For any person of Islam.

[IvanKaramozov]

Greetings from a sinner. Sorry if I led you to believe that we Catholic Christians don’t believe in hell, for it is more than that. However, there are 3 points here: First Clovis reacted to what he preceived in the Moslem literature as a strong emphasis dealing with damnation and hellfire. I don’t think that he was interpreting it in a wrong fashion, since those who study the suicide bombers conclude that a number of them are driven to their acts out of a sense of guilt for there sins and that the one way into heaven is through dying as a martyr.

No, most militant Islam(presently) is driven by a sense of humiliation and a desire for glory. Empericle study after study confirmes this, look at “Leaderless Jihan” written by a former CIA Forensic Psychologist and MD, he conducted an actual empericle study of Muslim militant attacking the “far enemy”. Gallop has done study after study of Muslim who support 9/11, all the results are consistant.

By the way how many verses in the Holy Koran deal with the rewards and punishments of heaven and hell? I imagine that there is more emphasis placed in your holy book on hell than in our Bible.

I beleive Christ refrences Hell disproportionatly more than Heaven, as to the Koran, I beleive it is about equeal, but could be wrong.

Second: as a Catholic I have come to see my relationship grow with God in a Trinitarian way, which is all about love Put it this way, I have an 86 year old mother. As a youngster, I was centered on myself and my understanding of the world around me, so whenever I did anything, my thoughts were always on what I could get out of it for my own benefit or how my mother might punish me if I did something wrong and got caught. However, now as an adult, I have evolved in my relationship and understanding of love for my mom. Today, there is no way that I would do anything that would hurt my mother for my attitude has changed to what I can do for her and how to love her more. This is the same attitude that occurs as a Catholic grows toward his God. Yes, we are human and sin, however through confession we refine and purify our actions and thoughts to evolve further towards the God that Jesus projected as love.
Third: Tomshaikh, can you explain what you mean that the Holy Koran doesn’t project a slave-master relationship or permit slavery? Then why is it that the history of Islam is littered with the ghost of slaves? In fact their shadows cast across time to modern Sudan and Darfur, where slaves are freely procured today. In fact, my ancestors in the South couldn’t have functioned without the help of the Moslem traders who furnished them with slaves. I know that your faith doesn’t permit slavery within the membership of your faith, but what of those outside the faith?

I beleive Muhammed freed his slave and his friend went bankrupt buying and freeing slaves in Mecca, The Bible never once condemns slavery, in fact the Old Testament seems to encourage it, or at least set regulations for it.

We Christians have been guilty of these same actions, but I’ll be the first to point out that it isn’t Christian or right.

It is certianly Biblically allowed.

My impression is that the Prophet set in motions the archttypes that permited the development of a servile class relationship in society that came from Mohammed’s understanding of our relationship to an unreachable God.

No, after Muhammed died members of his clan set about retarding and rolling back his egalitarian reforms(which were extraordionairly radical for the time and geography), Umar was expecially fervent in his Mysigoney, generally it came by creating counterfit Hadiths.

Sorry I don’t mean to offend but I am groping for an understanding of your culture that can only be understood through the Prophet.

PreIslamic Arabia was marked by a tight religiouseconomic link, male dominance, and tribal loyalities. Muhammed made a number of truely astonishing reforms and instituted a really, considering the time and place, stunningly egalitarian socioty in Medina. A great number of the male members of Medina were outraged by the rights he gave women and their loss of stature due to his egalitarianism. After he died and was no longer present to clarify disputes, they took the oppertunity to regain their dominance over woman and lower members of the socioty, mainly the fradulent “saying of the prophet”. Umar, a Caliphate, was a friend of Muhammeds, but a Mysigionist, after Muhammed died he allowed the stoning of woman for adulty and tried to keep them confined to the house, and undid many of their rights, he even refused Muhammeds’ widows from makeing the pilgrimage I beleive.

 

[Stephen0]

Sister Amy thanks for your imput and I did enjoy your “Gentle reminder and cute video” attachments. I respect you for your trying to dialogue on this website and advise you not to give up even if there are some responses that may seem rude. Sometimes cultures clash due to misunderstanding that we aren’t even aware of as I found living in Thailand.
As for as myself, I will ask frank and pointed questions, without I hope seeming rude for I have always striven for truth. But as a result I do ponder the other person’s reply and add it to my knowledge base. If their reply doesn’t ring true I will probe them further many times using irony in that same search for Sophia or wisdom. Also, remember that men play by a different set of rules which are more confrontational than it is with a woman, though it should never be rude or disrespectful to anyone. If you really want to get a feeling for what I consider the give and take in dialogue that is normal and proper to debate just take a look at the dialogue between us Catholics and Protestants in the thread titled, “All have sinned including Mary.” I have always considered it the American way to have a good old fashion debate with lots of sincere but disparate opinions and feelings and afterwards to shake hands and be able to sit around and joke with each other afterwards. Call it the Italian or Irish way of bonding together. This attitude of mine came from the “old school” that I was raised in back in the 50’s and 60’s.
Anyway keep up your effort and though I may not always agree with what you are saying, I DO RESPECT that you are trying to communicate your knowledge to us and will read what you say.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Hello Stephen0,

I want to thank you for that really polite response. I appreciate it, and hope that we are able to effectively communicate with each other without causing any offense. Thanks again.

 

[Sister_Amy]

IvanKaramozov…

You have an interesting opinion on 'Umar bin al-Khattab… I must admit, that when I first started learning about him I found him to be somewhat “misogynistic” as well… astaghfirullah. Now I think he is one of the more interesting characters living at the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

It is clear that Muhammad was considered more gentle than 'Umar. 'Umar is typically associated with the revelation of the verses telling women to cover, and is known to have been a rough, strong sort of man… that is, until he became the khalifa.
At that point he softened–he had been hard and strong to support Abu Bakr, and Muhammad before him, but as the leader he had to show more gentle qualities so the people wouldn’t be afraid of him.

Actually, when he first became khalifa people were afraid to go into the streets, that he might see them doing something wrong and punish them. But he never punished beyond the law of Islam.
And he certainly didn’t take away the rights of women.

There is a well-known occasion where he was giving a sermon and a woman stands up in the audience to correct him!! And he humbly tells the audience that the woman was right, and 'Umar was wrong. His daughter Hafsa was a wife of Muhammad… and is important because she knew how to read and write. In a largely illiterate culture, with writing becoming an important skill, that 'Umar made sure his daughter was educated shows that he wasn’t misogynistic. And it was with his daughter that the Qur’an was kept after being compiled.

I don’t think it’s true that he kept the wives of Muhammad from making pilgrimage, because I know at least one continued to make the pilgrimage every year after Muhammad’s death until she died. That he confined women to houses is also not true, as clearly women did go out and about–there was that woman at the sermon, for example. And regarding adultery–the punishment is the same for men as for women, the same as in the Bible, and it was executed by Muhammad himself, not invented by 'Umar.

An interesting thing about 'Umar, though, is that when he was unable to protect the people of his empire who were paying the jizya for the military protection, he actually gave them their money back. Another thing about 'Umar, the punishment for theft is… severe… but when a man was caught stealing food, and 'Umar knew that it was because he was too poor to buy food and was otherwise unable to eat and provide food for his family, 'Umar abolished that punishment.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

IvanKaramozov…

Will actually, It’s not a big deal but my name isin’t IvanKaramozov, I’m just a fan of Dostoevsky and had been reading him the day I joined(The Grand Inquisitor actually) and that was the first idea for a screan name that poped into my head.

I don’t care how people adress me, Will or IvanKaramozov is fine, however just for general refrence.

Firstly thank you fo your thoughtfull criticism, I honestly appreciate it when people correct me and look at as a great favor.

You have an interesting opinion on 'Umar bin al-Khattab… I must admit, that when I first started learning about him I found him to be somewhat “misogynistic” as well… astaghfirullah. Now I think he is one of the more interesting characters living at the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

What does “astaghfirullah” mean?

It is clear that Muhammad was considered more gentle than 'Umar. 'Umar is typically associated with the revelation of the verses telling women to cover, and is known to have been a rough, strong sort of man… that is, until he became the khalifa.
At that point he softened–he had been hard and strong to support Abu Bakr, and Muhammad before him, but as the leader he had to show more gentle qualities so the people wouldn’t be afraid of him.

Actually, when he first became khalifa people were afraid to go into the streets, that he might see them doing something wrong and punish them. But he never punished beyond the law of Islam.
And he certainly didn’t take away the rights of women.

There is a well-known occasion where he was giving a sermon and a woman stands up in the audience to correct him!! And he humbly tells the audience that the woman was right, and 'Umar was wrong. His daughter Hafsa was a wife of Muhammad… and is important because she knew how to read and write. In a largely illiterate culture, with writing becoming an important skill, that 'Umar made sure his daughter was educated shows that he wasn’t misogynistic. And it was with his daughter that the Qur’an was kept after being compiled.

I don’t think it’s true that he kept the wives of Muhammad from making pilgrimage, because I know at least one continued to make the pilgrimage every year after Muhammad’s death until she died. That he confined women to houses is also not true, as clearly women did go out and about–there was that woman at the sermon, for example. And regarding adultery–the punishment is the same for men as for women, the same as in the Bible, and it was executed by Muhammad himself, not invented by 'Umar.

An interesting thing about 'Umar, though, is that when he was unable to protect the people of his empire who were paying the jizya for the military protection, he actually gave them their money back. Another thing about 'Umar, the punishment for theft is… severe… but when a man was caught stealing food, and 'Umar knew that it was because he was too poor to buy food and was otherwise unable to eat and provide food for his family, 'Umar abolished that punishment.

To be clear, I did not intend to say he DID confine women to their houses, but said(or intended to say, I don’t read my posts before posting them so may well have typed it incorrectly) that he attempted to.

Now, clearly and obviously your knoledge of this is far greater than mine, so rather then respond personally, I’ll type out the source of what I said and would appreciate it if you would respond to that.

“The Prophet had always admired Umar, not just for his physical prowess as a warior, but for his impeccable moral virtue and the zeal with which he approached his devotion to God. In many ways Umar was a simple, dignified, and devout man. But he also had a fiery tempet and was prone to anger and violence, especially toward woman. So infameous was he for his misognist attitude that when he asked for the hand of Aisha’s sister, he was flatly rebuffed because of his rough behavior toward women. Umar’s misogynist tendencies were apparent from the moment he ascended to the leadership of the Muslim communist. He tried (unsuccessfully) to confine woman to their homes and wanted to prevent them from attending worship at the Mosque. He instituted segregated prayers and , in direct violation of the Prophets example, forced them to be taught by male religious leaders. Incredibly, he forbade Muhammed’s widows to perform the pilgrimage rites and instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primairly at women. Cheif among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment which has absolutly no foundation in the Quran but which Umar justified by claiming that it had been part of the Revelation and somehow left out of the authorized text…”

-Reza Aslan

Now, Aslan is not singlemindedly anti Umar,

"Thus, when Umar ordered the demolition of a Mosque in Damascus that had illegally been illegally constructed by exporiating the house of a Jew, he was merely following the Prophet’s warning that “he who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have me as his accuser on the Day of Judgement”

I’d be really interested in your responses

 

[Gara3987]

I believe your Allah and our God is the same. I fear him and I fear all men who fear him, and all who labored, and all who mourned. And I believe that your Holy One will come. When I first read what your version of heaven was, I feared far greater.

I have some questions for you, how can allah and God be the same if the Bible and the qur’an contradict each other?

Why would God Author the Bible and then turn around and author something that is a total contradiction, if God is perfect?

Why does the qur’an contradict itself for that matter?

A few examples are:
one Contradiction (qur’an)

** God’s Words Don’t Change** and **God’s Words Do Change
** [Yunus 10:64] Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the SupremeTriumph.

        [an-Nahl 16:101] **And when We put              a revelation in place of (another) revelation,** - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth- they say:              Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.

[al-Kahf 18:27] And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and thou wilt find no refuge beside Him.

[al-Baqarah 2:106] Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?

**another contradiction

** [az-Zumar 39:44] Say: Unto Allah belongeth all intercession. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. And afterward unto Him ye will be brought back.

        [as-Sajdah 32:4] Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that which is between              them, in six Days.   Then He mounted the Throne.   **             Ye have not, beside Him, a protecting friend or mediator {intercessor}. **  Will ye              not then remember?

CONTRADICTS

         [Yunus 10:3] Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then He              established Himself upon the Throne, directing all things.**                There is no intercessor (with Him) save after His permission.**  That is Allah, your Lord,              so worship Him.   Oh, will ye not remind?

That is Allah, your Lord, so worship Him. Oh, will ye not remind? ** Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians, yet Sura Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them.**

** contradiction (qur’an vs Bible)**

Why would God say that Jesus is the Son of God, and is God in the Bible yet in koran He is a Prophet who is lower than Mohammad, and is in hell?

Please Explain this to me Thanks.

 

[Valke2]

All religions,
all this singing,
is one song.
Thedifferences are just
illusion and vanity.
The sun’s light looks a little different
on this wall than it does on that wall…
but it’s still one light.
-Rumi

I have learned so much from God
that I can no longer call myself
a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew.
-Rumi

 

[IvanKaramozov]

All religions,
all this singing,
is one song.
Thedifferences are just
illusion and vanity.
The sun’s light looks a little different
on this wall than it does on that wall…
but it’s still one light.
-Rumi

I have learned so much from God
that I can no longer call myself
a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew.
-Rumi

Well, that’s all well and good but if we fallow that non-sense how are we supposed to look down on “non-believers”?

If we can’t feel inately superior to those outside our religion what’s the point?

Not very well thought out Valke2

 

[Valke2]

Well, that’s all well and good but if we fallow that non-sense how are we supposed to look down on “non-believers”?

If we can’t feel inately superior to those outside our religion what’s the point?

Not very well thought out Valke2

Well, there’s always politics.

 

[LaMar]

I believe your Allah and our God is the same. I fear him and I fear all men who fear him, and all who labored, and all who mourned. And I believe that your Holy One will come. When I first read what your version of heaven was, I feared far greater.

I have no doubt that Muhammad (saw) was conversing with the same divine concept that Saul of Tarsus did, and the Jewish scholars before him.

Lots of people like to criticize Islam (and that’s certainly not hard to do) but it’s also useful to look at the wonderful good it has brought into the world. Arabia was certainly a troubled little backwater when Muhammad was born. It was full of theft, murder, rape, feuds and all manner of time-wasting nonsense. Within a couple of centuries, it was the standard throughout most of the known world. It spread much more rapidly than Christianity ever did, and (speaking objectively) it brought more good to more people.

While Europe was in the dark ages, Islam was the beacon of civilization. Arab Christians preserved Christian scriptures, science and philosophy while Europeans were dying of plagues and killing one another. Great libraries were built in Spain and North Africa, where Christian monks could educate themselves. Islam gets credit for attempting to prohibit slavery and drunkenness a thousand years before Christians attempted to tackle those problems. Where Christians and Muslims fought one another, it was often in areas like public works and art, which led to some of the most interesting and worthwhile contributions to human civilization the world has ever known.

Most of us in the west have no idea of the extent of Islam’s true contributions. The sciences were tied to Islam for a thousand years, and the evidence is in words like alkalai and aldebaran. If there has been any human progress, we should give credit where due…and a little of it goes to that fellow born in the hijaz in 570 CE.

 

[bookgirl32]

Jesus pbuh is nothing just a prophet and messenger from Allah/God.

So God sent a false prophet? If Jesus was truly just a prophet and messenger, why would He say He was the Son of God, if that’s not what He was?

Is it C.S. Lewis that said that Jesus is either what He said He is, or crazy?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Will actually, It’s not a big deal but my name isin’t IvanKaramozov…

I don’t care how people adress me, Will or IvanKaramozov is fine, however just for general refrence.

Well of course your name isn’t Ivan Karamozov but we hadn’t been properly introduced. But I can use ‘Will’ from now on.

What does “astaghfirullah” mean?

It means simply “I seek forgiveness form Allah”

To be clear, I did not intend to say he DID confine women to their houses, but said that he attempted to.

My mistake. I’m not aware of his even attempting to do so.

…I’ll type out the source of what I said and would appreciate it if you would respond to that.

I have just a few comments to make. Noticing first that your source is Reza Aslan is significant, and I’ll tell you why. 'Umar is a character that has been colored with very negative tones by Shi’a traditions, based on his supposed (according to them) role in establishing Abu Bakr as the caliph instead of 'Ali. But according to Sunni traditions, what I have been taught and what I believe, it was actually a vote of all the companions to elect Abu Bakr and not influenced by 'Umar, a process that took several days, and also that 'Ali gave bay’ah (allegiance) to Abu Bakr, believing him to be the rightful leader of the Muslims. So it’s possible that Reza Aslan is using Shi’a traditions which have been rejected by Sunni scholars, and possibly even fabricated at a later time to give more validity to the Shi’a claims of successoin. Shi’as, I have found, take a very hard line especially against 'Umar, and it might be easy to do that because he was a hard man, but I personally don’t think it’s justified, and I’ll say so because that’s what I have been taught.

I’ll comment with what I know, however, God willing.

"The Prophet had always admired Umar, not just for his physical prowess as a warior, but for his impeccable moral virtue and the zeal with which he approached his devotion to God. In many ways Umar was a simple, dignified, and devout man. But he also had a fiery tempet and was prone to anger and violence, especially toward woman.

I have seen him to have a fiery temper, yes, and prone to anger and violence, but not especially towards women. In fact, I haven’t seen any evidence to say that it was “especially towards women” when in fact most instances when I have seen (that is, read about) him getting angry it wsa more often at men than women.

So infameous was he for his misognist attitude that when he asked for the hand of Aisha’s sister, he was flatly rebuffed because of his rough behavior toward women.

I have never heard this but it doesn’t seem unlikely. 'A’ishah was the daughter of Abu Bakr, a very gentle man, and it wouldn’t surprise me that Abu Bakr would just want a gentler husband for his daughters, or that the woman herself just wanted a gentler man.

There is an interesting story of 'Umar’s wife talking back to him–he got really upset about her doing that, because he was used to being more submissive, and his wife tells him that the wives of the Prophet, including his own daughter (that is Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar) would talk back to the Prophet.

He tried (unsuccessfully) to confine woman to their homes and wanted to prevent them from attending worship at the Mosque.

This statement is flatly not true, he did NOT want to prevent them from attending worship at the mosque, and in fact the strongest proof we have that women CAN and MUST BE ALLOWED to pray at the mosque is a hadith narrated by 'Umar’s son.

Basically, 'Umar tells his son that the Prophet forbade them (the men) from preventing women from attending the mosque. And then 'Umar’s son tells him that they will prevent the women from attending the mosques anyway! And 'Umar hits him!! Like, “How dare you!?” How dare you say that you will do this thing that the Prophet clearly forbade you from doing!! 'Umar clearly upheld this tradition that women were allowed to attend the mosque–and not only allowed, but that they could not be prevented from it.

He instituted segregated prayers and , in direct violation of the Prophets example…

This isn’t true. Prayers were “segregated” (men and women) at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, and in fact we have a hadith from him saying that the best rows for men are the front and the best for women are the back. This is how the community prayed at the time of Muhammad, with men in the front and women in the back–and this is best for the sake of modesty, which I can explain further if you’re interested.

Incredibly, he forbade Muhammed’s widows to perform the pilgrimage rites and instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primairly at women.

Also not true. At least one of the wives of Muhammad made pilgrimage every year after his death (can’t remember who it was, sorry.)

Chief among these was the stoning to death of adulterers…

Also, not true. You can examine what 'Umar actually said about this, there is an explanation at this site. There punishment for adultery is clear, and 'Umar did not add anything to the Qur’an.

Now, Aslan is not singlemindedly anti Umar…

Another interesting thing. When conquering Jerusalem, 'Umar refused to pray in the Church (they offered for him to do that) because was afraid that the people would destroy the church and construct a mosque over it because he prayed there.

I hope I was able to explain some things, that 'Umar was a strong man but I really don’t think he was misogynistic. It’s clear he supported education for women and their presence in the mosque, which is more than can be said of many Muslims today, unfortunately.

 

[Sister_Amy]

So God sent a false prophet? If Jesus was truly just a prophet and messenger, why would He say He was the Son of God, if that’s not what He was?

Is it C.S. Lewis that said that Jesus is either what He said He is, or crazy?

Muslims don’t believe Jesus was a false prophet, no. And they also don’t believe Jesus was, or even said he was “Son of God.”

So C.S. Lewish proposes “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” but Muslims suggest an alternative possibility–that he was simply misquoted.

 

[Stephen0]

Slavery? Ivan Karamozov something in your response to slavery on my post surprised me. You stated that the Prophet basically disavowed owning slaves and others of his followers seemed to follow suit.
Well since I love to researchsome subjects, I tracted down this info. and thought you might like to know the following: Ibn Hisham ( a key biographer for others on the Prophet) stated that the trade in slaves was continuous in all of Muhammad’s wars of invasion. Many of Muhammad’s community had slaves. One example that is well documented is Muhammad’s division of the wives and children as slaves among his followers after the killing of 700 to 900 of the men from the Jewish tribe of Qurayza . Another well known chronicler, Ibn Qayyim al-Zawziyya states that Muhammad owned many slaves. In fact, as a buisness man he would trade and even lend them out for rent. The Prophet’s pronouncements in the Qur’an lead one to believe that Allah sanctioned it for it reads, “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you on the matter of the murdered- the freeman for the freeman and the SLAVE FOR THE SLAVE, and the female for the female” Thus Allah had spoken concerning human bondage.
Let’s face it slavery was an ingrained part of much of the non-Christian culture of the time. Was it ethical or moral? Personally, if you guage the Prophet by the culture of his time, it was considered as an ammoral transaction in much of their world. Remember that the Old Testament sanctioned slavery but made it more humane in comparison to what existed around the Jews. However it was only with the coming of Christ that things could have changed as they eventually did. The turning away from slavery was slow but the fault lines began to appear with such statements of Christ as, "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant, and whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exaulted. Matt. 23:8. Jesus gave as a living example of what he meant by servanthood by his washing of his disciples feet. Was there an abrogation of Christ’s earlier statement by another later statement in the New Testament? Later we have St. Paul writing, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither SLAVE OR FREEMAN, there is neither male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3:28. In fact when Christanity grew strong enough, it was the Christian religion that led to the outlawing of slavery whereas Muhammad vision never let the practice of slavery end but instead it grew to still stand as a shadowy specter today in parts of the Muslim world. Don’t blame our Muslim brothers for their outlook toward slavery or for that matter the unequal treatment of women for it is only with the eyes of Christianity that our awareness as children of God has evolved. Forgive me if I have offended any Muslim reader, for no offense is meant but only the listing of truth as I see it.

 

[bookgirl32]

Muslims don’t believe Jesus was a false prophet, no. And they also don’t believe Jesus was, or even said he was “Son of God.”

So C.S. Lewish proposes “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” but Muslims suggest an alternative possibility–that he was simply misquoted.

Oh, okay, gotcha.

 

[Angelos]

So God sent a false prophet? If Jesus was truly just a prophet and messenger, why would He say He was the Son of God, if that’s not what He was?

Is it C.S. Lewis that said that Jesus is either what He said He is, or crazy?

As an ex-Muslim, let me tell you the truth:

The Koran believes that Jesus was a true messenger of Allah, but he somehow failed to get His disciples write down the supposed truth revealed to Him - a book named Injeel/Gospel, identical to the content and form of the Islamic Scripture. Thus, another true messenger of Allah turned into a loser because nothing taught by Jesus prevailed according to the Koran!

In short, the Koran adds another possibility for Jesus’ true identity: an incompetent messenger that failed to accomplish the task given Him by His Allah. (However, I shall prefer putting the whole blame on Allah rather than on Jesus!)

 

[Booklover]

And on slavery–as far as I know, Islam is the only religion that has procedures for freeing slaves. It is in fact a very meritorious thing to do, freeing a slave. But slavery to God, this is encouraged–because what else can we be, before God, the King, the Creator, the Disposer, except servants?

Either you don’t know as much as you think about Islam or you’ve been grossly misinformed!

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Images/myths-slavery.jpg
The Myth:

Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.
The Truth:
There is not the least bit of intolerance for slavery anywhere in the Qur’an. In fact, the “holy” book of Islam explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves – not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras. Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch.
The very presence of these rules condones and legitimizes the institution of slavery. Adding to this is the fact that Muhammad was an avid slave trader. After providing ample evidence of his activities according to the most reliable Muslim biographers, the Center of the Study of Political Islam summarizes their findings:

*Muhammad captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and used slaves for work. The Sira is exquisitely clear on the issue of slavery. *(Muhammad and the Unbelievers: a Political Life)
As such, this deeply dehumanizing horror has been a ubiquitous tradition of Islam since the days of Muhammad to the current plight of non-Muslims in the Sudan, Mali, Niger and Mauritania, as well as other parts of the Muslim world.
There has never been an abolitionary movement within Islam (just as the religion produces no organized resistance to present-day enslavement). The abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European countries, along with other political pressures that were entirely unrelated to Islamic law.
Although horrible abuses of slaves in the Muslim world were recorded, there has been little inclination toward the documentation and earnest contrition that one finds in the West. The absence of a guilty conscience often leads to the mistaken impression that slavery was not as bad under Islam… when it is actually indicative of the tolerance that the religion has for the practice
So narcissistic is the effect of Islam on the devoted, that to this day many Muslims believe in their hearts that the women and children carried off in battle, and their surviving men folk, were actually done a favor by the Muslim warriors who plucked them from their fields and homes and relegated them to lives of demeaning servitude.
Shame and apology, no matter how appropriate, are almost never to be found in Dar al-Islam. Caliphs, the religious equivalent of popes, maintained harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women captured from lands as far away as Europe and consigned to sexual slavery. Hungarians were hunted like animals by the Turks, who carried 3 million into slavery over a 150 year period.
African slaves were often castrated by their Muslim masters. Few survived to reproduce, which is why there are not many people of African descent living in the Middle East, even though more slaves were taken out of Africa in the 1300 years of Arab slave trading than in the 300 years of European slavery. The 400,000 slaves brought to America, for example, have now become a community of 30 million, with a much higher standard of living than their African peers.
There is no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islamic history as there is in Christianity. When asked to produce the name of a Muslim abolitionist, apologists sometimes meekly suggest Muhammad himself. But, if a slave owner and trader, who commanded the capture and sexual exploitation of slaves, and left a 13-century legacy of religiously-based slavery, is the best that Islam can offer, then no amount of sophistry will be enough to convince any but the most ignorant.

thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm#slavery

 

[Booklover]

More on Islam and slavery!

Vickie

 

[Sister_Amy]

If you would do me the honor of considering what I have said, there would be no need to pollute the forum with your propaganda.

Slavery was a cultural norm at the time of Muhammad. Slavery was a cultural norm at the time of Jesus.

It was not the only evil prospering in the society, but some things it is not possible to eliminate overnight. Did Jesus abolish slavery? Did Paul? No, neither did. Did Muhammad abolish slavery? Not in his lifetime, but the Qur’an and his teachings set up a system that ensured respect for slaves and eventual freedom. A person who misses a fast in Ramadan is supposed to free a slave, for example. The captives taken during some of Muhammad’s battles were given freedom after teaching people to read. Slavery is clearly not a desired state, and Islam offers a number of ways to move slaves out of captivity into freedom.

In Muslim Spain, any slave who converted to Islam was freed, as a matter of law.

There is a nice story of the lengths Muhammad and his Companions went to in order to free one slave, Salman al-Farsi. His Jewish master demanded a heavy sum of money and also 300 date-palm trees that all bore fruit. The Companions together gathered their money to pay the owner, and Muhammad himself personally planted 300 date-palm trees so they would all bear fruit. Just to free one man.

Clearly it is not a desired status quo in Islam, and today there is no need for the taking of captives (which is simply part of the procedure of war) and no need at all for slavery to exist. This is in accordance with Islam.

 

[Stephen0]

Dear Sister Amy, I see you find the idea of slavery as repulsive as the rest of us do in this day and age. With this understanding I have a story to tell and a question to ask of you. Back in the 60’s, I lived for awhile in the Phillipines and wanted to go in search of pearls to Jolo Island. the last major island before reaching Malaysia. Now Jolo has always been a Muslim center from before the time of the Spanish conquest. On a stop over in Mindanao near by, I was warned by the local Phillipinos to stay clear of the island for the Christians feared what would happen to them if they went near it. However, I was reassured by some Oblate missionaries who had a college there that I as a westerner would be perfectly safe. Indeed I had a wonderful time and met a number of local Muslim students. However I will never forget one Muslim student’s life story as he related it to me. With much sadness and mixed feelings, he related how his mother a Christian had been captured in a Muslim raiding party and forced to become the wife of her captor. Naturally, his mother adjusted over time to her condition and from this union he was born. Now he loved his father, but was torn inside by the violence that brought about these circumstances. His anguish never left me and I have reflected on his tale a number of times and what it says about culture and religious attitudes. In fact his situation caused me to look at his religion to understand how it’s influence on Muslim culture could permit slavery today.
As Christians we believe that over time the Holy Spirit leads us to discern what God’s will is and thus helps us to evolve slowly to become his children and heirs to his kingdom. On the other hand Allah gave his Prophet, Muhammud his eternal unchanging word concerning his will and how to live it as embodied in the Qu’ran… Now my question for you if you wish to answer me is: If Allah gave his unchanging word to mankind and that word condones slavery why would we both, Christians and Muslims look on slavery today as abhorrent and wrong?