How do Muslims get into Paradise?

[Revolvr]

There was another thread on just who or what is in the Islamic Paradise. What I am curious about is how a Muslim actually gets in to Paradise?

Is it a matter of faith alone? Or is it how well one conforms to Sharia Law? How does Allah’s mercy and justice play into it? Is it all or nothing, or are there different levels of paradise?

[spidergoat]

Practice, practice, practice.

[Jozen-Bo]

Theres only one way to paradise. You have to find it within yourself. Nothing else will ever do.

Regards,
Jozen

[nova900]

There was another thread on just who or what is in the Islamic Paradise. What I am curious about is how a Muslim actually gets in to Paradise?



Practice unconditional love and be selfless in your attitude.
As was demonstrated by religous figures such as Jesus, Krishna and others.

[pjdude1219]

open the door walk through said door, close said door behind them.
short answer walk

[Michael]

Accept that Islam is the only correct religion and all others are wrong, venerate the Arab named Mohammad as the very last Prophet for all time and study the Qur'an which absolutely perfect (at least to Muslims - well whatever "perfect" means) and you'll be well on your way to Muslim heaven.

[Revolvr]

Accept that Islam is the only correct religion and all others are wrong, venerate the Arab named Mohammad as the very last Prophet for all time and study the Qur'an which absolutely perfect (at least to Muslims - well whatever "perfect" means) and you'll be well on your way to Muslim heaven.

It's more than just accepting Muhammad (pbuh) as the messenger of Allah. One has to behave correctly, be obedient to the Law right?

[Revolvr]

I had hoped our Muslim friends, SAM and others, would contribute to this thread. It's one of the few Islam threads that doesn't reference violence or virgins, and asks a genuine question.

Perhaps there is some reason our Muslim friends don't want to go down this path?

[joepistole]

I think it is because as I understand Islam, there is no single path.

[joepistole]

Islamic Path to Savlation:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8052_1.html
Obey God's law and Muhammad's doctrine. The path to heaven includes confessing faith in one God, Allah, and that Muhammad is His Messenger; recitation of five prayers daily; giving alms; fasting throughout Ramadan, pilgrimage to Mecca. Confessing and repenting one's sins is between the person and God, made only to Allah and for Allah. Strict obedience to God's laws (conveyed in the Qur'an) and His prophet's doctrine is required.

It is the last sentence that causes the religion some difficulty as it is interpreted differently. And the Qur'an makes some conflicting statements. So entry into heaven can vary somewhat in how the Qur'an is interpreted...what sections are deemed to apply to a given situation...(e.g. martyrdom dos, don's and exceptions).

One kind of facinating aspect about the religion is that Mohammad did not appear to like dogs. He only tolerates them as working animals. One must be careful to not let dogs come between the follower and Mecca for prayers.

The religion is similar to Christianity in many ways. However, Mohammad plays a significant role...all must acknowledge his prophet status...similar to how Christians are requried to accept the divinity of Christ. There will be a judgement day and God will judge the quick and the dead to determine who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. I am really amazed at the similarites in beliefs but perhaps I should not be as Mohammad claims to be the last of the prophets....the seal of the prophets (meaning he is the last of the prophets and fulfilling Christianity and Juadism).

[Revolvr]

Islamic Path to Savlation:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8052_1.html
Obey God's law and Muhammad's doctrine. The path to heaven includes confessing faith in one God, Allah, and that Muhammad is His Messenger; recitation of five prayers daily; giving alms; fasting throughout Ramadan, pilgrimage to Mecca. Confessing and repenting one's sins is between the person and God, made only to Allah and for Allah. Strict obedience to God's laws (conveyed in the Qur'an) and His prophet's doctrine is required.

It is the last sentence that causes the religion some difficulty as it is interpreted differently. And the Qur'an makes some conflicting statements. So entry into heaven can vary somewhat in how the Qur'an is interpreted...what sections are deemed to apply to a given situation...(e.g. martyrdom dos, don's and exceptions).


What if I don't obey Allah's law perfectly, or screw up a few times? What if I miss some of my prayers? Does that mean I go to hell? I work with some Muslims and I don't see them excusing themselves during the day for prayers. Seems like they might be in big trouble.

[joepistole]

That is where the Jins come in. You can make up for your sins by suffering in on this earth.

Suffering is desired by Allah to erase one's sins. Some suffering is Satan's doing or is the work of his spirit world cohorts ("Jinn") and is allowed by Allah as a test of humility and faith; suffering and adversity strengthen one's faith, as pain often leads to repentance and prayer

I think this is where we get the rewards for martyrdom coming into the religion. Suffering erases sins and is evidence of repentance.

[S.A.M.]

What a load of crap!

[joepistole]

Glad to see you SAM. Please show us the error of our ways. We are just trying to understand the religion based upon what others have written. Perhaps you can be kind enough to set us straight on the religion as I think you are the only one here with first hand experience.

[S.A.M.]

Through righteousness:

“Righteousness is not that you turn your faces to the east and the west [in prayer]. But righteous is the one who believes in God, the Last Day, the Angels, the Scripture and the Prophets; who gives his wealth in spite of love for it to kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the wayfarer, to those who ask and to set slaves free. And (righteous are) those who pray, pay alms, honor their agreements, and are patient in (times of) poverty, ailment and during conflict. Such are the people of truth. And they are the God-Fearing.” (Quran 2:177)

[joepistole]

Thanks Sam, you mentioned freeing slaves. How does that square with the centuries in which Muslims actively put people into slavery and sold them?

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

The Arab slave trade refers to the practice of slavery in West Asia, North Africa, East Africa, and certain parts of Europe (such as Sicily and Iberia) during their period of domination by Arab leaders. The trade mostly involved North and East Africans and Middle Eastern peoples (Arabs, Berbers, Persians, etc.). Also, the Arab slave trade was not limited to people of certain color, ethnicity, or religion. In the early days of the Islamic state—during the 8th and 9th centuries—most of the slaves were Slavic Eastern Europeans (called Saqaliba), people from surrounding Mediterranean areas, Persians, Turks, other neighbouring Middle Eastern peoples, peoples from the Caucasus Mountain regions (such as Georgia and Armenia) and parts of Central Asia (including Mamluks), Berbers, and various other peoples of varied origins as well as those of Black African origins. Later, toward the 18th and 19th centuries, slaves increasingly came from East Africa.[1][2][3]

Some historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million black African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 CE to 1900 CE.[4][5][6]

The medieval slave trade in Europe was mainly to the East and South: The Byzantine Empire and the Muslim World were the destinations, pagan Central and Eastern Europe an important source. Slavery in medieval Europe was so common that the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly prohibited it— or at least the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands was prohibited at, for example, the Council of Koblenz in 922, the Council of London in 1102, and the Council of Armagh in 1171.[7] Viking, Arab, Greek and Jewish merchants (known as Radhanites) were all involved in the slave trade during the Early Middle Ages.[8][9][10]

So many Slavs were enslaved that the very name 'slave' was derived from their name; not only in English, but in other European languages and Arabic as well.[11]

Periodic raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Spain to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms, bringing back booty and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189 CE, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur took 3,000 female and child captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves in 1191 CE, took 3,000 Christian slaves.[12]

According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.[13][14] This considerably exceeds the figure of 645,000 Africans who were brought to what is now the United States.[15] These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages from Italy, Spain, Portugal and also from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland and North America. The impact of these attacks was devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Pirate raids discouraged settlement along the coast until the 19th century.[16][17]

[S.A.M.]

Obviously it doesn't

[Enmos]

We won't hold it against you SAM.. :p

[Arsalan]

Thanks Sam, you mentioned freeing slaves. How does that square with the centuries in which Muslims actively put people into slavery and sold them?

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

The Arab slave trade refers to the practice of slavery in West Asia, North Africa, East Africa, and certain parts of Europe (such as Sicily and Iberia) during their period of domination by Arab leaders. The trade mostly involved North and East Africans and Middle Eastern peoples (Arabs, Berbers, Persians, etc.). Also, the Arab slave trade was not limited to people of certain color, ethnicity, or religion. In the early days of the Islamic state—during the 8th and 9th centuries—most of the slaves were Slavic Eastern Europeans (called Saqaliba), people from surrounding Mediterranean areas, Persians, Turks, other neighbouring Middle Eastern peoples, peoples from the Caucasus Mountain regions (such as Georgia and Armenia) and parts of Central Asia (including Mamluks), Berbers, and various other peoples of varied origins as well as those of Black African origins. Later, toward the 18th and 19th centuries, slaves increasingly came from East Africa.[1][2][3]

Some historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million black African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 CE to 1900 CE.[4][5][6]

The medieval slave trade in Europe was mainly to the East and South: The Byzantine Empire and the Muslim World were the destinations, pagan Central and Eastern Europe an important source. Slavery in medieval Europe was so common that the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly prohibited it— or at least the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands was prohibited at, for example, the Council of Koblenz in 922, the Council of London in 1102, and the Council of Armagh in 1171.[7] Viking, Arab, Greek and Jewish merchants (known as Radhanites) were all involved in the slave trade during the Early Middle Ages.[8][9][10]

So many Slavs were enslaved that the very name 'slave' was derived from their name; not only in English, but in other European languages and Arabic as well.[11]

Periodic raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Spain to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms, bringing back booty and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189 CE, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur took 3,000 female and child captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves in 1191 CE, took 3,000 Christian slaves.[12]

According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.[13][14] This considerably exceeds the figure of 645,000 Africans who were brought to what is now the United States.[15] These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages from Italy, Spain, Portugal and also from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland and North America. The impact of these attacks was devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Pirate raids discouraged settlement along the coast until the 19th century.[16][17]

Thats the Arab Slave Trade, not the Muslim Slave Trade. Jews, Christians, Pagans were all Arabs back then. Also, that wikipedia article is very biased and is a translation from a French article. Slavery in Islam is extremely different from what we saw the Westerners practice. The inhumane treatment as was the norm here is not allowed. Also, one of the greatest deeds a Muslim can do is free a slave. Which was done, repeatedly.

[Revolvr]

Through righteousness:

“Righteousness is not that you turn your faces to the east and the west [in prayer]. But righteous is the one who believes in God, the Last Day, the Angels, the Scripture and the Prophets; who gives his wealth in spite of love for it to kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the wayfarer, to those who ask and to set slaves free. And (righteous are) those who pray, pay alms, honor their agreements, and are patient in (times of) poverty, ailment and during conflict. Such are the people of truth. And they are the God-Fearing.” (Quran 2:177)

How do you know if you've done enough of these things? Some pray more than others, some give more alms than others, etc. etc. And nobody is perfect, there are times in anyone's life I'm sure where you aren't so truthful or perfect. Is there some way to know you've done enough?

[Arsalan]

All Muslims can do is their best. The Quran says no soul will be burdened more than its share. People should do whatever they can do.

[S.A.M.]

How do you know if you've done enough of these things? Some pray more than others, some give more alms than others, etc. etc. And nobody is perfect, there are times in anyone's life I'm sure where you aren't so truthful or perfect. Is there some way to know you've done enough?

There is a prayer at the end of Sura al-Baqarah (the one that Arsalan above referred to)

It is the last verse and goes something like this:
Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved. Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget, or miss the mark! Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as thou didst lay on those before us! Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we have not the strength to bear! Pardon us, absolve us and have mercy on us, Thou, our Protector, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk. 2:286

In other words, if there are problems in life, there is also the strength and courage to cope with it, if you wish. The choice is yours and whatever choice you make, is to your account. Beyond that, one can only do one's best.

[mountainhare]

The Ottomans didn't have slaves?

[Arsalan]

I wouldnt know and couldnt care less :shrug:

[joepistole]

Thats the Arab Slave Trade, not the Muslim Slave Trade. Jews, Christians, Pagans were all Arabs back then. Also, that wikipedia article is very biased and is a translation from a French article. Slavery in Islam is extremely different from what we saw the Westerners practice. The inhumane treatment as was the norm here is not allowed. Also, one of the greatest deeds a Muslim can do is free a slave. Which was done, repeatedly.

Those ARABs who invaded Spain were Muslims and they left their mark on the land. They left their architecture and their culture. And they took slave. I do not know what is so kind about putting chains on innocent people and selling them into a life of slavery.

[Arsalan]

Those ARABs who invaded Spain were Muslims and they left their mark on the land. They left their architecture and their culture. And they took slave. I do not know what is so kind about putting chains on innocent people and selling them into a life of slavery.

We talking about fighting or slavery? Because there werent only Muslims there fighting ya know. Muslim Spain was one of the highlights of European history. It is because of that Spain that the renaissance was able to take place.

Besides, slaves in Muslim countries were not treated like slaves in the west where Christians saw it as their duty to tell black slaves they were less than the whites. Slaves that were taken after fighting were taken for their own protection. After fighting, the losing side would lose everything. They wouldnt have anyone to take care of them. So to take care of them and provide them food and shelter and a life they would be taken and ultimately freed. If a slave wasnt freed, he could demand it or buy himself out of slavery. Now how could a slave buy himself out of slavery? Exactly, they had their own money. They lived just like their masters, the clothes, the food etc. Just because your History classes dealt with White Western treatment of slaves doesnt mean that was how Muslims treated their brothers and sisters.

[(Q)]

Muslim Spain was one of the highlights of European history. It is because of that Spain that the renaissance was able to take place.

We have often heard this fairy tale told here, to no avail. Muslims often confuse their past conquering of nations and plundering of the spoils of war with the enlightenment of us all.

[joepistole]

We talking about fighting or slavery? Because there werent only Muslims there fighting ya know. Muslim Spain was one of the highlights of European history. It is because of that Spain that the renaissance was able to take place.

Besides, slaves in Muslim countries were not treated like slaves in the west where Christians saw it as their duty to tell black slaves they were less than the whites. Slaves that were taken after fighting were taken for their own protection. After fighting, the losing side would lose everything. They wouldnt have anyone to take care of them. So to take care of them and provide them food and shelter and a life they would be taken and ultimately freed. If a slave wasnt freed, he could demand it or buy himself out of slavery. Now how could a slave buy himself out of slavery? Exactly, they had their own money. They lived just like their masters, the clothes, the food etc. Just because your History classes dealt with White Western treatment of slaves doesnt mean that was how Muslims treated their brothers and sisters.

I am sorry, I just don't get how putting schackles on innocent farmers and selling them and their families into a life time of slavery is in any way kind. And of course, anything done my someone of European ansestory is a thousand times worse than anything anyone else does. But I just cannot get over the notion that bad is bad and good is good regardless of the ethinic background of the perpetrator. I am sorry, my mind is just not set up for this kind of racial thinking.

[S.A.M.]

I am sorry, I just don't get how putting schackles on innocent farmers and selling them and their families into a life time of slavery is in any way kind. And of course, anything done my someone of European ansestory is a thousand times worse than anything anyone else does. But I just cannot get over the notion that bad is bad and good is good regardless of the ethinic background of the perpetrator. I am sorry, my mind is just not set up for this kind of racial thinking.

And yet after hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and discrimination, African Americans and native Americans are still marginalised in American society.

[Arsalan]

I am sorry, I just don't get how putting schackles on innocent farmers and selling them and their families into a life time of slavery is in any way kind. And of course, anything done my someone of European ansestory is a thousand times worse than anything anyone else does. But I just cannot get over the notion that bad is bad and good is good regardless of the ethinic background of the perpetrator. I am sorry, my mind is just not set up for this kind of racial thinking.

You see, thats just it. No shackles were put on anyone. People who had property and had a family and a life were not taken because they could take care of themselves. People who couldnt, came under the protection of Muslims. It;s the wording the Westerners put on those people that makes it sound like they were treated less than dogs. Thats not the Muslims fault.

And bad is bad and good is good. Ive never denied that. Bad apples are everywhere. What i disagree with is attributing falsehoods to my religion. If you want to say some Arabs showed blatant disregard for Islam and did heinous things, then all the better! Id even support that. But its when you blame my religion for the actions of people long gone that I will resist.

[Michael]

We talking about fighting or slavery? Because there werent only Muslims there fighting ya know. Muslim Spain was one of the highlights of European history. It is because of that Spain that the renaissance was able to take place.The renaissance started in Italy.

[Michael]

Slaves that were taken after fighting were taken for their own protection.AAAAhhhhhhaaaa Haaa Haaaa hahahaaha OMG - brown man's burden :D

LOL!

It's good that in your trying to come up with some way to excuse it you at that same time admit it is an evil enterprise.

[Arsalan]

The renaissance started in Italy.

I never said it didnt

[Arsalan]

AAAAhhhhhhaaaa Haaa Haaaa hahahaaha OMG - brown man's burden :D

LOL!

It's good that in your trying to come up with some way to excuse it you at that same time admit it is an evil enterprise.

Im not excusing anything. neither I nor Islam is responsible for anyones actions and I am not bound by the actions of anyone besides the Prophet. The simple fact of the matter is that the slaves that were taken after fighting had finished, mos were either released directly after, some chose to stay and some were kept. I suggest instead of laughing insanely you read up on what people like Annemarie Schimmel have to say about slavery in Islam. Enslaving innocent people for no reason whatsoever is not allowed in Islam and hurting a slave in Islam in any way means he has to be set free. The reason were having this debate is that Westerners have seen what they did to the blacks in their history lessons and assume thats what slavery in Islam means.

[Michael]

I am not bound by the actions of anyone besides the ProphetDid "THE" Prophet own a Slave?

Actually, I am curious, did any of THE other Prophets own any slaves? I can't remember if Moses owned some slaves or if he was a slave? Did Buddha own a Slave? Jesus own slaves? Abraham have some slaves? One would think the further back into time the more the vile practice would be acceptable.

The simple fact is, it is wrong to own other humans. Agreed?

A truly enlightened person would see this and not do it - SIMPLY as a f*cking matter of PRINCIPAL. Just because Mohammad took the easy road and accepted the most VILE of INSTITUTIONS did not mean that HE, Mohammad, had to f*cking own a slave. He could have simply NEVER owned one himself and thereby set a positive example. An enlightened intelligent and compassionate person would recognize that their actions of owning HUMANS would be used to justify the owning of humans by those that followed him. GUESS WHAT - That is exactly what happened. 1500 years of slaver ownership until finally, FINALLY, it was ended in the ME by the Christian Europeans.

Pretty sad legacy donchya think?

Accepting ideas such as polygamy, slavery, theocracy and this whole ignoramus notion of a "perfect" book have shown themselves again and again and again in ALL manner of societies to be detrimental towards progression and human development.

Truly Arsalan, you MUST find it absolutely amazing that the last Chinese Prophet to be worshiped, Chairman Mao, was able to abolish slavery, polygamy and theocracy all in about 10 years in a country with hundreds of millions of diverse people YET the Arab Prophet couldn't do likewise and not only that neither could any of the people who followed his lead? I suppose Mao was simply a better Prophet hey? Communist Manefesto a better read. That MUST be the case because Muslims kept buying and selling humans as cattle for millennia and would still be doing it to this day had not the Europeans put a stop to it.



Anyway, I can see you are being an Islamic apologist. This is at least a good sign - it means you at least recognize the evils of slave-ownership. To reconcile history with your religion with your belief all you have to do is this good old one: Mohammad HAD to own slaves because X, Islamic nations continued slavery because they weren't "true" Muslims, take one excuse every 3 hours with tea before going to bed...


Michael


PS: American Slavery was VILE, EVIL and DESPICABLE. It's too bad those founding fathers, who are in many respects very admirable, had their f*cking heads right up their arses on that one. They were dead-wrong on slavery.

[S.A.M.]

Jumping to rather a lot of conclusions aren't you?

What is it with all this hatred of Muslims, Islam, Mohammed?

[joepistole]

And yet after hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and discrimination, African Americans and native Americans are still marginalised in American society.

ahhh, right SAM, that is exactly why we have an African American leading in the race for the Presidency of the United States. Us white folk, (over 80 percent of the population) are voting for him, because we are racist biggots. We will definately show him and the other people of color how marginalized they are when we elect him as our leader!!! And on top of that, he has a Islamic name, Barrack Hussein Obama! That will definately teach them!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[Michael]

Jumping to rather a lot of conclusions aren't you?

What is it with all this hatred of Muslims, Islam, Mohammed?I see you left out the American Founding Fathers.

Why?

You meant to write: What is it with all this hatred of Muslims, Islam, Mohammed and the Founding Fathers of America.

God only knows I must hate my countries secular founding fathers :bugeye:

Funny that.
Michael

[(Q)]

Besides, slaves in Muslim countries were not treated like slaves in the west where Christians saw it as their duty to tell black slaves they were less than the whites. Slaves that were taken after fighting were taken for their own protection. After fighting, the losing side would lose everything. They wouldnt have anyone to take care of them.

I'm flabbergasted that this is something Muslims would stoop to defend.

So, Muslims conquered other nations, raped, pillaged and plundered. Then, after the raping, pillaging and plundering, they felt it their moral duty to take as slaves those who might have survived the raping, pillaging and plundering because those victims wouldn't have anyone to take care of them. And, they had to convert to Islam if they wished to stay alive, of course.

Unfuckingbelievable.

[joepistole]

I'm flabbergasted that this is something Muslims would stoop to defend.

So, Muslims conquered other nations, raped, pillaged and plundered. Then, after the raping, pillaging and plundering, they felt it their moral duty to take as slaves those who might have survived the raping, pillaging and plundering because those victims wouldn't have anyone to take care of them. And, they had to convert to Islam if they wished to stay alive, of course.

Unfuckingbelievable.

But they did it with kindness Q. :)

[Gustav]

lemme introduce nuance as a concept
the mughal incursion was initially exemplified by tolerance which then subsequently devolved into intolerance

what sweeping statements might one make about islam in light of that? is it a matter of interpretation? cherry picking shit to suit one's own disposition? or...whatnot?

[Vega]

Which explains why its in Muslim countries that you find Eastern Orthodox Church Christians, among other, non-Roman forms of Christianity. And why India was a rich country, with no Hindus, when the British came to it after a thousand years of Islam.:rolleyes:
Just to clarify things..(1) Rich in terms of what? (2) Hindu's have always existed, there earliest origins can be traced to the ancient Vedic civilization,
Is it true moslems in India are still second class citizens dominated by the country's dominant religion?
(4) What is your stance on the disputed Kashmir region? Are you pro-pakistan on it?

[Gustav]

life tends to get a bit mysterious tho
plans have a way of unraveling inexplicably
considering prior experiences can never hurt
it is the unpredictable social dynamic that history usually illustrates
ignore at your own risk

[joepistole]

life tends to get a bit mysterious tho
plans have a way of unraveling inexplicably
considering prior experiences can never hurt
it is the unpredictable social dynamic that history usually illustrates
ignore at your own risk

There is a big difference from studying and learning from the past and using the past misdeads of others to beat innocent people of today over the heads. It simply is not relevant. It is like the Catholic belief in original sin. Someone very distantly related committed a sin, therefore you are guilty of that sin...makes no sense and is not relevant. I have enoubh with my own sins, I don't need to be taking on the sins of others. I am not Christ.

[Revolvr]

There is a prayer at the end of Sura al-Baqarah (the one that Arsalan above referred to)

It is the last verse and goes something like this:
Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved. Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget, or miss the mark! Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as thou didst lay on those before us! Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we have not the strength to bear! Pardon us, absolve us and have mercy on us, Thou, our Protector, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk. 2:286

In other words, if there are problems in life, there is also the strength and courage to cope with it, if you wish. The choice is yours and whatever choice you make, is to your account. Beyond that, one can only do one's best.

But isn't there some standard by which Allah judges people? Seems like "do your best" is a bit vague, or at least very open ended. Seems like if Allah is a perfect and just God, punishment would be sure to come to anyone who fails a perfect criteria. Wouldn't only the very best get to Paradise?

[S.A.M.]

But isn't there some standard by which Allah judges people? Seems like "do your best" is a bit vague, or at least very open ended. Seems like if Allah is a perfect and just God, punishment would be sure to come to anyone who fails a perfect criteria. Wouldn't only the very best get to Paradise?

The basic theme of the Quran (from the very first revelation Read!In the name of your Lord or Iqra! Bi'ismi Rabbi!) is gaining knowledge.

There are guidelines for behaviour throughout the Quran, with some musts (like charity and truth), but most are just that, guidelines. To each according to his best (effort or understanding). Sacrifice is not a requirement nor is forgiveness of all and every wrong done, though they are recommended. Abstinence is not recommended nor is deprivation or suppression of the senses, but self control and discipline is. Its an easy religion to follow.

[S.A.M.]

lemme introduce nuance as a concept
the mughal incursion was initially exemplified by tolerance which then subsequently devolved into intolerance


Its off topic, but can you guess why during the Sepoy Mutiny, the Indian soldiers (Hindus and Muslims) under the British went to the Last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar to lead them in the mutiny? And why the British had to exile Zafar after presenting him with his sons heads on a platter to quell the mutiny completely?

[Arsalan]

But they did it with kindness Q. :)

its pretty bovious that you guys dont want to understand what I want to say about slavery and Islam. Thats why Ill write a response and a summary from various sources regarding slavery in Islam and Christanity. Will take some time though cos Ive also got a presentation coming up.

[Michael]

I'm flabbergasted that this is something Muslims would stoop to defend.

So, Muslims conquered other nations, raped, pillaged and plundered. Then, after the raping, pillaging and plundering, they felt it their moral duty to take as slaves those who might have survived the raping, pillaging and plundering because those victims wouldn't have anyone to take care of them. And, they had to convert to Islam if they wished to stay alive, of course.

Unfuckingbelievable.This is exactly right. But of course pointing this out and somehow you're hate mongering.



RE: How do Muslims get into Paradise?

Here's the quick route: Spanish suicide attacks (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/23/spain.suspects/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

The 10 who were kept in custody include eight Pakistani nationals and two Indian nationals who are Muslim.

Geee Pakistan again, go figure. Who are they under occupation by? What is their beef with the Spanish? Are the Spanish somehow harming Pakistan???

OR could it be their screwed up belief system offers more than enough carrots at the end of the stick? If one can justify 1500 years of selling human flesh then I suppose one can justly just about anything....

For the record. American and European slave trade was despicable, heinous and down right evil. ANYONE with 1/100th an once of compassion will immediately recognize that slavery as one of the worse evils perpetrated onto humanity. THEY'D certainly not try to tell everyione GOD accepts it AND if for some reason they didn't have the wherewithal to denounce it then they'd at the VERY LEAST not practice it themselves.

[Revolvr]

The basic theme of the Quran (from the very first revelation Read!In the name of your Lord or Iqra! Bi'ismi Rabbi!) is gaining knowledge.

There are guidelines for behaviour throughout the Quran, with some musts (like charity and truth), but most are just that, guidelines. To each according to his best (effort or understanding). Sacrifice is not a requirement nor is forgiveness of all and every wrong done, though they are recommended. Abstinence is not recommended nor is deprivation or suppression of the senses, but self control and discipline is. Its an easy religion to follow.

I get the bit about gaining knowledge and doing your best. But how does Allah differentiate between two people doing their best but one isn't near as good as another? Seems like Allah lets everybody in who claims to be a Muslim regardless of how they behave. Why would Allah let so much riffraff into Paradise? (not being critical here, just not getting it).

[S.A.M.]

I get the bit about gaining knowledge and doing your best. But how does Allah differentiate between two people doing their best but one isn't near as good as another? Seems like Allah lets everybody in who claims to be a Muslim regardless of how they behave. Why would Allah let so much riffraff into Paradise? (not being critical here, just not getting it).

Because one can do no better than their best?

[GeoffP]

Which explains why its in Muslim countries that you find Eastern Orthodox Church Christians, among other, non-Roman forms of Christianity. And why India was a rich country, with no Hindus, when the British came to it after a thousand years of Islam.:rolleyes:

Er... you also find Orthodox Christians in Russia and the East in general.

This may have been apparent by the word "East".

Does the relative absence of Western, "Roman" Christians in the ME then conversely imply non-tolerance?

Please pick up a history book.

Best,

Geoff

[Arsalan]

This is exactly right. But of course pointing this out and somehow you're hate mongering.

Your not hatemongering. But you are ignorant if you only regurgitate what hate sites tell you.

RE: How do Muslims get into Paradise?

Here's the quick route: Spanish suicide attacks (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/23/spain.suspects/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
[COLOR="Blue"]

Tssk tssk tskk Michael. I had honestly expected better from you. Can you give me a verse of the Quran which says that suicide bombing will get you to heaven? Are you still that narrowminded?

[Arsalan]

One of the most (intentionally?) misunderstood recent topics about Islam is its position on slavery. Some people on this board, who are not at all interested in learning or studying ANYTHING about Islam, proceed to copy and paste stuff from hate sites onto this board, and into their minds, and refuse to entertain any other thought, no matter how much evidence is provided against their view. The irony of it being of course is that they accuse Muslims of holding onto a wrong and tired old ideology while they continue to do it themselves. Let’s start off with looking at what the Holy Quran says about mankind:
O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female; and we have made you into tribes and subtribes that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable among you, in the sight of Allah, is he who is the most righteous among you. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware (49:14)

From the subject of Islamic Brotherhood to which reference has been made in the preceeding two verses, this Surah proceeds to lay down the basis of an all-comprehensive, all pervading brotherhood of man. The verse, in fact, upon closer examination constitutes the Magna Carta of human fraternity and equality. This verse firkmly lays the axe at the false and foolish notions of superiority, born of racial arrogance or national conceit. Equality is the keyword when explaining this verse.
Let’s look at another verse:
...And as such desire a deed of manumission in writing from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them...(24:34)
Michael keeps asking me why I think Islam is the greatest religion. My post in that other topic gave him some concepts I found novel and enlightening in Islam. Ofcourse I disagree with this point of view that for something to be perfect it has to be novel and enlightening. But this verse is another thing which proves that the Holy Prophets message was not one of captivity and selling people like chattel, or “selling flesh” as the ignorant Michael put it after a post from the equally ignorant Q. This verse alone should be enough to prove that slavery as seen by some people on here is not the slavery mentioned in the Quran. Why? Would a slave be able to ask his freedom just like that and be given it in the image of slaves, created by the history of the Western world, that some people on here have? No
From a commentary of this verse:
"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty."

Let’s look at a couple of sayings of the Holy Prophet:

. . . yield obedience to my successor, although he may be an Abyssinian slave.
He will not enter paradise who behaveth ill to his slaves. The companions said, "O Apostle of God! Have you not told us, that there will be a great many slaves and orphans amongst your disciples?" He said, "Yes; then be kind to them as your own children, and give them to eat of what you eat yourselves. The slaves that say their prayers are your brothers."
An interesting fact is that the first call to prayer, a major honour, was given in 622 by Bilal -- a black slave freed by the Holy Prophet. About 1235 years later, in 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that Dred Scott:
could not sue for his freedom because he was not a person, but property.
This, in a nutshell, illustrates the difference between the slavery in Islam and the ones the people on this board grew up with in their history lessons. Pot, kettle, black etc..
Annemarie Schimmel in Islam: An Introduction says:

Slavery was not abolished by the Koran, but believers are constantly admonished to treat their slaves well. In case of illness a slave has to be looked after and well cared for. To manumit [free] a slave is higly meritorious; the slave can ransom himself by paying some of the money he has earned while conducting his own business. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam. The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of the women's quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions. -- p. 67

Roger Du Pasquier in Unveiling Islam says:

To answer this question, it should first be remarked that Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression. To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone. It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle.
It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.
There are many other hadiths which define Islam's true attitude in this regard. The Prophet said: 'Your slaves are your brethren; therefore whoever has a brother who depends upon him must feed and clothe him in the way he feeds and clothes himself; and should not impose upon him tasks which exceed his capacity; should you ask them to do such things, then you are obliged to help them.' The Sharia takes this injunction, among many others, into account when defining the responsibilities and duties of slaveholders.
There is another teaching which enjoins respect for the human dignity of slaves: 'Let none of you say, "This man, or this woman, is my slave". He must rather say: "This is my man, and this my woman."' Putting into relief the provisional character of social ties and the authority exercised by slaveowners over their slaves, the Prophet said: 'It is true that God has made you their masters, but, had He so wished, He could equally well have made you their slaves.'
To manumit a slave has always been regarded as one of the most meritorious of all acts, and many passages of the Qur'an recommend or even require it, particularly as a means of expiation for serious faults. Traditional legislation lays down the methods of voluntary liberation of slaves by their masters (itq), and there were very many Muslims who observed these, especially at the end of their lives, so as not to die and appear before God without having given full freedom to the human beings placed in their power during their earthly lives.
Additionally, slaves had the ability to enfranchise themselves at their own initiative, without waiting passively for the goodwill of their masters: the procedure known as mukataba allowed them to buy their own freedom with sums which they saved from their work, and which the state frequently augmented with advances -- a measure which the slaveowner had no right to oppose. In contrast to the situation under Roman law, slaves were not deprived of the legal ability to exercise their rights and to appeal to a judge against their masters in all cases of illegal treatment.
Besides domestic slavery, which was generally imbued with a patriarchal character, there also existed a form of military slavery, which was frequently employed by princes in need of recruits, especially for their personal guards. This situation had the effect of conferring an often considerable influence and power on men of servile condition or origin, and some of these became the founders of great and illustrious dynasties such as the Tulunids and Mamlukes of Egypt.
The object of a prosperous commercial sector, which under the Abbasid Empire was often the speciality of non-Muslims, particularly Byzantine and Venetian Christians, and Jews, slavery gradually declined in importance until, at the beginning of the present century, it was confined to a few survivals which have now disappeared entirely. Thanks to the strict traditional controls which have always regulated the practice, it would be difficult to deny that social conditions were remarkably humane during the great periods of Muslim civilization, and that these, moreover, were in conformity with the 'egalitarian' spirit of Islam, which, in a hadith, teaches that 'the blackest of Abyssinians' is superior to most noble of Quraishites, if he has more faith. -- p. 104 – 107
Islam completely forbids free and innocent people and in the cases of female to have extramarital relations with them. We see that from the following verse:
...But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity...(24:34)
The idea that slaves were used for any extra-marital affairs by Muslims is a lie and stems from the practice of the pre-Islamic Arabic society and especially by the Christians and Jews:
Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."
According to Saleem, and I agree, this argument that Islam allows this heinous form of slavery stems from the teachings of Islam which were introduced to gradually abolish the institution of slavery. Instead of researching why these teachings were given in regards to slavery and acknowledging that adherence to these teachings would have gotten rid of of slavery once and for all, some people, once again, show their true face when it comes to Islam. Somehow, no matter how, they will always attack its teachings regarding everything. They get a kick from it. Centuries of indoctrination against this “threat” to Christianity has done its work. Anyway, let’s move on. It was a gradual process because of abolition of this practice because of the society in which it was revealed. In pre-Islamic Arabia, and therefore in times of the Christian and Jewish and Pagan religions in Arabia, slavery was the norm and widely practiced and seen as ok. Slaves were in every household and treated like animals, beaten to death over the smallest of things. This was the time of Christianity, Judaism and Paganism in Arabia before Islam. Not coincidentally just as they were treated by their Western (Christian?) masters.
The only possible way to get rid of this institution of slavery was to adopt a gradual process of eliminating it. Immediate release of all slaves would have meant that a very large number of people who were dependent on various families would be thrown out into the streets to fend for themselves. It would create problems which the society was not ready for. How could that society cater for such a large population of recently freed people who had nothing? No institution was in place to help them, no welfare system or the like. Not to mention the old people that would be suddenly “freed” and thrown out into the street. How would they cope? What would they do? Did you guys ever think about that or does your thinking only go as far as “Badcancel it and don’t care about consequences”? They would become beggars and the like.
Shehzad Saleem presents an interesting idea and one which deserves some kind of recognition by all the haters here. He says:
Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in our economy today. No one can refute that our national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.
Wise words you should think about. He goes on to list some of the measures Islam took in regards to eradicating this institution in a gradual scheme:

1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.

2. The Prophet, unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.

3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.

4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.

5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
Wow, a “permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women”. How many other nations had that in that time? How many nations had this even a couple hundred years ago? Anyway, let’s move on:

6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.

7. The affronting names of `abd and amah by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.

8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Similarly other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of that period. Thus the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short period of thirty or forty years.
A verse that is always cited by anti-Islamists is:
And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters—then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom—until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance....(47:5)
This verse, contrary to the popular belief among haters, lays down some important rules about the ethics of war during and after and deals a deathblow to slavery while doing so. First of all it says that when Muslims are engaged in regular battle, as cited in other verses in the defence of their faith, honour, lives or property, the Muslims are enjoined to fight bravely and relentlessly. Verses 8:13-17 shine more light on the behaviour of Muslims during fighting and they include no desertion. How different is this from a regular army? Does not a regular army, from any country, fight to the end when it is at war? And is desertion allowed? Unfortunately, many of the anti-Islamists don’t see this simple fact, but, just like the Medieval Church, are quick to misrepresent and or condemn things without studying them first. The irony...
Anyway lets continue to look at the verse in question. The part of the verse which is always cited by anti-Islamists to somehow validate their point is the 2nd part of the verse dealing with captives after the war. The verse says that prisoners are to be taken from the enemy, only after regular battle has been fought and the enemy has been decidedly beaten and thereby declares that regular war is the only reason for taking prisoners. How is this any different from the POWs taken by many armies nowadays as well? Ever think about that? But the verse goes on.
...slavery was largely a by-product of wars between nations, the conquered peoples becoming the slaves of their conquerors. In the formative years of Islam, no reliable system existed of exchanging prisoners of war. The available means of dealing with them were either (i) to put them all to the sword; or (ii) to hold them and attend to their care in prison; or (iii) to allow them to return to their own people; or (iv) to distribute them among the Muslims as part of the spoils of war.
The first option must be ruled out on the grounds of its barbarity. The second is practicable only for small numbers for a limited period of time if resources permit-and it was, of course, practised-prisoners being held in this way against ransom, many so content with their treatment that they became Muslims and changed sides in the fighting. The third option is imprudent in time of war. This leaves, as a rule for general practice, only the fourth option, whence followed the humane laws and norms instituted by Islam for what is, in effect, the rehabilitation of prisoners of war.
When the war has ended, the prisoners should be released, either as an act of favour, or on taking ransom or by mutual exchange. They should not be held permanently in captivity or as slaves. As pointed out by Muir, Zurqani and Hisham this verse effectively strikes at the roots of slavery, abolishing it completely and forever. The teachings in this verse were carried out by the Holy Prophet himself when he released the prisoners taken after the fighting had ended. Unfortunately, the haters don’t post any of those Hadith. I wonder why...
But they happily report the Hadith about the banu Quraizah. For those who don’t know about that event let me tell you. Or better yet, let me quote:
However, there is, perhaps, just one instance in the Prophet’s life which may become a source of misconception in this regard. This was the battle with the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraizah in which all the male prisoners were executed and the women and children were made slaves. An analysis of the whole matter shows that the Muslim army had surrounded their fortress for almost a month. At last, they requested to appoint Sa’ad bin Mu’aaz, the leader of the tribe of Aus, as an arbitrator and promised to willingly accept his decision. They reckoned that since they had remained the allies of the Aus, Sa’ad would be lenient to them in his decision. But Sa’ad bin Mu‘azz, much to their dismay, gave his decision in accordance with the Jewish Shariah. According to the Jewish Shariah, the male prisoners were to be executed while the women and children were to be enslaved. It is, therefore, clear that the Islamic Shariah could not have come to their rescue in this regard since they were dealt with according to their own law by a person they themselves had appointed as an arbitrator.
That is the story that the haters don’t post want you to see know when they post that Hadith.
But why did it take so long for slavery to end?
We believe the reason for this must be sought in the social complexities which exist in a community. It is extremely difficult to eradicate customs and traditions which are deeply rooted in a society. The society, as a whole did not accept the reformation started by Islam. A similar instance can be observed in the case of the political set up envisaged by Islam. It totally condemned the institution of dictatorship in which a despotic ruler and his few henchmen exercised absolute powers. It established a government which was democratic in the sense that it came into power by a majority mandate. Throughout the term of the Rightly Guided Caliphate this principle remained in force for the election of the ruler. However, after the end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, the Arab society rejected this system and reverted to dictatorship.

Gulen also has interesting things to say on the subject of slavery in Islam. He starts his essay off by giving the reason Michael and others only have 1 image of slavery:
First of all, it is useful to recall why the institution of slavery is thought of or remembered with such revulsion. Images of the brutal treatment of slaves, especially in ancient Rome and Egypt, provokes sorrow and deep disgust. That is why even after so many centuries, our conception of slaves is of men and women carrying stones to the pyramids and being used up in the building process like mortar, or fighting wild animals in public arenas for the amusement of their owners. We picture slaves wearing shameful yokes and chains around their necks.
Quite true. He also talks about the cruel treatment dealt out to black slaves by the Western Nations and then gives an extremely sharp insight into why the rest of the world laughs when the Western world talks about abolishing slavery:
After centuries of this dreadful practice had made the West European nations rich from exploitation of such commodities as sugar, cotton, coffee, they abolished slavery-they abolished it, with much self-congratulation, first as a trade, then altogether. Yet the Muslim regions had also known considerable prosperity through the exploitation of sugar, cotton, coffee (these words in European languages are of Arabic origin), and achieved that prosperity without the use of slave labour.
He goes on to talk about slavery being abolished in these times but according to him the reason slavery is abhorred is not just because of the institution of slavery itself but because of the inhumanities which sustain it. You can abolish whatever you want but as he points out if you don’t abolish the attitudes that go with it then nothing is achieved. And history shows us that bragging about the abolition of slavery in the West is pretty futile seeing that:
It was not many years after the abolition of slavery that Africa was directly colonized by the Europeans with consequences for the Africans no less terrible than slavery itself.
The simple fact about slaves in Islam is that they were not treated as animals nor were they seen as inferior, as they were in the West. Many great people who were slaves or son of slaves rose to great offices and did great deeds. How many slaves in the West were treated like that?
Let’s look at another hadith which may clear up the reason why slaves were not seen as inferior to Muslims but were helped in every single way:
Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and whosoever castrates his slave shall himself be castrated. (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa’i, Qasama, 10, 16)
You should know that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab and, no non-Arab is superior over any Arab, no white is superior over black and no black is superior over white. Superiority is by righteousness and God-fearing [alone]. (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411)
Would any Westerner have called a slave as Master like Umar, one of the greatest Muslims, did? Or let a slave pull his ear in public like Uthman did when he was the Khalifa? This is, and I cannot repeat this enough, the sole reason that slavery as viewed by Muslims and Islam is completely different and opposite to the slavery that the Westerners practiced and you read about in history lessons.
The reality is that in Islam it is overwhelmingly the case that being a slave was a temporary condition.
But why, our critics will ask, when the Muslims were secure in their conquests did they not grant emancipation wholesale to former captives or slaves? The answer has, again, to do with realities not theories. Those former captives or slaves would not have either the personal, psychological resources or the economic resources needed to establish a secure, dignified independence. Those who doubt this would do well to examine the consequences upon the slaves in the former European or American colonies of their sudden emancipation-many were abruptly reduced to destitution, rendered homeless and resourceless by owners who (themselves compensated for their loss of property) no longer accepted any kind of responsibility for their former slaves. We have already noted the failure of these ex-slaves to enter upon or make a mark in the wider society from which they had been so long excluded by law.
Wise words indeed. The fact is that Islam has forbidden capturing and imprisoning a free man. The following hadith supports this view:
"There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).
But once again, you wont see any of the anti-Islamists posting this Hadith. Why? Because it is not available on the hate sites.
To finish off this part of my post, I would like to quote Kly the article "The African-American Muslim Minority: 1776-1900":
One of the causes of the continuing conversion of African-Americans to Islam is the contrast between their brutal and racist enslavement at the hands of Anglo-Americans in the United States, on the one hand, and the relative absence of racism in Islam, on the other. Although one dimension of the current anti-Islamic polemic in the West is the highlighting of the occurence of slavery both in Islamic history and today in Sudan and Mauritania, this has failed to turn away many African-Americans from Islam.
There are a number of reasons for this:
• the Qur'an repeatedly condemns oppressors;
• the Qur'an exhorts people to free their slaves;
• while slavery has occured in the Muslim world, it has not been racist;
• slavery in the Muslim world was largely a way of dealing with prisoners of war who were then ransomed back to their own people.
Given the clear opposition of Islam to injustice, the Islamic virtue of not practicing slavery, and the relatively recent horrors of African-American slavery, why have Muslims not put an end to slavery in the Muslim world?
I suspect that the answer to this lies in the fact that in most areas of the Muslim world, Muslims are themselves not free to act politically, that they are preoccupied with other local struggles against injustice, or are constrained by poverty. If my suspicion is correct, in the future as Muslims gradually emerge from the bondage of neocolonial dictatorships and/or poverty, we should see Muslims at the forefront of those activists who are striving to end all forms of slavery.
Let’s look at some more quotes you wont see the anti-Islamists posting:
"A man came to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and said: 'Guide me to a deed that makes me close to Heaven and far from Hell.' The Prophet replied: 'Free a person and redeem a slave.'
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"
If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:
"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"
"Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: "I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4089)"
Now let’s look at the treatment of slaves in the Bibl because some people think that it was Christianity that abolished slavery and that it does not support slavery. Apart from the fact that in pre-Islamic Arabia it was abundant among every religious group there, especially Christianity and Judaism, there are some verses from the Bible which are “interesting”:
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 21:20-21)"
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Salves in the Bible are not to be liberated but are to be passed down from generation to generation. Where is the idea about freeing slaves as we see in Islam? Interesting isn’t it?
Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect"
Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The enslaved Africans were also Muslims. Which is one of the reasons that they were enslaved. The other reaons being that Africa contained great Muslim scholars and universities and ofcourse those were also plundered.
We must acknowledge the complicity of many of our churches in slavery, a system in which most African Americans were prohibited from practicing Islam or African traditional religions." Interfaith Relations and the Churches Policy Statement of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) justified human slavery on the basis of the 10th commandment. It places slaves:
"... under the same protection as any other species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?"
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife
Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
In the end, you might want to read this: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm?once=true&

[SkinWalker]

Moderator's Note: Please do not continue to post long diatribes of propaganda. They will be deleted. If anyone has any questions regarding this moderator note, please PM me. Metadiscussion in-thread will be deleted.

[GeoffP]

One of the most (intentionally?) misunderstood recent topics about Islam is its position on slavery. Some people on this board, who are not at all interested in learning or studying ANYTHING about Islam, proceed to copy and paste stuff from hate sites onto this board

Please don't characterize other posters as being ignorant: verily, you are the worst of copy-and-pasters.

This verse firkmly lays the axe at the false and foolish notions of superiority, born of racial arrogance or national conceit. Equality is the keyword when explaining this verse. Let’s look at another verse:

A verse, regrettably, abrogated by Sura 9, which was "revealed" after it.

This verse alone should be enough to prove that slavery as seen by some people on here is not the slavery mentioned in the Quran. Why? Would a slave be able to ask his freedom just like that and be given it in the image of slaves, created by the history of the Western world, that some people on here have? No

What, precisely, is the image of the slave in the Western world. Much is made of this supposed distinction. Yet, can Arselan distinguish for me the role of villein and serf, or of slavery and indentury? What was the history of slavery in 13th century Europe? What became of slaves in England during this period, say? Are you perhaps unaware of the purchase of freedom by slaves (either of land or body) in the Western world also? Your information on the subject appears to spring from a monumental ignorance. On the other side, what, pray tell, did Mohammed mean when he referred to "women taken by the right hand"?

An interesting fact is that the first call to prayer, a major honour, was given in 622 by Bilal -- a black slave freed by the Holy Prophet.

You confound again race with slavery. Slaves were of many races. You are overreliant on the American example

Islam completely forbids free and innocent people and in the cases of female to have extramarital relations with them. We see that from the following verse:

I reiterate from Sura 4: what are women "taken by the right hand"? :confused:

The idea that slaves were used for any extra-marital affairs by Muslims is a lie and stems from the practice of the pre-Islamic Arabic society and especially by the Christians and Jews:

Ah - the evil idolaters.

Somehow, no matter how, they will always attack its teachings regarding everything. They get a kick from it. Centuries of indoctrination against this “threat” to Christianity has done its work.

It isn't a threat to Christianity historically, or in the present? :confused: What, Arsalan, is a "Copt"? Can you define the high point of Assyrian Christendom? What happened to them? What was the historical setting point of the jizya compared to the voluntarily paid zakat? What decrees were the Ottomans forced to in order to preserve their tax base? Why was their tax base shrinking? And so on.

Slaves were in every household and treated like animals, beaten to death over the smallest of things. This was the time of Christianity, Judaism and Paganism in Arabia before Islam. Not coincidentally just as they were treated by their Western (Christian?) masters.

Proof please? Your comprehension of the legalities of slavery in Europe leave much to be desired.

The only possible way to get rid of this institution of slavery was to adopt a gradual process of eliminating it. Immediate release of all slaves would have meant that a very large number of people who were dependent on various families would be thrown out into the streets to fend for themselves. It would create problems which the society was not ready for.

Really? Old Shehzad seems to have forgotten that it is only in the islamic world where slavery still thrives - and, ironically enough, in both the poorest and richest parts of it.

Wise words you should think about. He goes on to list some of the measures Islam took in regards to eradicating this institution in a gradual scheme:

And how gradual it has been: a mere 1400 years and still not quite finished. The veritable blink of an eye.

Wow, a “permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women”. How many other nations had that in that time? How many nations had this even a couple hundred years ago?

Did their 1400 years of delay amount to concern for their own posts in the ministry, then?

Quite true. He also talks about the cruel treatment dealt out to black slaves by the Western Nations and then gives an extremely sharp insight into why the rest of the world laughs when the Western world talks about abolishing slavery:

Yet: they did, and the islamic world did not, nor has it. In fact, the abolition of slavery in the islamic world appears largely to have been that forced by Western armies, such as the destruction of the Barbary pirates.

Let’s look at another hadith which may clear up the reason why slaves were not seen as inferior to Muslims but were helped in every single way:

Except, of course, to be free.

Would any Westerner have called a slave as Master like Umar, one of the greatest Muslims, did?

Excuse me: you've mentioned Umar as exemplary before. Umar the Pillager? Umar the Destroyer? Umar who invaded and brutally subjugated non-muslims throughout almost his entire career? That Umar? I'm surprised that you call this man a hero. He doesn't appear to have been anything of the kind, but rather a brutal warlord.

Wise words indeed. The fact is that Islam has forbidden capturing and imprisoning a free man. The following hadith supports this view:

I suppose all the mentions of taking slaves in the Quran was meant to fool the haters, then. Yet, as I've said before: slavery persists in islam, but not in other religions. Why is this? Are the Sudanese and Saudis reading the same Quran as you, or a different one? Do you realize also that your post, above, disagrees with your admission that slaves were taken of free men, since you prattle about the rules for doing so?

Now let’s look at the treatment of slaves in the Bibl because some people think that it was Christianity that abolished slavery and that it does not support slavery.

Your ignorance on this matter is overwhelming. The role of religion in the abolition of slavery is quite well known. Please: no dissimilitude.

Salves in the Bible are not to be liberated but are to be passed down from generation to generation. Where is the idea about freeing slaves as we see in Islam? Interesting isn’t it?

Yet the slaves of the OT and NT are all freed now, whereas slavery continues in the islamic world - and was, at its height, probably greater than that in the West, despite the smaller population of the Middle East.

The enslaved Africans were also Muslims.

Which ones? The ones enslaved by Arabs from the Middle East (a practice that continues today in the Sudan) or the ones enslaved by Americans? The answer: neither. You might argue the Sudan, I suppose. But where are your proofs for these statements? What great universities were pillaged in the slave-taking raids? Surely you must have some idea which these were.

Which is one of the reasons that they were enslaved. The other reaons being that Africa contained great Muslim scholars and universities and ofcourse those were also plundered.[/QUOTE]

[Revolvr]

Because one can do no better than their best?

It seems that Allah then lets wrongs and unrighteousness go unpunished. There is both good and evil in this world, does not Allah represent all that is good? Is Allah not perfect? But only Muhammad (pbuh) and the prophets are sinless. Everyone else falls short. Therefore to let people into paradise who fall short says Paradise is imperfect also. Or that Allah does not have perfect justice.

[SkinWalker]

There is both good and evil in this world, does not Allah represent all that is good? Is Allah not perfect?

Aren't you deluded by beliefs in superstitions surrounding the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god? Shouldn't you already know the answers to these questions?

[Revolvr]

Aren't you deluded by beliefs in superstitions surrounding the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god? Shouldn't you already know the answers to these questions?

SkinWalker, I am bringing this thread back on topic so that we may understand Islamic thought on this subject. Islamic beliefs are not the same as Judeo-Christian beliefs. So lets please stay on topic.

Also if we ignore the off-topic posts on slavery, this thread has thus far been free of personal or religious attacks. Please take your prejudices and ad hominems elsewhere.

[SkinWalker]

These are not ad hominem attacks since they are attacking the premises of your superstitions and not the person. Moreover, if we can agree that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is one and the same (which it clearly is from any etic view of the mythology) then we can also assume that the requirements for attaining any superstitious status, such as heaven/paradise (the same concept), would be similar or at least have a common progenitor in the evolution of their respective mythologies.

That you take offense to my etic perspective is your own problem. This is a science message board and religions in this forum should be treated scientifically and not simply accepted as "matters of fact" since, clearly, they are not.

[S.A.M.]

It seems that Allah then lets wrongs and unrighteousness go unpunished. There is both good and evil in this world, does not Allah represent all that is good? Is Allah not perfect? But only Muhammad (pbuh) and the prophets are sinless. Everyone else falls short. Therefore to let people into paradise who fall short says Paradise is imperfect also. Or that Allah does not have perfect justice.

What is perfect justice?

Is thinking about doing good equivalent to thinking about doing something bad?

Is doing something good accidentally the same as doing something bad accidentally?

Is doing good deliberately the same as doing bad deliberately?

What about unintended consequences?

What about good intentions leading to poor consequences?

Put simply:

Equivalence is the Law [2:178-179]

[Revolvr]

What is perfect justice?

Is thinking about doing good equivalent to thinking about doing something bad?

Is doing something good accidentally the same as doing something bad accidentally?

Is doing good deliberately the same as doing bad deliberately?

What about unintended consequences?

What about good intentions leading to poor consequences?

Put simply:

Equivalence is the Law [2:178-179]

These are good questions. What are the answers from a Muslim perspective? As I understand it, in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) there are 5 categories of behavior:

Mandatory (prayer, almsgiving, fasting)
Recommended (informal prayer, urinating while sitting)
Neutral (apple or orange juice in the morning)
Disapproved (contraception)
Forbidden (eating pork, fornication)

If one does disapproved or forbidden things, ever, but one believes, then one goes to paradise anyway? By perfect justice I meant that any wrongdoing would be punished. But it seems wrongdoing is not punished if one believes. Therefore there is no justice, but there is mercy. Is that how to look at it?

[(Q)]

Islamic beliefs are not the same as Judeo-Christian beliefs.

the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is one and the same (which it clearly is from any etic view of the mythology)

Certainly, an interesting paradox, especially when the "ticket" into paradise is at stake.

And clearly, by not fulfilling one particular cults requirements and not do the same for the other cults would surely mean that ticket to paradise be revoked in favor of "The Subway to Eternal Damnation."

What vast and intricate rationale has been devised to deal with such a paradox?

[S.A.M.]

These are good questions. What are the answers from a Muslim perspective? As I understand it, in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) there are 5 categories of behavior:

Mandatory (prayer, almsgiving, fasting)
Recommended (informal prayer, urinating while sitting)
Neutral (apple or orange juice in the morning)
Disapproved (contraception)
Forbidden (eating pork, fornication)

If one does disapproved or forbidden things, ever, but one believes, then one goes to paradise anyway? By perfect justice I meant that any wrongdoing would be punished. But it seems wrongdoing is not punished if one believes. Therefore there is no justice, but there is mercy. Is that how to look at it?


You should remember that Fiqh is legal opinion utilised to make it easier for people to follow their religion. Fiqh does not and cannot replace the Quran. Moreover, it is not standardised and has a wide range of opinions on any single issue.

Fiqh today (IMO) is outdated and not in step with society, it needs a major overhaul by Islamic scholars. Plus, no Islamic society actually obeys Fiqh, the civil laws are set by political figures without considering what is required for the health and functioning of the society in the modern world.

So merely following Fiqh or on the other hand rejecting it, does not imply very much about rightness or wrongness of faith. e.g. there is a fatwa against female genital mutilation, does that mean that all those who still practise it are wrong because there is a fatwa against it? Is it wrong in and of itself? These are social issues rather than issues of faith and laws are meant to ensure social health, they are not determinants of faith.

[Arsalan]

Please don't characterize other posters as being ignorant: verily, you are the worst of copy-and-pasters.

Haha! Becuase I copy and paste quotes from people who DONT spread hate and ignorance, Im the worst :D Besides, I was going to summarise all my findings, but some posts on here made me rush it and skip the summarising.

A verse, regrettably, abrogated by Sura 9, which was "revealed" after it.

hehe, which verses in Sura 9 are you talking about? Please list them here.

On the other side, what, pray tell, did Mohammed mean when he referred to "women taken by the right hand"?

Give me the verse so I can look it up.

You confound again race with slavery. Slaves were of many races. You are overreliant on the American example

The cases in question involved a black slave

I reiterate from Sura 4: what are women "taken by the right hand"?

Once again, give me the verse in question.

It isn't a threat to Christianity historically, or in the present? :confused: What, Arsalan, is a "Copt"? Can you define the high point of Assyrian Christendom? What happened to them? What was the historical setting point of the jizya compared to the voluntarily paid zakat? What decrees were the Ottomans forced to in order to preserve their tax base? Why was their tax base shrinking? And so on.

Going into all that would make the rest of this thread completely offtopic.

Really? Old Shehzad seems to have forgotten that it is only in the islamic world where slavery still thrives - and, ironically enough, in both the poorest and richest parts of it.

Unfortunately, slavery still exists in Benin, Togo, India, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Thailand, Mauritania, Sudan, US, Brazil, Europe, UAE and Burma.

And how gradual it has been: a mere 1400 years and still not quite finished. The veritable blink of an eye.

Yes, it is unfortunate, that the Arabs have stopped heeding the Quran and teh Hadith regarding slavery. After the Khalifa-e-Rashideen the Arabs slowly started to revert to their pre-Islamic customs. Although there were still many examples of great Islamic civilizations.

Yet: they did, and the islamic world did not, nor has it. In fact, the abolition of slavery in the islamic world appears largely to have been that forced by Western armies, such as the destruction of the Barbary pirates.

Barbary Pirates lol. The only thing that they had to do with Islamic law was that they called themselves Muslims. Besides, isnt it strange that they started to operate right afte the Crusades? Some enlightened people might take that fact to show some kind of provocation :shrug:

Except, of course, to be free.

It is obvious you did not read what I wrote otherwise you wouldnt have said this. I have shown over and over that Muslims were exhorted to free slaves whenever they could. Whole tribes of slaves were bought and set free by the Muslims.


Excuse me: you've mentioned Umar as exemplary before. Umar the Pillager? Umar the Destroyer? Umar who invaded and brutally subjugated non-muslims throughout almost his entire career? That Umar? I'm surprised that you call this man a hero. He doesn't appear to have been anything of the kind, but rather a brutal warlord.

Ofcourse he wont appear anything of the kind to you. Youd rather term the expansion of the Muslim empire as invasion and conversion by force and attribute the most vile things to the Arabs of then. Thank God people like you
are, just like in the real world, few and far between on these boards otherwise all that Arab history would contain in the history books would be mass murder, genocide and whatnot.

I suppose all the mentions of taking slaves in the Quran was meant to fool the haters, then.

Which verses?

Your ignorance on this matter is overwhelming. The role of religion in the abolition of slavery is quite well known. Please: no dissimilitude.

Yet the slaves of the OT and NT are all freed now, whereas slavery continues in the islamic world - and was, at its height, probably greater than that in the West, despite the smaller population of the Middle East.

On the contrary, Im not showing anything of that. What I am showing is that to atribute the freeing of the slaves to Christianity is wrong by the scriptures.

[Arsalan]

Anyway, Ontopic again. All a Muslim can do is follow what is set out in the Quran. Believe in God, the Angels, the Prophets, pray, pay charity, do good deeds etc. That is the way to heaven.

[(Q)]

Anyway, Ontopic again. All a Muslim can do is follow what is set out in the Quran. Believe in God, the Angels, the Prophets, pray, pay charity, do good deeds etc. That is the way to heaven.

Yes, but aren't you afraid of going to Christian hell?

[Revolvr]

Anyway, Ontopic again. All a Muslim can do is follow what is set out in the Quran. Believe in God, the Angels, the Prophets, pray, pay charity, do good deeds etc. That is the way to heaven.

So I think I understand it. One is placed on a scale to weigh their goodness against their wrongs. Whichever weighs the most wins.

Seems like though that there would be some punishment for all of the wrongs a person did, even if the good outweighs the bad. Allah is after all, just. Does this punishment come along the way to paradise?

[Revolvr]

Anyway, Ontopic again. All a Muslim can do is follow what is set out in the Quran. Believe in God, the Angels, the Prophets, pray, pay charity, do good deeds etc. That is the way to heaven.

Different rights and wrongs have different weights on the final scale. The heaviest wrong is shirk as I understand it. What is the single most important righteous thing a Muslim can do? Is it belief or faith, or is it works - visible things like prayer.

[S.A.M.]

Different rights and wrongs have different weights on the final scale. The heaviest wrong is shirk as I understand it. What is the single most important righteous thing a Muslim can do? Is it belief or faith, or is it works - visible things like prayer.

There is no one thing, though some say that "iman" (to learn one's faith) is a step towards right "aqidah" (creed)

[GeoffP]

hehe, which verses in Sura 9 are you talking about? Please list them here.

hehe,

Q 4: 3. And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.

Q 4: 24. And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

25. And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

It has a phrase about "permission of their folk", but this doesn't seem to have been put into practice from the Quraysh onward.

The cases in question involved a black slave

...so? :confused: Why is the race important? Spell it out for me.

Going into all that would make the rest of this thread completely offtopic.

And dispell your point.

Unfortunately, slavery still exists in Benin, Togo, India, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Thailand, Mauritania, Sudan, US, Brazil, Europe, UAE and Burma.

The US and Europe, eh? :D Does it have legal protection there, too? I note Pakistan, Sudan and UAE all made the list.

Yes, it is unfortunate, that the Arabs have stopped heeding the Quran and teh Hadith regarding slavery. After the Khalifa-e-Rashideen the Arabs slowly started to revert to their pre-Islamic customs. Although there were still many examples of great Islamic civilizations.

You can, then, define a point between now and 700 AD when slavery was not part of islamic civilization?

Barbary Pirates lol. The only thing that they had to do with Islamic law was that they called themselves Muslims. Besides, isnt it strange that they started to operate right afte the Crusades? Some enlightened people might take that fact to show some kind of provocation :shrug:

Not really. Their ambassador made no reference to the Crusades, but only to the Quran. You may not call them muslims if you wish, of course: would you then turn over such people to justice, or defend their actions as "defense"? So far you're suggesting the latter.

It is obvious you did not read what I wrote otherwise you wouldnt have said this. I have shown over and over that Muslims were exhorted to free slaves whenever they could. Whole tribes of slaves were bought and set free by the Muslims.

And, I'm sure, by many people worldwide. You have a narrow conception of the legal status of a slave. I recommend 13-14th century England as an example; or indeed of any medieval period.

Ofcourse he wont appear anything of the kind to you. Youd rather term the expansion of the Muslim empire as invasion and conversion by force and attribute the most vile things to the Arabs of then.

Well, as a non-muslim myself, I'm more interested in his vile actions towards us than your perception of him as a hero. Umar is widely known as an invader and occupier; there is really no doubt of this whatsoever. I think Umar would be surprised (and amused) to hear you opine he was some kind of peaceful Caliph.

Thank God people like you are, just like in the real world, few and far between on these boards otherwise all that Arab history would contain in the history books would be mass murder, genocide and whatnot.

Ugh. The belaboured humiliate. Every nation has good and bad: I merely ask you recognize that your good does not translate into everyone's good, much as others insist for our civilization, and which I readily accept.

In other words, equality.

On the contrary, Im not showing anything of that. What I am showing is that to atribute the freeing of the slaves to Christianity is wrong by the scriptures.

Then it appears they took the central message of the Golden Rule and tried to apply it more liberally, rather than being weighted down with the ghost of literalist blindness. Would that everyone could be more humanitarian, and less legalistic.

Best,

Geoff

[GeoffP]

What about unintended consequences?

What about good intentions leading to poor consequences?

You seem more tolerant of such failures here than elsewhere.

[S.A.M.]

I almost forgot, there is also the tale of Sirat al Jahim (The Path of Hell, or the Bridge of Hell)

No idea of the origin (probably rose from the references to the Sirat al Mustaqim or the straight path or the Right Path in the Qur'an).

Anyway the Sirat al Jahim is the path above Hell, as narrow as a hair and as sharp edged as a sword. And if you're good, you get transport (horses, I think), across it. If you're bad bad bad, you have to negotiate it yourself. It leads to Paradise. Very Lord of the Ringish.

Has anyone else heard this?

[Kadark]

I almost forgot, there is also the tale of Sirat al Jahim (The Path of Hell, or the Bridge of Hell)

No idea of the origin (probably rose from the references to the Sirat al Mustaqim or the straight path or the Right Path in the Qur'an).

Anyway the Sirat al Jahim is the path above Hell, as narrow as a hair and as sharp edged as a sword. And if you're good, you get transport (horses, I think), across it. If you're bad bad bad, you have to negotiate it yourself. It leads to Paradise. Very Lord of the Ringish.

Has anyone else heard this?

I've heard a variation. Depending on your sins, the size of the "bridge" or pathway over hell will alter. For the righteous, it would be very broad and accessible, yet for the sinners it would be an impossibility to cross.

Does this version make sense?

[S.A.M.]

I've heard a variation. Depending on your sins, the size of the "bridge" or pathway over hell will alter. For the righteous, it would be very broad and accessible, yet for the sinners it would be an impossibility to cross.

Does this version make sense?

No idea, I actually heard this as one of the stories during a session of Qassasul Anbiya during a majlis. :o

Hmm your version sounds familiar too /racks brain cells.

[Kadark]

No idea, I actually heard this as one of the stories during a session of Qassasul Anbiya during a majlis. :o

Hmm your version sounds familiar too /racks brain cells.

Who knows. There's probably thousands of variations stemming from the original story. Nonetheless, they're all interesting.

[S.A.M.]

Who knows. There's probably thousands of variations stemming from the original story. Nonetheless, they're all interesting.

Yeah, you know any other ways to get into Paradise?:D

[Kadark]

Yeah, you know any other ways to get into Paradise?:D

How would I know? I'm just an idiotic Muslim, after all.

[S.A.M.]

My grandmother never told me all these stories. :bawl:

[Arsalan]

hehe,
Let’s look at the verses in question shall we:

And give the orphans their property and exchange not the bad for the good, and devour not their property with your own. Surely, it is a great sin.
And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice.(4:3-4)
Verse 4:3 tells us to treat orphans fairly. That is clear. Verse 4:4 tells us that if its not possible for a man to be able to take care of the orphans on his own he should marry. Here one of the special circumstances where polygamy is allowed is mentioned but in the same verse not encouraged. I suppose you are talking about where it says “your right hands possess”. In Arabic lexicon, the words translated to “your right hands possess” are also known as “wards” or “people in protected status”. It does not mean slaves or bondman or woman. But if you want to go down that route and orget the lexicon, this could apply to slaves because they are in a protected state, with everything provided for them and they are able to have their own house with their own family. Another thing this verse does is support the argument forwarded earlier about gradual abolition of slavery because it suggests marrying one of protected status which may apply to a slave and thereby freeing them from it.
The next verse you gave:
And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has Allah enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there shall be no sin for you in anything you mutually agree upon, after the fixing of the dowry.
The expression of “such as your right hands possess” has also been in used the Quran with regard to those men and women who took part in aggressive wars against Islam and fell prisoners into the hands of the Muslims. The context, however, shows that the expression used in the present verse means female prisoners of war. Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be taken as wives. For those prisoners there is the teaching which says free them either by favour or mutual exchange. This exceptional injunction becomes operative only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam with a view to extirpating it and compelling Muslim to abandon their religion, at the point of the sword and treats their prisoners as slaves, as was done in the days of the Holy Prophet when the enemies took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as slaves. The Islamic injunction was only a retaliatory measure and also served the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women. Another reason being that when female prisoners were taken after war, their own nations and tribes did not accept them back resulting in a lot of homeless women who had nothing and no one to protect them and nowhere to go. That is why the Muslims were allowed to marry them. Ofcourse the verse says “marry properly” which means that the other rules regarding marriage i.e. consent applied.
The next verse you gave:
And whoso of you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, let him marry what your right hands possess, namely, your believing handmaids. And Allah knows your faith best; you are all one from another; so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair, they being chaste, not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours.
The verse one again supports the aforementioned argument of gradually abolishing slavery but mostly says that Muslims should restrict try and marry believing women.
...so? :confused: Why is the race important? Spell it out for me.
Its not important to me. I was talking about black slaves. You, im assuming, have a problem with “black”, not me.
And dispell your point.
The copts and the ottoman empire and yadayada have nothing to do with what I said. Islam presents a threat to Christianity because it takes the rational approach and destroys the faulty doctrines Christianity is based on. That is why it’s a threat to Christianity. That is why the Church had forbidden its priests from engaging in public debates with Ahmadis in india and Pakistan among other things

The US and Europe, eh? :D Does it have legal protection there, too? I note Pakistan, Sudan and UAE all made the list.
Aye they did make the list. As did Brazil. And others. And enslaving free men and women in Islam is not allowed. I thought id made that much clear...

You can, then, define a point between now and 700 AD when slavery was not part of islamic civilization?
Can you define a period between when Christianity and Judaism came to Arabia and 1800 when slavery was not a part of Jewish and or Christian civilization? Or can you tell me who else freed as many slaves in the period of the Prophet and the Rashideen as they did? Or any other people in that time who had a whole system in place to gradually abolish this from their society? A system so successful that at the end of the Rashideen all the original slaves had been freed in Arabia.
Not really. Their ambassador made no reference to the Crusades, but only to the Quran. You may not call them muslims if you wish, of course: would you then turn over such people to justice, or defend their actions as "defense"? So far you're suggesting the latter.
Well you can research that for yourself. Many Barbary pirates were also former Christians who converted to Islam. Sounds to me like a bunch of moneyhungry people who would sell out their values for pieces of gold. Saying that they belonged to and operated because of a certain religion is pretty ridiculous. Pirates don’t have any such values.
And, I'm sure, by many people worldwide. You have a narrow conception of the legal status of a slave. I recommend 13-14th century England as an example; or indeed of any medieval period.
Haha, thats rich! Pray tell, what is the legal status of a slave? Also, about the medieval period, have you read the Decretum Gratiani? Also, how many people worldwide? There are lots of records of Muslims setting slaves free. Give me other records from that period.
Well, as a non-muslim myself, I'm more interested in his vile actions towards us than your perception of him as a hero. Umar is widely known as an invader and occupier; there is really no doubt of this whatsoever. I think Umar would be surprised (and amused) to hear you opine he was some kind of peaceful Caliph.
HAHA! Widely known! I lolled :D We are talking about the same Umar here right? The Umar who inherited an empire beset on both sides by the Romans and the Persians? The Umar who was hailed after freeing the Christians and Jews in Egypt by both of them? The Umar who non-Muslim kings and leaders wanted to impress with their fine clothing and found him sleeping among the beggars in the street? The Umar who divided up the empire into different administrations and put people from the areas in charge and gave them a form of selfdetermination? The Umar whose armies included Jews, Christians, Romans and Persians, who all fought for him because they were grateful to him and wanted what he did for them for other people? That Umar? I doubt it. Your probably talking about that mythical Umar created by the anti-Islamists who fail to recognize that the Islam state was indeed the target of its enemies and they wanted to destroy it by all means.
Ugh. The belaboured humiliate. Every nation has good and bad: I merely ask you recognize that your good does not translate into everyone's good, much as others insist for our civilization, and which I readily accept.
But ive always accepted that in the periods after the Rashideen the Muslims lost their way. Most of the Caliphates after that had nothing to do with religion and were more interested in money and worldly matters and did horrible things.
Then it appears they took the central message of the Golden Rule and tried to apply it more liberally, rather than being weighted down with the ghost of literalist blindness. Would that everyone could be more humanitarian, and less legalistic.
What is the Golden Rule?

[Kadark]

Masha'Allah, Arsalan - very well said.

[GeoffP]

I suppose you are talking about where it says “your right hands possess”. In Arabic lexicon, the words translated to “your right hands possess” are also known as “wards” or “people in protected status”. It does not mean slaves or bondman or woman. But if you want to go down that route and orget the lexicon, this could apply to slaves because they are in a protected state, with everything provided for them and they are able to have their own house with their own family.

The "right hand" is a clear allusion to force, as you well know. And were not slaves - those in this "protected state", which sounds very much like dhimmitude to me - abused in islamic society? They quite clearly were at innumerable points.

Another thing this verse does is support the argument forwarded earlier about gradual abolition of slavery because it suggests marrying one of protected status which may apply to a slave and thereby freeing them from it.

No. The verse does not discuss such an event. If the Sura describes such an event elsewhere, please illustrate it.

The expression of “such as your right hands possess” has also been in used the Quran with regard to those men and women who took part in aggressive wars against Islam and fell prisoners into the hands of the Muslims.

Not "also", but "only", rather. However, you acknowledge my correctness, for which I thank you.

The context, however, shows that the expression used in the present verse means female prisoners of war. Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be taken as wives.

Oh, well then, that's much better.

For those prisoners there is the teaching which says free them either by favour or mutual exchange. This exceptional injunction becomes operative only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam with a view to extirpating it and compelling Muslim to abandon their religion, at the point of the sword and treats their prisoners as slaves, as was done in the days of the Holy Prophet when the enemies took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as slaves. The Islamic injunction was only a retaliatory measure and also served the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women.

Another reason being that when female prisoners were taken after war, their own nations and tribes did not accept them back resulting in a lot of homeless women who had nothing and no one to protect them and nowhere to go.

Proof please.

That is why the Muslims were allowed to marry them. Ofcourse the verse says “marry properly” which means that the