Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 01:32 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 09:01 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:53 AM

New Britain
November 29, 2024, 08:17 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams

 (Read 48993 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 9 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #180 - July 02, 2014, 05:47 PM

    If I have to pick one thing at a time, I'm going to ask again for you to give me the exact verse(s) where slavery is abolished.


    First of all how do people acquire slaves? It is not something that most people will allow to themselves willingly. Slaves are usually acquired by war or being forcibly captured. Either by pirates, smugglers or bandits.

    The Islamic sects mostly relied on prisoners of war for slavery although sometimes slaves were captured by bandits and slave traders and traded off.

    Also slavery requires a legal framework whereby a person can own another human being. This requires some legal framework. In the US it was racially based whereby the law allowed Whites to won Blacks as slaves in the belief that Blacks are inferior species to Blacks. Whites could not be taken as slaves. There were many Whites taken as slaves such as the Ottoman Empire which relied heavily on Easter European slaves. The legal framework established by Sunni Islam is that only a non Muslim can be taken as slaves. Usually once again this can be acquired during war. There are hadiths that allow that.

    The Quran only gave two options for prisoners of war. Freedom or ransom. It also ordered the believers in many occasions to free the slaves. Not just not engage in slavery but to actively to everything possible to free the slaves. The Quran placed freeing of slaves in the same category as feeding the poor. Many times the Quran warned mankind that those who refuse to feed the poor and spend from what God gave them for the less fortunate will face God's retribution on judgement day.

    2.177 Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous.

    Did we not show him the two paths? He should choose the difficult path. Which one is the difficult path? The freeing of slaves. Feeding, during the time of hardship... [90:10-14]

    The charities are to go to the poor, and the needy, and those who work to collect them, and those whose hearts have been united, and to free the slaves, and those in debt, and in the cause of God, and the traveller. A duty from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Wise. [9:60]

    Now the Quran gave only two options for prisoners of war.

    Therefore, if you encounter those who deny the truth (in warfare), then bring about the captives until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste. [47:4]

    76. 8-10 And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him.  (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you; Lo! we fear from our Lord a day of frowning and of fate.

    We are also told in the Quran that slavery was one of accusation levied by Moses against the Pharaoh whom the Quran describes as a tyrant.

    Moses said: "I did it then, when I was an ignorant (as regards my Lord and His Message). So I fled from you when I feared you. But my Lord has granted me right judgments of the affairs and Prophethood, and appointed me as one of the Messengers. And this is the past favor with which you reproach me, and that you have enslaved the children of Israel." 26. 16 - 18

    As far as racial supremacy we are told in the Quran:

    O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. 49. 13

    And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge. 30.22

    And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors; most surely there are signs in this for the learned.

    So there is no way to establish a legalized slavery system in a Quranic nation since believers are ordered in the Quran to free the salves owned by others.

    God can not order someone to feed the poor and the needy and to free the slaves and then allow you to own slaves at the same time. That is like saying God orders to feed the poor but allows you to starve someone at the same time.

    So it is not enough to just say we are not to take slaves. We are also to do whatever we can to free slaves and abolish slavery whenever and however we can. The Quran does not believe in racial superiority and does not believe in enslaving prisoners and does not believe in a laissez faire attitude about slavery also.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #181 - July 02, 2014, 05:51 PM

    Quran is peaceful in some places and extremely violent in others.

    Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

    But if we stubstitute the words 'terrible agony' with 'tickly feathers' then we have the following correct reading:

    Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with tickly feathers in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

    Also if we rearrange the words in the following ayat we really see that instead of:

    Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

    what he really meant was:

    Quran (4:76) - "Allah fight(s) in the cause (of) those who believe (because he is a really nice guy and just wants everybody tog et along with each other)…"

    Furthermore, in the following verse we see how Allah BANNED violence and adopted a pacifist approach:

    Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

    In the above ayat, the Arabic word 'darah' has been incorrectly translated to as 'fight'; likewise with 'punish' (hubbabuba) and 'disgrace' (pudda). The correct reading is as follows:

    Quran (9:14) - "Pleasure them, Allah will masturbate them by your hands and bring them to orgasm..."

    I hope this clarifies any issues brothers and sisters. It's all about using the correct translation of words and looking at the message.


    Its more like not quoting the verses fully.

    Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers. Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people 9.13-14

    And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah , and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak. 4.75-76

    Like I said the Quran only recognizes defensive war.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #182 - July 02, 2014, 05:55 PM

    I wonder if the koran mentioning crucifixion in a story about Joseph and the Pharoah is like a story of Napoleon flying to America in Concorde.

    As I understand it, crucifixion was probably introduced to Egypt much later arpund the time of Alexander, but hey I understand tales of Joseph et al are classic myths!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #183 - July 02, 2014, 06:39 PM

    Yeah it is OK to make slaves of non-Muslims in warfare but making slaves of Muslim Israeli is haram because they were God's chosen people. And you can actually sell them. How wonderful! America and the Biblical prophets did it so should we.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #184 - July 02, 2014, 06:46 PM

    The Koran says that God does not forbid you to deal with the pagans unless they decide to fight you. The pagans talked about in the Quran are the Meccan pagans who for their own reasons decided to fight Muhammad and the believers. I think they did that so as to silence and end the influence of the Quran.

    Later these pagans of Mecca somehow converted to Islam and became its rulers. The sects you see today are them. At least that how I see it.

    Yes, many were not Muhammad's enemies. The Meccans were his main enemies.


    Yes I know that but couldn't God refrain from calling a bunch of people by their faith and call them enemies? If it was done God could have prevented the suicide bombers and terrorists of Islam from wreaking havoc today. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I, a stupid person understands this and the great and wise God can't no!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #185 - July 02, 2014, 07:39 PM

    Its more like not quoting the verses fully.

    Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers. Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people 9.13-14

    And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah , and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak. 4.75-76

    Like I said the Quran only recognizes defensive war.


    People are allowed to break oaths, particularly if those are based upon fairy dust sprinkled from the Heavans.

    Oppression? You do realise that Muslims who wish to institutionalise shariah law based upon quranic injunctions scream oppression when resistance is met? Oppression = you do not allow me to disparage your traditions and incite violence against you.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #186 - July 02, 2014, 07:45 PM

    First of all how do people acquire slaves? It is not something that most people will allow to themselves willingly. Slaves are usually acquired by war or being forcibly captured. Either by pirates, smugglers or bandits.

    The Islamic sects mostly relied on prisoners of war for slavery although sometimes slaves were captured by bandits and slave traders and traded off.

    Also slavery requires a legal framework whereby a person can own another human being. This requires some legal framework. In the US it was racially based whereby the law allowed Whites to won Blacks as slaves in the belief that Blacks are inferior species to Blacks. Whites could not be taken as slaves. There were many Whites taken as slaves such as the Ottoman Empire which relied heavily on Easter European slaves. The legal framework established by Sunni Islam is that only a non Muslim can be taken as slaves. Usually once again this can be acquired during war. There are hadiths that allow that.

    The Quran only gave two options for prisoners of war. Freedom or ransom. It also ordered the believers in many occasions to free the slaves. Not just not engage in slavery but to actively to everything possible to free the slaves. The Quran placed freeing of slaves in the same category as feeding the poor. Many times the Quran warned mankind that those who refuse to feed the poor and spend from what God gave them for the less fortunate will face God's retribution on judgement day.

    2.177 Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous.

    Did we not show him the two paths? He should choose the difficult path. Which one is the difficult path? The freeing of slaves. Feeding, during the time of hardship... [90:10-14]

    The charities are to go to the poor, and the needy, and those who work to collect them, and those whose hearts have been united, and to free the slaves, and those in debt, and in the cause of God, and the traveller. A duty from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Wise. [9:60]

    Now the Quran gave only two options for prisoners of war.

    Therefore, if you encounter those who deny the truth (in warfare), then bring about the captives until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste. [47:4]

    76. 8-10 And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him.  (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you; Lo! we fear from our Lord a day of frowning and of fate.

    We are also told in the Quran that slavery was one of accusation levied by Moses against the Pharaoh whom the Quran describes as a tyrant.

    Moses said: "I did it then, when I was an ignorant (as regards my Lord and His Message). So I fled from you when I feared you. But my Lord has granted me right judgments of the affairs and Prophethood, and appointed me as one of the Messengers. And this is the past favor with which you reproach me, and that you have enslaved the children of Israel." 26. 16 - 18

    As far as racial supremacy we are told in the Quran:

    O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. 49. 13

    And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge. 30.22

    And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors; most surely there are signs in this for the learned.

    So there is no way to establish a legalized slavery system in a Quranic nation since believers are ordered in the Quran to free the salves owned by others.

    God can not order someone to feed the poor and the needy and to free the slaves and then allow you to own slaves at the same time. That is like saying God orders to feed the poor but allows you to starve someone at the same time.

    So it is not enough to just say we are not to take slaves. We are also to do whatever we can to free slaves and abolish slavery whenever and however we can. The Quran does not believe in racial superiority and does not believe in enslaving prisoners and does not believe in a laissez faire attitude about slavery also.



    How do people acquire slaves. Bigmo, first you develop an ideology based upon your superiority to the other and the rest follows. Does The Quran have this? Yes it does.

    The Quran only establishes equality between free Muslims. Why does the Quran make distinction between non-free Muslim and muslim? Why does it call for freedom of slaves ONCE they convert?

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #187 - July 02, 2014, 09:38 PM

    It's interesting that Bigmo makes the argument but draws the exact opposite conclusion.

    To say the Qur'an opposes slavery because it encourages people to free slaves as a gesture of charity is like saying the Qur'an opposes private ownership of money because it encourages people to give alms to the poor.  The Qur'an rather clearly endorses avaricious acquisition and hording of money, just as it clearly endorses the seizure and maintenance of slaves.  That this is *mitigated* by the general practice of charity is clearly stated -- and was always understood -- exactly as Shariah always understood it:  slavery and private property are perfectly legal, and the obligations of charity do not somehow mean they are evil or impermissible.

    The other thing I would point out is that in repeating these points the Qur'an just reflects basic ethical and social principles of the region at that time.  There is nothing innovative or different about the way it talks about slavery and charity and such; every Christian and Jew would have said exactly the same thing, that it's perfectly fine to own slaves and private property, but it is meritorious to give money away to the poor and to free slaves.  Everybody understood this perfectly well, and had for centuries before Mohammed came around.  It was literally the generic ethical and legal attitude in the region.  All throughout Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, the act of freeing the slave was seen as a morally meritorious and generous action, but not for an instant did anybody ever conceive that as somehow meaning the institution of slavery was itself illegitimate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

    As with so many points, the Qur'an should be understood in its historical context.  If you free the Qur'an from its historical context as the product of Late Antiquity, then there is no end to the sort of nonsense that you will begin to read into it.  And in many respects, this is exactly what Islam was founded on -- wrenching the Qur'an out of its historical context and re-interpreting it through the lens of a mystical jahilliyah, divorced from the rest of the world, so that mythologies could be created.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #188 - July 02, 2014, 10:00 PM

    It's interesting that Bigmo makes the argument but draws the exact opposite conclusion.

    I am not sure about that Big Mo arguments neither I am sure about his opposite conclusions., The only conclusion Big Mo has is, Quran is Deen., It is from Allah/God .. you better not fight with the rules of  allah doll or god doll"  

    That is all what Big Mo has  Zaotar.  But your posts appears to have a way of explaining "the origin of Islam".  Anways when you say this
    Quote
    ......Qur'an opposes slavery because.......
    .......Qur'an opposes private ownership of money because ......
    ..........Qur'an rather clearly endorses avaricious acquisition and hording of money,............

    ,,,,,," Quran...Quran....Quran.... " .,  you better give supporting verses from the book,  otherwise Big Mo can easily counter you by saying., " It is all from your head, not from the Book of Allah"

    But these are very good points from you
    Quote
    1). Qur'an just reflects basic ethical and social principles of the region at that time.  

    2). There is nothing innovative or different (in it)

    3).  It was literally the generic ethical and legal attitude in the region.
     
    4). Qur'an should be understood in its historical context.

    5).  If you free the Qur'an from its historical context as the product of Late Antiquity, then there is no end to the sort of nonsense that you will begin to read into it. ....

    Well That summarizes Quran very well.,  Indeed   "there is no end to the sort of nonsense that one  will begin to read in Quran"  

    And .. And that is exactly what these Quranists, Mullahs, Imams, western Islamic intellectuals, Western Islamic preachers , Political leaders that come out of Islam, Thugs who preach in mosques to make kids as suicide bombers., well educated Suicidal rogues of Islam read  that "NO END TO NONSENSE" in Quran Zaotar ..

    good one good post from you..

    with best wishes
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #189 - July 03, 2014, 02:08 AM

    Why, when mentioning prisoners of war, did you claim there are only two options?
    33:50 clearly states that it is lawful to engage in intercourse with captives of war, and women are usually non combatants, mind. Is that what you do when ransoming? Or maybe just before freeing? If one should not keep slaves, why is this permission given at all? Did you never question that? How does that make sense in your theory on slavery?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #190 - July 03, 2014, 04:51 AM

    Why, when mentioning prisoners of war, did you claim there are only two options?
    33:50 clearly states that it is lawful to engage in intercourse with captives of war, and women are usually non combatants, mind. Is that what you do when ransoming? Or maybe just before freeing? If one should not keep slaves, why is this permission given at all? Did you never question that? How does that make sense in your theory on slavery?

    Concerning 33.50 if you look at the translation you are reading you might find that captives is placed in brackets. Because that is not what the text says in Arabic. But for the Islamic sects they tried to tie concubinage with slavery. But to do that they had to allow more options than the Quran allowed for prisoners of war. They also had to create a separate legal system for Muslims than non Muslims. Without that they could never pull it off. It is not possible to do so with the Quran though the Quran did show appreciation for gender differences it does not recognize differences in faith when it comes to a lagal framework.  So for a Quranist its not possible to ever justify slavery because the Quran does not allow the believers this level of authority. Authority as we know is the biggest difference between Quranic Islam and Sectarian Islam.

    I have discussed what "ma malakat ayamnukum" means.  It has nothing to do with slavery. But even if we tell us ourselves it means slaves you will still need to justify it legally. This is impossible with the Quran.

    You don't just wake-up and say "lets have slavery". Its not that simple. You need to create an ideology and a  legal system to justify that and to establish it as a rule of law.

    Slavery is a legal concept. Its about ownership. It has to be accepted by the society as a legal ownership. That is impossible to do with the Quran.

    Finally if I could deduce the Quran forbids slavery than whats stopping others from reaching the same conclusion. So for the Islamic sects they could not simply rely on Quranic arguments and verses because their verses are implicit at best and not explicit and that many will interpret the Quran as opposing slavery thereby questioning the legality of slavery. Which is the purpose of the Sunnah anyways. To establish a legal framework than can pass as Islamic and prevent any Islamic opposition against that.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #191 - July 03, 2014, 04:59 AM

    Everyone got to this before me!

    So you found nothing in the Quran that abolishes slavery. You claim that the only way to obtain slaves is via warfare or racial supremacy. I do not accept these claims. Those aren't the only ways. And, speaking of supremacy, just about any kind will do. But remember: we're constructing a Quranic law society right now, where everything not forbidden is permitted.

    So the only adequate thing for you to do now is show me your evidence from the Quran that shows there are specific restrictions for obtaining slaves. Show me why there would need to be this "legal framework" you keep talking about, when it is clear that slaves are permissible, it is clear that you can have them (but you get bonus points if you free them), and it is clear that you can marry them. Three already pointed out a great verse that I hope you will not ignore that shows a glaring error in the entirety of your claims.

    Quote
    Moses said: "I did it then, when I was an ignorant (as regards my Lord and His Message). So I fled from you when I feared you. But my Lord has granted me right judgments of the affairs and Prophethood, and appointed me as one of the Messengers. And this is the past favor with which you reproach me, and that you have enslaved the children of Israel." 26. 16 - 18


    Like Rubaya said, you cannot just walk away claiming the lesson here is that slavery is obviously forbidden. He had not enslaved just any people, he had enslaved God's people at that time, and the people of Moses. And that wasn't cool with God back then. Not cool at all.

    Now regarding your verses about treating the slaves well, make sure you don't miss this beautiful thing Zaotar wrote:

    Quote
    To say the Qur'an opposes slavery because it encourages people to free slaves as a gesture of charity is like saying the Qur'an opposes private ownership of money because it encourages people to give alms to the poor.  The Qur'an rather clearly endorses avaricious acquisition and hording of money, just as it clearly endorses the seizure and maintenance of slaves.  That this is *mitigated* by the general practice of charity is clearly stated -- and was always understood -- exactly as Shariah always understood it:  slavery and private property are perfectly legal, and the obligations of charity do not somehow mean they are evil or impermissible.


    I don't think I need to add to that at all, bigmo, that should be more than enough for you to understand why listing the freeing of slaves as charity in some verses doesn't equal the outlawing of slavery. Should your Quranic law society be constructed today and run perfectly, and they have to fight the people next door to them (who attacked first, we'll say), that society will be one that allows the citizens to take prisoners and slaves, not to mention female slaves as three pointed out, and the protection for these enslaved people is not a law that states that slavery is illegal, but a few lines in the Quran where it compares freeing your slaves to giving charity.

    Personally, I'd prefer the law that says there's no fucking way you're owning a slave. You can take your chances with the one where it's lightly discouraged at best.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #192 - July 03, 2014, 06:16 AM

    .....................
    Finally if I could deduce the Quran forbids slavery than whats stopping others from reaching the same conclusion??...............

     Let me replace that "than"  with "then" and add Question mark at the end.,

    Well answer for that question is simple Big Mo.,   and Zaotar  said it already  in a different way.  

    "If you don't use common sense to analyze the reasons why such verses were  allegedly revealed/written in these silly books some 1000s years ago then you end up  making all sorts of  nonsense out of these silly verses and write stories around in the name of allah doll.. "

     People in Islam and for that matter from other religion do this sort of nonsense from their respective religious literature all the time.  Let me give  an  example  here  Like you., This  fool at  http://www.quranandscience.com/quran-science/signs-of-god/345-allah-has-power-over-everything  takes these words from  verses
    Quote
    "...Allah has appointed a measure for all things..." (At-Talaq, 65: 3).

    ......“Do you not know that Allah knows everything in heaven and Earth? That is in a Book. That is easy for Allah.” (Al-Hajj, 22: 70)

     and adds some Al-Bukhari bull shit
    Quote
    “O Allah: All the Praises are for You: You are the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth. All the Praises are for You;

    You are the Maintainer of the Heaven and the Earth and whatever is in them. All the Praises are for You;

     and writes about

     Science of   cloud formation...  Science of  Sun heat  and sunlight on   Earth,..... Science of   Changes the direction of the winds, ... Science of   birds  in the sky, Science of   man's heart beat,  Science of   photosynthesis in plants, Science of   planets in their separate orbits... All that science and  and writes more nonsense
    Quote
    ..........People generally surmise that such phenomena occur according to "the laws of physics," "gravity," "aerodynamics," or other physical factors; however, there is one significant truth these people ignore: all such physical laws were created by Allah, the only possessor of power in the universe...........

    What can we do about that  Big mo??    Nothing..nothing..  People should have freedom to write nonsense  but don't force that  to teach kids in schools/colleges..
     

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #193 - July 03, 2014, 07:35 AM

    Quote
    ]Moses said: "I did it then, when I was an ignorant (as regards my Lord and His Message). So I fled from you when I feared you. But my Lord has granted me right judgments of the affairs and Prophethood, and appointed me as one of the Messengers. And this is the past favor with which you reproach me, and that you have enslaved the children of Israel." 26. 16 - 18


    Moses has been dismissed as a historic figure, the exodus from Egypt and conquest of the Promised land. Relying on fiction as if historical fact does not add to your argument, it detracts from it.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #194 - July 03, 2014, 11:43 AM

    Why, when mentioning prisoners of war, did you claim there are only two options?
    33:50 clearly states that it is lawful to engage in intercourse with captives of war, and women are usually non combatants, mind. Is that what you do when ransoming? Or maybe just before freeing? If one should not keep slaves, why is this permission given at all? Did you never question that? How does that make sense in your theory on slavery?

    Concerning 33.50 if you look at the translation you are reading you might find that captives is placed in brackets. Because that is not what the text says in Arabic. But for the Islamic sects they tried to tie concubinage with slavery. But to do that they had to allow more options than the Quran allowed for prisoners of war. They also had to create a separate legal system for Muslims than non Muslims. Without that they could never pull it off. It is not possible to do so with the Quran though the Quran did show appreciation for gender differences it does not recognize differences in faith when it comes to a lagal framework.  So for a Quranist its not possible to ever justify slavery because the Quran does not allow the believers this level of authority. Authority as we know is the biggest difference between Quranic Islam and Sectarian Islam.

    I have discussed what "ma malakat ayamnukum" means.  It has nothing to do with slavery. But even if we tell us ourselves it means slaves you will still need to justify it legally. This is impossible with the Quran.

    You don't just wake-up and say "lets have slavery". Its not that simple. You need to create an ideology and a  legal system to justify that and to establish it as a rule of law.

    Slavery is a legal concept. Its about ownership. It has to be accepted by the society as a legal ownership. That is impossible to do with the Quran.

    Finally if I could deduce the Quran forbids slavery than whats stopping others from reaching the same conclusion. So for the Islamic sects they could not simply rely on Quranic arguments and verses because their verses are implicit at best and not explicit and that many will interpret the Quran as opposing slavery thereby questioning the legality of slavery. Which is the purpose of the Sunnah anyways. To establish a legal framework than can pass as Islamic and prevent any Islamic opposition against that.



    Yes, I am sure Pickthall and Yusuf Ali and Shakir and Sarwar and Arberry are all idiots who do not understand their Arabic, since they don't have those cute brackets you mention.
    Your grasp of Arabic must be superior.
    Laws and practices regarding slaves had been in place in Shariah compliant countries all over the world until very recently, due to international pressure. Nothing changed in the Quran when Oman abolished slavery forty years ago. The world changed. So if slavery was abolished by Quran, why were slaves owned for over a thousand years after Quran was written? If owning slaves were not permissible in Islam, they would have been freed when those verses were given, the verses you claim mean this and that. They were not.
    Your historical context falls flat, like your interpretation. Why do you consider yourself a superior translator to those scholars before you?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #195 - July 03, 2014, 11:57 AM

    Yes, I am sure Pickthall and Yusuf Ali and Shakir and Sarwar and Arberry are all idiots who do not understand their Arabic, since they don't have those cute brackets you mention.
    Your grasp of Arabic must be superior.

    Off course Big Mo's grasp of Arabic is  superior. Can't we see that in his posts with words like ""ma malakat ayamnukum"" ?
    Quote
    ............So if slavery was abolished by Quran, why were slaves owned for over a thousand years after Quran was written? If owning slaves were not permissible in Islam, they would have been freed when those verses were given, ............

    Big Mo has answer for every question you have in Quran three,   Reason for practicing slavery in so-called Islamic lands  for the past 1400 years after the revelation of allah book  is very simple.  THERE WERE NO QURANIC MUSLIMS or  NO  Quran only Muslims for the past 1400 years. All these Muslims since the death of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) were/are fools, they never practiced Quran.  Well I remember reading in Islamic scriptures  Prophet Muhammad had slaves, so  even Prophet Muhammad was a fool.,  he too  didn't understand allah revelations..

    Stupid stubborn people  irrespective of the place they live, universities they go to are   Stupid & Stubborn

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #196 - July 03, 2014, 02:30 PM

    Yes, I am sure Pickthall and Yusuf Ali and Shakir and Sarwar and Arberry are all idiots who do not understand their Arabic, since they don't have those cute brackets you mention.
    Your grasp of Arabic must be superior.
    Laws and practices regarding slaves had been in place in Shariah compliant countries all over the world until very recently, due to international pressure. Nothing changed in the Quran when Oman abolished slavery forty years ago. The world changed. So if slavery was abolished by Quran, why were slaves owned for over a thousand years after Quran was written? If owning slaves were not permissible in Islam, they would have been freed when those verses were given, the verses you claim mean this and that. They were not.
    Your historical context falls flat, like your interpretation. Why do you consider yourself a superior translator to those scholars before you?


    I don't follow Shariah law, I follow Quranic law which is the whole point of this thread. Shariah law is not Islam.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #197 - July 03, 2014, 02:37 PM

    Yes, I am sure Pickthall and Yusuf Ali and Shakir and Sarwar and Arberry are all idiots who do not understand their Arabic, since they don't have those cute brackets you mention.
    Your grasp of Arabic must be superior.
    Laws and practices regarding slaves had been in place in Shariah compliant countries all over the world until very recently, due to international pressure. Nothing changed in the Quran when Oman abolished slavery forty years ago. The world changed. So if slavery was abolished by Quran, why were slaves owned for over a thousand years after Quran was written? If owning slaves were not permissible in Islam, they would have been freed when those verses were given, the verses you claim mean this and that. They were not.
    Your historical context falls flat, like your interpretation. Why do you consider yourself a superior translator to those scholars before you?


    The Arabic text has nothing about captives in the verse you mentioned and neither slaves. Its a Sunni interpretation and not translation. I have argued with many Sunni about this and I can tell you its all from hadiths.

    Book 008, Number 3371:
    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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 (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). 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 [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), 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.

    Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
    Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

    I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa [battle at which Muhammad was present] of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

    Thats where it all comes from. It has nothing to do with Quran.

    Whats interesting for those of you who claim the Koran is made up and fiction you certainly like to believe in these hadiths.

    whichever way, it still does not change the fact that the Quran forbids slavery and considers it an evil act. We are obligated to free slaves and not to enslave people. The Quran came to abolish slavery and not to enslave people. And if people refuse to abide well that is not the Quran's fault. After all here I am telling you what the Quran says but you still want to believe in slavery.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #198 - July 03, 2014, 02:40 PM

    How do people acquire slaves. Bigmo, first you develop an ideology based upon your superiority to the other and the rest follows. Does The Quran have this? Yes it does.

    The Quran only establishes equality between free Muslims. Why does the Quran make distinction between non-free Muslim and muslim? Why does it call for freedom of slaves ONCE they convert?


    I think you are reading a Sunni translation because I am not sure what you mean. Anyways its always better to read the Quran in Arabic because it only contains the original text. I have debated this with many Muslims and they have no water except some hadith gossips. People wanted to legalize slavery because of greed and found it expedient to fabricate hadiths. After all Muhammad was long dead by the time these hadiths were compiled.

    Its impossible to establish something like slavery from the Quran. This debate we are having is a proof of that.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #199 - July 03, 2014, 03:12 PM

    Quote
    Its impossible to establish something like slavery from the Quran. This debate we are having is a proof of that.


    It's not. Bigmo, when someone shows you evidence or writes a good post with a hard question, you seem to just ignore it in favor of responding to easier ones.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #200 - July 03, 2014, 03:40 PM

    Bigmo

    You've got it the wrong way round. It's impossible to establish that the Quran bans slavery - for the very simple reason that it doesn't, was never understood to have done so ( until the emergence of apologetic movements in the 19th century that found it morally troubling ), and there is  voluminous historical evidence from the seventh century onwards that it was a normal and uncontroversial "institution" in Islamic polities with an extensive legitimating jurisprudential literature associated with it.

    Where in the Quran is slavery forbidden and condemned as an evil act?  And why did no one actually notice this for over a thousand years?
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #201 - July 03, 2014, 04:48 PM

    Bigmo...why are you ignroing my questions?

    Do you concede?

    Allah loves you. That' Allah in your head that whispers Quranic verses in your ear.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #202 - July 03, 2014, 05:46 PM

    Bigmo you think that the Arab Muslims who practised slavery couldn't realise that the Quran doesn't allow slavery because the Hadith somehow magically distorted their vision and brains?
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #203 - July 03, 2014, 05:52 PM

    While what you all are saying is true, talking about how could most Muslims over the ages have messed this up is going to be giving Bigmo more fuel and more room to squirm. His arguments are based off the idea that people can and have erred for centuries, so this won't bother him, and he'll dismiss our criticisms as simply being unable to break out of a Sunni/Shia mentality and understand his point.

    Still, he has yet to adequately address everyone's excellent points on how the Quran does not abolish slavery, all history aside. I'm waiting for you to go back and tackle those tough statements, bigmo.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #204 - July 03, 2014, 06:01 PM

    Bigmo you think that the Arab Muslims who practised slavery couldn't realise that the Quran doesn't allow slavery because the Hadith somehow magically distorted their vision and brains?


    This is a brilliant point as some/most Muslim slave masters would've been Arabs and well versed in Arabic scripture if not outright linguists. Maybe they didn't understand the Arabic as well as the bigmo's of today and perhaps the scholars of the Quran and Arabic language were misguided by the sects that had not fully formed yet.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #205 - July 03, 2014, 06:15 PM

    The Arabic text has nothing about captives in the verse you mentioned and neither slaves. Its a Sunni interpretation and not translation. I have argued with many Sunni about this and I can tell you its all from hadiths.

    Book 008, Number 3371:
    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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 (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). 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 [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), 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.

    Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
    Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

    I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa [battle at which Muhammad was present] of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

    Thats where it all comes from. It has nothing to do with Quran.

    Whats interesting for those of you who claim the Koran is made up and fiction you certainly like to believe in these hadiths.

    whichever way, it still does not change the fact that the Quran forbids slavery and considers it an evil act. We are obligated to free slaves and not to enslave people. The Quran came to abolish slavery and not to enslave people. And if people refuse to abide well that is not the Quran's fault. After all here I am telling you what the Quran says but you still want to believe in slavery.




    So, verse 33:50 does not mention another way to handle your slaves, in your opinion. Just women who wanted dowry, and women who spurned dowry in favor of an uncertain future so they could give sex on demand and be of less stature than dowried wives. Those undowry women, they just love to live dangerously, don't they?
    So instead of a slave class, you insist that this is a class of women who have rejected the dowry marriages. You create another underclass, and all female, instead. But they are not slaves, no. Just stupid, right?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #206 - July 03, 2014, 06:44 PM

    Bigmo you think that the Arab Muslims who practised slavery couldn't realise that the Quran doesn't allow slavery because the Hadith somehow magically distorted their vision and brains?


    Once again we are obligated in the Quran to free the slaves. A Quranic state is obligated to free the slaves. That by definition is abolition.

    As far as Muslims through out the centuries following wrong stuff and why nobody figured it out. Well most Muslims still believe Islam abolished slavery and do not know the Islamic view point on slavery because the Islamic authorities conceal that information. People knew slavery existed but they did not know what Sunni Islam actually says about it. This tells me that there was a deliberate attempt by the Islamic authorities to conceal this issue from the masses.

    Anyways the argument that Muslims were wrong all this time is the same argument that Christians use about the Trinity claiming how can all this Christians be wrong all this time and why nobody figured it out.

    Sunnis came to power by the backing of the Abbasid Empire. It was political decisions that made them the Islamic ruling class. So it is not something that Muslims are responsible for. Most Muslims never owned a slave and were not involved in the slave trade. And until recently many aspects of Shariah law was unknown to many Muslims. The clerics deliberately avoid the problematic issues while some here deliberately focus on it.

    In the end its the Quran I care about. And I have yet to meet anyone explain to me how can someone be given the authority to own another human being. his requires a lot of authority over someone else either because he is from a rival tribe, or of a different ethnicity or was captured during war. Slavery is not as simple as many think. It requires a legal foundation that can never be achieved from the Quran.  All I hear here is that right hand possesses means slave. Right hand meaning by oath. You don't possess a slave by oath, you possess by purchase.

  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #207 - July 03, 2014, 06:53 PM

    No, they are not obligated. They are advised to, and they are encouraged to. This does not equal obligation, and it is clear that owning them is permissible when it speaks of the treatment of those you do possess.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #208 - July 03, 2014, 06:55 PM

    So, verse 33:50 does not mention another way to handle your slaves, in your opinion. Just women who wanted dowry, and women who spurned dowry in favor of an uncertain future so they could give sex on demand and be of less stature than dowried wives. Those undowry women, they just love to live dangerously, don't they?
    So instead of a slave class, you insist that this is a class of women who have rejected the dowry marriages. You create another underclass, and all female, instead. But they are not slaves, no. Just stupid, right?


    A concubine is a male also. Its a form of partnership.

    Its was a custom in Medina where a large Jewish population lived. Later the Meccan dynasties understood it as slavery. From the Quran we know that most of the verses about the Israelite and their debates with Muhammad occurred in Medina.



    Biblical references[edit]
    Several biblical figures had concubines when they were not able to create natural children with their wives. The most famous example of this was with Abraham and Sarah. Sarah, feeling guilty about her inability to give Abraham children, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. Their union produced Ishmael.

    A pilegesh was recognized among the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since having children in Judaism was considered a great blessing, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands so they could have children with them when those women themselves where childless, normally because of infertility issues as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar; Leah and Zilpah; and Rachel and Bilhah. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her[citation needed].

    Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives.[4] The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.

    The concubine may have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly translated as "wife", is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". (However, on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.[5]) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved.[6][7] The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and none of them result in capital punishment for either party,[8][9][10] although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship.[4] For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.[11] However, this instance is as likely dishonoring to David because it involves a form of incest, as David's concubines would have been somewhat like step-mothers to David's children.[12]

    Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah.[4] The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife;[4] for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine.[13] Later[4] biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines; the wives were royal princesses with dowries, while concubines had no dowries.[14]

    Legal characteristics[edit]
    According to the Babylonian Talmud[4] (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin"), which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the pilegesh should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh


  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #209 - July 03, 2014, 08:36 PM

    Look Bigmo who gave any human whether Muslim or non-Muslim the right to imprison others who haven't committed any crime? Their only faults were that they were related to the warriors of the non-Muslims. I have asked you this question before but you didn't answer. I won't bother to argue with you anymore. My last post to you on this topic will be in your introductory thread.
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 9 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »