To Muslims: Proof from the Quran that Mohammad/Islam is wrong

[pescatarian09]

I am currently writing up Dr. Jonathan AC Brown's research on slavery in Islam to post here. Here is his lecture if you're interested:

The video is quite long, the most relevant part is 53 minutes onwards.

Here is the book he wrote on it:

Slavery and Islam

What happens when authorities you venerate condone something you know is wrong? Every major religion and philosophy once condoned or approved of slavery, but in modern times nothing is seen as more evil. Americans confront this crisis of authority when they erect statues of Founding Fathers who...

books.google.co.uk

 

[pescatarian09]

Dr Jonathan's article may also be of interest:

Slavery and Islam: The Problem of Slavery

Is there slavery in Islam? When people pose this question they usually assume it’s the Islam part that needs clarification. Everyone already knows what slavery is. Actually, it’s quite the opposite.

yaqeeninstitute.org

 

[Lefort3000]

The 2:1 ratio is just a guess made by Western historians. It's not something one could prove easily. However, let's say it was true a number one would be the most likely because we have people like Bilal ibn Rabah, a black slave who was freed by a Muslim Arab, who married a woman named Hind. The history books don't tell us what ethnicity Hind was but Hind was an Arab name and we do have records of noble Arab women named Hind. One being the wife of Sufyan. Meaning that a free black slave married an Arab woman but not just any Arab woman possibly a high ranking Arab woman.

This is a terrible example. He was the son of an Arab slave father - black slave mother, and he was one Mohammad earliest followers. Not only was he not a full black man slave, he was also directly involved with Mohammad so that would give him social status. Not only that, but arab father - black slave mother sons did have a few more rights, thats not the question.

You undoubtedly cant show me one example of a full black male slave marrying a female arab. I could show you plenty of examples of the other way around.

Muslim Arabs freed their slaves, as a result of the encouragement of the Quran and the Prophet, and then they were free to marry who they liked. Muslims aren't like Christians to hold slaves for generations. The reason you see homogeneous Africans in America is because blacks couldn't marry white people unless they wanted to be lynched. The one-drop rule was quite the deterrent. You just shot yourself in the foot by bringing that up lol.

You're pretty stupid. You dismiss the 2:1 ratio for genders, without any proof and yet so confidently. And you go on to insinuate that male black slaves in the Americas had it worse than Muslims because they got to have sex with their women. Islam allows Muslim men 4 wives, along with mutah prostitutes, and possibly concubines. A black, 1st gen male slave would be the literal lowest on the social ladder among Islam. And yet, ignoring the link I gave of what happens to the male slaves that caused their numbers to diminish *castration),


You still think Islam had a magical, wonderful society where every or almost all Muslims freed their male slaves, allowing them a chance to take a limited resource (women) from people with higher status in a society. Is that what history tells us, is that what the historical accounts tell us? I guess thats why there are multiple accounts of Muslims owning slaves, Mohammad continuing to own slaves.

You think its more likely that Islamic countries allowed slaves to marry up (with arab women), as opposed to what the Americas had with equal marriage? If Muslim countries were so nice towards the black male slaves, why didnt they end up marrying other black women. Im sure many had wives before they were enslaved/conquered.

 

[Cintra]

Do people find it bolsters their own flagging faith if they find flaws in other peoples belief systems?

For instance, if you can prove the Qur'an is wrong, does it make the bible seem more right?

 

[AspiringSoul]

1) if you own an animal, does it give you the right to treat it bad? the idea of owning a human life, is acceptable in the entire Abrahimic religions.
if you're Christian, you believe in the Torah...you have zero rights to criticise islam after that fact.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

the only difference is islam was very clear on how we're supposed to treat them (both humans and animals) aswell as offering God's reward for buying and freeing slaves.


2) the xtians who keep on barking up this tree..
Jesus: render unto ceasar what belongs to ceasar

so that includes the spoils of war which includes slaves.
the guy who claim was your God, who you worship, who you claim was here to save the entire world, did not give a single eff about slavery, there's no record of him condemning it or discouraging it..and yet YOU think you're somehow obligated to tackle it? are you better than Jesus?

Quran
(2) 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 fulfil their covenant when they make it, and who are patient 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 (the pious - See V.2:2).
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #177)

Hadith
Narrated Hakim bin Hizam: I said to Allah's Apostle, "Before embracing Islam I used to do good deeds like giving in charity, slave-manumitting, and the keeping of good relations with Kith and kin. Shall I be rewarded for those deeds?" The Prophet replied, "You became Muslim with all those good deeds (Without losing their reward)." (Book #24, Hadith #517)

Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to the Prophet and said, "I had sexual intercourse with my wife on Ramadan (while fasting)." The Prophet asked him, "Can you afford to manumit a slave?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet asked him, "Can you fast for two successive months?" He replied in the negative. He asked him, "Can you afford to feed sixty poor persons?" He replied in the negative. (Abu Huraira added): Then a basket full of dates was brought to the Prophet and he said (to that man), "Feed (poor people) with this by way of atonement." He said, "(Should I feed it) to poorer people than we? There is no poorer house than ours between its (Medina's) mountains." The Prophet said, "Then feed your family with it." (Book #31, Hadith #158)


in fact it is far far worse for Xtians because they specifically believe in every prophet before Jesus, but specifically reject Mohammad.
The ones they accept, not a single one of them even suggesting freeing slaves, except when it was their own kind.

I have NO issues if a non-abrahimic person brings up this topic, but jews/xtians have zero right to ever bring it up.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Truly one of them is God.

there you go with the fake material again

 

[AspiringSoul]

I forgot to add, not only did Jesus not give a damn about slavery, he compared a gentile woman to a dog.
whilst Prophet Mohammad said 'there is no superiority of an arab over a non-arab, or a white over a black', Jesus literally thought of gentiles like dogs and only secondary to jews.

The hypocrisy of xtians is astounding.

 

[Kung Fu]

This is a terrible example. He was the son of an Arab slave father - black slave mother, and he was one Mohammad earliest followers. Not only was he not a full black man slave, he was also directly involved with Mohammad so that would give him social status. Not only that, but arab father - black slave mother sons did have a few more rights, thats not the question.

You undoubtedly cant show me one example of a full black male slave marrying a female arab. I could show you plenty of examples of the other way around.



You're pretty stupid. You dismiss the 2:1 ratio for genders, without any proof and yet so confidently. And you go on to insinuate that male black slaves in the Americas had it worse than Muslims because they got to have sex with their women. Islam allows Muslim men 4 wives, along with mutah prostitutes, and possibly concubines. A black, 1st gen male slave would be the literal lowest on the social ladder among Islam. And yet, ignoring the link I gave of what happens to the male slaves that caused their numbers to diminish *castration),


You still think Islam had a magical, wonderful society where every or almost all Muslims freed their male slaves, allowing them a chance to take a limited resource (women) from people with higher status in a society. Is that what history tells us, is that what the historical accounts tell us? I guess thats why there are multiple accounts of Muslims owning slaves, Mohammad continuing to own slaves.

You think its more likely that Islamic countries allowed slaves to marry up (with arab women), as opposed to what the Americas had with equal marriage? If Muslim countries were so nice towards the black male slaves, why didnt they end up marrying other black women. Im sure many had wives before they were enslaved/conquered.

You said "just one". I showed you one and that too a former black man, who was nearly tortured to death, most likely marrying not just an Arab woman but a high class Arab woman. You must feel pretty stupid now.

Islam was so progressive that they allowed men of colour and women of colour to marry who they wanted which is why you see a mix of racial features within the ME like Egypt for example.

You came in here all confident but ended looking stupid. Like God says falsehood will always perish at the end. Next time don't make bets your ass can't cash. Let this be a lesson to you

 

[AspiringSoul]

@Lefort3000 you can't move the goalposts, this is what you asked

Id like you to give me ONE example of an African male breeding with an Arab female historically. Just one. Unlike in the Christian countries, the African men in Islam were COMPLETELY SEXUALLY CUCKOLDED. If they werent killed in by war (which happened a lot) THEY WERE CASTRATED or had no sexual options. Thats why theres no homogoneous blacks remaining in the regio

this topic isn't directly linked to slavery, since essentially it's about whether or not a black muslim man can marry an arab muslim woman..
do you even need muslims to answer this one?
what part of 'an arab is not superior to a non-arab' part don't you understand?

the richest man of all time..

Mansa Musa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for
Thats why theres no homogoneous blacks remaining in the region

Siddi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

if you're thinking 'but that's india/pakistan and not arabia..there are also black communities in the middle east, they're more mixed though..but that's a bit obvious isnt it given how long it's been since they actually were 'enslaved' there in the first place?
keep in mind there are 50m blacks in the US alone and they were untouchable outcasts for 400 yrs, so yeh more 'homogoneous' doesnt mean anything positive in this context does it?
the lack of racism amongst muslims means the relatively few blacks (in comparison to america for example) are mixed and basically arabs now, to you that suggests racism?
in fact pakistan/india has the caste system which is the main reason why the sheedis haven't been mixing. this isnt a positive is it?
arabs are still tribal but certainly not on the same level as india since there's a 5000 yr old caste system that muslims also practice.

also just want to throw this out there
muslims were not colonialists...the lands they conquered were not mere colonies to loot, they were lands that were as much a part of of us as any other..and as a result their protection and welfare actually mattered to muslims. As a result, when muslims were the dominant force in the world...africa was the richest continent on earth..with the richest man (of all time) in the world.
are you familiar with the history of islam in africa? eg

Timbuktu Manuscripts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

not related to you, but india was the richest country on earth under mughal rule..and after it's been looted of $45TRILLION by the brtish rothschilds and the wealth has been spent to end the ottomons and create israel, the hindus want to brag about their alliance with israel and claim islam is why they're in poverty...even though both muslims and sikhs agree that it was hindus backstabbing them that allowed the colonialists to take over (with the exception of the marathas).
similarly jews lived in persia for 2500 yrs. the persians even created a jewish state for them in the 7th century..and yet the jews still made the movie 300 depicting persians as savages..and their own historical persecutors, the greeks...the origin of democracy and enlightenment.
this is the type of fkery guys like me have had to witness in this unjust world.

 

[A Freeman]

Don't people need to understand what modern slavery looks like to understand what's currently being (incorrectly) viewed as slavery in The Law (Torah)?

"Employee" is the modern word for SLAVE.

An employee works most of their entire adult life so their master/employer can profit from their life energy. And at the end of 40-50 years of slavery, they are sometimes rewarded with "retirement" (if they live that long), where they try to finish their worn out lives with even less money than they had during their years of slavery.

Compare that with the employer-employee conditions described in The Law, when someone found themselves in debt, had to sell their ancestral land, and go to work for someone else FOR SIX YEARS., after which time they were to be given a FULL RETIREMENT PACKAGE, with everything they would need to become successful and financially independent.

Deuteronomy
15:12 [And] if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.
15:13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
15:14 Thou shalt furnish him LIBERALLY out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: [of that] wherewith the "I AM" thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.
15:15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and the "I AM" thy God redeemed (released) thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.
15:16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;
15:17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust [it] through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
15:18 It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant [to thee], in serving thee six years: and the "I AM" thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.

This is really the basic tenet of multiple layers of debt relief afforded as part of the perfect economic policy found only in The Law, which also includes a once in a lifetime (every 50th year) Jubilee, where if someone was forced to sell their family ranch, it was returned to them so they could start over with a clean slate (debt free).

Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

This is why the Jubilee and the seven-year release are part of The Law, to END POVERTY.

Deuteronomy 15:4 TO THE END THAT THERE BE NO POOR AMONG YOU; for the "I AM" shall greatly bless thee in the land which the "I AM" thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance to possess it:

 

[fotw]

Are thieves, liars, murderers, adulterers, fornicators and others that break any of the laws found in the Torah any better than dogs? That's what Jesus was talking about when he spoke of the dogs and of the swine. Jesus refered to them as dogs because they didn't follow the laws of God not because of the color of their skin.

 

[A Freeman]

Perhaps it should also be pointed out that Jesus spoke in parables, and never called anyone a dog, or a pig, even though people themselves refer to this place as a "dog eat dog world", where everyone is trying to be the "top dog", and also where gluttony (which is itself a capital offense - Deut. 21:20-21) is referred to as "pigging out" or making a pig of oneself.

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is Holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

If people choose to act like animals, believing the LIE that they are "only human (animals) after all", then there is little point of discussing anything SPIRITUAL (Holy) with them, because they're incapable or unwilling to understand it.

Thomas 1:7-8
1:7 If you will know yourselves, then you will be known and you will know that you are the sons of the Living Father (Spiritual-Beings like Father, Who is a Spiritual-Being - John 4:24).
1:8 But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty and you ARE poverty.

A Spirit-Being is a Being of Light, Who doesn't have any skin of any color, nor any gender, nor any bodily features of any kind.

If everyone KNEW that they were, in fact spiritual-Beings temporarily incarnating these human animal bodies we see in the mirror, there would be no ridiculous arguments about what "race" or "ethnic group" or "gender" one is, or even what religious superstitions one believes, all of which belong to the human vessel/vehicle.

Are You the Car or the Driver?

 

[AspiringSoul]

Are thieves, liars, murderers, adulterers, fornicators and others that break any of the laws found in the Torah any better than dogs? That's what Jesus was talking about when he spoke of the dogs and of the swine. Jesus refered to them as dogs because they didn't follow the laws of God not because of the color of their skin.

such a weak argument that's totally wrong.
1) at that time Jews were breaking the laws of God and we know what Paul said, that the jews were cut off and gentiles were grafted in..so at no point were gentiles viewed as 'sinful' in that time, certainly not in Christianity.
2) the context was already made clear. Jesus came to the 'lost sheep of israel' and they were 'children' in comparison to the gentiles who he likened to as 'dogs'.
the lady responded with 'dogs eat the crumbs left over' and so Jesus liked her response. Still doesnt excuse the blatant racism there.
also why would Jesus judge gentiles for not having a law, when God didnt give them the law?

 

[A Freeman]

such a weak argument that's totally wrong.
1) at that time Jews were breaking the laws of God and we know what Paul said, that the jews were cut off and gentiles were grafted in..so at no point were gentiles viewed as 'sinful' in that time, certainly not in Christianity.
2) the context was already made clear. Jesus came to the 'lost sheep of israel' and they were 'children' in comparison to the gentiles who he likened to as 'dogs'.
the lady responded with 'dogs eat the crumbs left over' and so Jesus liked her response. Still doesnt excuse the blatant racism there.
also why would Jesus judge gentiles for not having a law, when God didnt give them the law?

Utter hypocritical nonsense.

 

[fotw]

such a weak argument that's totally wrong.
1) at that time Jews were breaking the laws of God and we know what Paul said, that the jews were cut off and gentiles were grafted in..so at no point were gentiles viewed as 'sinful' in that time, certainly not in Christianity.
2) the context was already made clear. Jesus came to the 'lost sheep of israel' and they were 'children' in comparison to the gentiles who he likened to as 'dogs'.
the lady responded with 'dogs eat the crumbs left over' and so Jesus liked her response. Still doesnt excuse the blatant racism there.
also why would Jesus judge gentiles for not having a law, when God didnt give them the law?

God has always been against all who sin. The Canaanites were living in sin, their abominations were not a secret. The law was well established before God defined it in writing, there is no excuse for breaking it. The Canaanites were also Semitic people, were they not? Jesus did not only help Jews. Jesus not only helped the Canaanite woman and her child, Jesus healed a Roman centurion’s servant. (Luke 7:1-10) Jesus healed at least one Samaritan Leper. (Luke 17:11-19) Jesus noticed they were all true in faith. Jesus fed the multitudes about 5,000 of them. (Mark 6:30-44) It is certain that God was against the Canaanites due to their abominations and Jesus knew this better than anyone. The Canaanites were a bad influence on the Israelites. This is why I believe that the prejudice from Jesus towards the Canaanites was all about sin and had nothing to do with race.

 

[AspiringSoul]

God has always been against all who sin. The Canaanites were living in sin, their abominations were not a secret. The law was well established before God defined it in writing, there is no excuse for breaking it. The Canaanites were also Semitic people, were they not? Jesus did not only help Jews. Jesus not only helped the Canaanite woman and her child, Jesus healed a Roman centurion’s servant. (Luke 7:1-10) Jesus healed at least one Samaritan Leper. (Luke 17:11-19) Jesus noticed they were all true in faith. Jesus fed the multitudes about 5,000 of them. (Mark 6:30-44) It is certain that God was against the Canaanites due to their abominations and Jesus knew this better than anyone. The Canaanites were a bad influence on the Israelites. This is why I believe that the prejudice from Jesus towards the Canaanites was all about sin and had nothing to do with race.

It had nothing to do with calling gentiles/canaanites 'sinners'. Jesus criticised the jewish people for their sins many times over.
Paul then went in depth explaining that the GENTILES were grafted in due to the tresspass of jews eg the jews were the sinful nation at that time and God kicked them out of the holy land and replaced them with gentile nations.
the same canaanites and other nations became christian later too.

So why would Jesus be referring to their sin, over that of the jews?

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

there is the context...it's about race, not sin.

 

[seekinheart]

U know what muslims favourite helen hunt movie is?

TWISTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[AspiringSoul]

U know what muslims favourite helen hunt movie is?

TWISTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

you know who xtians remind me of?
Trigger from Only Fools and Horses.

 

[AspiringSoul]

this story of his broom sums up xtian theology.

 

[seekinheart]

this story of his broom sums up xtian theology.

bit random but ok, i do like abit of only fools mind.