How do Muslims get into Paradise?

[Kadark]

Masha'Allah, Arsalan - very well said.

 

[GeoffP]

I suppose you are talking about where it says “your right hands possess”. In Arabic lexicon, the words translated to “your right hands possess” are also known as “wards” or “people in protected status”. It does not mean slaves or bondman or woman. But if you want to go down that route and orget the lexicon, this could apply to slaves because they are in a protected state, with everything provided for them and they are able to have their own house with their own family.

The "right hand" is a clear allusion to force, as you well know. And were not slaves - those in this "protected state", which sounds very much like dhimmitude to me - abused in islamic society? They quite clearly were at innumerable points.

Another thing this verse does is support the argument forwarded earlier about gradual abolition of slavery because it suggests marrying one of protected status which may apply to a slave and thereby freeing them from it.

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

The expression of “such as your right hands possess” has also been in used the Quran with regard to those men and women who took part in aggressive wars against Islam and fell prisoners into the hands of the Muslims.

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

The context, however, shows that the expression used in the present verse means female prisoners of war. Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be taken as wives.

Oh, well then, that's much better.

For those prisoners there is the teaching which says free them either by favour or mutual exchange. This exceptional injunction becomes operative only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam with a view to extirpating it and compelling Muslim to abandon their religion, at the point of the sword and treats their prisoners as slaves, as was done in the days of the Holy Prophet when the enemies took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as slaves. The Islamic injunction was only a retaliatory measure and also served the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women.

Another reason being that when female prisoners were taken after war, their own nations and tribes did not accept them back resulting in a lot of homeless women who had nothing and no one to protect them and nowhere to go.

Proof please.

That is why the Muslims were allowed to marry them. Ofcourse the verse says “marry properly” which means that the other rules regarding marriage i.e. consent applied.

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

The verse one again supports the aforementioned argument of gradually abolishing slavery

How so?

but mostly says that Muslims should restrict try and marry believing women.

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

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

Its not important to me. I was talking about black slaves. You, im assuming, have a problem with “black”, not me.

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

The copts and the ottoman empire and yadayada have nothing to do with what I said.

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

Islam presents a threat to Christianity because it takes the rational approach and destroys the faulty doctrines Christianity is based on.

Hehe! Riiight. Flying camels and contradictory orders are logical.

That is why it’s a threat to Christianity. That is why the Church had forbidden its priests from engaging in public debates with Ahmadis in india and Pakistan among other things

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

Aye they did make the list. As did Brazil. And others. And enslaving free men and women in Islam is not allowed. I thought id made that much clear...

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

Can you define a period between when Christianity and Judaism came to Arabia and 1800 when slavery was not a part of Jewish and or Christian civilization?

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

Or can you tell me who else freed as many slaves in the period of the Prophet and the Rashideen as they did? Or any other people in that time who had a whole system in place to gradually abolish this from their society? A system so successful that at the end of the Rashideen all the original slaves had been freed in Arabia.

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

Well you can research that for yourself. Many Barbary pirates were also former Christians who converted to Islam.

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

Sounds to me like a bunch of moneyhungry people who would sell out their values for pieces of gold. Saying that they belonged to and operated because of a certain religion is pretty ridiculous. Pirates don’t have any such values.

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

Haha, thats rich! Pray tell, what is the legal status of a slave?

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

Your probably talking about that mythical Umar created by the anti-Islamists who fail to recognize that the Islam state was indeed the target of its enemies and they wanted to destroy it by all means.

Proof please.

But ive always accepted that in the periods after the Rashideen the Muslims lost their way. Most of the Caliphates after that had nothing to do with religion and were more interested in money and worldly matters and did horrible things.

Before, during, and after.

What is the Golden Rule?

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

Best,

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

What is the Golden Rule?

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

 

[(Q)]

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

Funny, I thought it was known as Islam?

 

[Orleander]

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

 

[Arsalan]

The "right hand" is a clear allusion to force, as you well know. And were not slaves - those in this "protected state", which sounds very much like dhimmitude to me - abused in islamic society? They quite clearly were at innumerable points.

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

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

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

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

POWs, nothing more, nothing less.

Proof please.

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

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

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

"The event shows what a high regard the Prophet (Peace be upon him) had for their scriptures. His tolerant and considerate behavior impressed the Jews who could never forget that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) did nothing to degrade their sacred scriptures. The Jews knew how the Romans had, when they captured Jerusalem in 70 B.C., burnt their scriptures and trampled them underfoot. The fanatic Christians persecuting the Jews in Spain had likewise consigned their scriptures to fire. This is the great difference we find between these conquerors and the Prophet (Peace be upon him) of Islam."(Al-Yahud fi Balad il'-'Arab, p. 170)

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

How so?

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

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

Nice try.

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

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

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

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

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

And i wasnt talking about minorities either you see.

Hehe! Riiight. Flying camels and contradictory orders are logical.

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

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

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

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

Once again 2 letters: POW

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

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

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

Search for it. Google is your friend.

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

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

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

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

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

Did you mention terms? Must have missed them.

Proof please.

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

After.

There you go, fixed for you.

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

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

Best,

Arsalan

 

[Arsalan]

Funny, I thought it was known as Islam?

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

 

[GeoffP]

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

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

Best,

Geoff

 

[spidergoat]

I can imagine alot better things than that.

 

[Arsalan]

Arsalan, marrying someone does not translate into freeing them in the text, as you can full well read yourself.

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

The Battle of Khaybar ended with the massacre of its male inhabitants, which suggests your source - picked for the merit of its religion and not its arguments - is a little deluded as to the motivations of Mo.

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

Your adherence to the consideration of 1700-1800s African slavery in the West is biased - you say you don't have time to consider other examples of slavery, but you're more than willing to take the time to contrast it with the picture you propose for the islamic example.

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

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

Nah, im just tired of your BS. All you do is blabla i hate Islam blabla without actually debating. You attack completely irrelevant things (skin colour ) and expect me to go down that line with you.

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

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

 

[GeoffP]

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

Best,

Geoff

 

[Arsalan]

Arselan, you continuously double back on your own positions - you bring up the issue of African slaves only which you then compare to slavery in the ME (without noting that none of the African slaves to the ME apparently survived, whereas there is rather a large black minority in the US), then accuse me of dealing only in the colour issue, while I've told you again and again to read up on medieval European slavery, and to define the variable and complex legal system behind the various classes of unfree peoples in that period - which eventually evaporated.

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

You claim good treatment of prisoners of war, yet defend the massacre of the Quraysh.

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

I think we have nothing more to say on this issue; further, your assertions about the foundations of other religions are simply in error.

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

 

[Red Devil]

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

 

[GeoffP]

And yet, all this just because I compared the freed slave Bilal who had one of the greatest honours in Islamic history to a slave who was denied freedom in the US.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arsalan]

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

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

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

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

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