Before school starts (tomorrow), I will try to do the following:


[1] Show slavery was never allowed by God and his Messengers.

[2] Show expressions like "cut off their hand" "beat her" weren't literal and had specific meanings for example "cut off their hand" meant stop them from committing the crime some way or another, and "beat her" was in context of having sex, and literally meant continue having intercourse with her. We will also look at other possibilities of metaphors, where they have been taking literally due to history but not due to the context of Quran and other verses about the same subject. 

[3] The true reason of marrying Aisha in a age which Quran forbids Muslims to marry at and will discuss in this regard actions of Khidr and Yusuf, and we will see why Prophet did so. 

[4] Explain the rules of war and exactly what Quran said regarding peace and war.  

[5] Look at clarity of arguments of Quran with respect to God's existence and oneness.

[6] Look at the clarity of the form of God's guidance in form of Messengers and Divine scripture, that come in forms of chosen houses that are meant to be central way for humans to return to God a long with words from God that together are the rope of God reaching to humanity. This has all sorts of angles and discussions from political to psychological discussions, and there is a clear case made for them.

Ismail and "Hajar"

One of the things I noticed in Quran, is that Quran says not a word regarding Hajar who supposedly was a slave of Abraham and Sarah and who Abraham had Ismail through.  Somethings to recall is that according to the Torah, Abraham had other children before that, but it was pertaining to the covenant and chosen guides type children he and Sarah were awaiting.

Of course, it's easier to dismiss the importance of Ismail despite clear words praising him in the Torah and the Twelve princes promised in his offspring, which is in context of the Kingship bestowed by God and not worldly type authority, if you make up a story that Ismail was not born from Sarah.  Sarah was a holy lady at the level of Abraham.  So it seems to follow, if God wanted Ismail to be as important as Isaac, he would have made him born from Sarah.

In the hadiths it is said that Sarah was so severely jealous of Hajar that he made her and Ismail to be settled by themselves.  The Quran however, never confirms this, and instead shows there was a divine purpose and plan from settling Ismail there and Hajar not mentioned anywhere.

Implications of Hajar being a slave

Aside from trying to be belittle the covenant of Ismail, there is the problem of slavery.  Right from the start, you have Abraham, God's elite and chosen and guided and enlightened, having slave. You have Sarah so angry at this poor slave and so jealous.  It's a story that not only justifies cruelty in the form of banishing Hajar, it also, allows slavery.

If Quran were to do away with this notion, it must provide alternative story. The alternative story, was the Abraham and Ismail built the Kaba and were preparing the way for the Messenger to come from Ismail.  Not a mention of Hajjar and alternative more noble purpose of settling them there is provided.

Story of Imam Reda (as) and slaves by the Sultan

There is ahadith about Imam Reda (as) where the Sultan gets the slaves of his to all eat. Imam Reda (as) says they should be eating with them and there is no ranks except by Taqwa and says that ALL are in fact servants of God. Now this has significance, in that, this is what Moses (as) is quoted to say regarding the slaves of Pharaoh in Quran. He says "let the servants of God go with me", and the fact they are servants of God is used to argue they shouldn't be slaves.


In this regard Imam Reda (as) is only reminding of a fact in Quran, but the fact, the story of Moses freeing the children of Israel is a story, that humans should not be enslaved as we are servants of God. Yes part of that was they were believers and it's upon God to deliver the believers eventually from their oppressors but aside from that, slavery was wrong and clear injustice of Pharaoh is seen in this regard where he heightens a portion of his people and lowers a portion of his people, and this said to be mischief in the earth.

...to be continued.

Why do you feel it's okay to preach here?

(January 5, 2020 at 12:18 pm)Mystic Wrote: Before school starts (tomorrow), I will try to do the following:


[1] Show slavery was never allowed by God and his Messengers.

[2] Show expressions like "cut off their hand" "beat her" weren't literal and had specific meanings for example "cut off their hand" meant stop them from committing the crime some way or another, and "beat her" was in context of having sex, and literally meant continue having intercourse with her. We will also look at other possibilities of metaphors, where they have been taking literally due to history but not due to the context of Quran and other verses about the same subject. 

[3] The true reason of marrying Aisha in a age which Quran forbids Muslims to marry at and will discuss in this regard actions of Khidr and Yusuf, and we will see why Prophet did so. 

[4] Explain the rules of war and exactly what Quran said regarding peace and war.  

[5] Look at clarity of arguments of Quran with respect to God's existence and oneness.

[6] Look at the clarity of the form of God's guidance in form of Messengers and Divine scripture, that come in forms of chosen houses that are meant to be central way for humans to return to God a long with words from God that together are the rope of God reaching to humanity. This has all sorts of angles and discussions from political to psychological discussions, and there is a clear case made for them.

Glad to see you back Mystic.

But please, the idea that slavery is frowned upon today is modern morality.

Even outside the religions of Abraham, meaning Jewish, Christian and Islam, slavery was quite common in all of antiquity worldwide . Even between the ancient Romans and Greeks. Even in Asia.

In antiquity it was quite common for rival king states to compete, fight each other, and take the defeated as prizes and slaves.


Slavery was common in all of antiquity. Not just the monotheisms of Abraham. 

The modern world rejects it because of mass media, in that the more humans see it and are affected by it, it is normal to reject it.

Malakat Aymanihim - And translations

Language is contextual, and I believe the translation should be "who they have authority (to have sex with) through their oaths (of either marriage or Muta)". Malakat aymanim mentioned as alternative to marriage is due to Muta, which is a relationship allowed in Islam but has conditions like if there is a child, the father is responsible to make sure it's raised well, and takes responsibility as a father over it.  It maybe there were even further rules that have been lost like it might've been obligatory to extend to a full marriage if a child was ensued but I don't know.  So many things lost in Islam it's hard to say.

What is noted is that through verses, this works both way. The Husband is that to the wife as well, so what is making sense to me, is the wife actually has the right to demand sex from the husband just like the husband has the right to.   In fact, the mother is also probably as responsible over the child as the father through Muta, which to me suggests there are some lost rules in this regard.

But there is no doubt in my mind that slavery is not what is meant by this term.

To be continued...

---

(January 5, 2020 at 12:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 12:18 pm)Mystic Wrote: Before school starts (tomorrow), I will try to do the following:


[1] Show slavery was never allowed by God and his Messengers.

[2] Show expressions like "cut off their hand" "beat her" weren't literal and had specific meanings for example "cut off their hand" meant stop them from committing the crime some way or another, and "beat her" was in context of having sex, and literally meant continue having intercourse with her. We will also look at other possibilities of metaphors, where they have been taking literally due to history but not due to the context of Quran and other verses about the same subject. 

[3] The true reason of marrying Aisha in a age which Quran forbids Muslims to marry at and will discuss in this regard actions of Khidr and Yusuf, and we will see why Prophet did so. 

[4] Explain the rules of war and exactly what Quran said regarding peace and war.  

[5] Look at clarity of arguments of Quran with respect to God's existence and oneness.

[6] Look at the clarity of the form of God's guidance in form of Messengers and Divine scripture, that come in forms of chosen houses that are meant to be central way for humans to return to God a long with words from God that together are the rope of God reaching to humanity. This has all sorts of angles and discussions from political to psychological discussions, and there is a clear case made for them.

Glad to see you back Mystic.

But please, the idea that slavery is frowned upon today is modern morality.

Even outside the religions of Abraham, meaning Jewish, Christian and Islam, slavery was quite common in all of antiquity worldwide . Even between the ancient Romans and Greeks. Even in Asia.

In antiquity it was quite common for rival king states to compete, fight each other, and take the defeated as prizes and slaves.


Slavery was common in all of antiquity. Not just the monotheisms of Abraham. 

The modern world rejects it because of mass media, in that the more humans see it and are affected by it, it is normal to reject it.

Thanks, I start school tomorrow. So will try to keep off forums while doing school.  So I'm trying to finish this thread and the goals today.

(January 5, 2020 at 1:00 pm)Mystic Wrote: Malakat Aymanihim - And translations

Language is contextual, and I believe the translation should be "who they have authority (to have sex with) through their oaths (of either marriage or Muta)". Malakat aymanim mentioned as alternative to marriage is due to Muta, which is a relationship allowed in Islam but has conditions like if there is a child, the father is responsible to make sure it's raised well, and takes responsibility as a father over it.  It maybe there were even further rules that have been lost like it might've been obligatory to extend to a full marriage if a child was ensued but I don't know.  So many things lost in Islam it's hard to say.

What is noted is that through verses, this works both way. The Husband is that to the wife as well, so what is making sense to me, is the wife actually has the right to demand sex from the husband just like the husband has the right to.   In fact, the mother is also probably as responsible over the child as the father through Muta, which to me suggests there are some lost rules in this regard.

But there is no doubt in my mind that slavery is not what is meant by this term.

To be continued...

Bullshit..

"Slavery" has always meant forced servitude. 

If you personally would not want me to force you to clean my house, or worship Thor, or Jesus or Vishnu, and you have not volunteered to do such, that is SLAVERY.

What was to be done with war captives?

An easy way to advocate slavery is to say, there was no other way back then to deal with war captives. 


فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ {4}

[Shakir 47:4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to be lost.


Two options:

(1)Free as a favor (grace)
(2)let them ransom themselves 

As for (2), it's only valid to do this while there is war. So (1) becomes an obligatory command if the war terminates.

This is the true way Islam advocates to have dealt with war captives in the past right there written in that verse.


Therefore, this verse not only does away with the need of holding them as slaves, it shows the proper way to conduct yourself with war captives and not to make them pay the price forever due to having gone to war with the Muslims.

I will wait until AtlasS get here, then, I will open the