I'm not sure what your point is since slavery in the US is illegal and has been for generations. I'm also not sure what your historical point is either since the Arab Slave Trade took more Africans as slaves in total than the Atlantic Slave Trade did and operated over a longer period of time.
"A group of Christian priests from a local Coptic church in Egypt were told to convert to Islam or face death, according to an Arabic news site." Fantastic piece of investigative journalism.
Typical deflection tactics of apologists. You should of jumped all over the opportunity for us to treat Muslims are per the Islamic text, as per history shows - if, if you actually believe your own BS. But of course not. Since you wont answer that, for obvious reasons, ill ask instead - when did Muslims change the Koran to make slavery illegal? Maybe you could explain this video to me, is this little black boy a slave a dhimmi or as you'd have us believe a valued employee held in higher regard than Muslims themselves? Even thought the Koran says non-believers are the lowest of creatures - really lower than pigs? We know how much you love bacon. Oh thats right doesnt the Koran say jews and Christians are pigs and monkeys? Bring on the spin about Muslim lover for those cute little animals. [video=youtube;waAmT5mGn3c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waAmT5mGn3c&list=FL-9ZWa3xwj5awjeFzXnJDSQ&index=68[/video]
Unsurprisingly, you disregard the context of this verse; it was during a time of war. Secondly, I don't see why your so upset with the bolded part. By paying taxes to the Muslim victors, it is acknowledged that the conquered are submitting their authority to a new power. So where exactly is the problem here? Also, you should be made aware that the Jizya paid by non-Muslims was less than the overall taxes paid by Muslims. Further, only young (and health) males of military age were obligated to pay the Jizya. Lastly, non-Muslims were exempted from military service, as the Jizya guaranteed their protection. In fact, in one case, because the Muslim armies were no longer able to protect their non-Muslim citizenry, the Muslim commander had all Jizya dues returned. Source; http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/05/reality-of-jizya.html
What is the lie? That Muslims must be higher than 'dhimmis'? My ancestors were Greek, and this is what existed under the Ottomans. Christians there were not allowed to ride on horses, since they must always be lower than Muslims. Or is it that Mosques must be higher than churches? If it were not so, then why are minarets forbidden in Switzerland among other places? The Church of Saint Simon the Tanner was given special permission by the Caliph Al-Muizz because he gave proof of Christian teachings by moving the mountain. He did so in order to save the Copts from possible extermination. There is also Saint Catherine's Monastery in Sinai and you can say that Muslims never destroyed monasteries, and yet they did in the tens of thousands. It too was given special permission by non other than Mohamed himself. What I found interesting in the following article, is that such an outstanding monastery with all its chapels and artwork was given the additional distinction by Nassar of being the town where all the garbage collectors of Cairo should live. Anyway here's an interesting article on Saint Simon the Tanner: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Simon_the_Shoemaker
I'm not sure what's so hard to comprehend about it. Zakat = religious based collection to use for needy individuals, non-Muslims exempt Jizyah = Non-religious tax levied on non-Muslims, Muslims exempt. Two different collection processes, one for Muslims, the other for non-Muslims.
Why would one need to change the Quran in order to slavery to be illegal? The Quran may recognize the existence of slavery, but it doesn't mandate it. A couple of things here: first, that "boy" isn't black, he isn't from Africa, nor is he a slave, he is a migrant worker and they tend to have poor rights in the Arabian Peninsula. Second, while it certainly is a problem, there isn't really anything fundamentally Islamic about it, nor does your video suggest as much.
Theres a difference between having to own slaves and it being legal. Isnt mandated, lol, the word twisting of you people is incredible. Did Mohammed the best example for Muslims to follow own slaves? Point me towards slavery being made illegal under sharia law. A couple of things here: first, that "boy" isn't black, he isn't from Africa, nor is he a slave, he is a migrant worker and they tend to have poor rights in the Arabian Peninsula. Second, while it certainly is a problem, there isn't really anything fundamentally Islamic about it, nor does your video suggest as much.[/QUOTE]
There is nothing in the Quran that says that slavery has to be legal. You people? Muhammad was widely known for not only freeing slaves, but for buying slaves off of other people and then setting them free. He generally encouraged such actions among his early followers as well. He even married one of them and adopted another. Given such, many forms of modern Islamic jurisprudence tend to lean towards not encouraging or having the institution of slavery around. Pretty much every Islamic / Muslim majority state forbids it, including very conservative states such as Saudi Arabia.
Seeing as you're struggling so much, the answer is yes. Yes Mohammed did own and allow his followers to own slaves. Nothing in Islamic texts has changed that, if fact they keep saying Mohammed is the best example.
Problem with Islam is that the political face is written into the doctrine. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah... 2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and h is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know. [2.244] And fight in the way of Allah,... [2.246] ...May it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust. [3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. [3.169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord; [4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward. [4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak. [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. [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; [9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). [47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 26: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
Mohammed did not disallow the ownership of slaves because slavery at the time was an embedded practice in a society that depended much on the use of slaves. It's tantamount to the UN passing a law that restricts the use of automobiles.
Unlike the UN, Islamic laws are based around Mohammed actions and words which can not just be changed. So now Mohammed isnt the best example? That sort of throws things out.
No, Islamic laws are not solely based on the words and actions of Mohammed, and there are many interpretations concerning his words and actions. Who said Mohammad isn't considered the best example?
And Muhammad set his slaves free. His followers routinely purchased slaves and then set them free. It is called Manumission. I also like how you simply shrugged off the fact that every Islam majority country in the world has laws against slavery by the way.
You can't post singular post-Hijra scriptural lines like that and expect to have a good handle on their theological meaning. Theology doesn't really work that way. I'm not sure how you are interpreting them since you didn't say anything about them, but my bet is that I would disagree with you on pretty much every single one. Also, your hadith line at the end doesn't come from the Quran, and "fighting" in the sense of Jihad doesn't mean the kind of fighting that I think you are picturing in your head. Jihad is first and foremost a spiritual struggle with oneself. - - - Updated - - - Islamic law isn't quite that simple.
Extract from Muhammad last sermon: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; white has no superiority over black, nor does a black have any superiority over white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action. "
Have you been to st Catherine? It has been guarded by Muslim bedu for as long as it has been standing. I think you are getting the hills of moquattem above Cairo confused with st Catherine in the Sinai. The garbage collectors there are indeed Christians. Not sure about Nasser making them move there .
There is no need to interpret the meaning. Evidently merely quoting them, the meaning came through loud and strong just with your literal reading. Thats why you would disagree with them all. "Fight", "kill". "slay" "smite the necks" and "cast terror into the heart" of the unbelievers. They are pretty straight forward.
Their problem isnt discrimination against non arabs but instead dicrimination against non muslims. Its death or conversion for the idolaters and a life of subjection to their muslim masters for the Christians and Jews. [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. [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
I agree that they are pretty straight forward, I am simply saying that you aren't doing it right. The Quran generally makes note of pre-Hijra and post-Hijra scripture for a reason. For example: you are so eager to quote lines about "slaying the unbelievers" but do you even know who is being talked about there? A lot of post-Hijra Quran scripture deals with specific incidents and events. Sura 8 for example includes the Battle of Badr in which the "pagans" is merely a reference to the Meccans while Sura 9 where the Battle of Tabuk is a main topic, the term "unbelievers" is a term for a specific group of unbelievers in this case: the Byzantines and their allied north eastern tribes. Islam couldn't have survived if it operated in the manner in which you seem to think it did. The Muslims were allied with many non-Islamic and even pagan tribes during their time and they certainly didn't "slay" them all. You leave stuff out, like the specification and amnesty for certain tribes at the beginning of Sura 9 when you quote single verses like you do and thus the result is a poor understanding of theology and a completely lack of context.
If you really want to go down that route, why dont you do the same with the Torah (many many killings) and old testament (Leviticulus - that is one blood bath) or even the new testament (Mathew 10:34)?
Back in the day when he was giving his speech that wasn't true at all actually. In fact, the early "Islamic" empires tended to more so be Arab empires and non-Muslims who were Arab were generally preferred even for the holding of office over non-Arab persons (even if said non-Arabs were Muslim). In fact, in the early days, you had to be an Arab (or one of the ethnic sub-groupings) to be a member of the army. Islam was a minority religion in many parts of early Arab Empires for quite some time. Once again, you're not doing yourself any favors by quoting isolated verses.This particular Sure as I mentioned deals with a specific incident at this juncture: the Battle of Tabuk. The Quran isn't a narrative, it is a collection of specific revelations often given for specific incidents that occurred during Muhammad's time; like God's commandment here to defend the Ummah from the Byzantine armies. Once again, if you were to actually read the entire Surah you'd note that it doesn't apply to everyone who isn't a Muslim.
The Quran doesn't make any " note of pre-Hijra and post-Hijra scripture. Scholars generally refer to the meccan and medinian verses. The more peaceful and tolerant Meccan verses abrogated by the later, more violent, intolerant medinian verses
