Zanzibar: Islamic supremacists riot, burn churches

You didn't read it did you? There's a message behind it that the likes of Robert Spencer should understand. I'm just hoping that he reads it.

The message is obvious -- that there are some Muslims acting in the name of their religion in the 21st century who are very violent and destructive and strike those of us in the West as barbaric and uncivilized.

Spencer has covered this point many times in lectures, that the Old Testament was descriptive of the history of the Jewish people and is not taken literally today as an example of ideal behavior; whereas the Koran is prescriptive, and is a directive for Muslims to wage war on the non-believers for all time until the non-Muslims are either converted or feel themselves subdued.

I must be one of the few people not out celebrating the Memorial Day holiday today otherwise there would be plenty of responses to D. Or is it simply that his nonsense is not worthy of attention? Probably the latter.

Too bad Jesus condoned slavery in the new testament as well as Spencer can go and fuck himself:

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Also if the bible was in fact d"descriptive" does that mean killing people in the past was okay. Does Robert Spencer worship a God that advocated the killing of civilians in the old Testament. If the answer to this is yes, are people like Hitler now justified for gassing 6 million Jews because it happened in the past?

By the way the Quran is just as descriptive as the bible when it talks about killing the non believers the start of the Surah made it clear that the topic at hand was a PEACE TREATY BETWEEN THE MUSLIMS AND THE PAGANS OF MECCA.

Lets take a look at a few more verses in the bible concerning violence:

"He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery'--just as I have received authority from my Father."(Revelation 2:27)

"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."(Revelation 19:15)

Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women "

Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Deuteronomy 13:15 "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly "

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death"

Exodus 32:27 "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour."

Deut 21:10-12 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; "

Exodus 31:15 "whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Deut 21:21 "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

D what do all the bad things in the BIBLE have to do with Muslims TODAY attacking Christians and Churches in Zanzibar?

It's clear from your quotations that you have not at all benefitted from your readings of either the OT or the NT, which is strange because the underlying message of both is that the relationship between G-d and Mankind is based on G-d's love. So you have wasted your time in an astounding way. Those people who are Jews and Christians have certainly read the Bible, both OT and NT, with a more clear understanding and certainly not with your ignorant bias, and have no need for your strange edited version. Furthermore, whatever kindness is expressed in the Koran comes directly out of the OT and NT, and Muslims are instructed to honor the people of the Book, so what is your problem, brother?

Meanwhile, D, almost 19,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred just since 9/11 (never mind all those thousands thwarted by intelligence agencies across the world during this same time period). By comparison, how many Christian and Jewish terrorist attacks have occurred since that horrible day, September 11, 2001, which will forever cast shame on Islam? Huh?

Moreover, you really don't get at all how the Bible is often descriptive but the Koran is always prescriptive. Think there's a link here between Islamic terrorist attacks and the absence of such by Christians and Jews in our modern world? If you don't, then you are nothing more than a second-rate propagandist for Islamic supremacist designs. But then most everyone here at JW has already figured this out by now about you.

Could you try a different approach? The one you've used so far is convincing no one. Go for it. I dare you.

P.S. Jesus (and Buddha, and Confucius, and Zoroaster, and Lao-tzu, and...) didn't screw a nine-year old and order thousands killed, including women and old men. Your Mohammed did. Disgusting I put this to you.
Oh man, is your religion going down over the next several decades. Count on it.

D,

Unless you are the author of the evilbible.com site, much of what you have presented here by way of quotes and comments on the Bible constitutes plagiarism, of the blatant cut-and-paste and hope-no-one-notices sort. Same goes for much of your Islamic quotes and commentary; it appears to be plagiarized from a site called call-to-monotheism.com--unless you are also the author there.

The slavery material is off-topic and the claims made in it are incorrect or at best misleading as presented. Islam permitted the freeing of individual slaves in some situations for some purposes, but it did not ban the institution of slavery. Indeed, Islam permitted slavery into perpetuity because jihad warfare to establish Islam over other religions must continue until Judgment Day, and slavery, taking captives, was an integral part of Islamic warfare. In addition, Islam regulated the buying and selling of slaves, whether in the context of jihad warfare or not. Regarding sexual slavery, Islam clearly permitted a Muslim male master to have sex with his non-Muslim female captives (i.e., his "right hand possessions"). That constitutes rape.

The Muslim world still practices slavery. No doubt you are merely dropping by momentarily to educate us on the wonders of Islam, whilst 99% of your time is actually devoted to fighting slavery in the Muslim world, right?

Oh dear! You do seem to have done a lot of Biblical research for nothing! Why, for nothing?

Because The Enlightenment (Google it and learn) resulted in The Bible being marginalised. Secular societies arose and the social and political norms that guide and form our societies today took shape.

Not so in Islam! There are Islamic theocracies in the world entirely based on Al Qur'an. There are, however, no theocracies anywhere in the world based on The Bible. None!

So, what obvious differences are there between Islamic and secular societies?
We used to stone people to death, not now. Islam still does. We used to place women lower than men on the social scale, not now (by law). Islam still does.

Just two of a host of differences between Islamic theocracies and secular societies. But you want to make comparisons between Islam and Christianity as if The Enlightenment had never happened.
Won't work! Because you're ignoring history and present day realities.

You're a clown! (But keep studying The Bible! You'll find the King James version has language much more beautiful and poetic than your plagiarized text, Al Qur'an)

Sorry, first link was incorrect. Should be

http://islamqa.info/en/

"Islam QA is one of the more interesting Muslim sites around. The views on slavery are spectacular:"

I post you Quran, hadith and sayings of the Caliphs and leaders of Mathhabs like Imam Maalik and Imam Shaafi and you post me an answer written by a random Muslim on a random website. The Quran clearly calls for freeing slaves, whenever its possible, exceptions are made when slaves could be of value i.e exchanged for Muslim prisoners, used to teach 10 muslims how to read and write or even kept for ransom. However if a slave is to be kept a slave his master must treat him like his brother, this is an obligation. Anyway the Quran and hadith both call for freeing slaves whenever its possible and the only reason the Quran doesn't say slavery is haram is due to the fact that millions of slaves existed in Arabia during the time of the prophet, if they were suddenly all freed, no one will be able to support them as they won't have their own land, animals, clothes, means of transportation etc. They would have to do hard Manuel labour and end up being paid less than when they were slaves. Remember a master is obligated to treat his slave like his son, whereas a free man id dependent upon themselves therefore they wouldn't be getting the same benefits as the slaves.

If however a slave does call for his freedom, you should grant it to him/her as the Quran calls for this in surah 2 verse 177.

As for all the rest of the idiots posting on here, I don't give any piece of shit about what's going on in a country that calls itself islamic but is in actual fact a corrupt dictatorship. Iran for example calls itself an ISLAMIC republic, meanwhile they're supporting President Assad in slaughtering their muslim brothers. Ayatollah koemani has yet to open his mouth about the Houla massacre that took place on Saturday and he calls himself a scholar?? If prophet Muhammad or the caliph Abubakr, or Omar or Uthaman or even Ali were alive today he would have been stoned to death. The same can be said about Saidi Arabia, when king Abdullah sent his army into Bahrain and rutlesely massacred thousands of Bahraini protesters. Where were all the Saudi scholars to condemn this disgusting acts of violence??? They were all silent and in judgement day this silence will be broken when they're thrown in hell with the likes of Robert Spencer.

A real Muslims follows the Quran and hadith and pays zero attention to the so called Muslims who prosecute Christians and Jews as well etc. The prophet Muhammed had a name for these types of so called "Muslims", he called them MUNAFIQEEN.

D,

It takes a hardcore Muslim to actually defend slavery, based on economic necessities, presenting it as almost a voluntary state. Thank you very much.

Your translation and interpretation of Quran 2:177 is highly spectacular and selective. I have looked through a lot of different translations and none of them in any way whatsoever hints that "If however a slave does call for his freedom, you should grant it to him/her".
They translate it as "freeing of necks", "ransom those in captivity", "set free slaves".
Nice try.

An overview: http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/177/default.htm

"It takes a hardcore Muslim to actually defend slavery, based on economic necessities, presenting it as almost a voluntary state. Thank you very much"

No, it takes a Munafiq to defend slavery, a harcore Muslim would follow the Quran and the examples of the prophet Muhammad, which we get from the authentic hadiths. By the way if those "hardcore" Muslims are in fact the good Muslims why don't they treat their slaves like their brothers, feed them what they eat and clothe them with what they wear etc.

As for Surah 2 verse 177, here are is a list of the most accepted English translations:

Sahih International:

Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], AND FOR FREEING SLAVES; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous

Mushin Khan

It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and each and every act of obedience to Allah, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masakin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to SET SLAVES FREE, performs As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and gives the Zakat, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.) in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles). Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqun (pious - see V.2:2).

Pickthall:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to SET SLAVES FREE; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the Allah-fearing.

Shakir:

It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) THE CAPTIVES, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).

Here is the Tafsir on the verse (commentary by one of the earliest major scholars of Islam).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

"and to set servants free,

These are the servants who seek to free themselves, but cannot find enough money to buy their freedom."

So The Quran clearly calls on Muslims to free the slaves who seek to free themselves but can't find enough money to buy their freedom. Remember slaves were prisoners of war, and were normally exchanged for Muslims prisoners or asked to pay a ransom.

Now like they say it's time to put up or shut up, you have yet to show me any shred of evidence that the bible doesn't condone slavery and allow Masters to beat their slaves and treat them like crap.

D,

I cannot see why you are repeating the very phrases I had quoted: they all prove my case.

You initially presented it as if the slave only had to ask of his owner "set me free, please", and the owner is obliged to do so.

It is up to the owner if he wishes to free a slave. Sure, it is a good and positive deed - as if this needed any confirmation - but 2,177 does not say he has to.

Another matter entirely is that some translations sees it as "ransoming slaves". That is, it is not even supposed to be an economic burden if he sets free a slave. Perhaps it is implicit in the original Arabic.

"It is up to the owner if he wishes to free a slave."

Is it?? Is it also up to the owner if he wants to believes in Allah, the last day, the angels & prophets, give money to the needy, paying zakah and fulfilling his promises/agreements. The verse clearly states that the people who do these things are righteous Muslims, those who don't are unrighteous Muslims. Do you know where the unrighteous are headed, hell!

"Another matter entirely is that some translations sees it as "ransoming slaves". That is, it is not even supposed to be an economic burden if he sets free a slave. Perhaps it is implicit in the original Arabic."

Ransoming slaves would mean paying ransoms to free the slaves of others, not just your own slaves. I fail to see how this helps your argument.

I speak Arabic here is the orginal word used وَفِى ٱلرِّقَابِ it means to free those held by their neck the word riqaab comes from the word raqaba which means neck. It's a metaphorical expression of a slave. As for what it means and what it does not mean we need need to look at the tafsir:

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

"and to set servants free,

These are the servants who seek to free themselves, but cannot find enough money to buy their freedom."

There is no point arguing now, Ibn Kathir himself sid setting the servants free means the servants who can not afford to free themselves but seek freedom.

D,

You are a liar, and this was made clear from your initial posts in this thread in which you presented other people's writing as your own, and made statements about Islam that are false and misleading.

You write:

"No, it takes a Munafiq to defend slavery, a harcore Muslim would follow the Quran and the examples of the prophet Muhammad, which we get from the authentic hadiths."

In that case, by your stipulation, Allah and Muhammad are munafiqun, because according to Islamic scripture both of them defended, advocated, and regulated slavery. Muhammad practiced slavery. Moreover, most Muslims throughout history have been munafiqun according to your stipulation, because Muslims have practiced slavery on a large scale for over 1300 years, and continued slavery long after Europeans and Americans abolished it.

The basic relationship between a Muslim believer and Allah is that of slave and master, and Islamic scripture characterizes it as such. The true Muslims are even promised slaves, including sex slaves, in Paradise. It is delusion and/or deception to deny that the scriptures say this.

Or perhaps you are a greater authority on Islam than Allah and Muhammad?

Quran

Acquiring slaves in warfare:

33:26-27 "And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things."

9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Allah makes it "lawful" for Muhammad to have sex with his female "right hand possessions", i.e., slaves, which Allah has "given" him:

33:50 O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her -- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Muhammad can keep acquiring more female slaves:

33:52 "It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things."

Muhammad's wives have slaves too:

33:55 "It is no sin on them (the Prophet's wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother's sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves, and keep your duty to Allah. Verily, Allah is Ever All Witness over everything."

Muslim men, like Muhammad, can have sex slaves (see 4:24, 23:1-6, 70:29-30):

E.g., 4:24: "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise."

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn (4:24):
"And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy [after the completion of one menstrual cycle]; this is what God has prescribed for you (kitāba is in the accusative because it is the verbal noun). Lawful for you (read passive wa-uhilla, or active wa-ahalla), beyond all that, that is, except what He has forbidden you of women, is that you seek, women, using your wealth, by way of a dowry or a price, in wedlock and not, fornicating, in illicitly. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, and have had sexual intercourse with, give them their wages, the dowries that you have assigned them, as an obligation; you are not at fault in agreeing together, you and they, after the obligation, is waived, decreased or increased. God is ever Knowing, of His creatures, Wise, in what He has ordained for them."
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=24&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Quran continued:

Slavery is according to Allah's will, and reflects his sense of what is right for the scheme of things in life:

16:71. “And Allah has preferred some of you above others in wealth and properties. Then, those who are preferred will by no means hand over their wealth and properties to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Do they then deny the Favour of Allah?”

Tafsirs for 16:71

Al-Jalalayn. 16:71. "And God has favoured some of you above others in [respect of] provision, thus, some of you are poor, some are rich, some owners, others are owned. Now those who have been [more] favoured, namely, the masters, would not hand over their provision to those [slaves] whom their right hands possess, that is, they would not assign that wealth and other things which We have given them as something to be shared [equally] between them and their slaves, so that they, that is, the slaves and [their] masters, become equal, partners, in respect thereof. The meaning is: they do not have partners from among their slaves in respect of their wealth, so how can they make certain of God's servants partners of His? Is it then the grace of God that they deny?, [that] they reject, when they ascribe partners to Him?"

Ibn Abbas. 16:71. "(And Allah hath favoured some of you above others in provision) this verse was revealed about the delegation of Najran who claimed that Jesus was the son of Allah. So Allah revealed this verse to tell people that He has favoured some people to the exclusion of others in relation to the possession of wealth and servants. (Now those who are more favoured) with wealth and servants (will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they) i.e. the master and the slave (may be equal with them in respect thereof) about wealth. They said: “We will not do so nor are we happy about this”, and so Allah said: (Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?) Do you like for Me what you do not like for yourselves, and thus deny the Oneness of Allah?"

Quran, continued:

Allah allows for male slaves who "lack vigor" (i.e., sexual desire) to guard the Muslims' harems, and so Muslims justified obtaining castrated slaves, even though Muslims themselves were not allowed to perform the castrations.

24:31: "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed."

Slavery in the Hadith:

Slaves who tried to free themselves (without working and buying themselves out of slavery, or obtaining a sponsor to pay their way out of slavery) were considered infidels:

Sahih Muslim, "Chapter 32: Calling the Slave as Infidel."
Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 129:
It is narrated on the authority of Jarir that he heard (the Holy Prophet) saying, The slave who fled from his master committed an act of infidelity as long as he would not return to him. Mansur observed: By God, this hadith was narrated from the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him), but I do not like that this should be narrated on my authority here in Basra.

Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 131:
"Jarir b. Abdullah reported it from the Holy Prophet: When the slave runs away from his master, his prayer is not accepted."

Sexual slavery of captive women in the Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637:
Narrated Buraida:
The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."

(Sahih Muslim) "Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE BECOMES CAPTIVE"

Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3432 (also 3433, 3434):
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.95:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, "I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, 'We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, 'Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?' We asked him about that and he said, 'You don't have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.' "

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2153:
Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari: Should I tell you what I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided.

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 30, Number 30.2.13:
Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Dinar said, "A man came to Abdullah ibn Umar when I was with him at the place where judgments were given and asked him about the suckling of an older person. Abdullah ibn Umar replied, 'A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, 'I have a slave-girl and I used to have intercourse with her. My wife went to her and suckled her. When I went to the girl, my wife told me to watch out, because she had suckled her!' Umar told him to beat his wife and to go to his slave-girl because kinship by suckling was only by the suckling of the young.' "

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.100:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, "Tell them." She was embarrassed. He said, "It is alright, and I do it myself." Malik said, "A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission."

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 2, Number 2.23.90:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that the slave girls of Abdullah ibn Umar used to wash his feet and bring him a mat of palm leaves while they were menstruating.
Malik was asked whether a man who had women and slave girls could have intercourse with all of them before he did ghusl. He said, "There is no harm in a man having intercourse with two of his slave girls before he does ghusl. It is disapproved of, however, to go to a freewoman on another's day. There is no harm in making love first to one slave girl and then to another when one is junub."
Malik was asked about a man who was junub and water was put down for him to do ghusl with. Then he forgot and put his finger into it to find out whether it was hot or cold. Malik said, "If no filth has soiled his fingers, I do not consider that that makes the water impure."

Muslim scholars and jurists:

Ibn Qayyim,
in Zad al- Ma’ad, chapter
Regarding His Guidance With Respect to Prisoners of War
p.319
“And the correct opinion which is based upon his guidance and that of his companions is that the Arabs may be taken as slaves and it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the slave women from among them without it being conditional upon their embracing Islam.”
[cites Malik and Bukhari]

Ibn Kathir (4:24):
"Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves
Allah said,
[وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]
(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,
[إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]
(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, e
[وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]
(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. [...]"

The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK O: JUSTICE Chapter O-9.0: Jihad
O-9.13
When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.
O-9.14
When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o-25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen."

Slavery in the world today:

http://www.meforum.org/article/189
Slavery in the Middle East
Charles Jacobs (in 1999) writes:
“According to conservative estimates, twenty-seven million people today are living in human bondage around the globe. By definition, these slaves are made to work for little or no money by means of force or the threat of force. In the worst case, that of chattel-slavery, people are the owned property of others and are bred and passed on through their masters.
In Mauritania and Sudan, one finds, respectively, the most ignored and the worst cases of slavery. […]”

Thank you, I rather suspected that those translators who wrote "by their necks" were translating literally. Perhaps it is not so very metaphorical an expression as that: it seems to be an adequate and very fitting description of slavery. Harsh and humiliating ownership.

You write "Ransoming slaves would mean paying ransoms to free the slaves of others, not just your own slaves. I fail to see how this helps your argument".
I did start by writing I would address another matter. Still, very much related to the matter of freeing slaves in that some translations make freeing of slaves dependent on more than good will, decency and the slave's demand.

And the interpretation by Ibn Kathir confirms this: payment is taken for granted first and foremost. A decent slaveowner rises above this.

Except that in these modern times slaveowners are never decent no matter how it was viewed in antiquity. That was then, this is now and some Muslims in thought and deed have a lot of trouble freeing themselves from the legitimacy of slavery and the Islamic world's example of massive imports of slaves throughout the ages.

"Even after Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and Europe abolished the slave trade in 1815, Muslim slave traders enslaved a further 2 million Africans. This despite vigorous British Naval activity and military intervention to limit the Islamic slave trade. By some calculations the number of victims of the 14 centuries of Islamic slave trade could exceed 180 million."

In Islamic law the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] The Qur'an (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.[4] Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim.[5] They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[6] According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.[7]

In practice, slaves played various social and economic roles from Emir to worker. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, pastoralism and the army. Some rulers even relied on military and administrative slaves to such a degree that they seized power. However, people did not always treat with slaves in accordance with Islamic law. In some cases the situation was so harsh it led to uprisings such as the Zanj Rebellion.[8] However, this was an exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labour in the medieval Islamic world consisted of free, paid labour.[9] For a variety of reasons, internal growth of the slave population was not enough to fulfill the demand in Muslim society. This resulted in massive importation, which involved enormous suffering and loss of life from the capture and transportation of slaves from non-Muslim lands.[10] In theory, slavery in Islamic law does not have a racial or color component, although this has not always been the case in practice.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Islamist_opinions

"Our Lord Jesus Christ began His ministry in Nazareth with these words: "The Spirit of the Lord is on Me.to proclaim freedom for the prisoners.and release to the oppressed." Luke 4:18

Which prisoners?? what group of opressed people was he talking about, it sure wasn't the slaves otherwise it would contradict:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

"When the apostle Paul wrote to Philemon, concerning his escaped slave, he urged him to welcome back Onesimus "no longer as a slave, but.as a dear brother.as a man and as a brother in the Lord." Philemon 16."

This is mainly due to the fact that Onesimus became a Christian before escaping, he would have been in great danger if a he (a CHRISTIAN SLAVE) roamed the land ruled by the Romans freely.

Had he not been in such position, Jesus would have called for him to be punished like here:

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Although the Old Testament provided for slavery for criminals and insolvent debtors, kidnapping and enslaving law-abiding people incurred the death penalty. "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." Exodus 21:16

As can be seen from the old testament, this law only applies to those who enslave the Hebrews:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

According to the bible Jews, the father and the holly gost are one. Whatever was said in the old testament were therefore Jesus's words.

Jesus says in the new testemant:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[Mathew 5:17-19]

By the way Jesus being nailed to the cross does not mean everything has been accomplished, he has yet to return and defeat the antichrist. "not everything has been accomplished".

"The New Testament expressly forbids both the slave trade and slavery itself. ".the Law is made not for the righteous but for Law breakers.for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers." 1 Timothy 1:9-10"

Nearly got me there before I realized that your translation sucks. Here is a better translation:

"for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;"

Here is the explanation: For menstealers - The word here used - ἀνδρᾶποδιστής andrapodistēs - occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means one who steals another for the purpose of making him a slave - a kidnapper. This is the common way in which people are made slaves. Some, indeed, are taken in war and sold as slaves, but the mass of those who have been reduced to servitude have become slaves by being kidnapped.

"Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:32"

What does this have to do with slavery??

Bottom line is the Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) called for punishing slaves according to the corrupted bible:

The servant will be SEVERELY PUNISHED, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be PUNISHED only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Whereas the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)condoned, the punishing of slaves according to the authentic hadiths:

Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, advised that slaves should be WELL-TREATED. He said, 'Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. DO NOT PUNISH what Allah has created.' " (Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 188)

"And your slaves ! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a “MISTAKE which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be TORMENTED! " (Ibn Sa'd, op. cit., vol. II:1, p. 13)

"Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were: "The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves ! "(Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari , Nr. 158)

D,

You can engage in all the deflection and distortion you want. That won't change the fact that the Islamic scriptures call upon Muslims to capture slaves, keep slaves, and trade in slaves. Muslim men were permitted to have an unlimited number of non-Muslim female sex slaves. Not one of the Islamic sources you cite denies this. Islam, through expansive jihad, expanded slavery and increased the numbers of slaves, and continued the practice for the most part until the 19th and 20th centuries, when the West pressured them to stop enslaving people. Despite this, some Muslims are still practicing slavery today.

Although the Quran says Allah is "able to do all things," apparently abolishing the institution and practice of slavery wasn't one of them. He was too busy calling upon Muslims to fight the unbelievers to kill them, subjugate them, usurp their land, extract money out of them, and, oh yes, enslave them. Thus dhimmis and slaves were forced to effectively work for the Islamic empires, thus forced against their will into serving the cause of Islamic imperialism and expansionism. The goal of the Islamic project, of which you appear to be a part, is to bring the whole world under Islamic law and to convert as many people as possible to Islam, so that Islam is dominant and supreme over all other systems and peoples.

Steffen Larsen wrote:

It takes a hardcore Muslim to actually defend slavery, based on economic necessities, presenting it as almost a voluntary state. Thank you very much.
.................................

You aren't kidding, Steffen. The repulsive "D" seems to be contradictorily asserting that slavery under Islam is both banned outright—and quite idyllic.

That he is doing so on a thread about Zanzibar, where the brutal Islamic slave trade flourished *until the West put a stop to it*, is all the more grotesque.

"D" actually began ranting about slavery on the "Egypt: Secularist presidential candidate pelted with stones and shoes" thread, where he brought it up—as here—completely without prompting. One can only assume that the "glories" of Islamic slavery is a subject near and dear to his heart.

"D" wrote, replying to Steffen Larsen's comment, above:

No, it takes a Munafiq to defend slavery, a harcore Muslim would follow the Quran and the examples of the prophet Muhammad, which we get from the authentic hadiths. By the way if those "hardcore" Muslims are in fact the good Muslims why don't they treat their slaves like their brothers, feed them what they eat and clothe them with what they wear etc.
.................................

Note that "D" *is* in fact defending slavery here, noting how (supposedly) wonderful slavery is under Islam. Loathsome.

Yet more from "D":

In Islamic law the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] The Qur'an (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.[4] Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim.[5] They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[6] According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.[7]
.................................

Several things to note here:

Yes, the topic of slavery is indeed covered at great length in Islamic Law, because slavery is *sanctioned* under Islam.

"D" actually notes with approval that Muslims can, at this point, only enslave *Infidels*.

He notes that manumission of a slave can serve for the expiation of sin. In other words, freeing a slave *is a punishment*.

Then he notes that a Muslim slave is considered superior to a non-Muslim, which just goes to show not how well slaves are treated under Islam, but *how oppressed Infidels are*.

Good stuff from Kinana of Khaybar, Dumbledore's Army, Vickie and others.

No one here is buying "D's" grotesque apologia for Muslim slavery.

Then he notes that a Muslim slave is considered superior to a non-Muslim...
..............................

I should have written:

Then he notes that a Muslim slave is considered superior to an unenslaved non-Muslim...