Rape of Captives and Slaves under Islam
Robert Houghton
adultery and rape between a man and his captive women, and a man and his
slaves. This article encountered fierce resistance despite the fact that
I produced the verses explicitly permitting this. Some Muslim readers,
in denial, still refuse to accept the facts and accuse me of inventing
the charge. In order to defend myself against the charge of publishing
lies I adduce further evidence.
First here is the passage in the Koran giving men sexual rights over
their slaves: "Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those
whom your right hands possess..." (4:24). Clearly this applies to women
captured in war. Note also that the Koran is explicit about the
permission to rape married captives.
Some may desperately argue that this is only abstract permission and
that in practice it never happened. So we turn to the hadith:
"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri...: O Abu Sa'id, did you hear
Allah's Messenger... mentioning al-'azl? He said : Yes, and added: We
went out with Allah's Messenger... on the expedition to the
Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired
them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the
same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual
intercourse with them but by observing 'azl [coitus interruptus]. But we
said we are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why
not ask him? So we asked Allah's messenger..., and he said : It does not
matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the
Day of Resurrection will be born." (Sahih Muslim, book 008. No 3371)
I think it is true that female slaves couldn't be sold if they were
pregnant; this explains the resort to coitus interruptus.
Another hadith mentions a military expedition to Awtas:
"They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of
the Apostle of Allah... were reluctant to have intercourse with the
female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.
So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse. 'And all married
women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right
hand possesses.'"
I do not accept that these hadith record genuine historical traditions;
the hadith were set down between 150 and 300 years after the alleged
events. They are, however, good evidence of the attitudes and actions of
the early Muslims: they were felt to have a religious sanction. The
Koran and the hadith condone rape, adultery, and fornication.
hajj abujamal
Robert tediously wrote:
> Some weeks ago I posted an article [alleging] that
> the Koran permits adultery and rape between a man
> and his captive women, and a man and his slaves.
... which was appropriately answered at length by several people.
But not sufficiently, apparently, for our troll.
So here is an update of a previous answer given to a previous
mention of this fantasy: John wrote:
> What is the guidance in the fact that Muslim owners of female slaves
> are Quranically licensed to have sex with those slaves?
Muslims who own female slaves may have sexual intercourse with
those slaves. It's actually pretty clear, it's hardly confusing or
obscure, and does not require a considerable degree of reading
comprehension to understand. The "how" and "why" and "under what
circumstances" are subjects of a lot of imagination, especially for
non-muslims, into which some people project their own worst inclinations.
Fortunately it does not *require* muslims who own female slaves to
have sex with those slaves, it simply permits it. Muslims who find
themselves in possession of female slaves are usually more inclined to
imagine the responsibilities they might incur as a result of having
sexual intercourse with female slaves, since these are just as clear
and plain and explicit as the explicit permission.
Adrenaline-addicted sexual predators with largely imaginative sex
lives imagine other things, usually in line with their fantasies, to
which the media panders. This is where these "questions" come from.
The bottom line is that the enemies of humanity, fearing that
they'll lose their battle against muslims, fantasize that their wives
and daughters will be sleeping with muslims after they've been widowed
and orphaned. That's probably what will happen, but it's not an
matter of rape.
The very thought that their wives and daughters might be capable
of respecting, admiring, cooperating with, liking, or even loving
someone not like they are (enemies of humanity) is terrifying to them.
They spread this fear however they can, including extensive use of
their imaginations and by preying on the natural fears that people
rightly have of *them* ~ fear of their violent and coercive
aggression, of enslavement, of sexual and emotional abuse, of
intimidation, and so on.
Without some restraint, they do these things themselves, and then
imagine that everyone is like them. In the privacy of their homes, in
the inner sanctums of their business enterprises, in their private and
guarded gathering places, anywhere in the absence of witnesses not
sworn to silence, they do what they wish along those lines, within the
limits of their fear of being caught and punished for it. They even
put their ill desires in movies and on television and broadcast them
to the world, and to the extent that they can, they live them out in
secret.
Even some who appear to be muslim do that.
All those projected fears come into this question asked by just
about every anti-Islamic troll to come to soc.religion.islam for at
least the last five years.
And with European women converting to Islam at a record rate, one
can well understand that their abandoned husbands and fathers are well
aware that "muslims do five times a day" what they don't do much at
all. See
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=294273067&t=-1 for
that discussion.
It is, in fact, the case that whoever fights muslims and loses and
dies in the fighting can expect, fully, that their surviving wives and
daughters will find a muslim to their liking. And the most that those
fearful half-men can do for them is hope they're fighting good muslims.
But adultery and rape are some of the West's favorite sexual
fantasies, as we see on television, in movies, and in the courts,
shared by both men and women. They are not "authorized" by the Qur'an.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Raheel
I am going to avoid personal attacks and try to make the following as
objective as possible Insha'Allah (God-willing).
Firstly, I find your particular reference to Islam interesting. I think
you will find that Islam merely continued a tradition that was
permissible in Christianity and Judaism with one exception. Islam
permitted manumission (freeing) of slaves and even encouraged men to
marry slave women so that the women and their children would be free
from slavery. This was very widely practiced and has been somewhat
conveniently omitted in your explanation. I think you will find that
if you look at the application in a more wider sense you will find that
Islam introduced a system which raised the benchmark for treatment of
slaves - something difficult to conceive in a world where we are
accustomed to slaves not existing (at least not in front of us). The
fact that men (both Muslim and non Muslim) abused the system is another
issue, this can be said of any concept or doctrine - i.e. application
and concept are not synonymous.
However, if we compare the treatment of slaves in Islam 1400 years ago
to the treatment by the Europeans, Americans, Spanish etc in the last
two or three hundred years, you will find just how much Islam raised
the position of slaves, including requiring a slave to be fed and
clothed properly. Some of the early companions of the Prophet widely
practised freeing slaves who went on to become some of the most
prominent Islamic figures, this includes one amazing woman who was
tortured yet kept her faith. I would also ask you to look at a few
biblical stories regarding this, you will find that this was never
perceived as adultery even by Christians. I would urge you to do a
full exposition on a subject in an objective way and also please do not
follow the trend of picking points of purported 'controversy' within
Islam and omitting the facts regarding other religions - e.g.
Christianity and Judaism. If you make a criticism, it is incumbent on
you to actually take the historical context and positive aspects too.
One thing that is very disconcerting for Muslims is the omissions that
many of the individuals making these critiques make often accentuate
the view that there is some other agenda, possibly an alternative
religous viewpoint. I think honesty is incumbent in any debate.
Culturally, today, slavery is difficult for people to understand today
and I think it is important to emphasise that slavery was far from a
necessity, in fact freedom of slaves is more rewardable from a religous
viewpoint in Islam and would be the desire of all Muslims including
myself - read the story of Abu Bakr as someone who practised this (this
notion is a landmark in terms of prior religions). In fact, read the
story of Salahuddin, i.e. in spite of the treatment of Christian
Crusaders of Muslim women and children (burning them alive), he freed
all Christian captives and even escorted them back to protect them from
other Christians.
Kind Regards,
Raheel
hajj abujamal
Robert wrote:
> ... Muslim men are "permitted" to have sex with slaves,
Never in question, this is a given.
> thus conceding that Islam permits adultery and fornication.
Conceding nothing of the kind. "Adultery" and "fornication" are
terms for coitus that is unlawful or immoral. The Qur'an defines sex
with female slaves as *not* unlawful or immoral.
> The bottom line of the 'defence' is denial.
The bottom line is your denial of what ALLAH has said is lawful
and moral, nothing more. The bottom line is that should some ill turn
of fortune render your mother and sisters and wives and daughters
possessions of muslims, then having sexual intercourse with them would
be lawful and moral and permissible for the muslim who owned them and
some instances of that would almost certainly occur no matter what
your opinion of that might be.
I'd suggest that rather than try to sit in judgment against what
God has decreed, you'd be better off praying that no such ill turn of
fortune reaches you. At the moment, you're argumentative, combative,
hostile, and seen by the light-witted as "attacking" (rather than just
personally conflicted and somewhat manic and obsessed), which just
might be the opposite prayer.
Meanwhile, you can take your definitions of "adultery" and
"fornication" and live with them at your pleasure. They are not our
definitions, and will never be.
Altway
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote
> First here is the passage in the Koran giving men sexual rights over
their slaves: "Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those
whom your right hands possess..." (4:24). Clearly this applies to women
captured in war. Note also that the Koran is explicit about the
permission to rape married captives.
Comment:-
Where does it say that they can be raped?
The rule is:-
"O you who believe! It is not lawful for you to inherit women against their
will; nor to restrain them so that you may take away part of what you gave
them, unless they commit flagrant lewdness; but associate with them with
kindness and equity, for if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike
something wherein Allah has put much good for you." 4:19
"But whoever of you cannot marry free women who believe, then marry from
what your right hands possess, believing maids; Allah knows best about your
faith. You arise one from the other, so marry them with the permission of
their people, and give them their portions in kindness and equity, they
being chaste and not lecherous, and not of loose conduct. But when they are
married, if they commit fornication, then inflict upon them half the penalty
for free women; that is for whomsoever of you fears wrong; but that you
should have patience is better for you, for Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful." 4:25
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
The long 'reply' to the evidence of the hadiths that I give totally
fails to engage with the facts, as indeed is impossible for a Muslim
honestly to do. Islam permits the rape of captives and slaves, and this
fact has nothing to do with sexual fantasies that non-Muslims are
alleged to entertain. Even so this 'defence' of the Muslim position
adroitly and urbanely concedes that Muslim men are "permitted" to have
sex with slaves, thus conceding that Islam permits adultery and
fornication.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c60e23$afd03560$c1634ed5@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> adultery and rape between a man and his captive women, and a man and his
> slaves. ... This article encountered fierce resistance ...
> <snip> ..
Comment:-
You continue to report the "under Islam" connotation without acknowledging
or accepting the under Christianity corollary given to you previously. As
if, these widespread mediaeval practices and customs were exclusive to
Muslims and the Islamic world. When evocative parallels, were given in a
previous rejoinder, you ignored them, so they are worth repeating, in a
similar vein, just to demonstrate their objectionable nature when reversing
the denigratory object to under Christianity. But will you be insulted?
But you didn't respond to the Augustine rejoinder did you? Did Augustine
then rape his captive slave woman Una? If so, following your premise, then
how could the mediaeval Church then sanctify sainthood on a known rapist?
But did this analogous rejoinder not encounter a fierce and deafening
silence, which, as you have artfully argued in the past, is a form of
passive denial frequently adopted by Muslims.
But, then again, the "rape" and "rapist" weren't terms that etymologically
existed in mediaeval times, Islamic or otherwise, which might vindicate this
sanctification. Although, fallacious arguments are always perfidious under
Christianity, are they not?
But can bigots, like myself, ever intentionally agree with such an injurious
cause?
This you haven't yet made clear in the evinced bombast, emanating from your
scurrilous opinions, in SRI?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c60e23$afd03560$c1634ed5@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> I do not accept that these hadith record genuine historical traditions;
> the hadith were set down between 150 and 300 years after the alleged
> events. They are, however, good evidence of the attitudes and actions of
> the early Muslims: they were felt to have a religious sanction. The
> Koran and the hadith condone rape, adultery, and fornication.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So, isn't it then correct that your judgement is based not on the "genuine",
that is the accurate facts and realities of that time and place, but on
fakes and forgeries about those alleged mediaeval events? In other words,
you want to persuade us subscribers to adopt a fictional view of early
Arab-Muslim sociological history that matches your "non-genuine" or
counterfeit stance. How do you conceive and explain to subscribers that
non-genuine fabrications, the fictional, fakes, forgeries and fallacies are
"good evidence" to make a sound judgement on any matter, let alone about
Islam and mediaeval Arab-Muslim customs?
As an observation, I would say this confessional self-incrimination, pretty
much, sums up the "not-genuine" truth in what you have been communicating to
us all along. Isn't this self-confession irrefutable proof of unscrupulous
behaviour? Does the Bible condone such immoral acts in the name of
Christianity?
This I'm beginning not to doubt!
alex...@hotmail.com
>
>"Robert Houghton" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote
>> First here is the passage in the Koran giving men sexual rights over
> their slaves: "Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those
> whom your right hands possess..." (4:24). Clearly this applies to women
> captured in war. Note also that the Koran is explicit about the
> permission to rape married captives.
>
>Comment:-
>
>Where does it say that they can be raped?
Right there in 4:24,
(Forbidden to you are ... ) all married women except those whom your right
hands possess ...
That is to say, you are not forbidden to have relations with married women
whom your right hands possess (your slaves). If they are already married,
and you still have the right to 'go into them', then you are raping them.
Alex
sbadr
sex with slaves,
P2thus conceding that Islam permits adultery and
fornication."
P1 is true
P2 is false.
Logical Fallacy:
What is true for a particular is not necessarily true for general
If a Muslim can have sex with a slave does not mean that he can have
sex with a free woman, who is not married to him.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1136280856....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Salaam Raheel,
<snip> ...
> Robert,
> I am going to avoid personal attacks and try to make the following as
> objective as possible Insha'Allah (God-willing).
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Not many will dispute your balanced synopsis of slavery in the mediaeval
Arab-Muslim world.
But is 'slavery', per se, really the object under discussion? Any keen
observer will understand that the underlying motive emanating from any
particular 'inquisitor' source, is to both demoralise Muslims and
accordingly bolster the proselytising aims of the so-called "missionary"
brigade. Can subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, not consider or understand
that the fanatical message being asserted is one of hatred and intolerance?
Doesn't the frequent *emotive* use of language terms like "captive",
"slavery", "rape", "rapist", et al, underscore this point succinctly?
Even if subscribers did eruditely explain "slavery" (which they have done in
many past threads) within the historical Arab-Muslim imperial context and
sociological system would 'inquisitors' acknowledge or even try and
understand that viewpoint at odds with their own? Again, looking at typical
'inquisitor' behaviour in SRI posting history, can discerning subscribers
see any evidence of softening attitudes or partial acceptance of the other
person's point of view? Isn't the implicit malice self-evident? Isn't the
on-going agitprop strategy, even if the antagonist's polemic has been
demolished, just to start another 'hateful and intolerant' thread under a
different heading?
What conclusions should subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, draw from this
synopsis? Is polite and reasoned responses sufficient? Will rational and
civilised argument satisfy any 'inquisitor' (judge and prosecutor) who has
prejudicially pronounced Islam and all Muslims as being guilty of heresy and
should be suppressed accordingly? Are the malevolent motives of the
'inquisitor' type then not personal and capable of being examined on the
presumption of innocence principle, under international law? Or should they
just be avoided altogether?
--
Peace
--
Examine what is said, not him who speaks. -Arabic Proverb
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
Rape of any description, whether of captives or slaves, has always been
forbidden to Christians; apart from the violence and injustice involved
it is contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
Rape was never a 'practise' or a 'custom' in Christendom. Whatever the
truth about Augustine, it has no bearing on Christian teaching about
rape.
On the other hand the rape of capotives and slaves is permitted by the
Koran - the Word of God.
Robert
Your argument seems to imply that you accept that adultery can take
place only with a free woman, and that it is morally acceptable for a
Muslim to have sex with a slave. You have a very degraded view of human
sexuality and accept a very degraded view of the slave.
Robert
One must distinguish between the alleged facts which the spurious
hadith present and the fact of the hadith and what it purports to
represent. The latter can be historically very informative. And to
argue from the latter is not to produce a fictional view. There's
nothing unscrupulous in this.
Altway
<alex...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>Where does it say that they can be raped?
> Right there in 4:24,
> (Forbidden to you are ... ) all married women except those whom your right
hands possess ...
> That is to say, you are not forbidden to have relations with married women
whom your right hands possess (your slaves). If they are already married,
and you still have the right to 'go into them', then you are raping them.
Comment:-
That is your interpretation based on your desire.
Is that the only selection you can see in the whole Quran?
The verse does not say take them by force
against their will, though wars do change ordinary
peacetime ethics.
You still want to take things out of context and ignore the other
verses that deal with the same subject.
Read the following:-
"O you who believe! It is not lawful for you to inherit women against their
will; nor to restrain them so that you may take away part of what you gave
them, unless they commit flagrant lewdness; but associate with them with
kindness and equity, for if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike
something wherein Allah has put much good for you." 4:19
"But whoever of you cannot marry free women who believe, then marry from
what your right hands possess, believing maids; Allah knows best about your
faith. You arise one from the other, so marry them with the permission of
their people, and give them their portions in kindness and equity, they
being chaste and not lecherous, and not of loose conduct. But when they are
married, if they commit fornication, then inflict upon them half the penalty
for free women; that is for whomsoever of you fears wrong; but that you
should have patience is better for you, for Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful." 4:25
"And serve Allah; associate nothing with Him; show kindness to parents, and
to kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and to the neighbour who is a kin,
and the neighbour who is a stranger, and the fellow traveller, and the
wayfarer, and those whom your right hands possess (slaves). Verily, Allah
loves not him who is proud and boastful." 4:36
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
Slavery *is* the topic under discussion and can be discussed
independently of any underlying motive in raising the discussion; that
there is such a motive has no bearing on the arguments adduced on
either side. The aim is to get Muslims to recognise how deeply flawed
Islam is. If Islam *is* deeply flawed, then one does them a service in
doing this.
"Captive", "slavery", and "rape" are not emotive terms but the correct
words for the realities referred to. The emotive terms come from you,
in abundance: "missionary" (misused), "inquisitor", "agitprop strategy"
etc.
There can be no softening of attitudes or adopting the opposite point
of view when it comes to such issues as rape, slavery, child sex,
dhimmitude, jihad, jizyah etc
Altway
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote
> Rape of any description, whether of captives or slaves, has always been
forbidden to Christians; apart from the violence and injustice involved
it is contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
Rape was never a 'practise' or a 'custom' in Christendom. Whatever the
truth about Augustine, it has no bearing on Christian teaching about
rape.
Comment:-
Show us in the NT where rape is forbidden.
You have quoted the OT, but the laws of the OT are
flouted and ignored in Christianity.
Aultery and fornication are also forbidden in the Quran.
Are you saying that no Christian raped?
Or that those who raped were not Christians?
Or do you distinguish between the teaching and the conduct of some people
in Christianity, but not in Islam?
If a person had a mentality such as yours,
that wants to interpret things in the worst manner possible,
what do you think could be made, and have been made, about Jesus
by verses in the NT that describe him as cursing the fig tree that gave
him no fruit, putting the devils into swine and forcing them to drown
themselves,
abusing the pharasees, and upsetting the tables of the merchants?
Hamid S. Aziz
sbadr
this. If you find this 'degrading' then that is just your opinion. It
is subjective based on your cultural upbringing.
Is it allowed to have sex with an unmarried free woman?
No, it is considered adultery. Right?
Is it allowed to have sex with a woman that is married to you?
Yes. In this case, it is not considered adultery.
What makes the difference?
The contract of marriage.
What is it about the contract of marriage that makes having sex with a
wife/husband not adultery?
The permission of God. This is significant. It is not the marriage
contract but the permission of God. A marriage contract without the
permission of God is void and is still adultery no matter how much the
partners accept one another.
Hence, it is only the permission of God that makes the difference
between adultery or not. So, IF God allows having sex with a slave then
it is NOT adultery nor is it rape nor anything else. These words only
have meaning based on the command of God, otherwise, they have no
meaning, as I have showed you in the case of marriage. And if the
meaning of words do not come from the command of God, then these are
things that we made up and cannot be proven true or false.
So, in summary, you can call it whatever you want 'rape', 'adultery'
whatever. That is your opinion and hence meaningless for man has
created nothing. God is the Giver of meaning not us, and He alone makes
what is permissable and legit and moral and what is not. And we are
those that accept His meanings and commands whether we find it
'degrading' or not for we are Muslims, those who have submitted our
preferences to His. Whether I, your or anybody else find it 'degrading'
or not, is totally irrelevant. "But it is possible that ye dislike a
thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for
you. But God knoweth, and ye know not." (2:216)
This is your thinking
I find having sex with one's slave degrading. Therefore, God could not
have allowed this.
You use your view of morality to determine God's view of morality. You
attribute your thinking with God. Your thinking is that if I find it
degrading then God must also find it degrading. But how can you make
this assumption, that if you find something repulsive then God must
also find it repulsive. You are not God nor are you His representative
on earth. So, such thinking is inherently flawed. Just like you cannot
speak for me, because you do not know me, similarly, you cannot speak
for God. You have no authority.
God does allow having sex with one's slave.
The question for those who submit to His Will is that what is the
wisdom behind it?
Robert
The NT is not a definition of Christianity. When I say rape has always
been forbidden to Christians I mean forbidden by the Church, the
Christian community founded by Jesus, to which he gave authority to
teach. This community existed before the NT and produced the NT; the
community still exists and still teaches. Your problem is that, like
all Muslims, you cannot help thinking of the NT as if it were like the
Koran.
The New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, some of the laws of
which, such as those governing food, were human regulations which Jesus
changed. But this is not relevant to the issue of the acceptance of
rape by Islam.
You say that adultery and fornication are forbidden by the Koran, but I
have shown in clear quotation that the Koran permits the rape of
captives and the rape of slaves. This is adultery and fornication.
Of course I am not saying no Christian has raped; I am saying
Christianity forbids rape. Of course I distinguish between teaching and
conduct in Christianity and Islam.
What I have to say about the rape of captives and slaves is not a
matter of interpretation but of the plain sense of the text of the
Koran.
Your notions of Jesus's actions show a very naive reading of the New
Testament: you must have been shown those episodes, not in the context
of the Gospels as a whole, but in a context of malicious distortion.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1136635405.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Slavery *is* the topic under discussion and can be discussed
> independently of any underlying motive in raising the discussion; that
> there is such a motive has no bearing on the arguments adduced on
> either side. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If "slavery", in and of itself, is the sole topic being discussed then is no
reason to adjectivally qualifying the term by giving it a purely religious
connotation, is there? The arguments being adduced cannot be reduced simply
to "slavery" in some notional Christian or Muslim socio-religious sense.
Isn't it true, in the contemporary bipartisan world, that both religions
are, in fact, opposed to the practice of "slavery", are they not?
Which raises the contradictory question in your analysis, what has
scriptural exegesis, Islamic or otherwise, then got to with it if the topic
of "slavery", if "slavery" is considered as being exclusively independent of
any underlying motive?
<snip> ...
> The aim is to get Muslims to recognise how deeply flawed
> Islam is. If Islam *is* deeply flawed, then one does them a service in
> doing this.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't this bald statement not an underlying motive? Isn't its inclusion the
inconsistent with your earlier impartiality position? The "flaw" is then one
of logical truth, because the topic is no longer "slavery" but dependent on
your biased opinion about Islam?
<snip> ...
> "Captive", "slavery", and "rape" are not emotive terms but the correct
> words for the realities referred to. The emotive terms come from you,
> in abundance: "missionary" (misused), "inquisitor", "agitprop strategy"
> etc.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What do the specified terms mean in common usage?
"Missionary" means: "someone who attempts to convert others to a particular
doctrine or program". Aren't you attempting to convince Muslims by
demonstrating that Islam is deeply flawed?
"Inquisitor" means: "a questioner who is excessively harsh". Doesn't your
many posts reflect this fact?
"Agitprop" means: "ideological propaganda (frequently biased) systematically
communicated via newsgroups". Isn't this your "strategy", a plan of action,
see the "flaw" and "flawed" paragraph above?
What is emotional about these accurate depictions?
Now, if one uses the terms "rape" or "rapist", what connotation, "aura or
favourable or unfavourable feeling hovers around these terms"? What
attitudes and feelings is being evoked in readers minds by the use of these
terms?
<snip> ...
> There can be no softening of attitudes or adopting the opposite point
> of view when it comes to such issues as rape, slavery, child sex,
> dhimmitude, jihad, jizyah etc
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Which once again confirms the "underlying motive" of your prejudices and
pre-conceived hard-line notions about Islam and Muslims? Why, for instance,
do you still accuse Muslims subscribers of sanctioning "rape, slavery, and
child sex"? Has one respondent in SRI advocated or supported any of these
practices?
Which raises the question, doesn't these fallacious notions about Islam
represent "crooked thinking"?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1136633708....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Rape of any description, whether of captives or slaves, has always been
> forbidden to Christians; apart from the violence and injustice involved
> it is contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
<snip> ...
Comment:-
When you use the term "always" you deny the fact, as already indicated
separately, the fairly recent etymological root of the "rape" term. Is this
not true?
Didn't early Christians have sex with slaves and captives? The previously
mentioned Augustine example is primary evidence of this fact, is it not? If
always forbidden, how could the Roman Catholic Church confer sainthood on a
known "rapist" (using you emotive language)? This you have failed to answer
in accordance with your own rationale, itemised above? Isn't it true, that
the Roman Catholic Church historically tried to cover up such dastardly acts
and in so doing condoned them?
Adultery, is a sin in both Islam and Christianity, this is not in dispute?
But, isn't "adultery" not extramarital sex? Are you now suggesting that it's
licit for unmarried Christians to have sex, because they aren't strictly
committing adultery?
<snip> ...
> Rape was never a 'practise' or a 'custom' in Christendom. Whatever the
> truth about Augustine, it has no bearing on Christian teaching about
> rape.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I agree, and your exact same proposition applies to Islam, since the legal
concept of "rape" wasn't known in mediaeval times. If it did, it would apply
equally to both sociological groups, would it not? Doesn't the Augustine
example adequately demonstrates this altruistic precept?
Wasn't sex with captives and slaves a fairly common practice back then and
there? Do you have any evidence of anyone, Christian or Muslim, that was
legitimately convicted of crime of "rape" in a recognised court of law,
ecclesiastical or otherwise?
<snip> ...
> On the other hand the rape of captives and slaves is permitted by the
> Koran - the Word of God.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How can the modern-day term "rape" be restrictively applied, back then and
there, when the word itself did not exist in either scripture?
Which, once again, raises the unanswered paradox, for yourself, is the OT
not the Word of God?
But I'm bigoted of course!
--
Peace
--
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what
is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.
[Confucius]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Altway
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote
> The NT is not a definition of Christianity. When I say rape has always
been forbidden to Christians I mean forbidden by the Church, the
Christian community founded by Jesus, to which he gave authority to
teach. This community existed before the NT and produced the NT; the
community still exists and still teaches. Your problem is that, like
all Muslims, you cannot help thinking of the NT as if it were like the
Koran.
Comment:-
For Muslims it is the word of God that defines Religion.
We do not think of the NT as being like the Quran,
but more like the Hadith, third party reports - though the NT
is far less critically examined than the Hadith.
> The New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, some of the laws of
which, such as those governing food, were human regulations which Jesus
changed. But this is not relevant to the issue of the acceptance of
rape by Islam.
Comment:-
The Quran supercedes the NT in the same way
> You say that adultery and fornication are forbidden by the Koran, but I
have shown in clear quotation that the Koran permits the rape of
captives and the rape of slaves. This is adultery and fornication.
Comment:-
You have shown your own interpretation and mentality.
Your notions of Jesus's actions show a very naive reading of the New
Testament: you must have been shown those episodes, not in the context
of the Gospels as a whole, but in a context of malicious distortion.
Comment:-
I think you understandvery well that
they are not my interpretation,
but an example of the kind of distorted interpretation you apply
to the Quran.
If you did not understand this, then we must doubt your capacity for
understanding anything.
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
One can put plain - but unwelcome - facts in front of Muslims and some
will refuse to see them, others will be genuinely unable to see them.
This is the case with the permission to rape captives and slaves. It is
also the case with regard to the Koranic permission to 'marry' and have
sex with little girls - even though Muhammad himself set the example
(in the hadith) by consummating marriage with Aisha at nine. When
thinking about the Koran Muslims are disabled - rationality fails them.
Slavery: you give a very benign interpretation to a terrible reality.
Not all slaves were domestic slaves; many worked in mines and quarries,
and many huge estates in the Arab Empire were worked by large work
forces consisting of slaves. These were not integrated. You talk about
Islam providing *solutions*: but Islam was the source of the *problem*
- Muslims imported tens of millions of Africans, wrenched from their
communities; were these benignly integrated? And how did castration
help in the provision of a "solution"?
Child sex: I have quoted the lines in the Koran that permit sex with a
girl who has not had her first menstrual period. It's clear; it can't
be denied: accept it.
Jihad is also fighting against the infidel in the way of God - and not
just defensively either.
It's a myth that the jizyah was a tax paid for protection; the
protection implied in "dhimmi" was protection from jihad: if you didn't
pay and broke the dhimmi treaty you were no longer protected and could
be slaughtered. Who were the enemies that the dhimmis were allegedly
protected from? The Byzantines? Was the jizyah lifted in time of peace?
Robert
The fact that "rape", meaning seize by force, appears in English around
the fourteenth century does not imply that there was no concept of rape
current in Christendom before this. The language of the law at this
time was Norman French, and you would have to look to this language for
the terms used. I have given you one reason why rape is forbidden, but
you ignore it.
You ask whether it isn't true that early Christians had sex with slaves
and captives. This is not the issue. If they did, without consent, they
were guilty of rape, and the Church condemns this. If it was with
consent then they were guilty of adultery or fornication, and the
church condemns this also.
The case of Augustine, whatever the facts, has no bearing on the issue.
As regards his sainthood, many sinners (and in his youth Augustine was
given to the sins of the flesh) have repented and become saints. The
Church has not tried to cover up the sins of saints, these are all
brought out in the process of canonisation.
Extramarital sex includes adultery and fornication; both are forbidden.
The point about Islam is that it permits extramarital sex with captives
and slaves; thus it permits adultery and fornication.
Your suggestion that the legal concept of rape didn't exist in medieval
times is incredible. Prove it. But even if it didn't, in Christendom,
the fact of rape would fall under the condemnation of extra-marital
sex.
Again, if as you allege the word "rape" doesn't occur in the Bible, it
doesn't follow that the concept didn't exist in Biblical times among
Christians and Jews.
I keep on repeating that the Bible is the Word of God in a completely
different sense from the one in which Muslims claim the Koran is.
Muslims find this very difficult to grasp. The Biblical writers were
inspired as men, not as mere transmitters; and their works are human
documents, subject to human, linguistic and cultural limitations. They
are not verbally inerrant.
Robert
You deny (implicitly) that the term "rape" can be applied to a past
when the term did not exist, and assert (implicitly), without giving
any authority, that the term (ie the Hebrew or Greek equivalent) is not
used in the Old Testament or New Testament. I do not know Hebrew, but
the Revised Standard Version is very close to the original texts and it
uses the expression "seize her and lie with her" to mean rape her.
Here is Deuteronomy 22, 25:
"But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed,
and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay
with her shall die."
Here we can clearly see the offence of rape, that it is a crime, its
great gravity, and its severe punishment. But for the Koran it is
nothing when inflicted on a captive or a slave; indeed it is a
God-given right for the Muslim captor or slave master.
Robert
I do not give the word "slavery" a religious connotation.
I have no doubt that Western-educated Muslims do condemn slavery in
practice; but Islam does not condemn it and cannot condemn it for the
Koran permits it. I have even seen work by contemporary Islamic
scholars defending it. It is still practised in Muslim West Africa.
That I try to show that Islam is deeply flawed does not mean that I am
thereby not impartial and objective. As I have said, my object is
truth; I do not attempt to promote Christianity as such - that is
forbidden on this forum.
As regards the words "missionary, inquisitor, and agitprop" you take
them out of context and give neutral dictionary definitions, ignoring
the emotional loading they have in your postings.
You are very careless: I nowhere acuse Muslim subscribers of
sanctioning rape etc; it is Islam that sanctions these things. See
sbadr, Jan 12, for a subscriber who supports these practices.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I have no doubt that Western-educated Muslims do condemn slavery in
> practice; but Islam does not condemn it and cannot condemn it for the
> Koran permits it.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Have you considered the fact that Christianity did not condemn slavery until
Wilberforce decided to abolish it by condemning it? Wasn't it the actions of
individuals who revolutionised Christian thinking in this regard?
Nevertheless, doesn't the Bible still permit it? To paraphrase likewise; but
Christianity does not condemn it and cannot condemn it for the inerrant
Bible permits it; and the Bible is the "Truth", is it not?
<snip> ...
> I have even seen work by contemporary Islamic
> scholars defending it. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And which "contemporary Islamic scholars" are these that actively encourage
modern-day slavery in West Africa?
<snip> ...
It is still practised in Muslim West Africa.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If it is, it's a crime, Islamic or otherwise.
<snip> ...
> That I try to show that Islam is deeply flawed does not mean that I am
> thereby not impartial and objective.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This is incoherent because of its preconceived notions. If, for example, I
said that your character was "deeply flawed" would you equally say that I
was being "impartial and objective" if I had decided that beforehand?
<snip> ...
> As I have said, my object is truth; I do not attempt to promote
Christianity as
> such - that is forbidden on this forum.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But there are many subjective 'truths' aren't there? If your "object is
truth" how do you respond to anyone who doesn't share your particular
religious faith? Would that pluralistic "truth" then be the same for
Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, secularists, agnostics, atheists and
pagans? Can you altruistically demonstrate how any man of faith can remove
himself entirely from that faith or treat it in a detached and disinterested
manner?
<snip> ...
> As regards the words "missionary, inquisitor, and agitprop" you take
> them out of context and give neutral dictionary definitions, ignoring
> the emotional loading they have in your postings.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
At last the intellectual penny has dropped. Now, do you recognise that what
you have said is a two-way street in SRI? And, if so, will you change your
attitude accordingly? If in any doubt about the "discovery of truth" read
the signature below.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1136634118.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> One must distinguish between the alleged facts which the spurious
> hadith present and the fact of the hadith and what it purports to
> represent.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So, according to this inane method of thinking, spurious allegations are
purported facts that are distinguishably by a fictitiously represented
truth? In other words, two spurious allegations (wrongs) make a purported
right! Is this not truly representative of "crooked thinking"? What has
"under Islam" got to do with this under-hand idea of sloppy and meaningless
method using your own self-incriminatory words?
But, some bigots say, fiction is stranger that truth, which is being
reversibly perfidious in this meaningless instance, is it not?
--
Peace
--
What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a
completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas.
[Anonymous Diplomat]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
You try to mitigate the scandal of your position by restricting your
case to "sex with a slave", and not talking about rape. All reasonable
people know that rape is a grievous wrong, and they know this without
knowing anything about the will of God; any 'god' or prophet that
teaches that in certain circumstances rape (or adultery or fornication)
is permissible is wicked and not to be trusted or obeyed.
Nearly all cultures forbid rape; and those that do not are corrupt.
That rape is degrading is a fact, and can be seen by any reasonable
person in its effects on the person raped: in the feeling of having
been defiled, violated, and subject to violence. This is a rational
judgment, not just a statement of cultural prejudice.
Zuiko Azumazi
Second try - did not appear.
<snip> ...
> You deny (implicitly) that the term "rape" can be applied to a past
> when the term did not exist,
<snip> ...
Comment:-
To summarise this thread from an intelligent subscriber, Muslim or
otherwise, perspective, in line with this well-known non-Muslim maxim:- "For
a large class of cases -though not for all - in which we employ the word
meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the
language." [Ludwig Wittgenstein].
It's always interesting to see how some people can artfully misconstrue and
misuse language. Let's look at the etymology of the "rape" term:-
rape (v.)
c.1386, "seize prey, take by force," from Anglo-Fr. raper, O.Fr. raper "to
seize, abduct," a legal term, from L. rapere "seize, carry off by force,
abduct" (see rapid). L. rapere was used for "sexual violation," but only
very rarely; the usual L. word being stuprum, lit. "disgrace." Sense of
"sexual violation or ravishing of a woman" first recorded in Eng. as a noun,
1481 (the noun sense of "taking anything -- including a woman -- away by
force" is from c.1400). The verb in this sense is from 1577. Rapist is from
1883. [Online Etymological Dictionary]
Now, what am I supposed to be denying implicitly (i.e without doubting or
questioning) after checking the facts? Isn't that your explicit position
that needs questioning with regard to the retrospective use of the "rape"
term in the context you are using it?
It's like trying to retrospectively judge ancient societies, people and
events under the modern concept of "Crimes against Humanity" using the
"genocide" term for instance, is it not? Perhaps, I should raise the
Albigensians.(Cathar) "genocide" perpetrated the by the Christian - Roman
Catholic Church once again?
genocide
1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his
work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi
extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind"
(see genus) + -cide, from L. -cidere "kill," comb. form of caedere "to cut,
kill" (see concise). The proper formation would be *genticide. [Online
Etymological Dictionary]
<snip> ...
> ... and assert (implicitly), without giving
> any authority, that the term (i.e. the Hebrew or Greek equivalent) is not
> used in the Old Testament or New Testament. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is "the Hebrew or Greek equivalent" according to your unquoted
authority? Is there one? The Latin equivalent is 'stuprum', lit. "disgrace";
as confirmed above. Would you say that "disgrace" (i.e reduce in worth,
character - referent to the biblical concept of damage to property - Cf.
Exodus. 22:16 as well as Deuteronomy 22, 25 ; if in any doubt).
Notwithstanding, aren't these dispositions not biblical *borrowings* from
the earlier "Code of Hammurabi (# 117)", that you have vehemently accused
Islam and Muslims of falsely doing in the past?
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
You write of my alleged Islamophobia. Islamophobia, if it has a
well-defined meaning rather than being a propaganda smear applied to
anyone who criticizes Islam, means an irrational fear of Islam. I do
fear Islam and its history, tenets, and present manifestations give
good grounds for fear. I have not written about how dangerous Islam is,
but what I have written has not been irrational: I have always given
reasons and grounds and have always been prepared to be corrected.
Nothing I have written has been ignorant: I have spent much time
studying Islam and thinking about it. I do not recollect that I have
once been corrected about Islam. My postings have not been hateful, but
dispassionate. I have Muslim friends who are dear to me.
Robert
Still Christianity does condemn slavery, and Islam cannot since the
Koran explicitly permits it, indeed encourages it. Early Christianity
was not in a position to overthrow the institution of slavery in the
ancient world, but it did explicitly reject the categorical difference
between slave and free: Paul taught that in Christ there is no slave
and free. Christian love was enjoined between master and slave; this
would have transformed their relationship and often led to liberation.
Gradually Christian influence led to the disappearance of slavery.
I am weary of explaining that the Bible is not inerrant Truth. Muslims
cannot help believing that this is a Christian doctrine because they
think in terms of the Koran, which they hold *is* inerrant truth. It is
Protestant Fundamentalists who teach the verbal inerrancy of the Bible;
the Catholic Church does not.
We find slavery in the Old Testament: the ancient Hebrews enslaved
their pagan neighbours, and they could also sell themselves or their
children into slavery if overwhelmed by debt and in absolute
destitution, but this 'slavery' could only last for six years. Again I
repeat myself, the laws of Moses governing this were superseded by the
teaching of Jesus: the Jewish Law, generally, does not apply to
Christians.
I do not say that the Islamic scholars I have read encourage slavery in
West Africa; they wrote general legal accounts of the practice. I have
no doubt that you will find their work if you search the internet.
You say the practice of slavery in West Africa is a crime, but it is
not treated as a crime by the Muslim governments and is an accepted
part of the economy and the society.
Preconceived notions do not necessarily produce incoherence; though
they may produce falsehood.
You simply do not know whether my views on Islam were preconceived. In
fact they weren't: I came to Islam impressed by the goodness and
sincerity of my Muslim friends, and because of this wanted to find out
more. As it was, the more I found out about the Koran and Islam the
more I objected to them.
My Catholic Faith is not based on subjectivity, as the faith of
mystically inclined Muslims is. It is not based on feeling or religious
emotion, but on the study of the Bible and the Church's claims and
teaching. As for those who don't share my faith, I believe that in so
far as they don't, they are mistaken. But my Muslim friends worship
God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, as Christians do; they also do
good. Because of this, by Christian teaching, they are acceptable to
God.
No-one can be perfectly disinterested, and I would not want to detach
myself from my Faith, but I don't have to because God is Truth and to
attach oneslf to that is to be disinterested.
Unlike you I do not use emotionally loaded language: I always try to
appeal to fact and reason. It may be that this has produced an
emotional reaction in you and you have projected this onto my postings.
James
> The bottom line is that should some ill turn
> of fortune render your mother and sisters and wives and daughters
> possessions of muslims, then having sexual intercourse with them would
> be lawful and moral and permissible for the muslim who owned them and
> some instances of that would almost certainly occur no matter what
> your opinion of that might be.
> I'd suggest that rather than try to sit in judgment against what
> God has decreed, you'd be better off praying that no such ill turn of
> fortune reaches you.
Intimidating stuff!
However, as I observe the world today, Allah decreed that Christians
should be: (1) more numerous than Muslims, (2) more economically
powerful, (3) more militarily powerful. Therefore, for the time being
at least, the females of Robert's family are quite safe from your
version of what is "lawful" and "moral" Abujamal.
(Please do not take this post outside of it's context of Abujamal's
post).
James.
Robert
"Implicitly" doesn't mean without doubting or questioning.
The etymology of "rape" has no bearing on your contention that "rape"
cannot be applied to a past when the word did not exist. It is evident
from the quotation I gave you that the ancient Hebrews had the concept
of rape even though they didn't have single word to convey it.
The Hebrew equivalent of the RSV rendering equivalent to rape closely
parallels the English: it means seize and lie with. I don't read Hebrew
so cannot quote it verbatim; perhaps a reader could help out.
I have never mentioned the Code of Hammurabi in my postings to this
forum, but it is a common anti-Christian slur that the Bible owes any
of its Law to this code.
Altway
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote
Comment:-
I wonder why anyone bothers to reply to Robert.
It is futile.
Is it not clear by now that his prejudices are strongly entrenched
and not amenable to fact or reason?
He cannot see other than by how his mentality is constructed.
Does not the Quran tell us from the very beginning:-
"Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them if you warn them or if
you warn them not, they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their
heart and on their hearing; and on their eyes is dimness, and for them is
grievous woe. And there are those among men who say: We believe in Allah
and in the last day; but they do not believe. They would deceive Allah and
those who do believe; but they deceive only themselves and they do not
perceive. In their heart is a sickness, and Allah has made them still more
sick, and for them is grievous woe because they lied. " 2:6-10
and
"When you see those who plunge deeply into vain discussion of Our Signs
(revelations), turn away from them until they discuss another topic. It may
be that Satan makes you forget, but sit not, after you have remembered, with
the congregation of the faithless (or unjust or wrong-doers)." 6:68
and near the end
109:1. Say, "O you faithless! *
109:2. I do not serve what you serve; *
109:3. Nor will you serve what I serve;
109:4. Nor will I serve what you serve;
109:5. Nor will you serve what I serve;
109:6. To you your Way and to me my Way!"
Hamid S. Aziz
kho...@gmail.com
I understand on what you are trying to say. But if we do not stand up
for the injustices against Islam, then who will? I understand that
talking with Robert will not do him any good or myself. He will
continuously create new threads against Islam, but each time he does
and we have an answer we better educate ourselves and protect ourselves
from injustices in the future, not just by Robert but by many others
like him as well.
You may not agree with my point of view, but I truly believe that for
everything wrong for which we stand up against, Allah will reward our
deeds to succeed in the hereafter.
Wasalaamz
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ..
> You write of my alleged Islamophobia. Islamophobia, if it has a
> well-defined meaning rather than being a propaganda smear ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well did you take the time check with any authoritative source using the
internet? What does this link provide:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
"Islamophobia is a neologism referring to a fear or prejudice towards
Muslims and the religion of Islam. Some consider these views to be
irrational; others believe them to be perfectly justified."
Isn't it a mistaken distortion of reality to think that any definition of
the meaning of a term, rather than its usage, is a "smear"? Isn't the
transcribed record, of your many prejudicial, if not, inflammatory posts
against Islam, not adequately described by this neologism? If so, how can
these records be "alleged", when they exist in fact?
Notwithstanding, should we use the "Islamophobia" term retrospectively (as
you have artfully suggested elsewhere, about other terms) to describe the
appalling behaviour and acts of the Christian Crusaders when they would have
found the term unintelligible in the Middle Ages?
But, I'm a "straight thinking" bigot, as I keep repeating.
--
Peace
--
For a large class of cases -though not for all - in which we employ the word
meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the
language.
[Ludwig Wittgenstein]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Altway
<kho...@gmail.com> wrote in message > Brother Hamid,
> I understand on what you are trying to say. But if we do not stand up
for the injustices against Islam, then who will? I understand that
talking with Robert will not do him any good or myself. He will
continuously create new threads against Islam, but each time he does
and we have an answer we better educate ourselves and protect ourselves
from injustices in the future, not just by Robert but by many others
like him as well.
Comment:-
I do not disagree with you, but
My point is that
(1) The trhings he brings up have been answered many times before.
(2) He has already demonstrated his closed mind and desire for perverse
interpretations.
(3) He continues to make these interpretations though he knows that Muslims
do not interpret things the way he does.
(4) The Quran tells us something relevant to such discussions, and I have
quoted these.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
Moderators permitting, the context of this message is to point out and
demonstrate to subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, that the critical method
used in this message isn't intellectually robust (QED). Hopefully, the
initiator will reflect on this demonstrable truth, before continuing with
their passionate and ill-informed tirade against Muslims and Islam.
<snip> ...
> "Implicitly" doesn't mean without doubting or questioning.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't this another "intellectual" faux pas? Did you bother to verify your
assertion before posting a rejoinder? But let's refer to a recognised
on-line dictionary, shall we:-
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/implicitly
Now, doesn't the opening definition say:- "Without doubting or questioning;
"I implicitly trust him"? What part of this common usage definition, i.e.
"without doubting or questioning", don't you now understand?
But will you retract your trite remarks or continue to argue by quoting
another dictionary?
This, perhaps, should be a sharp lesson to yourself about the "verification
principle", especially when you pretend to be an "authority" on everything,
including the English language.
Which raises the question, have you ever used the "verification principle"
when cutting and pasting inflammatory articles about Islam? Or is malicious
gossip, hearsay, half-truths and innuendo a more robust critical method, in
your opinion?
<snip> ...
> The etymology of "rape" has no bearing on your contention that "rape"
> cannot be applied to a past when the word did not exist. It is evident
> from the quotation I gave you that the ancient Hebrews had the concept
> of rape even though they didn't have single word to convey it.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Didn't I demolish your "ancient Hebrew" myth by my reference:
"What is "the Hebrew or Greek equivalent" according to your unquoted
authority? Is there one? The Latin equivalent is 'stuprum', lit. "disgrace";
as confirmed above. Would you say that "disgrace" (i.e reduce in worth,
character - referent to the biblical concept of damage to property - Cf.
Exodus. 22:16 as well as Deuteronomy 22, 25 ; if in any doubt)."
Is that why you changed track? Did you verify both biblical references,
obviously not? As you are a Roman Catholic, what about the Latin definition,
wasn't that translated directly from the Hebrew or Greek? Or was it another
invention of the "infallible" Church to delude its gullible followers, like
the "filioque" episode?
So, according to this praxis, it's quite alright for Muslims to use the
pejorative "genocide" term to pillory the Roman Catholic Church? Is this
correct?
<snip> ...
> The Hebrew equivalent of the RSV rendering equivalent to rape closely
> parallels the English: it means seize and lie with. I don't read Hebrew
> so cannot quote it verbatim; perhaps a reader could help out.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And where did the Latin equivalent is 'stuprum', lit. "disgrace"; come from,
if it wasn't borrowed from the original Hebrew or Greek texts of the bible?
<snip> ...
> I have never mentioned the Code of Hammurabi in my postings to this
> forum, but it is a common anti-Christian slur that the Bible owes any
> of its Law to this code.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Again, you aren't doing any Catholic homework, are you? The cited reference
to the "Code of Hammurabi (# 117)", " was taken verbatim from the
authoritative "A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1969)" articles
about Exodus. 22:16 as well as Deuteronomy 22, 25. Don't you have a copy you
can check?
For a general overview visit this search link (780 hits):-
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
kho...@gmail.com
I understand on what you are trying to say. But if we do not stand up
with Robert will not do him any good or myself. He will continuously
create new threads against Islam, but each time he does and we have an
answer we better educate ourselves and protect ourselves from
injustices in the future, not just by Robert but by many others like
him as well.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Still Christianity does condemn slavery, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And what does this authoritative link say about this post-enlightenment
trend :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible-based_advocacy_of_slavery
"However, nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recorded
slavery, within specific Biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian
theology."
Doesn't this confirm seventeen centuries of biblical theology authorising
and sanctioning slavery under Christianity?
Why do you still continue to condemn Muslims for abolishing slavery on the
unstable grounds that it's part of erstwhile Islamic theology, as it was
also in Christianity? Isn't this being dissimulative?
--
Peace
--
To illustrate a principle, you must exaggerate much and you must omit much.
[Walter Bagehot]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
You must pay attention to tense and context: I said Christianity *does*
condemn slavery, but Islam can't. When I said "Christianity" I meant
the Catholic Church, from which all other denominations have separated,
and the Church has formally condemned slavery after a long period when
there were various theological opinions but no authoritative teaching.
Islam, on the other hand cannot condemn slavery because it is
countenanced by the Koran - by God himself. Whatever the variety of
opinion among theolgians, it was Christian influence which lead to
slavery's dying out in Europe, (it should not be confused with
serfdom), and the suppression of the slave trade, and slavery in Islam.
For a Catholic what is important is the authoritative teaching of the
Church: there's the theology which finally matters. The Church has
never taught the permissibility of slavery, but this is built in to
Islam. There's no dissimulation.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Still Christianity does condemn slavery, and Islam cannot since the
> Koran explicitly permits it, indeed encourages it. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Hasn't it been clearly demonstrated before, to you in SRI that every
Islamic country (OIC member) has abolished slavery and made it a crime?
Hasn't this been verified in United Nations reports mentioned in the links
you have already received? Isn't this sufficient independent and
authoritative evidence that refutes and demolishes your regurgitated claims?
Is this your idea of the much vaunted 'academic' disinterest and detachment
and "peer review" that you carelessly discard in other posts?
Why do continues to blindly repeat these antediluvian absurdities? Do you
think this increases you credibility amongst discerning subscribers, Muslim
or otherwise?
What additional evidence do you want? Where is there evidence of this active
'encouragement' you are talking about in the contemporary Muslim world? How
many Muslim subscribers have encouraged slavery or even supported the
notion? Is there concrete evidence from any recognised international body,
of the same stature as the United Nations, that irrefutably confirms these
misguided allegations?
But evidentially, 'straight thinking' bigots like myself, can also
childishly repeat ancient English nursery rhymes like:-
There was a crooked man, and he went a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile:
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house.
[Halliwell 1846]
--
Peace
--
A leader is best
When people barely knows that he exists
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him
Worst when they despise him
[Lao-Tzu "The Way of Life"]
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
The impossibility of the Mosaic Law's "borrowing" from the Code of
Hamurabbi is shown by chronology. The Code dates from the middle of the
18th century BCE. Moses lived, perhaps, about 1200 BCE. The New
Catholic Commentary is not infallible; perhaps you would care to quote
what has so taken you.
As usual your link proves to be a wild goose chase: all that emerges is
that a number of Hamurabbi's laws can be compared with the Ten
Commandments, which is not surprising given Hamurabbi's desire for the
welfare of his people, and given the fact that the Ten Commandments are
basic to all social and personal morality. But the point is that the
Mosaic Code was an advance on Hamurabbi's, as one would expect given
its divine origin.
Anyway the issue of "borrowing" doesn't arise as a problem for
Christians: the sacred authors were free to borrow and adapt whatever
they wished. But God, in the Koran, shouldn't borrow an imperfect
version of material developed by a Jewish Rabbi.
Altway
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote
I said Christianity *does*
> condemn slavery, but Islam can't.
Comment:-
Is Christianity based on Jesus' teaching or is it a man made religion?
Jesus did not condemn slavery, nor did Paul.
He said: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling; in
singleness of heart as to Christ. Not in the way of eye service as
men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ doing the will of God from the
heart rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not men
knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same again
from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free." Ephesians 6:5
There is no sign here that he wanted slaves to be freed.
The Catholics probably got the idea of freeing slaves from Islam.
The Quran has verses that require freeing of slaves:-
"Righteousness is not that ye turn your faces towards the East or the
West, but it is righteousness to believe in Allah, and the Last Day,
and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers, and to spend of your
wealth for love of Him, for your kindred, and orphans, and the needy,
and the wayfarer, for those who ask, and to ransom those in
captivity.........." 2:177
"And what will explain to thee the ascent? It is freeing captives
(prisoners, slaves)..."90:12-13
"And serve Allah; associate nothing with Him; show kindness to
parents, and to kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and to the
neighbour who is a kin, and the neighbour who is a stranger, and the
fellow traveler, and the wayfarer, and those whom your right hands
possess (slaves). Verily, Allah loves not him who is proud and
boastful..." 4:36
"It is not for a believer to kill a believer save by mistake; and
whosoever kills a believer by mistake then let him free a believing
slave and compensation must be paid to his people, unless they remit
it as charity. But if he be from a tribe hostile to you and yet a
believer, then let him free a believing slave. And if he comes from a
people betwixt whom and you there is an alliance, then let the
compensation be paid to his folk and let him also free a believing
slave. But he who cannot find the means, then let him fast for two
consecutive months - a penance this from Allah, for Allah is Knower,
Wise." 4:92
"Allah will not take you to task for the unintentional (or futile)
word in your oaths (or promises), but He will take you task for oaths
ye swear in earnest. The expiation thereof is to feed ten poor men
with the average food ye feed your families with, or to clothe them,
or to free a slave..." 5:89
"And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste until Allah gives
them means from His grace. And if any of your slaves asks for a Deed
in writing (an agreement to purchase their freedom), write it for them
if ye know any good in them; yea, give them something yourselves from
out of the wealth Allah has given you. But force not your slave girls
to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order to make a gain in
goods of this world. But if any one compels them, then, after they are
compelled, verily, Allah will be to them (the slave girls) Forgiving,
Merciful...." 24:33
"But if those who divorce their wives by Zihar and then wish to recall
what they said, they should free a captive (slave) before they touch
each other; to this are you admonished to conform; and Allah is Aware
of what you do." 58:3
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
You ask is Christianity based on Jesus' teaching or is it a man made
religion. I get tired of explaining this to Muslims. Christianity is a
religion about Jesus, it is not Jesus's religion: that was Judaism.
What Jesus taught was the coming of God's Kingdom, which is partly
realized in the Church. Of course the Church teaches this too, but its
central message is that this has come about because of the Atonement
and the Resurrection achieved by Jesus. This is not man-made religion
but revealed religion. Jesus gave authority to teach the Faith to his
Church.
You say Jesus did not condemn slavery nor did Paul. Do you think that
something is to be condemned only if Jesus in his three brief years
condemned it and was remembered to have condemned it? Jesus didn't
condemn abortion; does that mean it is an open question? The Church has
the commission to teach on all these newly arising issues.
Paul taught slaves to be good servants; does that mean he approved of
the institution of slavery? No - it shows he taught slaves how to make
the best of an irremediable situation. The Christian Church in the
first 20 -30 years of its existence wasn't in a position to challenge
an institution of the Roman Empire.
Where's your evidence for the idea that Christians got the idea of
freeing slaves from Islam? When did they first have the idea of freeing
slaves, and how much did they know about Islam?
Your quotations do NOT show that the Koran *requires* the freeing of
slaves. The first says "Righteousness is ... to ransom those in
captivity" which isn't even about slavery.
Your next advocates showing kindness to slaves.
Your next enjoins freeing a slave for killing someone by mistake.
Your next enjoins freeing a slave as an expiation.
None of this is a condemnation of slavery, and in fact slavery and the
slave trade were central to Islam for 1200 years, and even now slavery
cannot be condemned by the Islamic scholars because Muhammad set the
precedent, owning slaves ansd selling them himself. Your mass of
quotations impresses only by its length.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip>
> You must pay attention to tense and context: I said Christianity *does*
> condemn slavery, but Islam can't. ..
<snip. ...
Comment:-
Christianity can condemn slavery on these grounds only if you believe that
the bible is error-prone. So accordingly "Christianity" (whatever that may
mean in the context of your argument) can override the infallible bible!
Isn't this what some subscribers, Muslims or otherwise, have been telling
you all along that the so-called "infallible" bible and "Catholic Church",
is, in fact, "fallible"? Isn't this what Islam says in the Qur'an, the
undeniable Word of God?
Furthering your own stated argument, the "dissimulation" then becomes quite
simple, is the bible and the Catholic Church not proven "fallible" (i.e.
having the attributes of man as opposed to the divine) under your
proposition? Isn't this what I have related to elsewhere when adversely
commenting this identical "infallibility" question?
Nima Rezai
> I reply to Zuiko Azumazi Jan 25
>
> The impossibility of the Mosaic Law's "borrowing" from the Code of
> Hamurabbi is shown by chronology. The Code dates from the middle of
> the 18th century BCE. Moses lived, perhaps, about 1200 BCE.
I dont see how these data should be a proof for the impossibility of the
borrowing.
Were it vice versa, thus Moses having lived before Hamurabbi, this would
make it impossible for the former to borrow from the latter.
Nima
Robert
Politically you are very naive. That an OIC country is said to have
abolished slavery means nothing: some of them abolish it on paper and
continue to practise it, establishing no measures to abolish it. A
little research on the internet reveals this. Two offending countries
are Mauritania and Sudan. A UNICEF report on 53 African countries
showed that 89% had trafficking in slaves and 26% said their
trafficking was taking place to the Middle East. Amnesty International
reports widespread slavery in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania,
including slave raids. The American Anti-Slavery Group reports the
enslaving of women and children in Sudan, where they are sold to Arabs
for sexual services. Children are also kidnapped and sent to hard-line
Koranic schools and trained to fight jihad. All this is taken from
internet article, "Catholic Resources on the Internet."
In the internet article "Islam's wretched record on Slavery" you may
read the following: "The Mauretanian government has not tried to
eradicate slavery and failed; it has not tried at all. Even the old
Arab practice of forming slave armies is being revived in Mauretania,
where thoudands of Haratines were forcibly recruited, armed, and sent
to take over black African villagesin the South, where they massacred
the inhabitants."
In the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan and in Afghanistan
girls from 5 to 17 are sold for prostitution. If they are lucky they
will end up in a harem in the Middle East.
It's absurd to suggest that I have implied that subscribers to this
forum support slavery.
Robert
I suspect that the author of your Wikipedia article has been influenced
by the anti-Catholic prejudice of most secularized historians when he
averrs that nearly all Christian leaders before the 17th century
recorded slavery as consistent with Christian theology. You might be
interested in the excellent internet article "The Truth about the
Catholic Church and Slavery". I summarise a few points: in the 7th
century Saint Bathilde campaigned to free all slaves. In 851 St Anskar
campaigned to halt the Viking slave trade. Wm the Conqueror, St
Wulfstan, and St Anselm forbade the enslavement of all Christians. In
the 10th century the bishops in Venice sought to prevent the trade in
slaves to Islam. In the 13th century Aquinas taught slavery was a sin,
and the Popes upheld his position. Rome repeatedly denounced New World
slavery as a grounds for excommunication...
A Hirsi
>For a Catholic what is important is the authoritative teaching of the
>Church: there's the theology which finally matters. The Church has
>never taught the permissibility of slavery, but this is built in to
>Islam. There's no dissimulation
Why do many of your clergy prey on innocent children if what they
believe is true?
How can someone claim to be teaching God's words yet commit abominable
sins
with defenseless children inside the Church?
And why do the Church bosses provide cover for widespread child
molestation?
Are you lashing out at Islam because of the pain you must feel by all
the confusion caused by being a Catholic?
A Hirsi
Saqib Virk
"Nima Rezai" <rezai...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:44490p...@individual.net...
>
>> The impossibility of the Mosaic Law's "borrowing" from the Code of
>> Hamurabbi is shown by chronology. The Code dates from the middle of
>> the 18th century BCE. Moses lived, perhaps, about 1200 BCE.
>
> I dont see how these data should be a proof for the impossibility of the
> borrowing. Were it vice versa, thus Moses having lived before
> Hamurabbi, this would make it impossible for the former to borrow
> from the latter.
SV
This sums up everything we need to know about Robert. He imagines he is
proving his case when in fact he is only proving his lack of comprehension.
According to Robert it is impossible for the Mosaic Law to have borrowed
from the Code of Hammurabi because the Code is older than the Mosaic Law.
Obviously this make no sense and though that is normal for Robert we must
assume that Robert does not know the 18th century BCE came before 1200 BCE.
I believe the Code of Hammurabi clearly implies the existence of a preceding
set of laws. Hammurabi is but reorganizing a long established legal system.
Would it be impossible to imagine that there was a revealed law, parts of
which were included in the Code of Hammurabi? Muslims believe that God has
sent his messengers to many nations at many times throughout history and so,
I believe from an Islamic perspective, it is not outside the reasonable
realm of possibility.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Politically you are very naive. That an OIC country is said to have
> abolished slavery means nothing: some of them abolish it on paper and
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Your original accusation against Islam was that some governments in the
Muslim world allegedly condoned slavery. You now concede that no member
state of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) condones slavery.
Doesn't this, once again, demolish your preconceived argument completely?
Don't all governments, regardless of their purported religious affiliation,
abolish things on legislative paper and pronounce their laws and decrees in
written form? Because a government makes something illegal doesn't mean that
criminal elements in those countries, Muslim or otherwise, stop breaking the
law, does it? It's totally absurd and naive to believe otherwise? Where in
this corporeal world is your surreal idea of reality an actuality?
Is unsubstantiated "suspicion" then what you want us to seriously discuss?
Are
unsupported allegation, against all Muslims and Islam, a vindication of this
erstwhile demonising behaviour, or just another sign of Catholic or
Christian political perfidiousness? And you accuse me of being "politically
naive"?
<snip> ...
> A little research on the internet reveals this. Two offending countries
> are Mauritania and Sudan. A UNICEF report on 53 African countries
> showed that 89% had trafficking in slaves and 26% said their
> trafficking was taking place to the Middle East.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So two countries out of a total 53 African States are being singled out for
breaking international law. Why do you just select the two countries whose
population is predominately Muslim for your distorted attack? Isn't that
being prejudicial?
What about the other 51 states in Africa, whose criminal elements
participate in slavery, aren't these criminal activities not breaking the
same international law? How many of these other 51 states are Christian or
non-Muslim? Are you blaming their religious affiliation for slavery? Why do
you fail to mention that?
<snip> ...
> Amnesty International reports widespread slavery in the Islamic Republic
of
> Mauritania, including slave raids. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Why do you use the term "Islamic Republic" when Amnesty International
doesn't use it? What I you trying to artfully suggest? What does Amnesty
International actually say on their website, which I quote:-
"Despite the legal abolition of slavery in Mauritania twenty years ago, the
government is yet to take practical steps ensure its abolition in practice,
Amnesty International said today in its report Mauritania: a future free
from slavery."
Isn't this another feeble attempt at distortion?
<snip> ...
> The American Anti-Slavery Group reports ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And what does the American Anti-Slavery Group actually report about the
global issue of slavery, visit to this search link (138,000 hits):-
Are their worthwhile activities against global slavery confined to Muslim
countries and societies? Where do they accuse Islam of condoning slavery?
Show us the link where they actually say this? Aren't your adverse comments,
once more, a distortion of reality?
<snip> ...
> enslaving of women and children ... All this is taken from
> internet article, "Catholic Resources on the Internet."
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Certainly, contemporary Muslims and Islam, want to stamp out the scourge of
slavery and the kidnapping and exploitation of children, wherever that may
be. But, once again, why are you just singling out instances of these
criminal and human rights abuses in Muslim or Islamic countries? Are you
trying to fallaciously suggest that these appalling atrocities and abuses
are only confined to the Muslim world? Isn't it correct, that in reality,
there are many more instances being reported in non-Muslim countries?
<snip> ...
> In the internet article "Islam's wretched record on Slavery" you may
> read the following: ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If what this article says is correct then the government of Mauritania
should be admonished and severely sanctioned by the United Nations, like any
other country that breaks its international obligations and abuses human
rights. But, why do you keep on trying to artfully suggest that deficiencies
and incompetence of the Mauritanian government is caused by Islam and
Muslims in general?
<snip> ...
> It's absurd to suggest that I have implied that subscribers to this
> forum support slavery.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You now finally concede that subscribers to this forum, Muslim or otherwise,
do not support or condone slavery in any shape or form. Then why do you
continue to artfully suggest and submit posts that endeavour to portray that
all Muslims do tacitly "support slavery" when you now acknowledge that it's
untrue? Who are you trying to convince or persuade by these unwarranted
attacks and suspicions in this forum?
So, now in hindsight, when are you going to withdraw and publicly apologise
to Muslim subscribers, for all of your posts that have cast aspersions on
their morality, values and religious beliefs? Or will you still continue
your recidivist behaviour without repentance?
Robert
Your posting is unintelligible. You offer to take up a point from my
posting, but don't. You refer to "these grounds", but the phrase has no
reference. The usages of "Christianity" are clear enough. You endlessly
repeat the falsehood that the Bible is believed infallible. No-one has
been telling me that the Catholic Church is fallible, and if they had
it wouldn't be relevant.
Muslims do 'believe' that the Koran is infallible, though its gross
errors are demonstrable: they cope with this by going into denial -
thus Islam damages the mind.
My position - that the Church for centuries gave no authoritative
teaching on slavery - has no bearing on the issue of infallibility. You
have to distinguish between the opinions of theologians and the
teaching of the Magisterium.
Saqib Virk
>
> You must pay attention to tense and context: I said Christianity *does*
> condemn slavery, but Islam can't.
SV
"A student is not greater than the teacher. A slave is not greater than the
master." (Jesus according to Matthew 10:24)
> When I said "Christianity" I meant
> the Catholic Church, from which all other denominations have separated,
> and the Church has formally condemned slavery after a long period when
> there were various theological opinions but no authoritative teaching.
SV
The Catholic Church accepted slavery and only condemned after society in
general rejected it. In 1865 the Americans introduced the 13th amendment of
their constitution which would end slavery. In 1866, the Vatican issued a
statement in support of slavery which read in part,
"Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine
law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the
slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his
liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the
life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."
> Islam, on the other hand cannot condemn slavery because it is
> countenanced by the Koran - by God himself.
SV
Islam encouraged the release of slaves at every turn.
> For a Catholic what is important is the authoritative teaching of the
> Church: there's the theology which finally matters.
SV
The teaching of Jesus is irrelevant and the Church may change to suit the
whims of the time?
> The Church has
> never taught the permissibility of slavery
SV
You are ignorant of both Islam and your own Church.
For much of the 1800's the Roman Catholic church's Sacred Congregation of
the Index continued to place many anti-slavery tracts on their Index of
Forbidden Books in order to prevent the public from reading them. Pope Urban
VIII in 1629, Pope Innocent X in 1645 and Pope Alexander VII in 1661 were
all personally involved in the purchase of Muslim slaves. In the late 17th
century the institution of slavery was a integral part of many societies
worldwide. The Roman Catholic church only placed two restrictions on the
purchase and owning of slaves: They had to be non-Christian. They had to be
captured during "just" warfare. i.e. in wars involving Christian armies
fighting for an honorable cause.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> .... When I said "Christianity" I meant
> the Catholic Church, from which all other denominations have separated,
> and the Church has formally condemned slavery after a long period when
> there were various theological opinions but no authoritative teaching.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So you now concede for nineteen centuries, the Catholic Church didn't think
that "slavery" was important enough a subject to deliver a formal doctrine
in solemn magisterium (as you said elsewhere)? Doesn't this put your
infammatory accusations against Islam and Muslims into a more balanced
perspective? As if, as you now recognise, "slavery" was,, or still is,
unique to the Muslim world and not a widespread phenomenon throughout all
civilisations in history.
Do all self-righteous Catholics commentators, as you appear to be, not have
a guilty conscience about the spreading of Catholicism by the sword, and its
concomitant chattel "slavery", in South America? A dastardly phenomenon that
existed up until fairly recent times?
Could this deafening silence mean that the Church hierarchy condoned it
spirit as well as in practice, in Africa and elsewhere? If not, how do you
explain both the belated: "In Plurimis" - Pope Leo XIII - [Encyclical of
Pope Leo XIII promulgated on 5 May 1888.] and, "Catholicae Ecclesiae" - Pope
Leo XIII - [Encyclical promulgated on 20 November 1890.]?
But "straight thinkers' know there is no ecclesiastical heirarchy, pope, or
centralised authority in Islam, to give such belated apologies. The benefit
of infallible papal hindsight, or playing Protestant Abolitionist
'catch-up', one could cogently argue!
--
Peace
--
Allah is one but Islam is a mosaic. The Muslim world is a linguistic tower
of Babel, an ethnic patchwork, a geographical puzzle and a political
kaleidoscope offering a picture of extraordinary doctrinal diversity.
[Slimane Zéghidour]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
robe...@f2s.com
You do not attend to the quotations you make from my posting. The
Church authoritatively condemned slavery in the Second Vatican Council;
before this there had been no authoritative definition and, as I said
there had been various theological positions taken up. That does not
mean that the Church accepted slavery - though individuals may have. I
have given a brief sketch of the Church's struggle against slavery in
my posting of Jan 30. I recommend the internet article "The Truth about
the Catholic Church and Slavery," which destroys many of the
anti-Catholic canards on this issue.
The statement of the Vatican in 1866 is not an authoritative document.
But notice that it only condones the enslavement of someone who has
*lawfully* been deprived of his liberty. In other words the Vatican was
accepting the imposition of servile labour on convicts and prisoners of
war. This is clearly not contrary to natural or divine law; what is
repugnant to us is that the person's services should be saleable, but
this is a minor point.
The Vatican could not prevent people from reading books on the index;
it was a mere formality.
Your choice of material is very selective and unbalanced, and I notice
that you give no references and quote no authorities. The enslavement
of captured enemies was the traditional practice in all societies,
representing an advance on the Muslim custom of killing them. You will
notice that the alleged Catholic position of enslaving only
non-Christians captured in a just war was very limiting; the
enslavement of Africans and native Americans was ruled out. I am not
aware of Muslims being enslaved as a result of the wars against the
Ottomans.
But your posting is just one long distraction from the fact that Islam
did and does accept slavery; Islam has no option: the Koran implicitly
endorses slavery and it was a central Islamic institution for 1300
years. I have quoted the remarks of a leading Saudi cleric in which he
embraces slavery as inseparable from Islam, but it has not been posted.
robe...@f2s.com
You say I concede that for 1900 years the Catholic Church didn't
consider slavery an important subject. Not so: I have given a sketch of
the Catholic struggle against slavery and recommended an internet
article which demolishes the anti-Catholic canards on this issue. But
in the Middle Ages in Europe slavery was not an important subject:
classical chattel slavery had died out. The slavery that existed was
the work of marauding barbarians like the vikings, and this was
condemned not only as slavery but as illegal capture. Another source
of slavery was legal capture in war against non-Christians, ie the
Muslims. This is no more than the imposition of work on prisoners of
war: the prisoner has not been illegally deprived of his freedom. This
is the kind of slavery that Aquinas permitted. But the issue was not a
live one.
I have never said that slavery is unique to Islam; what I have said is
that the Koran commits Muslims to accept slavery and that it was a
central Islamic institution for 1300 years.
It is true that the Emperor Charlemagne 'converted' some Saxons by
force, but in doing this he was not acting as a Christian. Catholicism
was not spread by the sword. On the other hand Islam, on Islamic
principles, *was* spread by the sword: the only Islamic countries that
were peacefully converted are Indonesia and Malaysia. Forced conversion
is a contradictory concept in Christianity.
Please explain your points about the encyclicals you refer to, and give
details on how they can be accessed: you make a blank accusation.
Altway
> You ask is Christianity based on Jesus' teaching or is it a man made
> religion. I get tired of explaining this to Muslims. Christianity is a
religion about Jesus, it is not Jesus's religion: that was Judaism.
Comment:-
Here is a fairly comprehensive answer given to another Christian
who had a similar attitude as yours.
I accept that is what Christianity has been made into.
Now Christianity is a man made religion not based on the teachings of Jesus.
Yes, Muslims did observe that it is "about Jesus" rather than what he
taught.
Muslims do not accept that as a genuine Religion as revealed by God through
His Messenger. For us true Religion is Surrender to God (Quran 3:19-20).
True Christianity would be what Jesus taught.
He taught:-
"Not every one that says unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but He THAT DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Matthew
7:21
"Jesus said unto him: You must love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like it: You must love your neighbour as
yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Matthew 22-37-40
"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent
me." John 7:16
"And I seek not mine own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth." John
8:50
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is
just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which
hath sent me." John 5:30
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is
in heaven...." Matthew 6:9-10
"Thus have ye made the commandments of God of none effect by your
tradition....This people draws nigh unto me with their mouth and honours me
with their lis, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship
me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Matthew 15:6, 8-9
So you are even incorrect in stating that your beliefs have anything to do
with Jesus at all.
The Gospels contain what Jesus taught. Paul appears to have made
Christianity into a religion "about Jesus" But he was contradicting Jesus.
On the other he also observed:-
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel." Galatians 1:6
"Professing themselves wise they became fools and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.." Romans 1:23
Christians had already departed from the teachings of Jesus.
Christian:-
Christians are taught:-
"He that loves father or mother more than me (Jesus) is not worthy of me:
and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he
that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me."
Matthew 10:37-38
Comment:-
Obviously, the cross refers to his burden or task. It cannot mean that he
took away the sins of the world (he is telling others to do the same). Nor
can it mean that his followers should sacrifice themselves literally. But
they are required to sacrifice the worldly life for a spiritual one.
The Islamic attitude is not very different from the Christian though
formulated differently:-
"The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on
themselves (or are closer to him)." 33:6
"Say (O Muhammad), If you love Allah then follow me, and Allah will love you
and forgive you your sins, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Say: Obey
Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn away Allah loves not
disbelievers." 3:31-32
"Yet are there some amongst mankind who take to themselves (for worship)
peers other than Allah; they love them as they should love Allah. But those
who have faith are overflowing with love for Allah." 2:165
"Surely those who swear allegiance unto you (O Muhammad) do but swear
allegiance to Allah; the hand of Allah is above their hands. Therefore,
whoever breaks his faith, he breaks it only to the injury of his own soul,
and whoever fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah, He will grant him a
mighty reward." 48:10
Christian:-
Christianity is more spiritual in that it is based on love, faith and hope.
Islam seems to be more materialistic, physical and sensual as its
description of Paradise shows.
Comment:-
Not all things in Scriptures are to be taken literally. Some things in it
are similitudes or metaphorical and some are allegorical. The description of
Paradise is symbolic as can be seen by reading Quran 2:25-26.
The unbiased reader can also see that faith, love and hope are integral
aspects of Islam. Islam is based on Truth, Compassion and Justice. But there
has been an evolution of Religion such that the emphasis has shifted from
Justice in Hebrewism, to Compassion in Christianity and Truth in Islam. This
is a shift of emphasis from action to motive and from that to knowledge and
awareness. This is an expansion of human faculties by a shift of level. You
can have a set of many separate instructions to do many different things.
But if you are given a motive and purpose then you are free from confinement
to just that set of actions. Versatility increases and much more can be done
intelligently. Though action, motive and ideas are connected so that one
affects the others, it is evident that each also has some independence so
that outer actions can be mechanical or habitual, empty shells. Jesus
certainly criticised the Jewish authorities for this.
However, motives are also limited as to how they are interpreted and
understood and the amount of knowledge and awareness. People do tend to
rationalise, make excuses and attribute false motives to themselves and
others. This leads to much conflict and suffering.
In view of religious evolution I would say that the Christian doctrines may
well have been suitable for the bygone age that was dominated by
Christianity and compatible with the emphasis on Love. The barbarity,
callousness and harshness, especially of the Roman Era, had to be
counteracted before any further progress could be made. However, Islam
introduced the age of Truth and Knowledge, of observation, thought and
science which supersedes or ought to supersede the previous dispensations of
religion. But Christianity is not thereby condemned. It still remains true
that people will be judged according to their actions based on faith.
"They are not all alike. Of the people of the Book there is an upright
community, reciting the revelations of Allah throughout the night, falling
prostrate (in Surrender). They believe in Allah, and in the last day, and
bid intelligent (or right) conduct, and forbid what is stupid (or wrong),
and vie with one another in good works; these are among the righteous."
3:113-114
But , the Quran also tells us:-
"Naught is the life of this world but a game (or pastime) and a sport (or
amusement). Surely, better by far is the abode of the Hereafter for those
who fear (and do their duty). Will you not understand?" 6:32
"This life of the world is nothing but a pastime and game; but, verily, the
abode of the Hereafter, that is life, if they did but knew!" 29:64
"O my people! This life of the world is only a passing enjoyment, and surely
the Hereafter is the enduring home." 40:39
"Know that the life of this world is only sport and play and idle talk and
boasting among yourselves, and a rivalry in the multiplication of wealth and
children; like the vegetation after rain, whereof the growth pleases the
husbandmen; but then it withers away so that you will see it become yellow,
then it becomes dried up and crumbles away; but in the Hereafter is a severe
chastisement and also forgiveness from Allah and His good pleasure; and the
life of this world is naught but means of deception." 57:20
"Wealth and children are an ornament of the life of this world; but good
works which endure are better with your Lord, for recompense, and better for
hope." 18:47
However,
"And when you have performed your rites, remember Allah as you remember your
fathers, or with a keener memory still. There is among men such as says: Our
Lord! Give us in this world; but then they have no portion in the Hereafter.
And some there be who say: Our Lord! Give us in this world good and good in
the Hereafter; and defend us from the torment of the fire!" 2:200-201
"Only they are the believers who believe in Allah and His Messenger, then
afterwards they doubt not and struggle hard with their wealth and their
lives in the way of Allah; they are the truthful (sincere or righteous)
ones." 49:15
"O you who believe! Let not your wealth, or your children, divert you from
the remembrance of Allah; and whoever does that, these are the losers." 63:9
"Then for him who has transgressed all bounds, and prefers the life of this
world, surely, Hell will be his abode. And as for him who had feared
standing in the presence of his Lord and restrains his soul from lust (or
low desires), then surely the Garden, that is his abode." 79:37-51
"O you who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah has made lawful
for you, nor transgress (or commit excess); verily, Allah loves not the
transgressors." 5:87
See also 16:106-109, 17:18-19
Islam is not, therefore, as worldly as you suppose, nor does it discourage
or condemn worldly pursuits. Human beings live on earth and are physical as
well as spiritual entities. These aspects interact. Though the former is a
temporary state and man is on earth to learn. It is a matter of priorities.
Christian:-
In Christianity, God loves all mankind whether they are righteous or
sinners. In fact, God is involved in the world and suffers with man. In
Islam Allah hates sinners.
"And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and
amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the
unjust." 42:40
Comment:-
The concept of Allah is different in Islam. Though He surrounds all things,
He is wholly independent of creation. That is, it depends on Him; He does
not depend on it.
If you mean that in Christianity God does not punish sinners then you are
obviously mistaken. What point would there be in religion, in the
instruction of God, if these were not to be followed.
The word "Love" as other words, can be understood in three senses -
according to action, motive or principle. An action could be hurtful for a
certain time and this pain can be construed as malevolence. But the motive
behind it may be to do a greater good. When an injury causes pain, this
alerts us to something that harms and motivates us to seek and apply a cure.
This pain, though unpleasant and regarded as evil is, therefore, really
good. However, the motive itself has to be judged in a greater context of
existence and therefore, in terms of the principles that underlie it.
God has created the Universe and mankind for a purpose and He most certainly
loves mankind because He has given them the faculties and the guidance
through Messengers by which they can fulfil themselves. The rewards and
punishments are also forms of guidance towards a goal and away from its
opposite. Does the parent hate his child whom he punishes when he or she
goes astray and is in danger of destruction? He is Compassionate and
Merciful. He rewards and forgives sins.
"Those who give charity, both in prosperity and in adversity, for those who
control their rage, and those who are forgiving towards mankind. Allah loves
the good. Those who when they do an evil, or wrong themselves, remember
Allah, and ask forgiveness for their sins - and who forgives sins save Allah
alone? - And do not knowingly repeat the wrong they did." 3:134-135
"Say: O my servants! Who have acted extravagantly (transgressed) against
their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of Allah; surely Allah forgives
all faults; surely He is the Forgiving the Merciful." 39:53
However,
"Allah is only bound to forgive those who do evil through ignorance and then
repent. Surely, these are the ones to whom Allah is relenting. Allah is
Knower Wise." 4:17
Obviously those who do not repent do not change inwardly and will continue
to do evil.
"Verily, Allah does not forgive associating anything with Him, but He
pardons anything short of that, to whomsoever He will; but whoever
associates aught with Allah, he hath strayed far into error." 4:116
The reason for this is that it is the most fundamental error from which all
other errors arise. It creates a fundamental multiplicity in the mind and
soul that leads to inner and outer conflicts and disintegration.
The Islamic attitude differs from the Christian and is formulated thus:-
"That no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another, and that man
shall have nothing but what he strives for, and that his striving shall be
seen. Then shall he be rewarded for it with the fullest reward; and that
your Lord is the final goal. " 53:38-42
"And he who strives, strives only for his own soul; for verily, Allah is
altogether Independent of (His) creatures (or the worlds)." 29:6
"Say: O people of the Book! You have no ground to stand on till you stand
fast by the Torah and the Gospel, and what is revealed to you from your
Lord." But what has been revealed to you from your Lord will of a surety
increase many of them in rebellion and disbelief. Vex not thyself then for a
people who disbelieve. Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, and
the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last
Day, and does what is right, they shall not fear, nor shall they grieve."
5:68-69
"Every sect has a goal to which Allah turns him; but do you strive onwards
together to do good works; wherever you are Allah will bring you all
together; verily, Allah has power over all things." 2:148
"Say: O you people of the Book, come to an agreement between us and you,
that we will not serve other than Allah, or associate anything with him, nor
take others for Lords rather than Allah. But if they turn away then say:
Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered." 3:64
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> As usual your link proves to be a wild goose chase: ...
<snip> ...
Comment (Tongue-in-cheek):-
I think you are being somewhat over critical. Isn't the first hit on the
search page the celebrated "Catholic Encyclopaedia"? Do you want to abnegate
everything that they have written as rubbish, which most Muslims would agree
to in principle?
Although, I can imagine many discerning subscribers, Muslim or otherwise,
see the chuckling irony in "the wild goose chase" analogy, especially coming
from such a hard-line Catholic dogmatist. Perhaps, Islamic teaching is
rubbing off on you after all and, at last, you're beginning to understand
the wonder that this Truth provides.
--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain. [Hippocrates: The
first Aphorism]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
robe...@f2s.com
You have no scruple in argument: I do not concede that no country in
the OIC condones slavery, in fact I demonstrate the opposite. I have
amply illustrated the condoned practice of slavery in Islamic
countries.
You say I single Islamic countries out for attack, when the very
quotation of mine you cite illustrates that slavery is practised in
many non-Islamic African countries. This is part of their own inherited
cultural tradition. In Mauretania and Sudan that cultural tradition
was, and is, Islamic and what we find there is Islamic slavery: jihad
by Arabs against Christians followed by enslavement - it's the classic
Islamic expansionist strategy. In these countries slavery is supported
by an Islamic ideology, based in the Koran, going back 1400 years,
which is the expression of a sophisticated social and cultural
tradition. If slavery is practised in Christian African countries, this
is not an expression of their Christianity: the Catholic Church does
not teach the permissibility of slavery and support its establishment
in society. The Church has campaigned vigorously against slavery and
still does, but the Islamic government of Sudan, for instance,
obstructs attempts by Christian workers to free slaves. The people who
practise slavery in Sudan are not criminal elements, but are armed and
supported by the government to further its Islamic political aims.
I describe Mauretania as the Islamic Republic of Mauretania because
that is what it is, and so that the reader can be better informed. As I
have explained, slavery in these countries is supported by Islamic
tradition and Islamic orthodoxy, which accepts slavery.
I am not confined in my comments to what the American Anti-Slavery
Group says, and that I am not is not evidence of distortion.
That anti-slavery groups do or do not accuse Islam of condoning slavery
is neither here not there. I do not depend upon any such accusation for
my argument. Once again you show your lack of a sense of logic.
I have never suggested all Muslims condone slavery; what I criticize is
not Muslims but *Islam* and I have demonstrated that the Koran, and
therefore Islam, does condone slavery and has done so for 1400 years. I
have never attacked the morality of the Muslim subscribers to this
forum, but I must be free to attack their religious beliefs where I
think they are grievously mistaken.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c60e23$afd03560$c1634ed5@rhdt...
Maybe the it's an opportune time, in summary form, for "straight thinking"
subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, to recap and remind ourselves of the
arguments that have been presented traced from the beginning. See this
link:-
The thrust of Robert Houghton's original thesis was that no Islamic
government can abolish slavery because of what is written in the Qur'an,
consequently, these present-day Islamic governments, and their Muslim
populations, condone and permit slavery.
In many replies, it was irrefutably demonstrated that every member state of
the "Organisation of Islamic Conference" (OIC), which is virtually every
Islamic state in the modern world, has enacted governmental legislation
abolishing and criminalising slavery. Robert Houghton has even unwittingly
confirmed this himself in his recent references to the United Nations and
Amnesty International reports on slavery.
Robert Houghton then goes on to assert that sex with a captive concubines is
de facto rape, under modern morality standards, but then artfully dodges the
rape allegation when its used against Christians (e.g. St. Augustine) who
indulged in exactly the same practices. When it's demonstrated that the
Bible also explicitly permits sex with concubines he dodges this issue by
artfully saying that's only in the "Old Testament", meaning that the Bible
in its entirety doesn't somehow apply to Christians.
Robert Houghton then proceeds to hyperbolise, and I quote in full, "They
are, however, good evidence of the attitudes and actions of the early
Muslims: they were felt to have a religious sanction. The Koran and the
hadith condone rape, adultery, and fornication." When its pointed out that
one could make exactly the same sort of hyperbolised accusations to
stigmatise early Christians using the Bible, this is left unanswered or is
swamped in veiled bluster, banal obfuscation and puerile rhetoric.
Robert Houghton demands proof that his "crooked thinking" isn't distorted,
ill-founded, and ignorant, well all I can say in response to that, is let
his posting record speak for itself?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1138958924.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You accuse Muslims and Islam of lying, issuing falsehoods, being reckless
with the truth, and being intellectually dishonest. Now let's use the same
criteria to analyse the "crooked thinking" written in your post for the
benefit of "straight thinkers", Muslim or otherwise.
<snip> ...
> You say I concede that for 1900 years the Catholic Church didn't
> consider slavery an important subject. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You introduced elsewhere that *important* Catholic doctrine had to be
formally declared in "magisterium", isn't that correct? When *important*
evidence is produced in precisely that "magisterium" form, you now have the
"crooked thinking" audacity to duplicitously deny that its chronological
historically isn't significant. So I repeat, once more, doesn't the only two
*important* papal encyclicals on "slavery", issued in "magisterium" in the
late 19th century, confirm irrefutably that the Catholic Church didn't
consider slavery *important* until that epoch?
<snip> ...
> Not so: I have given a sketch of
> the Catholic struggle against slavery ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How can my previous thread be deemed by yourself as "not so"? Haven't I have
produced irrefutable evidence, according to your own *importance* criteria,
that the formally introduced struggle, by the Catholic Church, against
slavery only commenced in 1890. What is the basis of your "sketch", other
than "crooked thinking", when compared to actual documentary evidence
produced in "magisterium" that you had originally insisted upon? Is this
another double-standard you are using?
<snip> ...
> ... and recommended an internet article which demolishes the anti-Catholic
> canards on this issue....
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Are you now saying that formal encyclicals produced in "magisterium" are
superseded by your unlinked and informal "internet article"? How can a
formally published encyclical in "magisterium", produced by the infallible
Church itself be considered by any sane person as being "anti-Catholic"?
Isn't this logically inconsistent? How can a self-produced article demolish
itself? Is the infallible pope capable of becoming an "anti-Catholic canard
(i.e. a deliberately misleading fabrication)"? Aren't these all examples and
sufficient of "crooked thinking" by yourself?
<snip> ....
> But in the Middle Ages ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't this another example of a "crooked thinking" trick, by "changing the
subject"? What has the encyclical, published in 1890, got to do with the
"Middle Ages"? Or as Thouless [1953 - p. 194] states:- "Diversion to another
question, a side issue, or by irrelevant objects".
<snip> ...
> I have never said that slavery is unique to Islam; ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't this another "crooked thinking" trick by " selection, discrete
omission and implication"? So you now concede that "Rape of Captives and
Slaves" was a common practice in many societies and civilisations regardless
of religious affiliation. Then why didn't any of your many unbalanced and
distorted threads mention that fact? If everyone was doing it back then and
there in practice, as you now suddenly concede, why just select Islam for
special mention? Or as Thouless [1953 - p. 193] states:- "Proof by selected
instances".
<snip> ...
> Please explain your points about the encyclicals you refer to, and give
> details on how they can be accessed: you make a blank accusation.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This is another "crooked thinking" trick, "asking for a further explanation
or definition", which is self-evident in the production of the documents
themselves. As if you didn't know that its the chronological dates when
these "slavery" encyclicals were promulgated establishes, under your
demanded "magisterium" criteria, the *important* fact, that the Church only
started to formally attack "slavery" subsequent to their promulgation.
Nevertheless, now do you, in all conscience, believe that discerning
subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, shouldn't consider that your previously
mentioned reckless assertions, e.g. "you accuse Muslims and Islam of lying,
issuing falsehoods, being reckless with the truth, and being intellectually
dishonest', are baseless? Isn't this post sufficient evidence that "crooked
thinking" doesn't work, and that your frequent anti-Islamic posts are
fundamentally flawed, using the foregoing assertions, introduced by
yourself?
You have a choice, no more bluster or prevarication's, own up and confess,
face the "crooked thinking" bugbear in reality, apologise and repent. But
then I'm a "straight thinking" bigot, and in that sense thoroughly
prejudiced, of course!
BTW, isn't "canard" the French word for duck, which might be a very good
idea if your engaged in a 'war-of- words' from the trenches with
accomplished "straight thinkers" in the subscriber community, Muslim or
otherwise?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
rejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I suspect that the author of your Wikipedia article has been influenced
> by the anti-Catholic prejudice of most secularised historians when he
> averrs that nearly all Christian leaders before the 17th century
> recorded slavery as consistent with Christian theology. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
It's laughable that you fallaciously accuse authors in Wikipedia of
"anti-Catholic prejudice influenced by secularised historians", when you as
an author have consistently attacked Islam and Muslims on the same
(anti-Islamic) grounds. What posts from yourself can you nominate that don't
contain anti-Islamic prejudice? Can you link a few for our benefit? How many
posts have you sourced from the notorious anti-Islamic website "Answering
Islam"? How many your posts have been influenced by Christian missionaries
who aver that Muslims are heathens and Islam is a false religion?
Once more, doesn't this confirms what many discerning subscribers, Muslim or
otherwise, have been telling you about your anti-Islamic distortions all
along, which is your propensity to fallaciously "suspect" everyone, Muslim
or otherwise, who disagrees with your dogmatic opinions.
Isn't it your own "suspicions" about Muslims that you confuse with
"evidence", which causes these irrational contradictions? As if, any of
these frequently unsubstantiated "suspicions" is undeniable proof of
anything outside of your own preconceived notions.
What proof or hard evidence can you provide that substantiates your claim
that the author, or authors, of the interactive Wikipedia article,
referenced at this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible-based_advocacy_of_slavery
are, in fact, "prejudiced", "anti-Catholic", or "secularised"? None, that
any discerning subscriber can establish, I would suspect!
<snip> ...
>You might be
> interested in the excellent internet article "The Truth about the
> Catholic Church and Slavery". I summarise a few points: ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What do discerning subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, expect from a partisan
publication like "Christianity Today"? See the relevant "catholic propaganda
mouthpiece" articles contained in this search (301 hits)
But, then the term "excellent" is always subjective (i.e. taking place
within the mind and modified by individual bias). Not that a notorious
""catholic propaganda mouthpiece" has anything to do with anti-Islamic bias.
Which pretty much sums up your many anti-Islamic posts, which you feign
innocence about when questioned.
But, let's restate and comparison purposes what a neutral Wikipedia states:
"However, nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recorded
slavery, within specific Biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian
theology."
Except, perhaps, the Catholic Church leaders who recorded that it was
consistent until 1890 (as the excellent Christianity Today article
unwittingly mentions)?
Aren't there many non-Muslim critics of this apologetic "whitewash"
(i.e. a specious or deceptive clearing that attempts to gloss over failings
and defects) article, even from some Christians themselves? See this search
link (16 hits) for details:-
Didn't the actual referenced article opening paragraph state:- "Some
Catholic writers claim that it was not until 1890 that the Roman Catholic
Church repudiated slavery. A British priest has charged that this did not
occur until 1965. ..."?
Doesn't the 1890 date refer to the first papal encyclical issued against
slavery, that I mentioned elsewhere? Didn't this, in fact, demolish your
inconsequential argument that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, had always
forbidden slavery?
Which raises the question, why should rational Muslims then consider
something which Christians dispute and deny amongst themselves? Do you have
an altruistic answer that isn't anti-Islamic? This I somehow doubt. Will my
suspicions then prove to be correct?
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Your posting is unintelligible.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So, now at last, you concede that "straight thinking" posts are
unintelligible to "crooked thinkers". Personally, I would have thought that
self-evident. The "straight thinking" Truth that is Islam, that is.
<snip> ...
> ... You offer to take up a point from my
> posting, but don't. You refer to "these grounds", but the phrase has no
> reference.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How intelligible are these sloppy and meaningless generalisations? What
"points"? What "grounds"? Isn't this idle speculation of a non-specific
kind, or, as you say, a meaningless "phrase with no reference"?
<snip> ...
> The usages of "Christianity" are clear enough. You endlessly
> repeat the falsehood that the Bible is believed infallible. No-one has
> been telling me that the Catholic Church is fallible, and if they had
> it wouldn't be relevant.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Doesn't the papacy say and confirm in its issued formal doctrines that the
Bible is infallible? Here's the appropriate official references issued by
the relevant papal authorities in magisterium:-
Reference #1:
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap 2:
"On Revelation" Denzinger 1787
Biblical Commission, Decree of June 18, 1915, Denzinger 2180
Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923, EB 499
Reference #2:
Pius XII encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Sept. 30, 1943, AAS 35, p.
314.
Reference #3:
First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9, Coll Lac VII,
522.
Reference #4:
Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 1893, Denzinger 1952.
References #5:
St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 2, 9, 20
St. Augustine, Epistle 82, 3
St. Thomas, "On Truth," Question 12, Article 2, c.
Council of Trent, Session IV, Scriptural Canons, Denzinger 783
Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus
Pius XII, encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.
So all these formally issued papal edicts are "falsehoods", issued and
sanctified by the infallible Church and pope? Do you think that the
ecclesiastical authorities in Rome are then lying to the adherents? One
could then appropriately rejoin, by saying are these then not "papal bull"
or just plain "bull"!
Notwithstanding, "straight thinkers" who endlessly confirm what the Church
states by quoting its official doctrines and encyclicals is spreading
"falsehoods" and not "truths"? Isn't this another prima facie case of
"crooked thinking"?
<snip> ...
> Muslims do 'believe' that the Koran is infallible, though its gross
> errors are demonstrable: they cope with this by going into denial -
> thus Islam damages the mind.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But the infallible pope says the same about the inerrant bible (See previous
section for confirmation)? Do you still deny this self-evident truth as is
easily confirmed from their verifying the facts from their own archives and
official documents? The puerile denial argument would then appear to emanate
from your side, would it not? One could say, in fact, based on transcripts
of your uncertain posts that you appear to be remarkable ignorant of both
Islam and Catholicism? Isn't that the bane of all "crooked thinkers"?
<snip> ...
> My position - that the Church for centuries gave no authoritative
> teaching on slavery - has no bearing on the issue of infallibility.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Doesn't the egotistical "My position" exemplify false pride, which is a
representative characteristic of most vain "crooked thinkers"? Isn't that a
sin?
<snip> ...
> You have to distinguish between the opinions of theologians and the
> teaching of the Magisterium.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But I have, haven't I. Aren't the papal edicts and council encyclicals, et
al, referenced above not formally issued correctly under "solemn
magisterium" (i.e. formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes)?
But I expect that you will offer up another "crooked thinking" excuse to
deny it.
Altway
Zuiko Azumazi
news:44490p...@individual.net...
<snip> ...
> > The impossibility of the Mosaic Law's "borrowing" from the Code of
> > Hamurabbi is shown by chronology. The Code dates from the middle of
> > the 18th century BCE. Moses lived, perhaps, about 1200 BCE.
<snip> ...
> I dont see how these data should be a proof for the impossibility of the
> borrowing. Were it vice versa, thus Moses having lived before Hamurabbi,
> this would make it impossible for the former to borrow from the latter.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Ironically, isn't it fascinating to discover that the misleading "Hammarabi"
argument, against Islam, that's being presented is, in fact, innumerate? One
could ask what discerning subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, could coherently
expect from such an ill-conceived opinion emanating from this source?
Out of general interest, to Muslims in particular, I thought this extract
from "The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII", might demonstrate the
uncertainty in the Catholic camp over the chronology surrounding these
*borrowings*:-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07125a.htm
Extract:-
"There is not so great a divergence of opinions as to the date to be
assigned to Hammurabi. The King-lists would suggest 2342 B. C. as the date
of his accession; but it is now commonly believed that these lists need to
be interpreted, for from the "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings",
published by L. W. King (1907), it appears that the first and second
Babylonian dynasties were not successive, but in part contemporary; the
first kings of the second dynasty (that of Shesh-ha) ruled not at Babylon,
but on "the Sea-country". Other indications furnished by Nabonidus,
Assurbanipal, and Berosus lead us to lower the above date. Thureau-Daugin
and Ungnad place the reign of Hammurabi between 2130 and 2088 B. C.; Tofteen
adopts the dates 2121-2066 B. C.; King suggests 1990- 1950 B. C.; Father
Scheil, O.P., says 2056 B. C. is the probable date of the king's accession,
which Father Dhorme places in 2041. Hammurabi's was therefore a long reign.
Since the victorious expedition of Kutir-Nahhunte, in 2285, against
Babylonia, the latter country had been in a condition of vassalage to Elam.
Under Hammurabi's predecessors, it gradually improved its condition; but it
was reserved to him to free it from the foreign yoke. In the thirtieth year
of his reign, Hammurabi defeated the army of Kudur-Lagamar (?), King of
Elam, thereby winning Babylonia's independence; the ensuing year he
completed this success by conquering the lands of Iamuthala (W. of Elam) and
Larsa, and taking, in consequence, the title of King of Sumer and Akkad.
Other triumphs followed: Rabiqu, Dupliash, Kar-Shamash, possibly Turukku,
Kakmum, and Sabe fell into his power, so that towards the end of his life he
had knit together into a mighty empire N. and S. Babylonia, and very likely
extended his sway, at least nominally, over the land of Amurru as far as
Chanaan."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII
Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
End extract
Isn't this is just another prime "crooked thinking" example, that proves the
author, of the above referenced riposte, isn't verifying any of his perverse
opinions even from authoritative Catholic sources. And yet, he still expects
subscribers to take him seriously when he's pretentiously criticising Islam
and Muslims. We might well ask, shouldn't it be common practice for serious
commentators, to first verify their opinions before airing them in SRI?
Otherwise we will be wasting our time constantly responding to meaningless
threads created under this maxim "Add a few drops of malice to a half truth
and you have an absolute truth." [Eric Hoffer]?
Notwithstanding, the irony, that "crooked thinkers" can always logically
make 2 + 2 = 5!
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> The New Catholic Commentary is not infallible; perhaps you would care
> to quote what has so taken you.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You constantly insinuate that Muslims are in denial over Islam 's doctrines
, custom and practices. You perpetually hold up writings of Muslim scholars
as firm "evidence" of you argument.
Notwithstanding, this fact, when another subscriber, Muslim or otherwise,
presents contrary information from an recognised "authoritative" Catholic
(Christian) source you slough it off under a non-specific "it's not
infallible" banner.
Now what does "The New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture" [1969] p iv,
actually affirm about itself:-
"The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur is a declaration that this book is
considered to be free from doctrinal and moral error."
Why should Muslims then believe your odd-ball opinions over what the book
confirms about itself ? Isn't "Imprimatur" stamp not ample evidence that
this book has been duly authorised by papal authorities and, in addition,
endorsed by Cardinal Heenan in its "Foreword"?
Doesn't your rejoinder, once more, signify that you are arbitrarily applying
a fallacious "double-standard" when judging articles about Islam and
Muslims? In general, doesn't this unscrupulously false picture and such
conspicuous misinformation create an artful illusion intended to deceive the
unwary?
Wouldn't you call your preceding affirmation "crooked thinking"?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1138899157....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> You have no scruple in argument: ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I would take this seriously if I thought that you knew what the word
"scruple" (i.e. hesitate on moral grounds) meant in practise. Can you
provide
subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, with any evidence, from your posting
history in SRI, where you have "hesitated on moral grounds"? Haven't all
your anti-Islamic posts, without exception, been (using your own pejorative
epithets) "scurrilous", a "smear", "distortion" and a "slur"?
<snip> ...
> I do not concede that no country in
> the OIC condones slavery, in fact I demonstrate the opposite. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Can you provide the appropriate link where you have demonstrated that artful
contrived falsehood? All you have demonstrated, is that some criminal
elements in some Muslim countries break their countries laws against
slavery. Which OIC
country has NOT promulgated a law outlawing and abolishing slavery?
When did your specious allegations become de facto "demonstrations" outside
of you own mind? Are the contents of this post "demonstrations" or unfounded
"allegations":-
news:43d2f93a$0$26131$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
What would you prefer other subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, to believe?
<snip> ...
> I have amply illustrated the condoned practice of slavery in Islamic
> countries. ..
<snip> ...
Comment:-
All you have illustrated is that there are criminal elements in Muslim
society that a breaking the slavery laws. Is there any society, anywhere in
the world, that doesn't have its criminal elements that break that societies
laws?
<snip>
> You say I single Islamic countries out for attack, when the very
> quotation of mine you cite illustrates that slavery is practised in
> many non-Islamic African countries.
<snip>
Comment:-
That quotation of yours was prompted subsequently from my previous post in
the thread, see this link:-
news:43d9803c$0$15129$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Which states and I quote the appropriate extract:-
"Hasn't it been clearly demonstrated before, to you in SRI that every
Islamic country (OIC member) has abolished slavery and made it a crime?
Hasn't this been verified in United Nations reports mentioned in the links
you have already received? Isn't this sufficient independent and
authoritative evidence that refutes and demolishes your regurgitated claims?
Is this your idea of the much vaunted 'academic' disinterest and detachment
and "peer review" that you carelessly discard in other posts?"...
End extract
Now, how do you explain that this earlier post from myself was, as you
artfully suggest, a "very quotation of mine"? Didn't you "concede" the point
by replying to it in your subsequent rejoinder?
<snip> ...
> This is part of their own inherited
> cultural tradition.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What does this obscuration mean? Are you implying that anyone's "inherited
cultural traditions" that's been subsequently criminalised isn't a criminal
act? Following your fallacious analogy, wouldn't that mean "piracy" is
acceptable to the English because it was "part of their own inherited
cultural tradition"?
<snip> ...
> In Mauretania and Sudan that cultural tradition
> was, and is, Islamic and what we find there is Islamic slavery:
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So in your flawed analogy, then the Christian-English and, more recently
Christian-Americans that had a "cultural tradition" that involved slavery is
Christian and what we find there is Christian slavery? Doesn't this apply to
existing trafficking in sex slaves in Christian countries like the United
Kingdom and America? See this search link for the sordid detail:-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=sex+slaves+%22tafficking%22&btnG=Search
Would you then say, as you are arguing above, that if a Muslim then alleged
these 'Christian' governments condoned trafficking and sex slavery? Would
you respond in the affirmative or the negative? If the latter, on what
equitable basis would you arrive at that conclusion?
Notwithstanding, this comparison, would you object if any Muslim in Usenet
said that the Catholic Church condoned paedophilia, sodomy and rape because
a few rogue priests frequently indulged, over many years, in such criminal
and immoral activities? Isn't there a "cultural tradition" here also? See
this search link:-
<snip> ...
> jihad by Arabs against Christians followed by enslavement - it's the
classic
> Islamic expansionist strategy. In these countries slavery is supported
> by an Islamic ideology, based in the Koran, going back 1400 years,
<snip> ..
Comment:-
Deconstruction by paraphrasing, "war by oppressors followed by enslavement -
it's the classic theme of imperial expansionist strategy. In all conquered
countries slavery is supported by imperialist ambition and ideology, based
on the divine right of kings and conquerors, going back to time
immemorial.", so what else is new?
<snip> ...
> which is the expression of a sophisticated social and cultural
> tradition. ..
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I would say barbarism sum's up this inhumanity better.
<snip> ...
> If slavery is practised in Christian African countries, this
> is not an expression of their Christianity:
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If slavery is practised in any country it's not an expression of any
religion as I've pointed out above. Only "crooked thinkers" could jump to
that false conclusion. The sex slavery practised in Europe and America is
proof of that, is it not?
Although, some Muslim s from the Cape could cogently argue that the
appalling apartheid regime in South Africa was an expression of the Dutch
Reform Church's - Christianity, but that's another story.
<snip> ...
> the Catholic Church does
> not teach the permissibility of slavery and support its establishment
> in society.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Nor does Islam. Only "crooked thinking' Islamophobes believe those
sensational myths widely published on stridently anti-Islamic and Christian
missionary websites and the more lurid tabloids.
<snip> ...
> The Church has campaigned vigorously against slavery and
> still does, ...
Comment:-
Yes, since promulgation of 1890 papal encyclical, referenced elsewhere.
<snip> ...
> but the Islamic government of Sudan, for instance,
> obstructs attempts by Christian workers to free slaves. ..
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Visit this search link (886,000 hits) for a balanced overview:-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=government+slavery+%22sudan%22&btnG=Search
What dose the first site reveal, see this link:-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_sud.htm
Extract:-
Overview of the Sudan situation:
The government of Sudan has been widely accused of condoning slavery in that
country. While there is convincing evidence that some slavery does occur
there, the total picture is far more complex. There are at least 4 ways in
which large numbers of Sudanese men, women and children lose their freedom:
Some marauding, government-backed militias, who are mainly from the Baggara
tribe in western Sudan, attack primarily villages of the Dinka tribe in
southern Sudan. These raids are one manifestation of a long-standing
religious/racial/language conflict in that country that has been fueling a
civil war for the past 40 years. More lives have allegedly been lost in
Sudan's civil war than in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo combined. 3
Because of the civil war, tribal animosities in the south have been
aggravated. An ancient tribal practice has once more become common: women
and children are being abducted by rival tribes. The victims are kidnapped
and held until their relatives can scrape up enough ransom money to buy them
back.
The Sudan Foundation, a non-Muslim group, claims that "Outside those areas
controlled by the Sudanese Government, the old practice of inter-tribal
feuding continues. In these raids prisoners are taken, who must then be
ransomed. What looks like the purchase of slaves is actually the redemption
of prisoners of war." Quoted in Ref. 2
The Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), which is fighting the Sudanese
government, has raided villagers and forced men and children to work as
laborers or porters for the rebel army. Some have been forcibly conscripted
into the army.
When money changes hands, It is not necessarily clear whether a victim is
being released from slavery, or abduction, or their POW status.
Unfortunately, media coverage has not been noted for its accuracy. Some
captives being redeemed or ransomed are presented on TV and in the print
media as slaves being given their freedom.
Some Christian and other groups have adopted the controversial practice of
traveling to Sudan and buying captives' freedom. This practice does have two
positive effects:
It buys the freedom of thousands of slaves, abductees and prisoners of war.
It focuses world attention on the profoundly immoral practices in Sudan.
On the other hand. it has some negative effects:
It increases the profitability of slave traffic and abductions, and thus
probably encourages more slavery, kidnapping, and capturing of prisoners of
war.
It is an affront to human dignity for a person to be bought and sold as a
piece of merchandise.
There may be inadequate follow-up care. The Human Rights Watch reported
that in 1999-JAN, 1,050 children and women were freed, but some did not have
families waiting to receive them. Many "needy people [were] turned loose in
a zone which has not yet recovered from famine." 9 "
Religious Tolerance. Org.
Copyright date: 1998-AUG-5
Latest update: 1999-MAY-18
Author: B.A. Robinson
<snip> ...
> The people who
> practise slavery in Sudan are not criminal elements, but are armed and
> supported by the government to further its Islamic political aims.
<snip> ..
Comment:-
Where, for instance, are these specious allegations mentioned or confirmed
in the Christian article linked above?
<snip> ...
> I have never attacked the morality of the Muslim subscribers to this
> forum, but I must be free to attack their religious beliefs where I
> think they are grievously mistaken.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
There are many regular subscribers to this newsgroup who 'attack' the
religious beliefs of Muslims. The issue is that these regulars critics, in
most cases, don't resort to "crooked thinking" or blindly post inflammatory
agitprop articles from stridently anti-Islamic websites. Take one hint from
your previous sentence the word "grievous" which means "shockingly brutal or
cruel", which tends to highlight the communicative style you have wittingly
adopted. This pugnacious style doesn't foster understanding or create a
climate where you are likely to be understood.
robe...@f2s.com
I don't intend to try to disentangle your barrages of misunderstandings
and false logic: your strategy is clear - overwhelm and wear down your
opponent rather than meet him in disciplined argument. It seems that
for many Muslims the point of argument is not to arrive at the truth
with evidence and logic but to come out on top by any means:
distraction, provocation, sophistry, bare-faced denial of the truth
etc.
There is one point that I will take up: the alleged Catholic belief in
the inerrancy of the Bible. If you care to look up Dei Verbum on the
internet you will find expositions of this Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation, made at the Second Vatican Council, 1965. The
Wikipedia article is a fair introduction. In that constitution you will
read that in interpreting the Bible you must take into account what the
writer intended to assert, what meaning was intended, and the literary
forms in which scripture is cast, among other things. The Gospel
writers did not intend an absolute verbal, historical, accuracy when
writing of Jesus; they were dependent on tradition and testimony. They
were not writing in the modern form of historical biography. Hence,
they cannot be taken as infallible and inerrant.
This whole long digression is one great distraction from the fact that
for 1300 years (and more) slavery and the African slave trade were
central institutions of Islam.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1138225794....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> As usual your link proves to be a wild goose chase: ...
<snip> ...
Comment (Tongue-in-cheek):-
Putting aside the fact that Muslims believe that Islam and the Qur'an is
Word of God, which is the Truth that requires no further proof.
This is the way your rejoinder seems to me, "crooked thinkers" often go on a
"wild goose chase" that is the fruitless pursuit of the critically
unattainable, whereas, inversely "straight thinkers" believe that the
discovery of truth is never fruitless or unattainable.
Nonetheless, I think you are being somewhat over critical. Isn't the first
hit on the search page the celebrated "Catholic Encyclopaedia"?
Do you want to abnegate everything that they have written as rubbish, which
most Muslims would agree too in principle?
Although, I can imagine many discerning subscribers, Muslim or otherwise,
see the chuckling irony in "the wild goose chase" analogy, especially coming
from such a hard-line Catholic dogmatist.
Perhaps, Islamic teaching is slowly rubbing off on you after all, by
associative propinquity to "straight thinking" Muslims? One could even
cogently argue, that under your volition, you have become a "captive and
slave" of this Islamic newsgroup.
Possibly, you're now beginning to understand the fascination and wonder that
the ironclad 'Truth of Islam', provides its followers.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139152752.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> There is one point that I will take up: the alleged Catholic belief in
> the inerrancy of the Bible.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Although some subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, might be interested in the
Catholic stance on bible inerrancy, it's not within SRI moderator
guidelines, so posts would be rejected on 'relevant to Islam' grounds. The
only reason it was discussed earlier was the comparisons being made between
Muslim belief in the Qur'an and Christian believe in the bible from a
inerrancy perspective, that's all.
Obviously, what Catholics or Christians want to debate between themselves is
of no concern to most subscribers. However, if you want to pursue the
'inerrancy' issue you might join some of these other 'groups' rather than
one dedicated to Islam the True Faith. That's your choice. Here's a 'group'
listing where bible inerrancy is being actively discussed, although, I note
you aren't participating in any of them.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139152752.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> I don't intend to try to disentangle your barrages of misunderstandings
> and false logic: your strategy is clear - overwhelm and wear down your
> opponent rather than meet him in disciplined argument.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So now you concede that subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, should disentangle
themselves from barrages of misunderstandings. Of course a "crooked thinker"
would believe that is alright for themselves to indulge in such 'barraging'
activities but not anyone else. But now you have made the concession are you
going to stop doing it? Or are you going to plead another case of puerile
abuse?
Would your resolution include all of your anti-Islamic agitprop? Aren't they
full of preconceived misunderstandings and false logic, crooked thinking,
untruths, and prejudice concerning Muslims and Islam? Hasn't all of these
crooked thinking attributes been clearly demonstrated by the reviews made of
the transcripts of your posts to SRI?
This isn't my opinion, but simply an exercise in holding up the mirror and
showing you the self-incriminating and contradictory evidence contained in
your own inaccurate and biased posts. Aren't your assertions open to
scrutiny, criticism and verification? Can't subscribers cross question what
you have reported and judge your credibility accordingly? Why do you object
when you have been frequently caught out being reckless and inconsistent
with the truth? Isn't denial and the feigned plea of innocence the typical
behavioural response of the serial recidivist?
Have you considered that the volume of my critical responses would of course
be far less if your posts were balanced and accurate, and not full of
"crooked thinking" tricks?
You are of course entitled to your own opinion about my responses.
Notwithstanding, shouldn't such opinion be substantiated by indicating which
of my posts fall into "misunderstandings and false logic" category? Which
you haven't done. If that can't be done then isn't your opinion false?
<snip> ...
> for many Muslims the point of argument is not to arrive at the truth
> with evidence and logic but to come out on top by any means:
> distraction, provocation, sophistry, bare-faced denial of the truth
> etc.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And where have you actually demonstrated this "truth"? Hasn't the situation
been exactly the inverse of what you are suggesting? Any discerning
subscriber, Muslim or otherwise, can trace your posting history and see that
for themselves. What evidence can you link to in SRI that substantiates
these unsupported allegations? Or is this just artfully contrived "crooked
thinking" tricks, what Thouless calls: "suggestion by repeated affirmation"
(pp 111-114); and, "suggestions by use of a confident manner" (pp 114-115)?
Doesn't your post reinforce Thouless's "crooked thinking" mentality once
more? Reference this link for further detail about Robert H. Thouless:-
http://www.246.dk/38tricks.html
Extract:-
This is taken from "Straight and crooked thinking" by Robert H. Thouless,
Pan Books, ISBN 0 330 24127 3, copyright 1930, 1953 and 1974. Heartily
recommended.
... The present list is, however, something quite different. Its aim is
practical and not theoretical. It is intended to be a list which can be
conveniently used for detecting dishonest modes of thought which we shall
actually meet in arguments and speeches. Sometimes more than one of the
tricks mentioned would be classified by the logician under one heading, some
he would omit altogether, while others that he would put in are not to be
found here. Practical convenience and practical importance are the criteria
I have used in this list. If we have a plague of flies in the house we buy
fly-papers and not a treatise on the zoological classification of Musca
domestica. ...
End extract.
Knud Larsen
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43e5520f$0$15124$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Comment:-
> Can you provide the appropriate link where you have demonstrated that
> artful
> contrived falsehood? All you have demonstrated, is that some criminal
> elements in some Muslim countries break their countries laws against
> slavery. Which OIC
> country has NOT promulgated a law outlawing and abolishing slavery?
"Slavery doesn't exist"
>From the UN:
"Slavery dates back for centuries in Niger. When the country claimed
independence from France in 1960, the practice was outlawed, in theory. It
was finally criminalised - with a 30-year jail-term on conviction - in 2003,
after five years of lobbying by Anti-Slavery International and Nigerien
human-rights group Timidria.
Fearing imprisonment under the new law, a Tuareg chief who headed 19 clans
in western Niger promised in late 2004 that he would release every one of
the 7,000 slaves owned by his people for generations.
Timidria and its partners were overjoyed. After a decade of tireless work,
the first slaves ever released in Niger would be set free at a desert
ceremony set for 5 March 2005, in the village of Inates, 277 km northwest of
the capital, Niamey.
International observers and journalists were invited to witness the historic
event.
Anti-Slavery International called it “exceptional” - a worldwide one-off,
unlike anything seen since the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade
more than a century earlier.
Instead, on the day, no slaves were released.
U-turns and manouevres
Arissal Ag Amdague, the Tuareg chief, stood up before the assembled
dignitaries, including a delegation from the Nigerien Human Rights
Commission, and denied that neither he nor any of his 19 clans owned any
slaves.
Chief Arissal Ag Amdague backtracked at a meeting held on 5 March, in Ates
in far west Niger, on written promises he made to free all 7,000 slaves his
people own in western Niger
“Slavery doesn’t exist in Inates,” he declared. "Nobody has told me they
have seen slaves. If someone has slaves they must tell me.”"
Zuiko Azumazi
news:43edcb89$0$78285$157c...@dreader1.cybercity.dk...
<snip> ...
> Fearing imprisonment under the new law, a Tuareg chief who headed 19 clans
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Thanks for confirming what I've been saying all along. No one is denying
that traditional tribal elements, such as the Tuaregs (i.e. members of a
nomadic Berber people of the Sahara), don't break their (?) central
governments laws. That's just emphasises that ancient tribal traditions are
difficult to eradicate throughout the African continent. More so, when the
tribes are nomadic in nature and don't respect normal geographical
boundaries.
As an aside, Tuareg society is quite unusual as this search link
illustrates:-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Tuareg+society+%22&btnG=Search
Religious Synopsis:-
Most, if not all, Tuareg are followers of Islam. Among many Tuareg this
practice is nominal, and while daily prayers are made to Allah, strict
adherence to other religious requirements is rare. Most of the feasts are
observed and celebrated with relish, but the fasting that is required during
Ramadan is often excused because Tuareg travel so much. Like most followers
of Islam in northern Africa, Tuareg believe in the continuous presence of
various spirits (djinns). Divination is accomplished through means of the
Koran. Most men wear protective amulets which contain verses from the Koran.
Men also begin wearing a veil at age 25 which conceals their entire face
excluding their eyes. This veil is never removed, even in front of family
members. Women are not veiled. Tuareg belong to the Maliki sect of Islam,
resulting from the teachings of the great prophet, El Maghili, who came
among them in the early 16th century.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/people/Tuareg.html
Again, I'm not sure if many male Muslims elsewhere would adopt covering
their faces as is the Tuareg tradition.