How do Muslims get into Paradise?

Masha'Allah, Arsalan - very well said.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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

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

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.

Proof please.

Well, it probably didn't apply in the case of Zaynab bint al-Harith, whose family was wiped out by Mohammed and who then poisoned him. I understand she was married off to a muslim after the Battle of Khaybar, yet she seems to have kept enough resentment to knock off Mohammed. Perhaps he didn't notice the extent of her outrage?

How so?

...so "believing" women cannot be slaves in islamic society? Only "non-believing" (non-muslim) women can?

The use, also of "believing" is a little offensive. Other people believe other things, and with at least as much reason as muslims.

I have completely lost what it is you were trying to say here. I'm asking you why the race of the slave matters in these little treatises of slave treatment. Simply put: do you judge all examples of slavery in the West by that of African slaves in the 1700-1800s? Do you know anything of the history of slavery in Western civilization beyond that, or are you going on that example alone? Your point that the slave was black yet rose to a position of importance would seem to imply that you base your conceptions of treatment on the African experience alone.

Their history would disagree; they were not originally minorities, you see.

Hehe! Riiight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Flying camels and contradictory orders are logical.

More like because they didn't want to get lynched by the "believers". Only seems to go the one way, that.

But enslaving other people is all right - yes, yes, I noticed that.

Your point was rather that slavery was inimical to islam. Yet slavery continued throughout, with Mohammed going so far as to define additional classes of slaves that could be legitimately taken. How can slavery then be so antithetical to islam?

Good thing they took some more then. By the by, do you have any proof of the above statement?

There's that generous "blame the other guy" approach I was waiting for. Ignoring unsupported and specious construct, carrying on.

They appeared to think they had quite islamic ones. Look them and their statements up.

In short, then, you do not know the terms I mentioned. If you don't know the legal status of the numerous classes of the unfree in the medieval period, then you are indeed not familiar with the legal status of a slave - a concept, I note, that you distain, as least as it applies to the Western ideal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Proof please.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Before, during, and after.

A most curious question. You are actually unfamiliar with the Golden Rule?

Best,

Geoff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If someone does not surrender to your ways, it is okay to use nuclear bombs, cluster bombs, gas ovens and genocide etc on their men women and children. This is known as the Golden Rule of Secularism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny, I thought it was known as Islam?

 

I thought Muslims got into paradise the exact same way Christians did.
they just have to die.

 

So you dont want to talk about Arabic Lexicon? I suspected as much. And no, they were not allowed to be harmed. If some people did harm them then thats not Islams fault.

Marrying slaves = setting them free. Not that hard is it.

POWs, nothing more, nothing less.

There are various sources in my library. Look it up, should not be so hard to find.

You mean after the battle fo Khaybar about which Jewish scholar Dr. Israel Welphenson says:

And no she wasnt married off to a Muslim. She tried to poison him but failed and the Prophet forgave her. But after another person ate the poisoned food and died she was punished according to Jewish sharia.

My posts do require a certain amount of thinking and consideration on your part you know

Nice try.

Aye, and Islam does not allow the enslaving of free, innocent people. So your right, it respected people of all beliefs.

Yes, I prefer to stay with the treatment of the AFrican slaves in the West. There have been just too many enslaved races and people in the west to consider them all.

And i wasnt talking about minorities either you see.

The buraq was a vision and not a physical event. There is great discussion about this point in Islam as well, often to the point where people miss the point of the whole vision, just like you are doing now. No, the doctrines of sin and salvation and divinity in the Bible have been destroyed.

Haha! lol! Im talking about British ruled India. Thats when this happened iirc.

Once again 2 letters: POW

I sincerely doubt he classed slaves. I have shown with hadith and the Quran that slavery was stricken at its roots by Islam and that the Prophet exhorten everyone to free slaves. Which is exactly what happened. The actions of rogue traders s not his fault.

Search for it. Google is your friend.

Im not blaming Christians for the Barbary priates. On the contrary: im saying people like those pirates have little values if any.

Statements like that non-Muslim Bin Laden makes? I place questionmakrs above statements coming from pirates tbh. Dunno bout you :shrug:

Did you mention terms? Must have missed them.

The proof is the fact that that Umar is only to be found on biased sites and sources. You can find this on your own. Also, do you deny that Umar inherited a nation that had enemies on both sides? Do you deny everything ive said about Umar?

There you go, fixed for you.

Im all for reciprocity, just wondering what you see it as and how you applied this to Christians banning slavery after 1000s of years.

Best,

Arsalan

 

Not really, its not Muslims who killed all those jews or bombed hiroshima and nagasaki. And they werent Christian either because thats not what religion stands for.

 

Arsalan, marrying someone does not translate into freeing them in the text, as you can full well read yourself. The Battle of Khaybar ended with the massacre of its male inhabitants, which suggests your source - picked for the merit of its religion and not its arguments - is a little deluded as to the motivations of Mo. Your adherence to the consideration of 1700-1800s African slavery in the West is biased - you say you don't have time to consider other examples of slavery, but you're more than willing to take the time to contrast it with the picture you propose for the islamic example.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your comments are rife with subtle bias and you want me to look up your sources for you. This suggests that there is little to be said in the defense of your position.

Lastly, please refrain from your attacks on other religions. You are in no position to make them.

Best,

Geoff

 

I can imagine alot better things than that.

 

On the contrary, muslims were told to free people and then ask them if tehy wanted to marry. Ofcourse, this happened with such people as had nowhere els to go. Like the slavegirl Mariah given to the Prophet by the Christians. He set her free and when finding out she had nowhere else to go, he asked her for marriage. She became a mother of the faithful.

Male inhabitants were killed because they were the ones doing the actual fighting. Muslims arent allowed to kill women and children and old men, especially not if they are not fighting.

Take the time? Just becuase you cannot see past the colour of a slave it is not my problem. Im talking about the treatment of slaves under Muslim rule and 1000 years later in the West.

Nah, im just tired of your BS. All you do is blabla i hate Islam blabla without actually debating. You attack completely irrelevant things (skin colour

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) and expect me to go down that line with you.

I havent attacked other religions but I am curious as to why I am not in a position to attack them if I wish? Ofcourse, not physical attacks.

 

Arselan, you continuously double back on your own positions - you bring up the issue of African slaves only which you then compare to slavery in the ME (without noting that none of the African slaves to the ME apparently survived, whereas there is rather a large black minority in the US), then accuse me of dealing only in the colour issue, while I've told you again and again to read up on medieval European slavery, and to define the variable and complex legal system behind the various classes of unfree peoples in that period - which eventually evaporated. You claim good treatment of prisoners of war, yet defend the massacre of the Quraysh. You accuse me of hating islam, when it is evident that I am only critical of some islamic practice, and of political islam - much the same as I am critical of some Christian practice, and political Christianity. You, by contrast, are unable to criticize your own religion or system except in the most grazingly shallow and puerile manners, if that. I think we have nothing more to say on this issue; further, your assertions about the foundations of other religions are simply in error.

Best,

Geoff

 

And yet, all this just because I compared the freed slave Bilal who had one of the greatest honours in Islamic history to a slave who was denied freedom in the US. Yes, if you want to talk about those systems, please, write a whole essay on it and post it here. Im not going into that because it is completely irrelvant to my point.

You do know what happened with the Quraysh and why right? They betrayed the Muslims, broke their treaties and were then punished by Jewish law, as chosen by themselves.

As are your assertions about Islam. You see, I dont see Saudiland as political Islam or Islam in practice. Thats where we differ.

 

There are no terrorists in heaven is the easy answer BUT, as there is no Hell (Earth is Hell) - then all "souls" go to heaven.

 

It was a cherry-picked comparison. That was the problem with it.

They chose to have their heads hacked off. I see. Should we also judge muslims in our countries as islam judges non-muslims in islamic lands are judged?

Define how it differs in principle from islamic law elsewhere, and I'm sure I will come around to your point of view.

 

They accepted that tehy had broken treaties and helped the enemies of the Muslims against them. Then they asked to be judged by a well known friend of theirs in the hope that he would go lenient on them. Then they were punished according to Jewish law because that was heir choice of judge and law.

The thing is, the House of Saud is a barbaric family. The only thing they have to do with Islam is that they were supposedly born in a Muslim family and they now rule the country which contains the holiest site in Islam.

They have no respect for the Quran. They are supported by the US and they fund terrorists worldwide. That is the House of Saud. The Quran explicitly forbids any Muslim to have anything to do with creating disorder in the land. And their hands are as dirty as they can get when it comes to creating disorder. Hopefully, the Arabs will revolt against them and kick these wannabees out. Maybe well get a Brasil: Nunca Mais for Arabia as well. Who knows.