Jump to content
Islamic Forum
LifeInChrist

Proof Mohammed Was Sent From God & Slavery In Islam

Recommended Posts

Well he did gain a lot materially,

If you knew anything about Muhammad pbuh you would know that he strived for basic things in his life. He definitely wasn't a man living in gold. And if you want to argue otherwise then use examples from the scripture.

 

Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: I visited Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he was lying on a mat. I sat down and he drew up his lower garment over him and he had nothing (else) over him, and that the mat had left its marks on his sides. I looked with my eyes in the storeroom of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I found only a handful of barley equal to one sa' and an equal quantity of the leaves of Mimosa Flava placed in the nook of the cell, and a semi-tanned leather bag hanging (in one side), and I was moved to tears (on seeing this extremely austere living of the Holy Prophet), and he said: Ibn Khattab, what wakes you weep? I said: Apostle of Allah, why should I not shed tears? This mat has left its marks on your sides and I do not see in your storeroom (except these few things) that I have seen; Caesar and Chosroes are leading their lives in plenty whereas you are Allah's Messenger, His chosen one, and that is your store! He said: Ibn Khattab, aren't you satisfied that for us (there should be the prosperity) of the Hereafter, and for them (there should be the prosperity of) this world? I said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 009, Number 3507)

 

Narrated 'Uqba bin Al-Harith: I offered the 'Asr prayer with the Prophet and after finishing the prayer with Taslim he got up quickly and went to some of his wives and then came out. He noticed the signs of astonishment on the faces of the people caused by his speed. He then said, "I remembered while I was in my prayer that a piece of gold was Lying in my house and I disliked that it should remain with us throughout the night, and so I have ordered it to be distributed." (Sahih Bukhari Book #22, Hadith #312)

 

 

Also Muhammad at a point gave an option to his wives to get divorced and they chose to stay with him that surely says something.

 

 

As for slavery people are talking here like it doesn't exist anymore! Slavery exists in modern days its referred to as human trafficking and its the biggest money making business after the sale of arms and drugs. Millions of people are trafficked each year. Human trafficking today definitely doesn't agree with Islamic principles on how slaves should be treated so less focus on the past and more on the present problems!

 

Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet said, "Free the captives, feed the hungry and pay a visit to the sick." (Sahih Muslim Book #52, Hadith #282)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Why not abolish slavery. It seems like, all other things being equal, that it would be better to not be a slave than to be a slave.

 

You should have read attentively my posts about slavery from above. Those 'slaves' are the prisoners. But emancipation is also encouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has actually been some very good informative posts about slavery in Islam. Slavery in Islam should NOT be such a matter of headache for people if Islamic principles are followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should have read attentively my posts about slavery from above. Those 'slaves' are the prisoners. But emancipation is also encouraged.

All slaves are prisoners. I think the question is why isn't the theoretical framework of slavery simply abolished instead of implementing a practical method of improving a slave's position in society with the hope of eventually getting rid of slaves? Theoretically slavery is still allowed.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should have read attentively my posts about slavery from above. Those 'slaves' are the prisoners. But emancipation is also encouraged.

Emancipation should be encouraged? Why not required?

 

There has actually been some very good informative posts about slavery in Islam. Slavery in Islam should NOT be such a matter of headache for people if Islamic principles are followed.

I saw the information, but if given the choice between no slavery and regulated slavery, I would choose no slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All slaves are prisoners. I think the question is why isn't the theoretical framework of slavery simply abolished instead of implementing a practical method of improving a slave's position in society with the hope of eventually getting rid of slaves? Theoretically slavery is still allowed.

In fact there is no where in the Islam some thing tells "there have to be slaves in the society"

Theoretically and practically, there is no source of slavery in Islam but the war prisoners. Even slavery is not the only way for those people, the Quran give priority to (setting free or substituting). And a slave is a prsoner in a private house in stead of a public prison.

Theoretically and practically, Islam changed the status of the slave to be mostly like the son, 1200 years ahead of any human trial to do so

theoretically and practically, just few generations after Islam domained and the slaves had disolved in the society, just like the free. what could the names mean if they really controling countries.

theoritacally and practically, there is no slaves in any Islamic country,

 

theoritacally and practically, Islam ought not to stop it immediatly or on time basis, see my previous post. but to give the orders and create the tendency in the society to stop it according to the situations, and that's exactly what happened.

 

at least, for any fair person, he have to give the right to those who worth it, even if he didn't like it. and even on a comparative basis

 

may Allah guide us all to the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All slaves are prisoners. I think the question is why isn't the theoretical framework of slavery simply abolished instead of implementing a practical method of improving a slave's position in society with the hope of eventually getting rid of slaves? Theoretically slavery is still allowed.

 

I think you could NOT understand what I really said. Those 'slaves' are prisoners first, that is they fought against Muslims and/or helped the enemy of Muslims, and then they were defeated. Now, instead of killing them Islam allows them to be taken as prisoners. But Muslims do not lock up them in prisons or caves. Rather, they give them chance to morally correct themselves throw the framework of slavery. Even then they are treated very well. There is a post above which give details about such treatment.

 

I must say, even in present days, people do not give such opportunity to the prisoners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emancipation should be encouraged? Why not required?

 

I think you too could NOT understand what I really meant. Please, see my reply to xocoti.

 

I saw the information, but if given the choice between no slavery and regulated slavery, I would choose no slavery.

 

That's really good because, according to Islam-

"Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, "Mu'adh, Allah has created nothing on the face of the earth dearer to Him than emancipation, and Allah has created nothing on the face of the earth more hateful to Him than divorce."

Transmitted by Daraqutni.

Tirmidhi 969"

 

That means Emancipation is really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you too could NOT understand what I really meant. Please, see my reply to xocoti.

No, I did understand you. But instead of slavery or killing them, why not treat them well and then return them to their country of origin once the conflict is done? Seems like a better solution than slavery.

That's really good because, according to Islam-

 

"Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, "Mu'adh, Allah has created nothing on the face of the earth dearer to Him than emancipation, and Allah has created nothing on the face of the earth more hateful to Him than divorce."

OK, then why allow slavery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I did understand you. But instead of slavery or killing them, why not treat them well and then return them to their country of origin once the conflict is done? Seems like a better solution than slavery.

 

That's really easy to say. You yourself will have to be very rich to treat them so well. And they are also your bitter enemy. If they apologize, then they may be forgiven. But even then, strategically, there is always a possibility that they may deceive you that is come back as stronger to defeat you. Some conflicts do not even get done so easily. So, do not think that this will be always possible. And the word 'slave' is a translated word. So, instead of seeing dictionary to see meaning of 'slave', see the Islamic sources that is treatment.

 

OK, then why allow slavery?

 

To morally correct themselves through a master/teacher. It also has benefit economically. After all, you will have to work to earn money. Even in present days, people search for job in order to feed and clothe themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's really easy to say. You yourself will have to be very rich to treat them so well.

Wouldn't you have to be rich in order to treat that many slaves well? I don't see the difference. If you think they will pay for this with their labor, then why not just pay them for their labor and then they can buy their own food and you won't have to buy it for them.

 

And they are also your bitter enemy. If they apologize, then they may be forgiven. But even then, strategically, there is always a possibility that they may deceive you that is come back as stronger to defeat you. Some conflicts do not even get done so easily.

And the solution to a war progressing badly is slavery? Besides, I would think God determines who is the victor in war. Why not treat them well and send them back. They will be a testament to your kindness and predispose a people who were your enemy to reconsider their attitudes towards you.

 

To morally correct themselves through a master/teacher. It also has benefit economically. After all, you will have to work to earn money. Even in present days, people search for job in order to feed and clothe themselves.

But if they don't want to be slaves, they will only resent the institution and the ones who force them into a loss of freedom Islam is not promoted through coercion, and slavery is by its very nature coercive, since you do not have a choice to quit working for your master. And if everyone has to work to earn money, then why make them slaves instead of free laborers who can choose their employer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't you have to be rich in order to treat that many slaves well? I don't see the difference. If you think they will pay for this with their labor, then why not just pay them for their labor and then they can buy their own food and you won't have to buy it for them.

 

That they will have to. If one can not treat as per Islamic standard, they will Not be given slaves. The way you wanted to treat your enemies is a sort of fantasy, from Military strategy perspective it is simply foolishness. If we pay them for their labour, there is always a possibility that they will use the money to get stronger as your enemy. They can easily escape and buy weapon with it.

 

And the solution to a war progressing badly is slavery? Besides, I would think God determines who is the victor in war. Why not treat them well and send them back. They will be a testament to your kindness and predispose a people who were your enemy to reconsider their attitudes towards you.

 

Islamic slavery is certainly a solution. Remember, that this people were supposed to be locked up in prison. And rest of the things you've said is something very much detached from reality. If you live in USA, I would say start a movement to treat war prisoners in such a way!!

 

But if they don't want to be slaves, they will only resent the institution and the ones who force them into a loss of freedom Islam is not promoted through coercion, and slavery is by its very nature coercive, since you do not have a choice to quit working for your master. And if everyone has to work to earn money, then why make them slaves instead of free laborers who can choose their employer?

 

If you work in a institute, some sort of coercion is there. For example, if you work under company, you will have to work according to their choice for a particular period. And you do not expect all the things to happen there by your choice. For example, if you want to watch TV or play games inside office, they may force you to not do such things. If you want to go out during office hour with your family instead of doing job, they may coerce/ demand money from you which you earn by working. You can not leave the job immediately as well if you are under contract, or else they will sue/coerce you. So, some sort coercion is there actually.

 

And if everyone has to work to earn money, then why make them slaves instead of free laborers who can choose their employer?

 

I think you forgot that those are the prisoners who wanted to defeat/kill you. Giving so much freedom and money in their hand is quite suicidal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That they will have to. If one can not treat as per Islamic standard, they will Not be given slaves. The way you wanted to treat your enemies is a sort of fantasy, from Military strategy perspective it is simply foolishness. If we pay them for their labour, there is always a possibility that they will use the money to get stronger as your enemy. They can easily escape and buy weapon with it.

But wasn't it your complaint that the expense would be too great? I don't see how this makes a difference then. And if they are prisoners of war, how hard would it be to design the currency to only be useful within the prison system? The money would be useless outside of that context.

 

Islamic slavery is certainly a solution. Remember, that this people were supposed to be locked up in prison. And rest of the things you've said is something very much detached from reality. If you live in USA, I would say start a movement to treat war prisoners in such a way!!

But prisoners of war are released at the conclusion of the conflict. Slaves aren't, are they? Also, prisoners can be treated humanely and respected as humans and not as economic resources, which is what slavery is. And of course it is detached from reality, both of us are talking about how the system should work. Islamic slavery is supposed to have all of these restrictions and regulations, but neither of us believes that this is how it was for every slave, right? It is the actual conditions of individual slaves that is reality. If you really want to talk about reality, then we have to discuss abuses of the system as well.

 

Also, I don't need to start a movement to have US prisoners of war treated humanely, since that is how they are supposed to be treated. All I need to do is protest my government when it doesn't live up to this. I was active in criticizing my own government and voting against Bush. I also criticize the Obama administration in those areas he has failed to improve the situation.

 

If you work in a institute, some sort of coercion is there. For example, if you work under company, you will have to work according to their choice for a particular period.

No, I can always quit. Can I do that if I am a slave?

And you do not expect all the things to happen there by your choice. For example, if you want to watch TV or play games inside office, they may force you to not do such things.

No, they can't force me to do anything. They can of course refuse to pay me, and ask me to leave the office, but I could still watch TV or play games and just seek an employer that allows such activity. I may not be successful in my search, but I can still try if I want. If I was a slave, there would be no such option.

 

If you want to go out during office hour with your family instead of doing job, they may coerce/ demand money from you which you earn by working. You can not leave the job immediately as well if you are under contract, or else they will sue/coerce you. So, some sort coercion is there actually.

No, they wouldn't demand money from me, they just wouldn't give me money. Also, even if I am under contract, they can only sue me for the financial value of the contract. They cannot force me to keep the contract if I determine that it would be economically more advantageous to break the contract and pay its penalties than to keep it.

 

I think you forgot that those are the prisoners who wanted to defeat/kill you. Giving so much freedom and money in their hand is quite suicidal.

Yes, which is why they must be confined and guarded, not enslaved. I do not think you need to pay them, that was just an option. I think it would be sufficient to provide them with adequate shelter, clothing, and sustenance and/or the means to such if it were feasible. You are the one who is suggesting they must be economically exploited in order to justify treating them humanely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have to clarify that first, aj4u

 

Although i asked you before which translation and which edition and which denomination's bible you trust? ……. No answer

Do you think, the Catholic added extra 7 man made books to the god's word or the other denominations (Protestants and Orthodox) lost 7 chapters of the god's word?..... no answer.

Why Jesus didn't preserve only one copy of the bible to the next generations? or any peace of it in his Aramaic language or even the Hebrew?........

Yes, the scholars are doing good work now, to reach the most ancient form of the 3-4 centuary bible? But is that justify that the Christian believed in a different books in the past 2000 years ?........

 

The Quran preservation is totally different,

The Quran didn't preserved, by writing. It's mainly preserved by memorizing and reciting. Let's tell the story and then reach the conclusions.

 

Amazingly, Millions of Moslems, all over the world now a days, memorized the whole Quran, cover to cover every sura, aaia, word, letter and Axons(tashkeel, تشكيل) with the exact arrangement , although, most of them are non-Arabs.

Allah gave a promise to preserve the Quran, and he, all mighty, did so :

What answer do you expect to hear. I don't fully trust any translation, so I compare them and come to the conclusion which version or verse out of a particular version is the closest to the originial by trusting the guidance of the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised would be with me as the comforter and who is the Spirit of truth and who would guide me into all truth. There are translational errors in all version, but that doesn't prove wholesale corruption. The main heart core message is there; Jesus died for our sin. I am not concerned about 7 lost chapters. If they were important God would not have let them get lost. Why didn't Allah preserve the Injeel to confirm Muhammad a prophet? The fact that many memorize the Quran in the past and still do today is not proof that Muhammad was send of God. People can memorize Harry Potter for a thousand years; that doesn't make God's word!

Edited by aj4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But wasn't it your complaint that the expense would be too great? I don't see how this makes a difference then. And if they are prisoners of war, how hard would it be to design the currency to only be useful within the prison system? The money would be useless outside of that context.

 

Yes, they will work for us to recover that expense. There is surely a big big difference. We can not take it for granted that money will be available so easily. So, the prisoners will have to work.

 

But prisoners of war are released at the conclusion of the conflict. Slaves aren't, are they? Also, prisoners can be treated humanely and respected as humans and not as economic resources, which is what slavery is. And of course it is detached from reality, both of us are talking about how the system should work. Islamic slavery is supposed to have all of these restrictions and regulations, but neither of us believes that this is how it was for every slave, right? It is the actual conditions of individual slaves that is reality. If you really want to talk about reality, then we have to discuss abuses of the system as well.

 

Yes, after a conflict is done, they may take their man by paying a certain amount of money.

 

 

Also, I don't need to start a movement to have US prisoners of war treated humanely, since that is how they are supposed to be treated. All I need to do is protest my government when it doesn't live up to this. I was active in criticizing my own government and voting against Bush. I also criticize the Obama administration in those areas he has failed to improve the situation.

 

If that is really the case, then you have to be more active. Surely, the USA government is not following your 'dream'.

 

No, I can always quit. Can I do that if I am a slave?

 

No, they can't force me to do anything. They can of course refuse to pay me, and ask me to leave the office, but I could still watch TV or play games and just seek an employer that allows such activity. I may not be successful in my search, but I can still try if I want. If I was a slave, there would be no such option

 

 

No, they wouldn't demand money from me, they just wouldn't give me money. Also, even if I am under contract, they can only sue me for the financial value of the contract. They cannot force me to keep the contract if I determine that it would be economically more advantageous to break the contract and pay its penalties than to keep it.

 

Not all companies follow such rule and give so much freedom. But any way, slaves are prisoners first, so such analogy is quite useless here. And yes, if you pay Muslims, the prisoners will be freed.

 

Yes, which is why they must be confined and guarded, not enslaved. I do not think you need to pay them, that was just an option. I think it would be sufficient to provide them with adequate shelter, clothing, and sustenance and/or the means to such if it were feasible. You are the one who is suggesting they must be economically exploited in order to justify treating them humanely.

Another argument depicting pure fantasy. How confining and constantly guarding them will give freedom, which you really desperately wanted them to have? And we can not take it for granted that we will have so much money. So, the prisoners will have to work to recover it. There is nothing wrong with such 'economical exploitation' of some people who wanted to kill me.

Edited by Saracen of 21st Century

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brother Saracen of 21st Century, sad clown,

I'm not American and I can't share in that marathon, While that's the best I can do as I can understand the queries:

 

Besides, Islam ordered his followers to deal fairly with their slaves/boys just lik one of the family member, Islam opened a very big channels to set them free as soon as possible:

1- the slave in the Moslems hand have a very good chance to be free either for free or for substitution, just like the modern laws,

2- his family/country can buy him again.

3- if he/she is proficient in a job, he can buy him self. and he can complain to the Moslem Judge about the justification of his own price.

4- many penalties in Islam is to free a slave (wrong killing, the false swear, the illegal divorce (zehaar, ÇáÙåÇÑ),.....).

5- Freeing slaves, for no reason, is one of the most beloved actions in sight of god "12 And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is? 13 (It is) the setting free of a slave," 90.12:13

 

why not keeping the slaves/prisoners in a big jail, instead of distributing them to the families:

1- this solution wasn't available at the time of the prophet in Arabia and for a quit pit after that.

2- who can guarantee that this will provide more honorable solution for the slaves. i believe the prison will have a strict pitting military system (ask any prisoner), while to deal directly to a civilian members of a family will provide more friendly relationships and more comfortable.

3- that also will provide the prisoner a good chance to see Islam beliefs/manners/.....from a close look, that will remove the cyclonical barrier and clear the faked black image that the others' MEDIA are hardly trying to show Islam.

 

 

sad clown, From your point of view, who had a better system than Islam in dealing with the slaves from the 7th to the 19th centauries? or from the begining of the recorded history to the end of slavery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[at]AHMAD_73 ,

 

Thanks Bro. This topic was quite done and dusted a long time ago. But sad clown was nagging about this, and it has become that much long now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[at]AHMAD_73 ,

 

Thanks Bro. This topic was quite done and dusted a long time ago. But sad clown was nagging about this, and it has become that much long now....

you too, brother

may Allah complete his favor upon you and All the Moslems, and all the good people, Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you too, brother

may Allah complete his favor upon you and All the Moslems, and all the good people, Amen

 

Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, they will work for us to recover that expense. There is surely a big big difference. We can not take it for granted that money will be available so easily. So, the prisoners will have to work.

You could make it paper, painted pebbles (so long as they don't have access to paint), etc. Creating a currency is not that difficult.

If that is really the case, then you have to be more active. Surely, the USA government is not following your 'dream'.

It isn't my dream. It is the Geneva Conventions.

Not all companies follow such rule and give so much freedom. But any way, slaves are prisoners first, so such analogy is quite useless here. And yes, if you pay Muslims, the prisoners will be freed.

That is good to hear. So they must be freed even if the owner doesn't want to free them? Also, how do you determine the worth of the slave?

Another argument depicting pure fantasy. How confining and constantly guarding them will give freedom, which you really desperately wanted them to have? And we can not take it for granted that we will have so much money. So, the prisoners will have to work to recover it. There is nothing wrong with such 'economical exploitation' of some people who wanted to kill me.

I didn't say absolute freedom. They are prisoners of war. I understand they will not be free. But there should still be a basic respect for human rights, and as far as I know, that doesn't include slavery and forced economic exploitation.

 

3- if he/she is proficient in a job, he can buy him self. and he can complain to the Moslem Judge about the justification of his own price.

How can he buy himself. Saracen seemed to indicate that it would be dangerous to allow these prisoners access to money. Is there some other way of determining the value of their labor?

 

1- this solution wasn't available at the time of the prophet in Arabia and for a quit pit after that.

That is fine. I do not blame Islam in the past for this. I am merely arguing that it doesn't seem like the best available solution at this time.

2- who can guarantee that this will provide more honorable solution for the slaves. i believe the prison will have a strict pitting military system (ask any prisoner), while to deal directly to a civilian members of a family will provide more friendly relationships and more comfortable.

Sorry, Saracen made it sound like such direct contact would be too danger. If this is possible, then why not a relationship that is more friendly that doesn't involve slavery?

3- that also will provide the prisoner a good chance to see Islam beliefs/manners/.....from a close look, that will remove the cyclonical barrier and clear the faked black image that the others' MEDIA are hardly trying to show Islam.

But won't they also associate Islam with slavery? That would seem to be a negative connotation. What do you think of the Geneva conventions instead of slavery?

 

sad clown, From your point of view, who had a better system than Islam in dealing with the slaves from the 7th to the 19th centauries? or from the begining of the recorded history to the end of slavery?

Islam very well could have had the very best system of slavery. My qualm isn't with the quality of Islamic slavery. It is with slavery.

 

Thanks Bro. This topic was quite done and dusted a long time ago. But sad clown was nagging about this, and it has become that much long now....

And yet there seems to be a lot to discuss on the matter. Perhaps you were prepared too early to put it away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What answer do you expect to hear. I don't fully trust any translation, so I compare them and come to the conclusion which version or verse out of a particular version is the closest to the originial by trusting the guidance of the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised would be with me as the comforter and who is the Spirit of truth and who would guide me into all truth. There are translational errors in all version, but that doesn't prove wholesale corruption. The main heart core message is there; Jesus died for our sin. I am not concerned about 7 lost chapters. If they were important God would not have let them get lost. Why didn't Allah preserve the Injeel to confirm Muhammad a prophet? The fact that many memorize the Quran in the past and still do today is not proof that Muhammad was send of God. People can memorize Harry Potter for a thousand years; that doesn't make God's word!

 

You do realize the comforter was Paul right? How could Jesus appear to Paul on the road to Damscus unless he was no longer here on Earth? What did Paul do in most of the letters to the early churches? He gave comfort, not really rocket science there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a video

 

The absolute truth about Muhammad in the bible:

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=cur_6aYs_7k&feature=player_embedded"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=cur_6aYs_7k...player_embedded[/url]

Edited by Absolute truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could make it paper, painted pebbles (so long as they don't have access to paint), etc. Creating a currency is not that difficult.

 

Only you understand what you meant by this. Working gives us economical advantage. So, stop making such (lame) jokes. I hope US does not make currency in such a way.

 

It isn't my dream. It is the Geneva Conventions.

 

And we have seen it's application so far. Anyway, I was wondering what if a more generous people than those 'Geneva Convention' guys make some other laws? Then may be you will also be more generous and criticize Geneva convention.

 

That is good to hear. So they must be freed even if the owner doesn't want to free them? Also, how do you determine the worth of the slave?

There is a possibility that the conflict will end if they give us recovery for our financial loss. They may also be freed in order to end the conflict. If their natives do not want them back, we can't do anything about this.

 

I didn't say absolute freedom. They are prisoners of war. I understand they will not be free. But there should still be a basic respect for human rights, and as far as I know, that doesn't include slavery and forced economic exploitation.

 

Wow! Only you know what you really want the prisoners to have. Couples of posts ago you were crying about freedom, Now you took it for granted that they can not be absolutely free, but still you want them to have 'basic human rights'. Hmmm, A prisoner having basic human rights, then may be he wants to be freed immediately. The basic human right is certainly to be free first. A post with full of contradictory remarks I must say. And we won't waste our resource on feeding and clothing those idle prisoners.

 

How can he buy himself. Saracen seemed to indicate that it would be dangerous to allow these prisoners access to money. Is there some other way of determining the value of their labor?

 

He will have to buy himself by working for us, this will give us economical benefit. And of course, They will be allowed to leave only if they are seen to have morally corrected themselves.

 

 

That is fine. I do not blame Islam in the past for this. I am merely arguing that it doesn't seem like the best available solution at this time.

 

Yes, an argument just for the sake of argument. Most of your argument has been such.

 

Sorry, Saracen made it sound like such direct contact would be too danger. If this is possible, then why not a relationship that is more friendly that doesn't involve slavery?

 

You should have seen a post from me where Islamic standard of treatment was mentioned. I am quite confident, you have Not read that. And they are given chance to correct themselves through so called slavery if they pledge to us. If they are arrogant, no such privilege would be given rather they will be executed.

 

But won't they also associate Islam with slavery? That would seem to be a negative connotation. What do you think of the Geneva conventions instead of slavery?

 

Islam very well could have had the very best system of slavery. My qualm isn't with the quality of Islamic slavery. It is with slavery.

 

The 'slave' is a translated word. Instead of seeing a dictionary, see Islamic source, that is the treatments. There was one post dedicated for it. And I also said this very thing earlier.

 

 

And yet there seems to be a lot to discuss on the matter. Perhaps you were prepared too early to put it away?

 

No, sorry, there is not much to discuss, it is time for you to stop talking and start working. If you spend time by talking in Forum in this way, you can not make people follow the Geneva convention. So, it is better if you do something extraordinary instead of just discussing in the forum. And no, I did Not put it away early, rather I made it pretty clear in my first couple of posts regarding so called slavery in Islam.

Edited by Saracen of 21st Century

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only you understand what you meant by this. Working gives us economical advantage. So, stop making such (lame) jokes. I hope US does not make currency in such a way.

How is that a joke? What is US currency made of? It looks like paper to me.

 

And we have seen it's application so far. Anyway, I was wondering what if a more generous people than those 'Geneva Convention' guys make some other laws? Then may be you will also be more generous and criticize Geneva convention.

We have seen the application of slavery as well. Which one has historically looked better for the recipients of such treatment. Since both of these (the Islamic concept of slavery and the Geneva Conventions) are just idealizations and a starting point, I have to judge them by that. I would rather be under the Geneva Conventions than be a slave. Perhaps you would rather be a slave, that is an individual decision. Perhaps we could have the best of both worlds and offer prisoners of war a choice between Islamic slavery and the Geneva Conventions?

 

There is a possibility that the conflict will end if they give us recovery for our financial loss. They may also be freed in order to end the conflict. If their natives do not want them back, we can't do anything about this.

But what if the slave owners don't want to give the slaves back?

 

 

Wow! Only you know what you really want the prisoners to have. Couples of posts ago you were crying about freedom, Now you took it for granted that they can not be absolutely free, but still you want them to have 'basic human rights'. Hmmm, A prisoner having basic human rights, then may be he wants to be freed immediately. The basic human right is certainly to be free first. A post with full of contradictory remarks I must say. And we won't waste our resource on feeding and clothing those idle prisoners.

Are you complaining because my position has gotten clearer as we have discussed it? What an odd complaint. And then you mischaracterize my position again when it is as clearly defined as the Geneva Conventions? I'm not clear why this upsets you.

 

He will have to buy himself by working for us, this will give us economical benefit. And of course, They will be allowed to leave only if they are seen to have morally corrected themselves.

How can he buy himself if you aren't giving him money? What does it mean to be morally correct? Must the slave express gladness to the person who waged war against his people and country, killed his compatriots, and enslaved him, or is there some other standard? Perhaps it means he must convert to monotheism or even Islam?

 

]Yes, an argument just for the sake of argument. Most of your argument has been such.

Sorry you feel that way. You can always stop, but I feel like I am still learning more about Islam from the discussion.

 

You should have seen a post from me where Islamic standard of treatment was mentioned. I am quite confident, you have Not read that. And they are given chance to correct themselves through so called slavery if they pledge to us. If they are arrogant, no such privilege would be given rather they will be executed.

But I remember you saying you couldn't trust these individuals earlier in the discussion and that they would turn on you if given a chance. If this is the kind of people they are, why would you trust their pledge? And if they don't want to be slaves, you kill them? Even if they had surrendered to you and were unarmed?

 

The 'slave' is a translated word. Instead of seeing a dictionary, see Islamic source, that is the treatments. There was one post dedicated for it. And I also said this very thing earlier.
Can he be bought or sold? Is he forced to work? Is he unable to terminate the relationship whenever he wants? If the answer is yes, then it is slavery regardless of what your regulations of it are. There is a reason it is being translated as 'slave'. Because it constitutes slavery.

 

No, sorry, there is not much to discuss, it is time for you to stop talking and start working. If you spend time by talking in Forum in this way, you can not make people follow the Geneva convention. So, it is better if you do something extraordinary instead of just discussing in the forum. And no, I did Not put it away early, rather I made it pretty clear in my first couple of posts regarding so called slavery in Islam.

And yet I continue to find more things to ask questions about. I would rather talk and work. I see this, this discussion, as part of that effort toward promoting the Geneva Conventions. But unlike a slave, you are free to walk away from this discussion any time you wish. I have no power to stop you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize the comforter was Paul right? How could Jesus appear to Paul on the road to Damscus unless he was no longer here on Earth? What did Paul do in most of the letters to the early churches? He gave comfort, not really rocket science there

I never heard that before, but I could believer that a lot easier than it being Muhammad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×