most part they
> were a huge failure. The resulting religions usually became little
> more than mass exercises in pointless rituals. Often the rituals
> became destructive. Seldom did they succeed in teaching the
> spiritual wisdom of their originators. So, since you are asking
> for my personal opinion, I have no use for religion. I do,
> however, feel that there is worthwhile spiritual material to
> be found in the teachings of the Buddha, the Upanishads, the
> Bhagavad Gita, Lao Tse, and Jesus. I think that it is possible
> to distill that knowledge and ignore the religious baggage.
Distilling is good, I think. But I think Hegelian synthesizing is even
better.
> In fact
> such a step would be exactly what those early teachers would want.
> None wanted followers. Their desire was to give what they knew
> and nothing else.
Not if you believe that Jesus said everything they say he did. Of course, I
realize you don't, but what makes you think anyone's distillations are
likely to be accurate? For all we can know for sure apart from faith, a
real person named Jesus of Nazareth may only have really said two real
things, if even that many: (A) "Do not suppose that I have come to bring
peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," (Matthew
10:34), and (B) "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own
life--he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
> In a nutshell, religion is superfluous, but
> spiritual knowledge is fulfilling.
I'd say "you're full of it," but you might misunderstand me. People so
often do. ;-)
> So you see where I differ from Warraq. But I don't blame Warraq
> for his opinion. The problem of understanding and realizing that
> there is spiritual knowledge that is worthwhile an extremely
> difficult one. All conventional knowledge stands in the way.
And here I thought you thought it's the other way around -- that all
spiritual knowledge stands in the way of acquiring conventional knowledge.
> The lowest level of development is to accept the tenants of
> religious dogma. An atheist clearly surpasses a religious person
> in the clarity of his thinking. But even more difficult is to
> be able to think outside the appearances of conventional
> reality and realize that what we experience is a subset, or
> continuous creation, of a more extensive reality.
I try not to let dogmas catch my karma, myself. But before I address
atheism, allow me to point out that even agnostics have a major problem
thinking-wise, methinks. Consider this: The usual definition of
agnosticism is the belief that no one can know for certain that God exists.
But once you even so much as acknowledge the possibility that God may exist,
and accept the usual definition of God as omnipotent, then you must
logically also acknowledge that if God exists, He is capable of imbuing
anyone He chooses with certain knowledge of His existence -- just because He
may not have done it for you personally (yet?), that doesn't necessarily
mean He hasn't done it for other people. Now, the atheist has an even worse
problem in assuming that God doesn't exist, because since God by definition
transcends space and time as well as being immanent in it, the only way an
atheist could logically know for certain He doesn't exist would be if the
atheist were also to transcend space and time, in which case the atheist
would be God Himself, denying His own existence.
So, in other words, how can we experience even a part of that "more
extensive reality" without the help of a Being who transcends the subset of
what we experience?
> Now, returning full circle to Islam, one of it's biggest problems
> is that it's founder had absolutely no spiritual knowledge that
> he could pass on. Religion was simply a vehicle to power for him.
> As a result, the people that are trapped in Islam have no chance
> of reaching for anything within Islam that is redeeming. And
> in addition, there is much too much there that is destructive.
> Along with the problems that Islam is causing for the rest of
> the world, it's primary victims are Muslims themselves.
I really think you ought to read the Qur'aan more carefully and do some
distilling, or synthesizing, or whatever floats your boat. Try different
translations, too. You get a very different experience with different
translations. And learning Arabic helps a lot, I hear, though I haven't yet
tried that myself.
> Surprisingly a few Sufis did break through and gain spiritual
> insight, but it came to them from non Islamic sources. When
> they tried to integrate this material into their own religion
> they were usually persecuted and often killed. They were never
> able to imbue their religion with what they learned because their
> religion was so "counter spiritual".
>
> TR
I really think you ought to read more about the Sufis, too. As a good
Hegelian counterbalance to Warraq's chapter and similar anti-Islamic
analyses, I personally recommend "The Elements of Sufism," by Shaykh
Fadhlalla Haeri.
Tim Scrivens
Glenn Few <gna...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yBG28.12014$X4.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > That conclusion? "Nutter with an agenda - ignore him".
>
> Everybody's got an agenda, even if it's only remaining free of agendas.
As
> for "nutter," well... I prefer the terms "zealot" or fanatic" in TR's
case,
> because either is more specifically descriptive.
You are, of course, correct, BUT...
I do get the feeling that IR wants dialogue. (Just had an IM Weasel moment,
if you follow cartoons - has given me a picture of IR that I think may be
pretty accurate).
I feel it would be better for him to compress his postings down to only a
few, non-crossposted points, if he wants to genuinely start debate.
The Fews
> You are, of course, correct, BUT...
>
> I do get the feeling that IR wants dialogue. (Just had an IM Weasel
moment,
> if you follow cartoons - has given me a picture of IR that I think may be
> pretty accurate).
>
> I feel it would be better for him to compress his postings down to only a
> few, non-crossposted points, if he wants to genuinely start debate.
Did you mean IR, or TR? I meant TR. Anyway, the last cartoon series I
followed was Ren & Stimpy -- I felt that Ren genuinely wanted debate, even
if Stimpy didn't, and that somehow sustained their relationship.
Tim Scrivens
"Zeke" <Ze...@BearHoller.net> wrote in message
> Top post is OK if you only refer to the whole post & not item by item.
>
> Z
>
> "Tim Scrivens" <scri...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:GDn28.553$Lv.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
As I said, only a convention, but my personal preference is for no
top-posting at all.
Tim Scrivens
"The Fews" <the...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:10116317...@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net...
Bum. I meant TR. I have to regretfully relinquish an EXCELLENT picture.
"IR typing now"...
TR
> > > of it as a lab experiment -- if Religion A and Religion B begin with
> similar
> > > characteristics but diverge in later development, then it's reasonable
> to
> > > conclude that the religions themselves aren't the most important
> > > developmental factor.
> >
> > That would be true if religion A and B did in fact have similar
> > characteristics. But all that you have shown is that the Quran and
> > the OT have similar characteristics. Were it not for the moderating
> > influence of the NT and the example of Jesus - as opposed to
> > Mohammed; and if the Hadith did not exist, your argument might
> > have some validity.
>
> As I said today in my response to you in the "Afghanistan and Islam" thread,
> I agree with what Hoffman said in his Foreword to Warraq's book, regarding
> the very similar development of the two religions until the late Middle
> Ages.
You seem to be stuck on the foreword and the intro. Take a little
time off posting and read the book.
> > I think that injustice has always been an element of mankind and
> > life on earth. Still, people can evolve. But when injustice is
> > strongly codified in religion then a people must either evolve out
> > of their religion or retain the injustice. In the case of
> > Christianity the people could allow themselves to evolve out of
> > the barbaric elements of the OT by looking more strongly to the NT.
> > And they could also look to the example of Jesus. When the Muslims
> > look to the example of Mohammed, it reduces their humanity.
>
> As I also said in that thread, I agree with Hoffman that the Reformation was
> more of a radical and original restructuring of the religion, rather than a
> retrospective movement.
That's all fairly irrelevant. Christianity never got what Jesus
wanted to teach. Along the way there were a few people like
Meister Ekhart that more or less understood, but they were few
and far in between. The Reformation may have produced a more
humanitarian religion, but Jesus was misunderstood both before
and after. His character is derived from his teaching, but the
character was much more easily understood than the teaching. And
our impression of him is one of the things that allowed the
religion to evolve. Today's Christianity is still clueless about
his teaching. But the fact that it lacks the violence and
barbarity of Islam, and that Jesus' character is stellar compared
to Mohammed's allowed a more civil religion to evolve. Now a civil
religion isn't the same thing as spirituality, but it beats the
hell out of a barbaric religion like Islam.
>
> > In my opinion, the early Greeks would have eventually purged
> > themselves of slavery had their society lasted long enough.
> > The primacy of democracy and reason would have eventually
> > brought that change about.
>
> Your faith in the evolutionary power of democracy and reason is touching,
> especially since it includes the city-state of Athens, which reserved
> democracy only for a small class of slaveholders and regarded only men as
> being capable of true reason. But since the relatively egalitarian Romans
> (who were also somewhat more liberal in their attitudes toward women)
> intervened before we could progress further along that hypothetical
> timeline, I'm afraid your faith (aka "unsubstantiated guesswork") will
> forever remain just that.
The US had slavery also. It reserved it's democracy for a small
percentage of the population also. But the freedom of thought and
speech that were allowed to that large minority eventually brought
in the rest. I see no reason that the same evolution wouldn't
have occurred in Greece. But with a dogmatic system that is based
on the supposed word of God, there is no such opportunity for
evolution.
Take for example:
Quran:
[23.1-6] Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their
prayers, And who keep aloof from what is vain, And who are givers of
poor-rate, And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates
or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not
blameable.
[70:29] And those who guard their chastity,
[70:30] Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right
hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
These verses give Muslim men the right to rape their slave girls.
In so doing they sanctify both rape and slavery. So because they
are the words of Allah, they are inviolable. No Sharia that is
based upon the religious texts of Islam can ever outlaw slavery
and the rape of slave girls. It can only be accomplished with
secular law that goes against the Quran.
> [convenient deletion]
>
> > Slavery and oppression of women can be due to any number of factors.
> > But in Islamic societies the lack of progress in these areas is due
> > to Islam.
>
> Yeah, who needs other factors, once we've got Islam to blame?
You can be a petulant child if you wish. But if you want to
absolve the religion of the sexist practices that it teaches; and
if you want to imagine that the canonical teachings of Islam have
little influence on Islamic societies; then you're just here
trying to fool the Kufir, like all the rest of the Muslims in
this NG.
> [convenient deletion]
>
> > I have a difficult time thinking of situations where religion has
> > helped the road to scientific progress.
>
> I'm sure you do. I responded more at length in this context in the
> "Afghanistan and Islam" thread.
>
> > As far as your quote from
> > Warraq goes, I agree with him to a point. Religions like Hinduism,
> > Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity were created by people with a
> > desire to teach spiritual knowledge. For the most part they
> > were a huge failure. The resulting religions usually became little
> > more than mass exercises in pointless rituals. Often the rituals
> > became destructive. Seldom did they succeed in teaching the
> > spiritual wisdom of their originators. So, since you are asking
> > for my personal opinion, I have no use for religion. I do,
> > however, feel that there is worthwhile spiritual material to
> > be found in the teachings of the Buddha, the Upanishads, the
> > Bhagavad Gita, Lao Tse, and Jesus. I think that it is possible
> > to distill that knowledge and ignore the religious baggage.
>
> Distilling is good, I think. But I think Hegelian synthesizing is even
> better.
Depends wholly on what you are synthesizing.
> > In fact
> > such a step would be exactly what those early teachers would want.
> > None wanted followers. Their desire was to give what they knew
> > and nothing else.
>
> Not if you believe that Jesus said everything they say he did. Of course, I
> realize you don't, but what makes you think anyone's distillations are
> likely to be accurate? For all we can know for sure apart from faith, a
> real person named Jesus of Nazareth may only have really said two real
> things, if even that many: (A) "Do not suppose that I have come to bring
> peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," (Matthew
> 10:34), and (B) "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
> mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own
> life--he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
This is about the third time that you've posted those two. Probably
the only part of his supposed words that you bothered to memorize.
And it's about the fiftieth time I've seen a Muslim post it. I
don't know if he said it or not. But I can give you a couple of
hundred verses from the Quran which are just as incriminating.
Funny how two bother you and all those in the Quran don't. There
are some huge differences between Mohammed's words - and I regard
the Quran as Mohammed's words - and Jesus' words. Remember that
Jesus was trying to teach spirituality. His concept of god was
actually pantheistic and monistic. He had a mystical knowledge
which was not directly transmittable. This means that the majority
of what he said was metaphoric. In that context, the two things
that you have quoted mean something completely different from
what you think. I could explain them to you, but if you you're
completely devoid of that kind of understanding it would be a
waste of time. Mohammed on the other hand was very legalistic
and opportunistic with his verses. When his wives gets angry
with him for screwing the slave girl Mary the Copt, Mohammed
suddenly invents the verses:
[66.1] O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made
lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.
[66.2] Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths
and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise.
[66.3] And when the prophet secretly communicated a piece of information
to one of his wives-- but when she informed (others) of it, and Allah
made him to know it, he made known part of it and avoided part; so when
he informed her of it, she said: Who informed you of this? He said: The
Knowing, the one Aware, informed me.
[66.4] If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already
inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then
surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, and Jibreel and -the believers
that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders.
[66.5] Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place
wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent,
adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.
When he wants to marry the wife of his son in law he invents:
[33.37] And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to
whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of
(your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would
bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that
you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We
gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the
believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have
accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed.
[33.38] There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has
ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to
those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is
made absolute:
> > In a nutshell, religion is superfluous, but
> > spiritual knowledge is fulfilling.
>
> I'd say "you're full of it," but you might misunderstand me. People so
> often do. ;-)
>
> > So you see where I differ from Warraq. But I don't blame Warraq
> > for his opinion. The problem of understanding and realizing that
> > there is spiritual knowledge that is worthwhile an extremely
> > difficult one. All conventional knowledge stands in the way.
>
> And here I thought you thought it's the other way around -- that all
> spiritual knowledge stands in the way of acquiring conventional knowledge.
You seem to be having a difficult time following my explanation.
Try a little harder. I made a clear distinction for you between
spiritual knowledge and religious practice. And I stated that
religious practice gets in the way of acquiring conventional
knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is a separate ball game. It
doesn't get in the way of conventional knowledge at all.
> > The lowest level of development is to accept the tenants of
> > religious dogma. An atheist clearly surpasses a religious person
> > in the clarity of his thinking. But even more difficult is to
> > be able to think outside the appearances of conventional
> > reality and realize that what we experience is a subset, or
> > continuous creation, of a more extensive reality.
>
> I try not to let dogmas catch my karma, myself. But before I address
> atheism, allow me to point out that even agnostics have a major problem
> thinking-wise, methinks. Consider this: The usual definition of
> agnosticism is the belief that no one can know for certain that God exists.
> But once you even so much as acknowledge the possibility that God may exist,
> and accept the usual definition of God as omnipotent, then you must
> logically also acknowledge that if God exists, He is capable of imbuing
> anyone He chooses with certain knowledge of His existence -- just because He
> may not have done it for you personally (yet?), that doesn't necessarily
> mean He hasn't done it for other people.
If the agnostic acknowledges god's existence, it doesn't require
that he acknowledge any characteristics of god's. You choose to
believe in a monarchic god that is separate from his creation,
judges his creation, has expectations of his creation, and divides
his creation's actions into good and evil. Depending upon what kind
of god the agnostic postulates as having a possible existence, he
may or may not have your problem. As far as your particular
postulation of god having given anyone certain knowledge of his
existence, I see no evidence of it. And I see no reason at all to
take the word of self serving individuals like Mohammed.
> Now, the atheist has an even worse
> problem in assuming that God doesn't exist, because since God by definition
> transcends space and time as well as being immanent in it, the only way an
> atheist could logically know for certain He doesn't exist would be if the
> atheist were also to transcend space and time, in which case the atheist
> would be God Himself, denying His own existence.
It's true, that an atheist cannot know that god does not exists.
But I find such a position superior to pretending that god is
nothing more than an extension of mankind's own vanities. More
power, more knowledge, more wisdom, expecting worship, requiring
obedience, etc. The kind of anthropomorphizing of god that you
see in most religions is little better than a believe in Santa
Clause. Look a Mohammed and his vision of heaven. All that he
could think of was a sexier version of life on earth. Lots of
virgins, all the river and gardens that he didn't have on earth,
etc. It shows you that the man had no conception of what was
meaningful.
> So, in other words, how can we experience even a part of that "more
> extensive reality" without the help of a Being who transcends the subset of
> what we experience?
Remember, I'm not defending the position of the atheist as logical;
only as superior to a fairy tale idea of god.
>
> > Now, returning full circle to Islam, one of it's biggest problems
> > is that it's founder had absolutely no spiritual knowledge that
> > he could pass on. Religion was simply a vehicle to power for him.
> > As a result, the people that are trapped in Islam have no chance
> > of reaching for anything within Islam that is redeeming. And
> > in addition, there is much too much there that is destructive.
> > Along with the problems that Islam is causing for the rest of
> > the world, it's primary victims are Muslims themselves.
>
> I really think you ought to read the Qur'aan more carefully and do some
> distilling, or synthesizing, or whatever floats your boat. Try different
> translations, too. You get a very different experience with different
> translations.
Yes, I've noticed that the more modern translations are looking for
ways to sell the Quran to western humanitarian sensibilities. To
that end they are reinterpreting to the point of lying. For
example, when the Quran has a verse that clearly comes from the
mouth of Mohammed, Yosuf Ali places the word "say" in front of it
so that it sounds like Allah is telling Mohammed what to say. But
Ali invented the "say". It doesn't exist in the Arabic.
Anyway, I've read the Quran once. I can't bear to read such a
repetitious, violent and inane piece of garbage again.
> And learning Arabic helps a lot, I hear, though I haven't yet
> tried that myself.
So you'll just believe the party line!
> > Surprisingly a few Sufis did break through and gain spiritual
> > insight, but it came to them from non Islamic sources. When
> > they tried to integrate this material into their own religion
> > they were usually persecuted and often killed. They were never
> > able to imbue their religion with what they learned because their
> > religion was so "counter spiritual".
>
> I really think you ought to read more about the Sufis, too. As a good
> Hegelian counterbalance to Warraq's chapter and similar anti-Islamic
> analyses, I personally recommend "The Elements of Sufism," by Shaykh
> Fadhlalla Haeri.
Haeri is a snake oil salesman. Try Al Arabi.
Thou art not thou: thou art He. Thou never wast nor wilt be, Thou art
neither ceasing to be nor still existing. Thou art He. [TB]
Thou art not what is beside God. Thou art thine own end and thine own
object in thy search after thy Lord. [TB]
He who knows himself understands that his existence is not his own
existence, but his existence is the existence of God. [TB]
He is the observer in the observer, and the observed in the observed.
[BW X] None sees Him, save Himself. None perceives Him, save Himself. By
Himself he sees Himself, and by Himself he knows Himself.
For He will not have anything to be other than He. Indeed, the other is
He, and there is no otherness.[TB]
Or Al Hallaj.
ana'l -Haqq - I am the Truth.
I have seen my Lord with the eye of my heart, and I said: "Who are You?"
He said:"You."
(Diwan al-Hallaj, M. 10)
I do not cease swimming in the seas of love, rising with the wave, then
descending; now the wave sustains me, and then I sink beneath it; love
bears me away where there is no longer any shore.
(Diwan al-Hallaj, M. 34)
If you have any sense at all you can see the gulf between this
kind of writing and that of the Quran. The Quran has two or
three verses of this type, but they have no context and Mohammed
shows no further understanding of them. They are therefore
most likely thrown in as something that Mohammed heard from the
Christian mystics that lived in his time and area.
TR
TR
TR
TR
cultural factor in Saudi Arabia.
TR
Tim Scrivens
TR <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C4E32D4...@aol.com...
Eat peas and fart at the moon, arsehole-eyes.
Calling people micro-brained only works if you can spell.
Your postings are ignored, in the main - you have no people respect you, and
you should seriously consider suicide.
Have we stopped being juvenile, yet?
TR
>
> Your postings are ignored, in the main - you have no people respect you, and
> you should seriously consider suicide.
Yeah, as though they are going to respect some little dip shit whose
idea of a deep conversation is telling them how to post.
TR
Tim Scrivens
TR <T...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C4F8A82...@aol.com...
Do you want your ideas taken seriously?
Personally, I don't give a rats' ringpiece - but all of this cut and paste
bullshit is obviously important to you....
Veronica
> Slavery is condoned by Islam. And Islam is the single strongest
> cultural factor in Saudi Arabia.
>
No, the saudi royal family's interpretation of islam is the only
cultural factor allowed in saudi arabia.
Veronica