There is a basic principle in Islam, no harm and no reciprocal harm. You say a man can beat his wife, and I say he cannot harm her. So if he can beat her without harming her, fine.
How does one define harm? Thatâs the kind of semantic trickery that allows people to justify the most barbarous behavior. Isnât the very act of beating someone harming them?
A man can take more than one wife IF and only IF he is able to equally provide for EACH wife. tricky. And society today does not take slaves, so thatâs pretty much irrelevant. Islam more than any other religion I know of is designed to lead towards freedom for slaves. If a man has a female slave and gets her pregnant, she becomes free. Period. Freeing slaves is a very admirable thing to do in Islam. Taking slaves, on the other hand, was more tribal/customary than Islamic and isnât necessary anymore.
Once again, how do you define providing for?
Society does not take slaves? I would suggest reading some of the UN reports, or human rights watch documents, or any of the numerous human rights reporting agency reports. Almost all of the countries âsuspectedâ of condoning slavery in the modern age, today, are predominantly Muslim - Sudan, Niger, United Arab Emirates, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Indonesia.
So if a man rapes his slave and she becomes pregnant, she goes free? Quite a bargainâŚIs he also obligated to then provide for his child, or is said slave free to then fend for herself?
Culturally the freeing of slaves is admirable only in so far as the man doing the freeing is recognized for it. Reminiscent of the Pharisees of old, publicly displaying their righteousness to show their munificence. This is not done out of moral outrage to the practice of slavery, otherwise, logically, slaves would not be owned in the first place.
Only if you do it in public. And I donât really think thatâs bad at all.
Yes of course, and we might as well flog people for bad language as wellâŚanything we might find objectionableâŚmaybe we can cut off their hands if they steal tooâŚoh waitâŚ
Hm⌠isnât this EXACTLY what the Bible says? Oh yeah!
Another poster already pointed out that many of the old testament laws are no longer recognized by Christians. I will simply add that just because one faith or country or nation does something does not justify another doing so.
Wait a second⌠doesnât the Bible say the EXACT same thing, that the Jews shouldnât make alliances with other people? I mean, especially against other Jews? Come on this is common sense. He taught to kill those who committed treason and violated their oath of allegiance. Many countries today do the same thing⌠including, in fact, the USA!
Actually the Koran provides specific exhortations, repeatedly, for killing infidels - âone without faithâ - (kafir - one who covers), which has nothing to do with treason or violating oaths of allegiance, and solely rests on a persons religious faith or lack thereof and/or them renouncing Islam.
Last I saw, you could not be killed by law anywhere in the world for simply changing your religion, apostasy, except in Muslim theocracyâs. And just to get the facts straight, the last time anyone was executed for treason in the US was in 1947, Herbert Harm Heinck, who was actually executed by military tribunal. In addition the federal government itself has never executed anyone for treason. The Rosenburgs were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, which I suppose is splitting hairs.
I in no way am trying to justify any of the barbarous and inhumane practices, behaviors, atrocities, of the past by Christians, any other religion, or the US government, but merely pointing out that to try and justify those practices today by others thru semantic twistings, or appeals to the old âwell they did/do itâ fallacy, kind of an argumentum ad populum, is logically abhorrent and serves no faith well.
