Slavery

[nihil est]

Does Islam say that slavery is wrong?

[Uthman]

Please see this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...3-slavery.html

[nihil est]

Please see this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...3-slavery.html

Thank you, I'll read it.

[nihil est]

The fantasy of someone simply snapping their fingers and declaring the immediate abolishment of slavery in the 7th century is a nice idea, but unfortunately unrealistic and impossible. Slavery was deeply entrenched in the society and consequently could not be eliminated immediately.

The same could be said of polytheism and idolatry, perhaps more so. But God took a much harsher stance against those last two than against the institution of slavery.

In any case, a commandment against slavery did not need to dissolve slavery outright. It would serve to let Muslims know that slavery was wrong. Without such a commandment, is it any wonder that for centuries, Muslims thought slavery was permissible? A warning against drinking alcohol never stopped people from drinking alcohol, but it did outline what was right (abstaining from alcohol) and what was wrong.

An off-topic question, how would you like me to call the deity of Islam, God or Allah? Or do you not mind either way?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[AntiKarateKid]

The same could be said of polytheism and idolatry, perhaps more so. But God took a much harsher stance against those last two than against the institution of slavery.

In any case, a commandment against slavery did not need to dissolve slavery outright. It would serve to let Muslims know that slavery was wrong. Without such a commandment, is it any wonder that for centuries, Muslims thought slavery was permissible? A warning against drinking alcohol never stopped people from drinking alcohol, but it did outline what was right (abstaining from alcohol) and what was wrong.

An off-topic question, how would you like me to call the deity of Islam, God or Allah? Or do you not mind either way?

I disagree. A man can change his heart about polytheism in a moment but if his family's (or even his whole civilization) income depends on the work of slaves, it is a different animal.

In no way does polytheism influence the economy. Indirectly maybe, through the beliefs of it's adherents but slavery provided the direct backbone for much of society.

[AntiKarateKid]

The same could be said of polytheism and idolatry, perhaps more so. But God took a much harsher stance against those last two than against the institution of slavery.

In any case, a commandment against slavery did not need to dissolve slavery outright. It would serve to let Muslims know that slavery was wrong. Without such a commandment, is it any wonder that for centuries, Muslims thought slavery was permissible? A warning against drinking alcohol never stopped people from drinking alcohol, but it did outline what was right (abstaining from alcohol) and what was wrong.

An off-topic question, how would you like me to call the deity of Islam, God or Allah? Or do you not mind either way?

In order for slavery to be finished, the mentality towards slaves had to be dissolved.

The Quran dissolves that mentality of slaves being inferior outright by mandating that they be given an education, fed, and treated like family. Just look at the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. His slaves chose to work for him rather than return to their family because they loved him so.

Then, is a slave a slave if he is treated so? Is a slave a slave if he has so many routes to freedom?

Also, one musn't confuse the actions of Muslims with the beliefs of Muslims. The Quran may mandate us to not drink alcohol, but if some fail in that respect, there is no blame on the Quran.

[nihil est]

In all honestly, that is completely false. A man can change his heart about polytheism in a moment but if his family's income depends on the work of slaves, it is a different animal.

In no way does polytheism influence the economy. Indirectly maybe, through the beliefs of it's adherents but slavery provided the direct backbone for much of society.

I'll cop that. I didn't realise that the author meant slavery was deeply engrained in economical terms, I thought he meant it was a deeply held social belief. But that's a good point that slavery was useful for the economy.

However, I would question why God didn't abolish the institution of slavery from the beginning, perhaps from Adam or Noah's time, so that it didn't have to become the backbone of society.

[nihil est]

In order for slavery to be finished, the mentality towards slaves had to be dissolved.

The Quran dissolves that mentality of slaves being inferior outright by mandating that they be given an education, fed, and treated like family. Just look at the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. His slaves chose to work for him rather than return to their family because they loved him so.

A mentality to treat slaves well only encourages well-meaning slavery. A commandment against slavery on the other hand encourages the abolition of slavery, eventually.

Then, is a slave a slave if he is treated so? Is a slave a slave if he has so many routes to freedom?

I would argue yes. A slave is property, regardless of whether he or she is treated well. Every time a slave is told to fetch the water, he is being treated as a slave. Even a slave's freedom is dependent on his master's generosity.

[AntiKarateKid]

I'll cop that. I didn't realise that the author meant slavery was deeply engrained in economical terms, I thought he meant it was a deeply held social belief. But that's a good point that slavery was useful for the economy.

However, I would question why God didn't abolish the institution of slavery from the beginning, perhaps from Adam or Noah's time, so that it didn't have to become the backbone of society.

In Adam's time, there wasn't an issue with slavery. Allah reveals it when the time is right. Keep in mind, you and I are not omnipotent and don't know everything.

I surmise that as the other religions had their scriptures corrupted, it wouldn't have been as effective as putting it in the Quran (the first and only one meant for all mankind) which has remained unchanged down to the letter in 1400 years. So the teachings about slavery would not be corrupted and forgotten.

[AntiKarateKid]

A mentality to treat slaves well only encourages well-meaning slavery. A commandment against slavery on the other hand encourages the abolition of slavery, eventually.

What exactly is well-meaning slavery? You can't just take any person as a slave no matter what you intentions. Moreover, do you see the contradiction? If a man is trying to make money from the slave, why would he take on someone he has to spend so much money on to keep as he would his own kids? The economic incentive is practically moot.

I would argue yes. A slave is property, regardless of whether he or she is treated well. Every time a slave is told to fetch the water, he is being treated as a slave. Even a slave's freedom is dependent on his master's generosity.

A slave can request their freedom if they wish. But back then things like education were hardly guaranteed but a Muslim is required to provide for his slave.

"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. -Quran

[AntiKarateKid]

"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty."

[nihil est]

If a man is trying to make money from the slave, why would he take on someone he has to spend so much money on to keep as he would his own kids? The economic incentive is practically moot.

So why did people take slaves?

What exactly is well-meaning slavery?

What I mean is that nice treatment of slaves is laudable, but it doesn't address the morality of slavery. Saying that it's okay to own slaves if you treat them nicely only makes people complacent. It made the whole Muslim community complacent until the last few hundred years, when abolitionist movements began.

[AntiKarateKid]

So why did people take slaves?

Ask the ones who took them. I didn't. None of my relatives across the world did. Neither did anyone they knew.

What I mean is that nice treatment of slaves is laudable, but it doesn't address the morality of slavery. Saying that it's okay to own slaves if you treat them nicely only makes people complacent. It made the whole Muslim community complacent until the last few hundred years, when abolitionist movements began.

Hardly. The abolitionist movements would have been crushed had the US actually depended upon slaves at that time. Why do you think it took so many years? If they had done it before, there would be no US ( or a significantly weaker one) since they thrived on the sweat of slaves.

In the end, whether or not you disagree with the way Allah banished slavery doesn't affect Islam. The Quran blurred the line between slave and family, gave slaves a way out, reduced the economic incentive of having them, and made releasing them charity and a way of atonement in many situations thereby paving a way for the elimination of slavery in society without collapsing it and you STILL have a problem with it?

I think you are inflating the failures of later Muslims and diminishing the success of the first ones (the best ones). Slaves could rise to become members of the royal courts and you actually compare them in status to the ones America had?!

1400 years before Martin Luther King, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said this:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

[nihil est]

Hardly. The abolitionist movements would have been crushed had the US actually depended upon slaves at that time. Why do you think it took so many years? If they had done it before, there would be no US ( or a significantly weaker one) since they thrived on the sweat of slaves.

I'd argue that a nation that grows strong on the basis of a great moral evil isn't deserving of its greatness. That includes the Ummah. I've heard an argument that God allowed slavery because it allowed Islam to grow strong.

I think you are inflating the failures of later Muslims and diminishing the success of the first ones (the best ones). Slaves could rise to become members of the royal courts and you actually compare them in status to the ones America had?!

I haven't done that. There are different forms of slavery, I think all of them are bad. Yes, slaves could reach high positions, they could be treated well and so on. But, morally, the fact that a slave was a slave to someone is just plain wrong. And if I was a Muslim, I'd argue that the position of slave master belongs only to God.

1400 years before Martin Luther King, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said this:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

500 years before the Prophet Muhammad, Seneca the pagan said this:

Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives and dies. It is just as possible for you to see in him a free-born man as for him to see in you a slave.

Unfortunately, very few people in the ancient world thought of abolishing the institution of slavery. Actually, I can't think of even one.

In the end, whether or not you disagree with the way Allah banished slavery doesn't affect Islam. The Quran blurred the line between slave and family, gave slaves a way out, reduced the economic incentive of having them, and made releasing them charity and a way of atonement in many situations thereby paving a way for the elimination of slavery in society without collapsing it and you STILL have a problem with it?

Yes, I do. The mere fact that God could have said that slavery was wrong, but didn't, disturbs me greatly. Like I said before, slavery didn't have to be cut out immediately...the very fact that God himself despised slavery would be an unstoppable force for abolition. But if we could go back in time and talk to a Muslim from the 11th century, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Muslim who thought slavery was evil.

God's silence was (to me) unforgivable.

Another question, what does Islam say about the enslavement of prisoners of war?

[AntiKarateKid]

Before I address that last post, I need some clarification.

What in your opinion is a slave and what are the negatives of being one? Any positives?

And how do you distinguish a slave from a servant?

[AntiKarateKid]

I'd argue that a nation that grows strong on the basis of a great moral evil isn't deserving of its greatness. That includes the Ummah. I've heard an argument that God allowed slavery because it allowed Islam to grow strong.

The ancient world's economy was based on slavery among other things. Islam is a practical religion so it provided laws to eliminate moral evils if possible outright or in the case of some like slavery (which would take longer), kill it off slowly and efficiently. It would collapse the households and economies of people if they were mandated to stop it outright. This would hinder people from accepting Islam and ending their other moral evils and even open the door for people who would accept Islam but not obey rules like the outright end of slavery because it was inconvenient. This would lead people to disregard other mandates they perceived as inconvenient.

I haven't done that. There are different forms of slavery, I think all of them are bad. Yes, slaves could reach high positions, they could be treated well and so on. But, morally, the fact that a slave was a slave to someone is just plain wrong. And if I was a Muslim, I'd argue that the position of slave master belongs only to God.

You seem to be hung up on the word slave. What if they were called maids? Servants? Butlers even? You don't seem to understand that whatever negatives of being a slave were in place, were effectively eliminated and makes the position parallel to a maid/butler/etc.

500 years before the Prophet Muhammad, Seneca the pagan said this:

Seneca only seems to be saying "treat the slave nice because you could be a slave to someone else". Nothing about slavery due to racial superiority was said which you may remember was part of the reason blacks were mistreated by whites in America. While in the ancient world, slaves are people who have lost everything or owe a debt to someone and come from different races. As such, I'm not impressed with Seneca.

Unfortunately, very few people in the ancient world thought of abolishing the institution of slavery. Actually, I can't think of even one.

Because during those times their economies were based on it and to say so would have been naive.

Yes, I do. The mere fact that God could have said that slavery was wrong, but didn't, disturbs me greatly. Like I said before, slavery didn't have to be cut out immediately...the very fact that God himself despised slavery would be an unstoppable force for abolition. But if we could go back in time and talk to a Muslim from the 11th century, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Muslim who thought slavery was evil.

God's silence was (to me) unforgivable.

Now you're coming across as melodramatic. Islam is a practical religion. It is not naive and Allah does what works, not what sounds the best. If you can't accept that outright condemnation of slavery would have destroyed the economy of Muslims and prevented it's truth from spreading to other lands, I don't know what to say. I personally see the genius in Allah's mandates of treating slaves like family and giving them an education and a way out. It eliminates the main problem of slavery, namely people viewing a certain group as inferior, and provides a way for all slaves to get out of it and makes freeing them a great charity. It also fights the monetary incentive of slavery and turns them into something akin to today's maids and servants.

Keep in mind also that Muslims are not going around enslaving people. Enslaving someone against their will would itself be a crime and Muslims who choose to buy slaves from their marketplace or accept a person who owes them money to be a slave, have to abide by Islam's laws.

I do hope you read my whole post before responding because I don't see where you are going anymore. And your last few sentences seem more to be a pseudo-moral outburst against a strawman than an actual point you'd like me to address. Muslims believe mistreating others is evil and I don't see where slaves were mistreated.

Another question, what does Islam say about the enslavement of prisoners of war?

BTW I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on the rules of war so you're better off reading the link provided to you and asking scholars.

Here is a link to get you started.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/a...am-slavery-437

[nihil est]

What in your opinion is a slave

Human property.

and what are the negatives of being one?

Being unable to direct the course of their own life, which one could say is a loss of 'liberty'. I personally think that self-actualisation, that is the ability to achieve what they want, is a very important thing to humans.

Any positives?

Hm...maybe if the conditions of slavery were better than not being a slave, that would count as a positive.

And how do you distinguish a slave from a servant?

A servant can be indentured for a time, or hired like a worker. They get pay as well.

[AntiKarateKid]

Human property.

If you have a problem with this then you need to look at the contracts one signs when they get a job in a company, for example. The worker is the property of the company then.

Being unable to direct the course of their own life, which one could say is a loss of 'liberty'. I personally think that self-actualisation, that is the ability to achieve what they want, is a very important thing to humans.

And where does the ISLAMIC version of it hinder the slave who is free to try and get out of it. Other than working for their owner, there is no reason why they can't get a family, education, and social life. Remember, we are arguing about slavery under Islamic rules.

Hm...maybe if the conditions of slavery were better than not being a slave, that would count as a positive.

I'll give a quick example, where in the ancient world would a man be guaranteed health care, an education, or a proper lodge for his work?

A servant can be indentured for a time, or hired like a worker. They get pay as well.

Again, Muslims can't just go around enslaving people. If a slave is bought from the marketplace or a person willingly submits themselves to be a slave to pay off debts, they have the opportunity to get out of it. In the meantime, they would be taken care of and able to earn money.


It seems that you don't have a problem with the Islamic concept of slavery per se. You just have a problem with the word and mix up things like the American treatment of slaves with how Islam mandates them to be.

[Zafran]

slavery still exists in the world. It also took a long time for the whole world to come to terms with so called end of slavery - a bit like black people and how they were treated in the US. Today we can say with a balck president that it shouldnt have even been an issue - it clearly was and its easy to say "oh why didnt they eradicate it then".

[Zafran]

A servant can be indentured for a time, or hired like a worker. They get pay as well.

depends on what you mean by "pay". In some countries people are servants and they dont get good pay - they actually get terrible pay.

Lets not even forget about child labour around the world.

[nihil est]

depends on what you mean by "pay". In some countries people are servants and they dont get good pay - they actually get terrible pay.

Lets not even forget about child labour around the world.

Being a servant isn't all bright and dandy either, there are instances of abuses.

If you have a problem with this then you need to look at the contracts one signs when they get a job in a company, for example. The worker is the property of the company then.

They're not at all comparable. A worker is not the legal property of a company, and if you believe differently, show me a contract that allows workers to be inherited as slaves were.

And where does the ISLAMIC version of it hinder the slave who is free to try and get out of it. Other than working for their owner, there is no reason why they can't get a family, education, and social life. Remember, we are arguing about slavery under Islamic rules.

Can a slave say 'no' to his or her master? That is the liberty I'm talking about. It's the ability to take your life wherever you choose it to go. Now that's a simplification, becuase external factors limit the things you can do. But you get the point I think.

I'll give a quick example, where in the ancient world would a man be guaranteed health care, an education, or a proper lodge for his work?

None of those things are guaranteed. A slave owner doesn't have to do any of those things, because they aren't mandated in the Qur'an or Sunnah. There are encouragements, like the encouragement to free slaves, but they had no binding force. You didn't have to free slaves.

The conditions of your servitude may be fantastic, but that's like being a slave in a gilded cage. There may be positives to slavery, but as an institution, slavery is at the core a moral evil. Good things may come from sinful acts, but they're still sinful. Besides, if things were so good, why abolish slavery in the first place?

Again, Muslims can't just go around enslaving people.

War slaves. During the Middle Ages, Muslims enslaved the soldiers of the opposing armies. Christians did it too. Both sides should hang their heads in shame in my opinion.

It seems that you don't have a problem with the Islamic concept of slavery per se. You just have a problem with the word and mix up things like the American treatment of slaves with how Islam mandates them to be.

I disagree with slavery in all its forms.

[nihil est]

but that's like being a slave in a gilded cage.

That should be a bird in a gilded cage.

The ancient world's economy was based on slavery among other things. Islam is a practical religion so it provided laws to eliminate moral evils if possible outright or in the case of some like slavery (which would take longer), kill it off slowly and efficiently. It would collapse the households and economies of people if they were mandated to stop it outright. This would hinder people from accepting Islam and ending their other moral evils and even open the door for people who would accept Islam but not obey rules like the outright end of slavery because it was inconvenient. This would lead people to disregard other mandates they perceived as inconvenient.

Because during those times their economies were based on it and to say so would have been naive.

And who made it so that their economies were dependent on slavery in the first place?

You accept that the Torah is the word of God. Well, in the Torah, God institutes a system of slavery for the newly freed Israelites. They've just escaped from Egypt and before they enter Israel, before they even have a nation or economy to worry about, God lays down laws about slaves and such. It would have been trivial for God to tell the newly emancipated peoples that slavery was wrong, but he doesn't.

[Faye]

Hey, who says slavery is not allowed anymore in Islam? Its an Islamic institute, mentioned in the Quran, and all, so what abolished it?

In order for slavery to exist, the conditions for taking slaves (ie. a proper Jihad) must exist. But if such a Jihad comes to pass in modren times, the slave rules should still apply, and slavery should still be allowed.

That said, I think the institution of slavery as found in Islam, is largely benevolent, as prisioners of war need not be returned to the enemy to fight on their side again, nor do they have to be supported by Muslim money without any benefit to the Muslims, and they also get a chance to live in Muslim culture and be influenced by Islam and its teachings.

When prisioners of war (or surrendered people) are taken prisioner, many of them are unable or unsuitable for making a living for themselves, or are likely to harrass and hinder Muslim efforts if released. People who do not belong to these two categories are allowed to earn for their freedom, which is called Mukatbat. Those people who remain slaves are guaranteed support in their lifetimes.

[Faye]

I disagree. A man can change his heart about polytheism in a moment but if his family's (or even his whole civilization) income depends on the work of slaves, it is a different animal.

In no way does polytheism influence the economy. Indirectly maybe, through the beliefs of it's adherents but slavery provided the direct backbone for much of society.

Well, Quran did abolish alcohol, even though the Arab's economy was highly dependent on its trade.

And the day the ayat for forbidding alcohol was revealed, the merchants emptied out their stores of alcohol on the streets. And there was so much alcohol spilled that for years after that, you could smell alcohol every time it rained.

[nihil est]

Slaves could rise to become members of the royal courts and you actually compare them in status to the ones America had?!

That's disingenuous for two reasons. One, I didn't compare Islamic slaves to American slaves. Two, not all slaves could rise to become members of royal courts. It's only because slaves filled every social niche that you occasionally see slaves amassing great power. There were slaves of powerful people and there were slaves who looked after flocks, there were military slaves (Mamlukes) and there were slaves in the mines. Most domestic slaves would never have the opportunity to get anywhere in their life.

[alcurad]

hmm, what's your view on prison labor then?
the only time a muslim can indeed 'enslave' is as mentioned above a prisoner of war, releasing the enemy like that in the middle of campaign is folly, so you need to keep him locked somewhere, hence what could be called slavery. also, the earlier Muslims didn't have the means to free all laves in the first place, afterward the Muslim rulers weren't following Islam properly and were imitating the Persians and Byzantines, or going back to their old ways, as such that conduct could hardly be blamed on Islam, rather on people who didn't follow it properly.

[Pomak]

nihil est, the problem with your logic is that your coming from a Utopian angle. All organisations and groups that espouse a utopian ideology end up failing. So if we understand that, then we should understand that any change has to be gradual.

Nowthen, two issues need to be said here.

1. There is the issue of minimum requirement. The prophet saws had to give minimum bar.

2. Then there is the actions which bring you closer to god. Which in this case you look at how many slaves the prophet saws or his near companions had.

Now onto the why question. Well in those days there were two assumptions, the first being that war is the norm and that peace is the exception and that empires of other states could not guarantee your religious rights. So it would most likely have come down to an issue of greater harm.

[AntiKarateKid]

Being a servant isn't all bright and dandy either, there are instances of abuses.

There are instances of abuse in every imaginable occupation.

They're not at all comparable. A worker is not the legal property of a company, and if you believe differently, show me a contract that allows workers to be inherited as slaves were.

When a company get bought by a different one, the new one inherits the all the assets (including workers) and baggage of the old one. And yes, a worker is the legal property. Hence the contract you sign.

Can a slave say 'no' to his or her master? That is the liberty I'm talking about. It's the ability to take your life wherever you choose it to go. Now that's a simplification, becuase external factors limit the things you can do. But you get the point I think.

If a slave is relying on the master for their education, housing, and welfare, then they should pull their own weight or else ask to be freed and take care of themselves.

None of those things are guaranteed. A slave owner doesn't have to do any of those things, because they aren't mandated in the Qur'an or Sunnah. There are encouragements, like the encouragement to free slaves, but they had no binding force. You didn't have to free slaves.

I'd advise that you read the Quran and Sunnah again. The rules of slavery are just that, rules. That is like saying Allah only encourages us to be good when in actuality it is a requirement to be a true Muslim.

The conditions of your servitude may be fantastic, but that's like being a slave in a gilded cage. There may be positives to slavery, but as an institution, slavery is at the core a moral evil. Good things may come from sinful acts, but they're still sinful. Besides, if things were so good, why abolish slavery in the first place?

This is getting nonsensical. There is no moral evil in the Islamic version of slavery. Nothing wrong is being done to them. Liberty? They can ask for freedom. Food? They are entitled to it. etc etc. You seem to forget everything I say in favor of repeating an assertion that is patently false in Islam.

War slaves. During the Middle Ages, Muslims enslaved the soldiers of the opposing armies. Christians did it too. Both sides should hang their heads in shame in my opinion.

Read this before making a judgment about who is to be ashamed.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/i...rticle05.shtml

I disagree with slavery in all its forms.

Islam's stance on slavery is clear. It provides for them a way of living and freedom. They are only slaves by name yet treated like human beings with rights. If you wish to ignore my posts on this matter and continue to argue against a strawman, it is your choice. Just don't come here putting down Islam for moral problems which don't exist for it.

[AntiKarateKid]

That's disingenuous for two reasons. One, I didn't compare Islamic slaves to American slaves. Two, not all slaves could rise to become members of royal courts. It's only because slaves filled every social niche that you occasionally see slaves amassing great power. There were slaves of powerful people and there were slaves who looked after flocks, there were military slaves (Mamlukes) and there were slaves in the mines. Most domestic slaves would never have the opportunity to get anywhere in their life.

You brought up the abolitionist movement so I went ahead. And your description of the chances of a slave rising to a high position apply to the common man just as much. Not all rise to power, most would never have the opportunity to rise higher anyways.

As for getting anywhere in life, a high ranking social position is not necessary. Most people are fine with a home, health, food and safety; slave or otherwise.

[Pomak]

Hey, who says slavery is not allowed anymore in Islam? Its an Islamic institute, mentioned in the Quran, and all, so what abolished it?

In order for slavery to exist, the conditions for taking slaves (ie. a proper Jihad) must exist. But if such a Jihad comes to pass in modren times, the slave rules should still apply, and slavery should still be allowed.

That said, I think the institution of slavery as found in Islam, is largely benevolent, as prisioners of war need not be returned to the enemy to fight on their side again, nor do they have to be supported by Muslim money without any benefit to the Muslims, and they also get a chance to live in Muslim culture and be influenced by Islam and its teachings.

When prisioners of war (or surrendered people) are taken prisioner, many of them are unable or unsuitable for making a living for themselves, or are likely to harrass and hinder Muslim efforts if released. People who do not belong to these two categories are allowed to earn for their freedom, which is called Mukatbat. Those people who remain slaves are guaranteed support in their lifetimes.

The last Khalifate with an agreement of the major scholars at the time banned it. Thus it is binding on muslims until another khalif tries to revive it.

[Muhaba]

Allah could've outright banned slavery if He wanted to, if not at the start then later. But He chose not to. There were obviously benefits of allowing slavery. For example, the case of prisoners of war. what can be done with prisoners of war? nowadays they are placed in prisons possibly for life, but that's not the best way to deal with them. A better way is to enslave them, giving one to each Muslim family. The Muslim family watches the slave for a while. If the slave seems harmless and good, then the Muslim family can free him/her. If not, the slave remains with the family. Also, slaves are to be treated well. When POVs receive such good treatment, they may be impressed with Islam and become Muslim. So which is better? Imprisoning POVs or making them slaves?

[Faye]

The last Khalifate with an agreement of the major scholars at the time banned it. Thus it is binding on muslims until another khalif tries to revive it.

I've never heard this before. Can you give me a source?

[nihil est]

hmm, what's your view on prison labor then?
the only time a muslim can indeed 'enslave' is as mentioned above a prisoner of war, releasing the enemy like that in the middle of campaign is folly, so you need to keep him locked somewhere, hence what could be called slavery.

The Geneva Conventions allow a prisoner of war to be used for labour. That is unfree labour, and though I don't like it, it's definitely not as bad as shooting them.

The problem I have is that slavery brings other problems of its own. For example, the children of slaves were slaves as well. Aren't the children of war prisoners innocent of the actions of their parents?

Another question, were the women and children allowed to be taken as slaves as well, if they weren't non-combatants?

also, the earlier Muslims didn't have the means to free all laves in the first place, afterward the Muslim rulers weren't following Islam properly and were imitating the Persians and Byzantines, or going back to their old ways, as such that conduct could hardly be blamed on Islam, rather on people who didn't follow it properly.

I agree with that. I've been trying to stay clear of historical slavery in Muslim countries, because those practices don't necessarily reflect what the Prophet taught.

[MSalman]

Bismillah

@nihil

At the end of the day, the difference between your methodology and our methodology is that we deem the Creator as our Judge, Legislator and the One who tells us what is moral and what is immoral. We say the Creator knows what is best for us because He is the Most Wise and Knowledgeable; therefore, we follow whatever He has legislated for us. Whereas you consider yourself capable and an authority to differentiate between truth and falsehood. Unless and until we understand this difference and ponder upon it, there will never be any agreement between us and you will never be able to understand why Allah revealed certain rulings which may be displeasing to you.

do you know who are slaves in Islam? It is the short coming of the brother for not clarifying the meaning of the term in Islamic concept. In Islam, the slaves are prisoners of war and when Muslims take prisoners of war then it is depended upon the Muslim ruler to pass any judgment about them: a) free them without any ransom or b) free them for ransom or c) exchange them for their fellow Muslim prisoners or d) distribute them to Muslims aka slaves. Regarding prisoners of war, Islam came up with a better and practical solution. The prisoners can freely work, be treated justly and fairly by their masters, gain their freedom by paying some money to their masters or their masters free them. This is completely contrary to ancient and modern treatment of prisoners of war: tortured, starved and thrown in dungeons. Not to mention that salves can learn about Islam and achieve the highest thing that is possible - embrace Islam.

Regarding Islamic rulings, we have a basic concept: we may perceive some harm or risk in some of the Islamic rulings; however, it is only due to our limitations and lack of knowledge or the harm/risk is outclassed by the benefit. In addition, if the risk outweighs the benefit then the permissible acts become haraam (prohibited). Off course, this has to be decided by those who are qualified to issue the verdicts: the scholars. In the case of slavery, the benefits for prisoners of war clearly outweigh the risk or whatever you wanna call it.

and indeed Allah knows best

[Faye]

The problem I have is that slavery brings other problems of its own. For example, the children of slaves were slaves as well. Aren't the children of war prisoners innocent of the actions of their parents?

To be a slave is not necessarily to be a criminal. The children grow up in a household as members of the family (though maybe lower class members) and enjoy many of the benefits of belonging to a family. Once they grow up, if they desire their freedom, they can earn it, but they may wish to remain with the family. After all, its a job which guarantees food, clothing, shelter and education, while with other jobs, income is not so assured.

Another question, were the women and children allowed to be taken as slaves as well, if they weren't non-combatants?

Yes

[nihil est]

Yes

Oops. I meant if they were non-combatants e.g. just civilians. Typo.

[Faye]

If they were in a country/city that surrendered as a whole, then they're all prisioners. Then they can negotiate a treaty allowing the people to live as dhimmis or enslave them.

Usually if they surrendered before they had lost completely, they could negotiate dhimmi status, but if they surrendered as a last effort to save their lives, they got enslaved. Still, it depended on the leader of the army.

[justahumane]

Well, Quran did abolish alcohol, even though the Arab's economy was highly dependent on its trade.

And the day the ayat for forbidding alcohol was revealed, the merchants emptied out their stores of alcohol on the streets. And there was so much alcohol spilled that for years after that, you could smell alcohol every time it rained.

Holy quran abolished usuary too, I think that Economy must had been highly dependent on practise of giving and taking interest too. Just like today's economy of almost all nations.

[justahumane]

Allah could've outright banned slavery if He wanted to, if not at the start then later. But He chose not to. There were obviously benefits of allowing slavery. For example, the case of prisoners of war. what can be done with prisoners of war? nowadays they are placed in prisons possibly for life, but that's not the best way to deal with them. A better way is to enslave them, giving one to each Muslim family. The Muslim family watches the slave for a while. If the slave seems harmless and good, then the Muslim family can free him/her. If not, the slave remains with the family. Also, slaves are to be treated well. When POVs receive such good treatment, they may be impressed with Islam and become Muslim. So which is better? Imprisoning POVs or making them slaves?

Well the best way to treat POVs, in my(Kafir's) views is the treatment Kafir India gave to Muslim Pakistan's POVs in 1971 BanglaDesh war. They freed them all.

So sister, my humble question to U. Which way to treat POVs is better in ur views? Muslims or Kuffar?

[Faye]

They freed them all, after a long imprisonment and after a treaty had been made that required that they be freed as a condition of the peace, (not out of the goodness of their hearts). I've also heard that the treatment in the POW camps was pretty horrible ...

[justahumane]

They freed them all, after a long imprisonment and after a treaty had been made that required that they be freed as a condition of the peace, (not out of the goodness of their hearts). I've also heard that the treatment in the POW camps was pretty horrible ...

Will U kindly add to my knowdedge brother? How long was the impisonment? And what bad U see in condition of peace? I m happy to know that we have a brother on this board who knows what is in hearts. And will U kindly provide me the source which told U that treatment in the POW camps was Pretty Horrible? Was it more horrible than the crime those POWs committed by killing their own ppls?

And do U think that better treatment would had been done if those POVs were made slaves of Indian army rather than setting them free on condition of peace?

Peace.

[Faye]

Will U kindly add to my knowdedge brother? How long was the impisonment? And what bad U see in condition of peace? I m happy to know that we have a brother on this board who knows what is in hearts. And will U kindly provide me the source which told U that treatment in the POW camps was Pretty Horrible? Was it more horrible than the crime those POWs committed by killing their own ppls?

And do U think that better treatment would had been done if those POVs were made slaves of Indian army rather than setting them free on condition of peace?

Peace.

Look, I'm sorry if you are offended. I did not intend to insult you.

I see nothing bad in a condition of peace. But as referred to in previous posts, what do you do with POW, if no peace is possible for whatever reason? Keeping them as slaves is posited as a better option than keeping them in POW camps for the duration of the war.

I do not know what is in hearts. I'm just saying that the Indians had other reasons to release them than just kindness and humanity for a fellow human being. Though they might have done it for those reasons, I'm just too cynical to believe it.

As for the treatment of POW being pretty horrible, I heard it from the relatives of some of the people who had been in them. Bad food, and not enough of it, insufficient shelter, people who never came back, beatings, etc.

Was this treatment worse than they deserved for their horrible crime? I don't know, but under a truly Islamic society, had they been the enemy, they would have been made slaves and distributed among the people, where they would not have been punished for the previous crime they committed, and should have received the same food and clothing as members of the household.

If the Indian army treated their slaves like a muslim army should, then yes, I think that making them slaves would be a better option.

[Faye]

Also appreciate the difference between an Islamic country and a Muslim country. Pakistan is a Muslim country (the majority of its population is Muslim), and not an Islamic country (which implements the Sharia completely as as the law of the land). Hence cynicism forces me to conclude that if Pakistan ever ended up with Indian POWs, the POW camps would probably be just as bad.

[justahumane]

Look, I'm sorry if you are offended. I did not intend to insult you.

I see nothing bad in a condition of peace. But as referred to in previous posts, what do you do with POW, if no peace is possible for whatever reason? Keeping them as slaves is posited as a better option than keeping them in POW camps for the duration of the war.

I do not know what is in hearts. I'm just saying that the Indians had other reasons to release them than just kindness and humanity for a fellow human being. Though they might have done it for those reasons, I'm just too cynical to believe it.

As for the treatment of POW being pretty horrible, I heard it from the relatives of some of the people who had been in them. Bad food, and not enough of it, insufficient shelter, people who never came back, beatings, etc.

Was this treatment worse than they deserved for their horrible crime? I don't know, but under a truly Islamic society, had they been the enemy, they would have been made slaves and distributed among the people, where they would not have been punished for the previous crime they committed, and should have received the same food and clothing as members of the household.

If the Indian army treated their slaves like a muslim army should, then yes, I think that making them slaves would be a better option.

Relax brother, U have in no way insulted or offended me. Rather U have shown best attitude one can adopt while discussing such sensitive matters.

It was really unfortunate if those POWs were treated badly, but U know evil inside human beings force them to misuse their powers. This time it were Indian army. But its really a shame.

I m sorry but I feel that I can never agree with the policy of POWs being made slaves of winning army. Its inhuman attitude by my standards just like unethical or bad treatment of them. As for treating them nicely, its just a hypothetical scenario in today's world. If U want to treat someone like ur family, than making them ur slave should be the last option available. One cant imagine of good treatment if there are ladies and young girls as slaves in one's home and when he is even permitted to have sexual relations with them. It just seems to be like a fairytale.

It has been a real pleasure to discuess the topic with U.

Peace.

[MSalman]

justahumane, please do not try to pull a fast one here

Well the best way to treat POVs, in my(Kafir's) views is the treatment Kafir India gave to Muslim Pakistan's POVs in 1971 BanglaDesh war. They freed them all.

So sister, my humble question to U. Which way to treat POVs is better in ur views? Muslims or Kuffar?

do you even know the reasons of that war? Should I enlighten you a bit? Or are you going to dance around the issue and not explain why Indian army crossed a national border and attacked another country? So what if they freed them? First, they crossed a national border, attacked Pakistani Army then captured them and later on they freed them for sake of peace treaty and let us not forget how those POW were treated. So what do you call this: a favour and kind act? Stop living in disney land world!

So sister, my humble question to U. Which way to treat POVs is better in ur views? Muslims or Kuffar?

you are just quoting one incident to prove what? What about thousands of prisoners in American and other dungeons? What about the treatment of POWs by the kuffaar throughout history? Who is living in fairytale and dream world: us or yourself?

I am surprised that you bring this point out as if Islam said POW can never be freed. Please read my previous post and others; this has been already explained many times

Was it more horrible than the crime those POWs committed by killing their own ppls?

Every country has the right to shutup those who threaten its safety and commit act of treason. Who gave India the right to jump in this matter to help those who rebelled against Pakistani government - whether their rebellious movement was correct or not is a different story? Do you see Pakistan or any other counrty jumping in to help Indian minorities in their fight against Indian government? Who crossed the national borders to help a rebellious movement? So what is horrible? Really, why the lack of common sense?

And do U think that better treatment would had been done if those POVs were made slaves of Indian army rather than setting them free on condition of peace?

Indian army never treated them kindly to begin with so it does not matter whether they have made slave or not

Secondly, regarding slavery we are talking about Islamic treatment of POW and how Islam deals with them. We already know how the kuffaar deals with POW. Because you reject Islam, you are never going to uphold the rulings described for POW in Islam even if you were to copy us. So your analogy/example holds no value!

It was really unfortunate if those POWs were treated badly, but U know evil inside human beings force them to misuse their powers. This time it were Indian army. But its really a shame.

and here I thought this was suppose to be an exemplary act which we should be following

I m sorry but I feel that I can never agree with the policy of POWs being made slaves of winning army. Its inhuman attitude by my standards just like unethical or bad treatment of them. As for treating them nicely, its just a hypothetical scenario in today's world.

if we were to use this logic then your notions are the same. So where is the solution then? Should you not be spending more time cleaning up your system from this inhumane, unethical and barbaric law before questioning Islamic system?

If U want to treat someone like ur family, than making them ur slave should be the last option available.

when you look at slavery then you understand it how your culture and history has taught you. So due your lack of knowledge about Islam, you apply same principle and understanding on Islamic ruling of slavery; hence, you mix up oranges with apples. In Islam by slaves, we do not mean they are your pet dog - this is something found in your history and not ours.

Islam tells us that we are to educate them, feed them and cloth them and treat them like our brothers. And we learn from history that this has been carried out.

If you want to treat someone like your family then you keep them close to yourself and take care of them and not throw them in dungeons or leave them somewhere where their life could be under danger. I do not know where you get your logic from but what you are saying makes no sense.

One cant imagine of good treatment if there are ladies and young girls as slaves in one's home and when he is even permitted to have sexual relations with them. It just seems to be like a fairytale.

the examples have been set by early Muslims so it is not just a fairytale; it is just the fact you are ignorant of history or deliberately rejecting it. The law is there and and what evidence do you have that not even few people have followed it or would follow it. Secondly, in fact your notions are fairytale as not a single incident in your history has carried them out. If we were to use your logic, then it also applies to your notions regarding POW as there is no evidence that they would be treated nicely and freed for nothing in return.

[IAmZamzam]

Bottom line: the Koran says that if a slave wants to earn their money to establish a life and be free then if you know any virtue to be in them at all, you are forbidden from preventing them. Also, the prisoners-of-war were to be released when the war was over and slaves were to be treated as equals even if they didn't want to leave.

[nihil est]

Bottom line: the Koran says that if a slave wants to earn their money to establish a life and be free then if you know any virtue to be in them at all, you are forbidden from preventing them. Also, the prisoners-of-war were to be released when the war was over and slaves were to be treated as equals even if they didn't want to leave.

Could you give me the ayat that says that?

[IAmZamzam]

And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Koran 24:33, Shakir)

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. (Koran 47:4, Shakir)

And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is? (It is) the setting free of a slave. (Koran 90:12-13, Shakir)

When they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. (Koran 4:25, Shakir)

A believing servant is better than [a free] idolater. (Koran 2:221, Shakir)

Be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess. (Koran 4:36, Shakir)

And there's more where that came from.

[justahumane]

justahumane, please do not try to pull a fast one here

do you even know the reasons of that war? Should I enlighten you a bit? Or are you going to dance around the issue and not explain why Indian army crossed a national border and attacked another country? So what if they freed them? First, they crossed a national border, attacked Pakistani Army then captured them and later on they freed them for sake of peace treaty and let us not forget how those POW were treated. So what do you call this: a favour and kind act? Stop living in disney land world!

Thanks for enlightening me. Indian army crossed national border and attacked a munafiq army because they were mercilessly massacring ur muslim brothers and sisters and kids. They were raping helpless muslim women. Indian army only got into action when things went horrible and millions were killed. U should be thankful to Indian army rather than angry. It was indeed a noble act of Indian army who saved life of hundreds of millions of muslims.

you are just quoting one incident to prove what? What about thousands of prisoners in American and other dungeons? What about the treatment of POWs by the kuffaar throughout history? Who is living in fairytale and dream world: us or yourself?

I am surprised that you bring this point out as if Islam said POW can never be freed. Please read my previous post and others; this has been already explained many times

I m quoting this one incident to prove that there are better ways to treat POWs than to just make them ur slaves. I think that kuffar throughout history have done better treatment to their POWs as compared to muslims have done to muslims themselves, leave alone their POWs.

Every country has the right to shutup those who threaten its safety and commit act of treason. Who gave India the right to jump in this matter to help those who rebelled against Pakistani government - whether their rebellious movement was correct or not is a different story? Do you see Pakistan or any other counrty jumping in to help Indian minorities in their fight against Indian government? Who crossed the national borders to help a rebellious movement? So what is horrible? Really, why the lack of common sense?

If rebellion movement was correct, and in return innocent rebels were being massacred for no apparent cause, than it was most noble act to save those poor muslims who were being killed by a munafiq army. ALLAH who gave power and blessing to crush those munafiq army gave right to Indian army to jump in to save ur poor muslim bretherns. Horrible is genocide of poor muslim by a munafiq army, can U afford to differ? So why the lack of common sense?

Indian army never treated them kindly to begin with so it does not matter whether they have made slave or not

Secondly, regarding slavery we are talking about Islamic treatment of POW and how Islam deals with them. We already know how the kuffaar deals with POW. Because you reject Islam, you are never going to uphold the rulings described for POW in Islam even if you were to copy us. So your analogy/example holds no value!

Indian army gave them best possible treatment, however few exceptional cases of mistreatement was unfortunate and deeply regreted. But U know such things happen when U catch such a big no of human rights criminals.

I m talking about practical terms. I dont doubt Islamic treatment of POWs at all. But seeing the fact that how muslims have killed muslims throughout the history (Read from battle of siffin and battle of camels to Darfur today), idea of muslims making slaves their kuffar POWs is horrible. Kuffar need not copy muslims, the world already have had enough of it.

and here I thought this was suppose to be an exemplary act which we should be following

Oh thanks brother.

if we were to use this logic then your notions are the same. So where is the solution then? Should you not be spending more time cleaning up your system from this inhumane, unethical and barbaric law before questioning Islamic system?

Solution is to have full faith and ALLAH and free POWs so that they reunite with their families and kids. Which laws U are refering as inhumane, unethical, and barbaric, of making POWs ur slaves? But thats Islamic laws, how can they be barbaric? Plz correct urself.

when you look at slavery then you understand it how your culture and history has taught you. So due your lack of knowledge about Islam, you apply same principle and understanding on Islamic ruling of slavery; hence, you mix up oranges with apples. In Islam by slaves, we do not mean they are your pet dog - this is something found in your history and not ours.

Islam tells us that we are to educate them, feed them and cloth them and treat them like our brothers. And we learn from history that this has been carried out.

If you want to treat someone like your family then you keep them close to yourself and take care of them and not throw them in dungeons or leave them somewhere where their life could be under danger. I do not know where you get your logic from but what you are saying makes no sense

Thanks for reminding me my history and culture. I already told U that I have no doubts on Islamic laws, they are the best of course, but I highly doubt muslims who have throughout history killed their own bretherns. What is found in ur history is well known to us and the world, its time that U too get prepared to accept hard realities. Can I ask U how many muslims did muslims killed in battle of siffin and battle of camel under khilafat?

Well plz dont tell me what ancient muslims of 5th century used to do, that was time of the holy prophet. What U need to learned how muslims went astray after the holy prophet. Islam tells U that devouring interesnt is haram, has that deterred ur nation from refraining from interest? its just a small example to make U aware of the facts, that muslims have not learned anything from history or holy quran and they have shamelessly violated laws of ALLAH.

Permit me to tell U that U dont make any sense too, If U want to treat someone like ur family than U dont kill their families, U dont make them POWs, and U dont make them ur slaves in the first place, I m really surprised that U are not aware of these simple facts.

the examples have been set by early Muslims so it is not just a fairytale; it is just the fact you are ignorant of history or deliberately rejecting it. The law is there and and what evidence do you have that not even few people have followed it or would follow it. Secondly, in fact your notions are fairytale as not a single incident in your history has carried them out. If we were to use your logic, then it also applies to your notions regarding POW as there is no evidence that they would be treated nicely and freed for nothing in return.

Examples might have been set by early muslims, but later muslims set some misrable examples. My notions are not fairy tales, the biggest kuffar democracy has carried it out and have set the best example for today's world. Only ppls need to follow it.

Peace.

[Faye]

Thanks for enlightening me. Indian army crossed national border and attacked a munafiq army because they were mercilessly massacring ur muslim brothers and sisters and kids. They were raping helpless muslim women. Indian army only got into action when things went horrible and millions were killed. U should be thankful to Indian army rather than angry. It was indeed a noble act of Indian army who saved life of hundreds of millions of muslims.

I agree that a lot of attrocities were happening on both sides of the war but, while the Indian army did end the war, there is also evidense to support that Indian Intelligence caused and began the war, helped add fuel to the conflict as much as it could, and in the end, came off looking like heros due to good PR.
for referrence read http://afpakwar.com/blog/2009/04/23/...ted-bangladesh

[justahumane]

I agree that a lot of attrocities were happening on both sides of the war but, while the Indian army did end the war, there is also evidense to support that Indian Intelligence caused and began the war, helped add fuel to the conflict as much as it could, and in the end, came off looking like heros due to good PR.
for referrence read http://afpakwar.com/blog/2009/04/23/...ted-bangladesh

Peace faye,

What was the conflict? Did RAW motivated Bangladeshi voters? U know these kind of blogs are in millions all over the cyberspace which will prove litrally anything by playing with words. Isnt it foolish to believe that genocide of Bengladeshi muslims by Pakistan army was motivated by RAW? Which was the real cause of Indian army stepping in.

[afpakwar]

Peace faye,

... U know these kind of blogs are in millions all over the cyberspace which will prove literally anything by playing with words. ...

Without taking sides in this warm debate, the following facts may be relevant to the comment quoted above:

1. The blog post being referred to is a direct reproduction of an article by Alex Leamus that appeared on pages 50-51 of "The Illustrated Weekly of India" of 23 December 1984.
http://afpakwar.com/blog/2009/04/23/...ed-bangladesh/

2. In this article, Alex Leamus writes:

One of the most glorious chapters in the history of RAW–and in the career of [Rameshwar Nath] Kao–was the operation leading to the creation of Bangladesh. That country would never have been born but for the operation carried out by RAW for several years before the Indian Army action.

3. In his obituary for Kao, published in BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 4(5) March-April 2002, Sunil Sainis wrote:

By 1968 Pakistani mishandling of political affairs in East Pakistan reached a critical point and secessionist tendencies gained strength. Though he has just barely taken over, [Rameshwar Nath] Kao initiated operations to exploit these changes. This so called `Phase One' set in motion events that concluded in the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. The success in Bangladesh earned Kao a promotion to the rank of full secretary, ...

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITO...-5/sainis.html

4. More details on Indian Intelligence's role in the creation of Bangladesh are available in a book praising Rameshwar Nath Kao, by B. Raman (a former Indian intelligence official), "THE KAOBOYS OF RANDAW: Down Memory Lane" available at amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/KAOBOYS-RANDAW.../dp/097961743X

5. Recently (on 19 July 2009) B. Raman has written an open letter to Sonia Gandhi, asking her to repeat in Balochistan what India did in what was then East Pakistan.
See http://afpakwar.com/blog/2009/07/28/...n-balochistan/

[abdullah_001]

Well the best way to treat POVs, in my(Kafir's) views is the treatment Kafir India gave to Muslim Pakistan's POVs in 1971 BanglaDesh war. They freed them all.

So sister, my humble question to U. Which way to treat POVs is better in ur views? Muslims or Kuffar?

Thats not the best solution in my opinion. Before your "kafir" country, the one to do it was Salahuddin and it resulted in his demise.

And before you talk about the "kafir" India you should talk about the tughluks, the mughals, the shahs and the nizaams who ruled over India for over 700 years straight... it was really at the time of Akbar that the Islamic sultanate in India began to decline.

And the best part is for those 700+ years none of the non-muslims objected to the Islamic rule over them yet they could not bear British rule for a mere 200 yrs.

It is really recent, all the Hindu conspiracies against the Muslims of India, the advanis, the lodis and so on. And the fruition of their attempts is the introduction of alcohol in India which was not permitted prior to this, the introduction of discotheques and so on... this will only corrupt the young generations in India. Ideologies such as this are deemed to fail just like your butt-buddy America is deemed to fail.

Was it not a few hundred years ago you Hindus used to burn women alive when her husband died? Or the scholars of your religion, the brahmins used to enforce the caste system in which certain group of people were tagged as untouchables? Is itnot you who bathe, do laundry, urinate, throw litter and drink from the same river you call holy?

So my question to you is, whats the better religion, Islam or Hinduism?

[index123]

I believe Islam favors slavery one because, they do not like to kill the people they capture. Secondly its give them a chance to live amoungst Good people and become muslim if they do not believe. Indeed God does not want you to take the life of a person, and he wants you to give them evey chance possible(even if it means force them to live amoungst you for a while) to believe in Islam so they won't go to hell. God is so kind.. and people jump at every chance to accuse him of something well I guess he made us that way. I mean God even cared about Phaoroh, Heck I'am sure God could forgive Hilter or George bush. Or perhaps Obama for the horrible things he is about to do in the future.

[IAmZamzam]

Even though it was several posts ago, I think we've come to a point where it's essential for me to remind everyone of the analysis and Koranic citations I gave in this thread before. They really clear it up.

[Azy]

Well you learn something new every day. Now that AKK has enlightened us about the equivalence of slaves and employees maybe people can stop harping on about all the recruitment America did in the last 400 years.

[جوري]

Don't know what this thread is about, don't care to know.. from the title alone (as we have had this topic addressed more than once)

here is the best thread on it thus far:
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...tml#post567075

[IAmZamzam]

Don't know what this thread is about, don't care to know.. from the title alone (as we have had this topic addressed more than once)

It's the same at the Understanding Islam forum. There slavery is just one of those topics like music, masturbation, and evolution which will never cease to perpetually spawn new threads that are always essentially the same thread each time. Is it like that here too? I am rather new here.

[جوري]

It's the same at the Understanding Islam forum. There slavery is just one of those topics like music, masturbation, and evolution which will never cease to perpetually spawn new threads that are always essentially the same thread each time. Is it like that here too? I am rather new here.

the kaffir mind has only so many dimensions, no matter how convinced that it thinks outside the box-- they too are slaves to the conditioning of the human quality!

:w:

[justahumane]

Thats not the best solution in my opinion. Before your "kafir" country, the one to do it was Salahuddin and it resulted in his demise.

Well brother I differ with U and feel that releasing POWs is the best humanist approach. They are able to live their lives as free men with their family rather than working as slaves. It could not have worked well in case of Salahuddin, but that doesnt means that it should not be practised. U can ask those released POWs, who were set free by KAFIR India.

And before you talk about the "kafir" India you should talk about the tughluks, the mughals, the shahs and the nizaams who ruled over India for over 700 years straight... it was really at the time of Akbar that the Islamic sultanate in India began to decline.

What is there to talk about those rulers whom U mentioned? Were they muslims? I dont think so, coz they allowed shrik to flourish under their rule. This is the reason hindus didnt object to their rule. Hindus wont mind any muslim ruling them now too as long as they are allowed to idol worship and worship multiple gods they believe in. I hope I m able to make U understand. Akbar was only few steps ahead from their preceedors.

And the best part is for those 700+ years none of the non-muslims objected to the Islamic rule over them yet they could not bear British rule for a mere 200 yrs.

Well there was no reasons to object to their rule in my opinion as I mentioned earlier, Hindus would object if someone will force them to pay zaziya or convert them to Islam or deny them to worship their dear Idols. As long as this doesnt happens, Muslims are most welcome to rule.

It is really recent, all the Hindu conspiracies against the Muslims of India, the advanis, the lodis and so on. And the fruition of their attempts is the introduction of alcohol in India which was not permitted prior to this, the introduction of discotheques and so on... this will only corrupt the young generations in India. Ideologies such as this are deemed to fail just like your butt-buddy America is deemed to fail.

I dont want to go down to history to prove when alchohol was present or not. Advanis and Modis of India are democratic hindu version of Islamic terrorists operating in different muslim countries. We know how to deal with them and we are doing it, so nothing to worry for U. What U need to find out how many muslim nations are there who permit alchohol or discothiques on their soil? results could be disturbing to U. And when Islamic ideology has been failed by muslims themselves, than every other ideology could be failed, nothing to mention this. America is better butt-buddy of most of Muslim nations, which country U live in BTW?

Was it not a few hundred years ago you Hindus used to burn women alive when her husband died? Or the scholars of your religion, the brahmins used to enforce the caste system in which certain group of people were tagged as untouchables? Is itnot you who bathe, do laundry, urinate, throw litter and drink from the same river you call holy?

Is it not today even that U muslims kill ur muslim brothers and sisters? ( swat Paksitan, darfur,etc.) Or the scholers of ur religion Mullahs tag some muslims as kuffar and wajib ul qatl? How many different sects U are divided in? Or U muslims pray to Mazaars and ask those dead men for favours, sing musical songs in their praise?

Yeah right, Islam doesnt allows anytihing above, I think ur intelligent question has been answered. A piece of advice to U brother, plz dont act like enemies of Islam, act differently.

So my question to you is, whats the better religion, Islam or Hinduism?

To U is ur religion,to me is mine.

Peace to U.

[GreyKode]

What is there to talk about those rulers whom U mentioned? Were they muslims? I dont think so, coz they allowed shrik to flourish under their rule. This is the reason hindus didnt object to their rule. Hindus wont mind any muslim ruling them now too as long as they are allowed to idol worship and worship multiple gods they believe in. I hope I m able to make U understand. Akbar was only few steps ahead from their preceedors.

In Islam, the places of worship of other people are to left to them. So how is allowing hindus worship in their own way in their temples allowing shirk to flourish. As long as it's not propagated in public then there's no reason to suppress the acts.

What U need to find out how many muslim nations are there who permit alchohol or discothiques on their soil? results could be disturbing to U. And when Islamic ideology has been failed by muslims themselves, than every other ideology could be failed, nothing to mention this.

Oh, but the question is?, do the hindus oppose the presence of discotheques, alcohol etc etc, I don't think so. In addition to that, all the "alcohol" business in muslim countries is to please the non-muslim tourists no?
Personally I am against it and so is everyone else on this forum, and I think you know that is the majority of muslim individual's opinions, but just for your information in a shariah based state a non-muslim is not to be punished for an act that is not considered unlawful in his belief system.

If we talk about statistics, I don't think youre in a very good position, for example are you against the porn movies business in India or not?
You constantly make it seem as if youre belief system is ok (maybe so) with those things like alcohol and discotheques since you keep showing how muslims failed their "idealogy", and yet you wanna talk about statistics.

America is better butt-buddy of most of Muslim nations, which country U live in BTW?

What's wrong with America, do you consider america "the great white evil"?
Why do you envy america?
From all the Indians who have abandoned India and failed its "idealogy" and have become americanized, seems like youre the butt-buddies.

I live in egypt, I would like you to give your statistics about it? :)

Yeah right, Islam doesnt allows anytihing above, I think ur intelligent question has been answered. A piece of advice to U brother, plz dont act like enemies of Islam, act differently.

Please, don't act like a friend of Islam, deception is such a dispicable thing



To U is ur religion,to me is mine.

Peace to U.[/QUOTE]

Peace onto you.

[justahumane]

In Islam, the places of worship of other people are to left to them. So how is allowing hindus worship in their own way in their temples allowing shirk to flourish. As long as it's not propagated in public then there's no reason to suppress the acts.

Well its a complex issue. Above noted views maybe of Ur own but its definetely not in accordance to Islam. That is the only reason that we dont find any synogogue or church in Saudi Arabia today. Like a true Islamic ruler, they wont allow anyone to practise his or her religion freely except Islam. Also consider views expressed in following link.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/20894/idols

But because there are many versions of Islam, ur sect might be having a different view about this issue, I can understand.

Oh, but the question is?, do the hindus oppose the presence of discotheques, alcohol etc etc, I don't think so. In addition to that, all the "alcohol" business in muslim countries is to please the non-muslim tourists no?
Personally I am against it and so is everyone else on this forum, and I think you know that is the majority of muslim individual's opinions, but just for your information in a shariah based state a non-muslim is not to be punished for an act that is not considered unlawful in his belief system.

How islamic is it to please the non-muslim tourists by means of alchohol or pork? Dont U think that its a big question in itself? I m sure that on the day of judgement, ALLAH wont listen to this excuse from the person who introduced the system of alchohol selling to please the kuffar tourists. Do U differ?

As far as majority of muslim individual's opinion is concerned, a whopping over 95% will say that we want to live under shariyah laws. But at the end of day U see the results in this big muslim world. This is the value of individual muslim opinion U are talking about.

If we talk about statistics, I don't think youre in a very good position, for example are you against the porn movies business in India or not?
You constantly make it seem as if youre belief system is ok (maybe so) with those things like alcohol and discotheques since you keep showing how muslims failed their "idealogy", and yet you wanna talk about statistics.

I m against porn movie busisness anywhere in the world. its not lawful in India. But I dont understand how U determine my position by this question. U are a bit unclear in ur approach in above quoted phrase.

What's wrong with America, do you consider america "the great white evil"?
Why do you envy america?
From all the Indians who have abandoned India and failed its "idealogy" and have become americanized, seems like youre the butt-buddies.

I dont envy america nor I consider them any kind of evil. I was replying to the brother who claimed that america is butt-buddy of India. I was trying to prove that most muslim nations, and hopefully his own nation is same butt-buddy of america, therefore his indecent claim was futile and uncalled for. I hope now I can make U understand the whole thing.

Please, don't act like a friend of Islam, deception is such a dispicable thing

I m a friend of Islam and muslims, plz get it right.

Peace to U.

[GreyKode]

Well its a complex issue. Above noted views maybe of Ur own but its definetely not in accordance to Islam. That is the only reason that we dont find any synogogue or church in Saudi Arabia today. Like a true Islamic ruler, they wont allow anyone to practise his or her religion freely except Islam. Also consider views expressed in following link.

Not accordance with Islam you say, why claim knowledge of things that are beyond you?.
What about all the millions of chrisitians in egypt where I live, why did their churches survive throughout the muslim rule all the way till now?
And that goes for the rest of the countries that were ruled by muslims.

I know what I'm talking about, no new places of worship are allowed to be built or should be allowed but in a limited way but old ones that used to exist as the case was in India are not to be demolished or removed.

But because there are many versions of Islam, ur sect might be having a different view about this issue, I can understand.

Since you claim so much knowledge about Islam to the extent that you want to teach me about it and tell me that's my sect's opinion, please do tell, what are the sects in Islam?.

How islamic is it to please the non-muslim tourists by means of alchohol or pork? Dont U think that its a big question in itself? I m sure that on the day of judgement, ALLAH wont listen to this excuse from the person who introduced the system of alchohol selling to please the kuffar tourists. Do U differ?

Obviously I am against it, but like you said ALLAH(swt) will judge each and everyone of us, why he(the ruler) ignores to remember the day of judgement is his burden on that day not mine.
What I meant was the bad influence came from outside.

As far as majority of muslim individual's opinion is concerned, a whopping over 95% will say that we want to live under shariyah laws. But at the end of day U see the results in this big muslim world. This is the value of individual muslim opinion U are talking about.

The same way you are against porn business and presumably your religion is but you have no hand in changing it, same goes for muslims who want the shariah law but have no hand in implementing it.
Btw, what do you know about the muslim world?, saudi arabia basically implements 95% of the shariah, egypt derives most of its laws from the shariah, and on the other hand there are other countries that don't apply the shariah at all.

[justahumane]

Not accordance with Islam you say, why claim knowledge of things that are beyond you?.
What about all the millions of chrisitians in egypt where I live, why did their churches survive throughout the muslim rule all the way till now?
And that goes for the rest of the countries that were ruled by muslims.

I know what I'm talking about, no new places of worship are allowed to be built or should be allowed but in a limited way but old ones that used to exist as the case was in India are not to be demolished or removed.

I claim knowledge coz I have something to prove my point. in this case I produced a link from a website which is widely used to determine what is the correct Islamic ruling on a certain subject. Egypt is a muslim nation goverened by secular laws inspite of Islamic laws. The law makers of ur Nation overstepped laws of ALLAH and chose to write laws for themselves. So giving any example of Egypt is of no use while talking on Islam. Saudi Arabia is a Nation of choice in this matter coz we see most of Shariyah Implemented over there only.

It seems that either U didnt read the opinion of Islamic experts which I provided through the link, or U dont agree with them. I think Islamic ruling is very much clear in this regard, One cant not involve him or herself in any activity that leads to shirk. And when it comes to shirk, Hindus are champion of that. It is well documented in history that no muslim ruler of India, except Aurangzeb objected to idol worshipping, rather they encouraged it in some ways.

Since you claim so much knowledge about Islam to the extent that you want to teach me about it and tell me that's my sect's opinion, please do tell, what are the sects in Islam?.

I dont know which part of my post prompted U to believe that I want to teach U about Islam, plz let me know. If U get offended by my remark about sect than I m sorry aboutthat and beg for ur apology. Ur question is not understandable to me, what are the sects in Islam? Plz eleborate whether U want me to give U the list of sects?

The same way you are against porn business and presumably your religion is but you have no hand in changing it, same goes for muslims who want the shariah law but have no hand in implementing it.
Btw, what do you know about the muslim world?, saudi arabia basically implements 95% of the shariah, egypt derives most of its laws from the shariah, and on the other hand there are other countries that don't apply the shariah at all.

I told U earlier that porn business is unlawful in India. Perhaps U didnt read my post properly. So there is no question changing it as its already unlawful. So ur logic that all muslims want shariyah but they have no hand in Implementing it falls flat. Who stops muslims in Implementing the laws they believe to be divine commands? What U are talkin about do U have any idea???

Peace to U.

[abdullah_001]

Well brother I differ with U and feel that releasing POWs is the best humanist approach. They are able to live their lives as free men with their family rather than working as slaves. It could not have worked well in case of Salahuddin, but that doesnt means that it should not be practised. U can ask those released POWs, who were set free by KAFIR India.

Well, you think what you want but from a strategic point of view it is flawed.

What is there to talk about those rulers whom U mentioned? Were they muslims? I dont think so, coz they allowed shrik to flourish under their rule. This is the reason hindus didnt object to their rule. Hindus wont mind any muslim ruling them now too as long as they are allowed to idol worship and worship multiple gods they believe in. I hope I m able to make U understand. Akbar was only few steps ahead from their preceedors.

You should stop talking about Islam like you know about it. Islam doesn't condemn non-muslims from living under its rule provided they adhere to its laws and pay the jizya. So my conclusion can only be that your reply was one of ignorance and spite.

The reason hindus didn't object is because we didn't throw your wives to burn with your husbands when they died, or perhaps because we didn't label certain people as untouchables and treat them worst than animals.

Well there was no reasons to object to their rule in my opinion as I mentioned earlier, Hindus would object if someone will force them to pay zaziya or convert them to Islam or deny them to worship their dear Idols. As long as this doesnt happens, Muslims are most welcome to rule.

Exactly, Islamic rule is better than Hindu rule. You talk about slavery and it is funny that it was the brahmins that caused rifts not us Muslims, deeming certain ndividuals better than others. These were all Hindu teachings I'm not making this up. It is understandable why they wouldn't object, I mean, after all, who would want to follow someone who says you are inferior to someone else just because of the family you were born in?

I dont want to go down to history to prove when alchohol was present or not. Advanis and Modis of India are democratic hindu version of Islamic terrorists operating in different muslim countries. We know how to deal with them and we are doing it, so nothing to worry for U. What U need to find out how many muslim nations are there who permit alchohol or discothiques on their soil? results could be disturbing to U. And when Islamic ideology has been failed by muslims themselves, than every other ideology could be failed, nothing to mention this. America is better butt-buddy of most of Muslim nations, which country U live in BTW?

Was that supposed to be a joke? You are dealing with them? They ruled your government, is that how you deal with mass murderers? lol Nothing for me to worry? Oh yes, since you say so I'll stop worrying about the Muslims that were massacred in Gujrat (sarcasm).

It doesn't matter how many Muslim nations allow that, their leaders are stupid, my question was it was not allowed in India before, and guess who banned alcohol in India? It was us Muslims!

Is it not today even that U muslims kill ur muslim brothers and sisters? ( swat Paksitan, darfur,etc.) Or the scholers of ur religion Mullahs tag some muslims as kuffar and wajib ul qatl? How many different sects U are divided in? Or U muslims pray to Mazaars and ask those dead men for favours, sing musical songs in their praise?

Thank you! Now I know why we, muslims, are in such a bad state today. We Muslims flourished when we followed our religion, and you Hindus were deprived and despied when you followed yours. We Muslims are in such a bad state because we abandoned our religion and YOU are in power because YOU abandoned your religion. We abandoning our religion caused us to be the lowest of the low while you abandoning yours caused you to be become better, its even more clear to me that Muslims must follow their religion to out do all those who abandoned theirs.

Yeah right, Islam doesnt allows anytihing above, I think ur intelligent question has been answered. A piece of advice to U brother, plz dont act like enemies of Islam, act differently.


To U is ur religion,to me is mine.

Peace to U.

Yes, my question has been answered, fact remains, Hindus burned their wives, Hindus created caste systems, because their religion made it so but when Muslims disobeyed they were going against the rules of Islam.

Piece of advice to you, I am Indian so I know what goes on in there, don't talk to me like I'm a gullible stranger who'll believe everything you say out of ignorance.

And all your answers were just run around answers, you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people. It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

[Santoku]

do you know who are slaves in Islam? It is the short coming of the brother for not clarifying the meaning of the term in Islamic concept. In Islam, the slaves are prisoners of war and when Muslims take prisoners of war then it is depended upon the Muslim ruler to pass any judgment about them: a) free them without any ransom or b) free them for ransom or c) exchange them for their fellow Muslim prisoners or d) distribute them to Muslims aka slaves. Regarding prisoners of war, Islam came up with a better and practical solution. The prisoners can freely work, be treated justly and fairly by their masters, gain their freedom by paying some money to their masters or their masters free them. This is completely contrary to ancient and modern treatment of prisoners of war: tortured, starved and thrown in dungeons. Not to mention that salves can learn about Islam and achieve the highest thing that is possible - embrace Islam.

Okay so if your term for slavfes is that then what do you call the women who were kidnapped from the south coast of europe to be imprisoned in the brothels of Algiers. The men who were taken and chained to the oars of a galley there to slave until they dies, What did their muslim owners call them?

CIrcassian slave girls were the pride of the Caliphs harem, they did not choose their fate nor were they given the chance to buy their freedom they just had the choice submit or be punished. What is the muslim name for them if is not slave?
The Africans taken from the east coast of Africa and put to work for their muslim owners, maybe some made it to high rank, almost as many as were Castrated and put to work as harem guards.

What is your word for them and shall we discuss the muslim treatment of them?

[abdullah_001]

Well its a complex issue. Above noted views maybe of Ur own but its definetely not in accordance to Islam. That is the only reason that we dont find any synogogue or church in Saudi Arabia today. Like a true Islamic ruler, they wont allow anyone to practise his or her religion freely except Islam. Also consider views expressed in following link.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/20894/idols

But because there are many versions of Islam, ur sect might be having a different view about this issue, I can understand.

All different "sects" believe in the same tawheed and thus are by definition Muslims, nice try though.

How islamic is it to please the non-muslim tourists by means of alchohol or pork? Dont U think that its a big question in itself? I m sure that on the day of judgement, ALLAH wont listen to this excuse from the person who introduced the system of alchohol selling to please the kuffar tourists. Do U differ?

I think worshiping idols is far far worse than selling alcohol to non-muslims. So by YOUR criteria you should be more worried about YOUR fate than others.

As far as majority of muslim individual's opinion is concerned, a whopping over 95% will say that we want to live under shariyah laws. But at the end of day U see the results in this big muslim world. This is the value of individual muslim opinion U are talking about.

Ah, at least you admit we want shariah law and imply that it is not being implemented! Thanks for pointing it out!

I dont envy america nor I consider them any kind of evil. I was replying to the brother who claimed that america is butt-buddy of India. I was trying to prove that most muslim nations, and hopefully his own nation is same butt-buddy of america, therefore his indecent claim was futile and uncalled for. I hope now I can make U understand the whole thing.

My own nation (redundant) is India, and you are right, it is butt-buddy of America!

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

[IAmZamzam]

the kaffir mind has only so many dimensions, no matter how convinced that it thinks outside the box-- they too are slaves to the conditioning of the human quality!

I agree, but that isn't at all what I asked.

[IAmZamzam]

Santoku, that was not just islamicliffe's definition, it is the Koran's, as the verses I cited earlier proved. People of every religion break the rules and redefine things. It's a fact of life.

[justahumane]

Well, you think what you want but from a strategic point of view it is flawed.




You should stop talking about Islam like you know about it. Islam doesn't condemn non-muslims from living under its rule provided they adhere to its laws and pay the jizya. So my conclusion can only be that your reply was one of ignorance and spite.

From humanistic point of view, which we hindus often tend to consider, it was the best decision. But U are entitled to ur opinion.

U should stop telling me what to talk or what not to. I have nothing against Islam or muslims, but its an established fact that muslims have nowhere proved to be good rulers, they didnt even spare muslims from murdering them, so hindus should not expect much from them. I admit that they didnt introduced Islamic system of ruling in India due to obvious reasons that hindus wont accept it. This cast a shadow on their Islamic credentials. Now its upto U that U are ready to accept hard realities or choose to be in denial mode.

The reason hindus didn't object is because we didn't throw your wives to burn with your husbands when they died, or perhaps because we didn't label certain people as untouchables and treat them worst than animals.

Ur frustation is showing in ur words. I have already told U hindus didnt object coz their idol worshipping was supported by so called muslim rulers. Had Islamic system been implemented than those muslim rulers would have faced hard resistance from idol-worshipping hindus. U didnt lable certain ppls as untouchables or treated them worse than animals, credit goes to U. But U have a very ugly blot of killing ur muslim bretherns throughout the history right from days of khilafat to present day in Darfur. Swallow it.

Exactly, Islamic rule is better than Hindu rule. You talk about slavery and it is funny that it was the brahmins that caused rifts not us Muslims, deeming certain ndividuals better than others. These were all Hindu teachings I'm not making this up. It is understandable why they wouldn't object, I mean, after all, who would want to follow someone who says you are inferior to someone else just because of the family you were born in?

Talking of causing rift? Is there greater rift anywhere in the world among ppls of same religion as in Islam? Hah, one sect throwing insults towards other sect's revered personalities, another sect praising those who are considered arch villans by other sect. Stilll Islamic rule is better, which says that no muslim should be killed for killing a non-muslim. ask for reference if U dont know about the ruling.

Cast difference was used to be practised by hindus in earlier time, but it was not hindu teaching, rather teaching of some bad hindus. Hindu scripture never said anything like cast system. Better save this into ur head.

Was that supposed to be a joke? You are dealing with them? They ruled your government, is that how you deal with mass murderers? lol Nothing for me to worry? Oh yes, since you say so I'll stop worrying about the Muslims that were massacred in Gujrat (sarcasm).

It doesn't matter how many Muslim nations allow that, their leaders are stupid, my question was it was not allowed in India before, and guess who banned alcohol in India? It was us Muslims!

This is no joke for those who have some sense. Yes we are dealing with them, thats the reason that after shameful incident of Gujrat BJP has lost two elections in line, and we have taken power back from them. U seems to be living in past if u dont know ground realities.

Okay, so U banned alchohol,right? Credit goes to U.

Thank you! Now I know why we, muslims, are in such a bad state today. We Muslims flourished when we followed our religion, and you Hindus were deprived and despied when you followed yours. We Muslims are in such a bad state because we abandoned our religion and YOU are in power because YOU abandoned your religion. We abandoning our religion caused us to be the lowest of the low while you abandoning yours caused you to be become better, its even more clear to me that Muslims must follow their religion to out do all those who abandoned theirs.

Thank U for this information, and its good that U admitted that today's muslims(Majority of them not all) are namesake muslims, no wonder ALLAH is giving them zillat everywhere. Guess whom ALLAH has given promised upper hand. To them who HE feels are on right path. U too start walking on right path like us, U too will be rewarded by ALLAH. whats difficulty in understanding this simpe thing by ur fellow muslims?

Yes, my question has been answered, fact remains, Hindus burned their wives, Hindus created caste systems, because their religion made it so but when Muslims disobeyed they were going against the rules of Islam.

Piece of advice to you, I am Indian so I know what goes on in there, don't talk to me like I'm a gullible stranger who'll believe everything you say out of ignorance.

And all your answers were just run around answers, you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people. It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

U still cant understand whole thing, hindus burned their wives, hindus created caste system, while it was never stated in their RELIGION. Muslims who ruled India never objected idol worshipping, rather they became a part of it, therefore they abandoned their religion and its teaching. Dont U see ppls thronging Mazaars on Thursays singing musical songs and praying to graves? This has been the teaching of those rulers which is flourshing in Indian subcontinant. I hope this time I can make U understand better.


Thanks for ur piece of advice, I reciprocate ur advice to U. I dont say anything in ignorance,but only when I have reasons to talk about those things. Next time U talk to me plz do a bit of ur homework, like giving reference from the only hindu sacred scripture if U know which one is that.

Nobody can answer U as long as U remain in denial mode. I have asked U to give ur reference from the only hindu scripture which says that caste system was in hindu religion, or which says burning wives was in accordance to hindu religion. In absence of any such reference, ur question is just laughable like other questions just as why muslims kill muslims, or why muslims pray to graves. I hope that this time U understand the things better unlike before.

Peace to U my Indian brother.

[justahumane]

All different "sects" believe in the same tawheed and thus are by definition Muslims, nice try though

Yeah, this rare time I agree with U,by DEFINATION they are muslims though, no matter they are at war with ALLAH but they are muslims.

I think worshiping idols is far far worse than selling alcohol to non-muslims. So by YOUR criteria you should be more worried about YOUR fate than others.

U are entitled to whatever U like to think. I know that my fate is safe in ALLAH's hands. I m not a munafiq in fact.

Ah, at least you admit we want shariah law and imply that it is not being implemented! Thanks for pointing it out!

Well all muslims want shariyah. U are destined to live under kuffar rule so U are not part of that,but majority of ur fellow muslims living in muslisms lands are hypocrites. if all wants shariyah than why they choose to write laws for themselves and abandon laws of ALLAH??? Isnt is a grand show of hypocricy????

My own nation (redundant) is India, and you are right, it is butt-buddy of America!

Oh so we are from same great Nation. And U are wrong, ur nation is not butt buddy of America,but our neibhouring country is. Americans give them money and tell them what to do and what not to do. They often violate their sovereignty by sending their planes to bomb their innocent civilians saying that these kids, elderly, women are terrorists. I hope Now u have learnt who is butt-buddy of America.

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

Plz bring ur reference from the authentic hindu scripture which says that caste system or wife burning is in accordance to Hindu religion. And if perfect religion cant be changed than why ur muslim brothers and sisters ask for favours from graves? And why they sing musical songs (melodious quawwalis) near those graves? Was it part of Islam?

Waiting for U to come ahead with suitable answers.

Peace to U my Indian brother.

[abdullah_001]

Yeah, this rare time I agree with U,by DEFINATION they are muslims though, no matter they are at war with ALLAH but they are muslims.

Who are you to say who are they at war with?

U are entitled to whatever U like to think. I know that my fate is safe in ALLAH's hands. I m not a munafiq in fact.

no comment

Well all muslims want shariyah. U are destined to live under kuffar rule so U are not part of that,but majority of ur fellow muslims living in muslisms lands are hypocrites. if all wants shariyah than why they choose to write laws for themselves and abandon laws of ALLAH??? Isnt is a grand show of hypocricy????

First of all, how do YOU know they have abandoned the laws of Islam or if they haven't? stop talking out of your ass.

Grand show of hypocrisy is saying you're not a munafiq even though you are a hindu and judging others while worshiping idols.

Oh so we are from same great Nation. And U are wrong, ur nation is not butt buddy of America,but our neibhouring country is. Americans give them money and tell them what to do and what not to do. They often violate their sovereignty by sending their planes to bomb their innocent civilians saying that these kids, elderly, women are terrorists. I hope Now u have learnt who is butt-buddy of America.

funny you say that because you asked me what my country was and you were sure we were butt-buddies of America, though I do agree India IS the butt-buddy of america! Wasnt it recently you had like a gay day or something?

Plz bring ur reference from the authentic hindu scripture which says that caste system or wife burning is in accordance to Hindu religion. And if perfect religion cant be changed than why ur muslim brothers and sisters ask for favours from graves? And why they sing musical songs (melodious quawwalis) near those graves? Was it part of Islam?

Waiting for U to come ahead with suitable answers.

http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm
http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/religionet...uism/HORGS.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_s...netic_analysis

and regarding the wife burning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29

it took me like 2 seconds to find that by the way. And I learned it in... like 5th class? Did you slack off at school?

second, if Muslims did something that Islam forbids to do then its their fault not the fault of the religion because the religion hasn't changed a bit but it was in YOUR RELIGION that said certain individuals are better than the rest.

wait, you STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION, let me type it again just to piss you off because even you know you don't have an answer to it.

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

you never answered why hindus created a caste system from THEIR religion, not from their people (meaning, it was not something non-practicing hindus did but rather thir religion deemed it so). It was in their religion to do so. You never answered why the wives were burned with the husband upon the husbands death which was also a part of Hindu religion. Most of all, why was this practice changed if it was a part of Hindu religion and if the religion was changed then how is it the perfect religion?

Yes, I won't wait for your answers lol

[Santoku]

Santoku, that was not just islamicliffe's definition, it is the Koran's, as the verses I cited earlier proved. People of every religion break the rules and redefine things. It's a fact of life.

So what is the Islamic name for them,what do you call them, if they are slaves then they are part and parcel of this discussion, if they are not slaves then they must be redefined and the work of a thousand years acknowledged.

[justahumane]

Who are you to say who are they at war with?

I m none to say that,but am only reminding U what Islam says about these or present (Majority of not all) kind of so called muslims. U need the reference? Looks like U didnt like the truth for obvious reasons.

no comment

Good for U.

First of all, how do YOU know they have abandoned the laws of Islam or if they haven't? stop talking out of your ass.

Grand show of hypocrisy is saying you're not a munafiq even though you are a hindu and judging others while worshiping idols.

Lol at ur aquired ignorance. I know that they have abandoned laws of ALLAH everywhere in the muslim world coz their respective governments have chosen to write laws for them. And we see no resistance from Ummah. Iwonder which world U are living in that U dont even know that muslims have abandoned laws of ALLAH.

Whom I m worshipping is known to ALLAH, U havent yet asked me whom I worship still U are busy in cooking up things like a fake prophet. Plz wake up doing such individual attacks, its for ur welfare only. I m not judging any individual but a bunch of individuals who I see doing unislamic things like devouring haram Interest. thats why I dare to comment on that group of ppls. And plz stop writing obscene language, there are sisters too in this forum if U know. Havent U learned how to talk decently in places like this???

funny you say that because you asked me what my country was and you were sure we were butt-buddies of America, though I do agree India IS the butt-buddy of america! Wasnt it recently you had like a gay day or something?

LOL, few gay ppls celebrating on streets makes a whole nation of 1000 million ppls including urself butt buddy of america??? Wow at ur hatred for the nation U are living in. Ever consulted ur alim how islamic it is???

http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm
http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/religionet...uism/HORGS.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_s...netic_analysis

and regarding the wife burning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29

it took me like 2 seconds to find that by the way. And I learned it in... like 5th class? Did you slack off at school?

U are able to produce following four verses from Bhagvad Gita the only authentic hindu scripture,

[41] The works of Brahmins, Ks.atriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras are different, in harmony with the three powers of their born nature.
[42] The works of a Brahmin are peace; self-harmony, austerity, and purity; loving-forgiveness and righteousness; vision and wisdom and faith.

[43] These are the works of a Ks.atriya: a heroic mind, inner fire, constancy, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and noble leadership.

[44] Trade, agriculture and the rearing of cattle is the work of a Vaishya. And the work of the Shudra is service.

It clearly talks about the works given to them. Nowhere it says that one cast should be treated lowly than others. Its only cooked up story of religious haters. I hope U have understood at last.

Secondly, do U believe in holy quran? According to ur belief, all scriptures have been altered. So when U bring out scriptures to defame a religion, U are indirectly pointing ur fingers towards ALLAH. Coz Bhagvad Gita is nothing but words of ALLAH. Now its upto U whether U believe or not.

second, if Muslims did something that Islam forbids to do then its their fault not the fault of the religion because the religion hasn't changed a bit but it was in YOUR RELIGION that said certain individuals are better than the rest.

Exactly this what I have been trying to make U understand. Hinduism never says that shudras are worse than brahmins, still is hindus do it than its not fault of religion its fault of hindus only. And as for sati, U again failed to bring out any authentic source of ur baseless allegation.

wait, you STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION, let me type it again just to piss you off because even you know you don't have an answer to it.

LOL, I have answered ur questions, U havent yet answered my few questions from previous post. Plz read that carefully in case U have missed them, otherwise I assume that U have no answer to that, and I wont ask U again. Again I request U not to use some words in presence of sisters, its only a request if U are kind enough to listen.

Peace to U Indian brother.

[aadil77]

lol where do u weird multifaith hindus come from, you're either muslim or you're not, please don't use islamic terminology because Allah refers to the one true deity

if you really want to please Allah then give up on your hindu scriptures and hindu faith and follow islam as it is with no hindu extras

[justahumane]

lol where do u weird multifaith hindus come from, you're either muslim or you're not, please don't use islamic terminology because Allah refers to the one true deity

if you really want to please Allah then give up on your hindu scriptures and hindu faith and follow islam as it is with no hindu extras

My dear brother,

U are missing something. U can see around U that there are a very few muslims left today. Proof is that they have abandoned the commands of holy quran. Now we have three choices, either we remain hindus which ALLAH has born us as, or we become munafiqeen, or we become muslims which is too hard to become coz those who swear by Islam are not muslims too. So we opt to remain hindus coz ALLAH wants us to be hindus, isnt it better than being hypocrites?

I hope U got the point, Now U can continue with ur trademark hindu bashing. LOL.

peace to U brother.

[aadil77]

My dear brother,

U are missing something. U can see around U that there are a very few muslims left today. Proof is that they have abandoned the commands of holy quran. Now we have three choices, either we remain hindus which ALLAH has born us as, or we become munafiqeen, or we become muslims which is too hard to become coz those who swear by Islam are not muslims too. So we opt to remain hindus coz ALLAH wants us to be hindus, isnt it better than being hypocrites?

I hope U got the point, Now U can continue with ur trademark hindu bashing. LOL.

peace to U brother.

ok now you are one weird hindu :hiding: I don't know if I should bother

now does it matter is some muslims are hypocrites, why can't you become one and become an example for other muslims? are you saying there are no hindocrites?

being a hindu is not a good idea because theres only one place you're gonna end up after death which is HELL, if you are a good hindu you will not end up as a dog or a cow or a monkey or a baboon etc etc

now i hope yoU get the point and give up on hinduism as Allah does not want us to become hindus, so wake up

[justahumane]

ok now you are one weird hindu :hiding: I don't know if I should bother

now does it matter is some muslims are hypocrites, why can't you become one and become an example for other muslims? are you saying there are no hindocrites?

being a hindu is not a good idea because theres only one place you're gonna end up after death which is HELL, if you are a good hindu you will not end up as a dog or a cow or a monkey or a baboon etc etc

now i hope yoU get the point and give up on hinduism as Allah does not want us to become hindus, so wake up

LOL brother, ur words tell it all, at least U are a good Muslim which all should aspire to be.

Brother, if some muslims were hypocrites than it would have not mattered, but the irony is that in absence of any real islamic nation across the world, we are forced to believe that majority of today's muslims are hypocrite. So if we become muslims, we will also end up being a hypocrite, which worries me. therefore I choose to become a better servent of ALLAH swt by remaining what I m.

I neve knew that its U who will determine who is gonna hell or paradise, I will try to pursuade U later when I get time to reserve me a birth where I wont find hypocrites, enough of these ppls.

I know that being a hindu is not a good idea,but at least better than being a hypocrite. I m sure U got the drift.

Peace to U brother.

[IAmZamzam]

So what is the Islamic name for them,what do you call them, if they are slaves then they are part and parcel of this discussion, if they are not slaves then they must be redefined and the work of a thousand years acknowledged.

This is not about semantics and as usual I'm not going to indulge people in a diversion to semantics from the topic. What we were talking about is about what the religion itself defines as slavery and the rules it sets on the matter. I hardly think that an exposition on the truth of that matter shouldn't be part and parcel of this discussion. It's absolutely essential to a discussion on this topic.

If by "work of a thousand years" you're referring to more of those instances of Muslims doing unIslamic things in the matter then the existence of these acts is certainly something I don't acknowledge--just like I acknowledge that the Conquistators pillaged and enslaved in the name of Christianity and the thugees murdered thousands while allegedly adhering to or basing their beliefs on Hindu doctrine. It's time that the world acknowledged that the only possible application such things could be to a discussion of what a religion itself teaches, when what it teaches is contrary, is pure ad hominem-based prejudice and/or aggression. No one ever has discussions about questioning the rule of not looking at your opponent's cards in poker because so many people break it and win repeatedly claiming to do they do for love of the game. These days, only religions get treatment like that.

[IAmZamzam]

If by "work of a thousand years" you're referring to more of those instances of Muslims doing unIslamic things in the matter then the existence of these acts is certainly something I don't acknowledge--just like I acknowledge that the Conquistators pillaged and enslaved in the name of Christianity and the thugees murdered thousands while allegedly adhering to or basing their beliefs on Hindu doctrine.

I of course meant to say that it's not something I don't acknowledge. I don't know how to edit posts here.

[abdullah_001]

I m none to say that,but am only reminding U what Islam says about these or present (Majority of not all) kind of so called muslims. U need the reference? Looks like U didnt like the truth for obvious reasons.

Islam says they are muslim but you are hindu... need i say more?

Lol at ur aquired ignorance. I know that they have abandoned laws of ALLAH everywhere in the muslim world coz their respective governments have chosen to write laws for them. And we see no resistance from Ummah. Iwonder which world U are living in that U dont even know that muslims have abandoned laws of ALLAH.

If you read my posts I never said Muslims didn't abandon the Laws of Islam I said if they were to adapt it they would outdo all other people, just read my previous posts.

Whom I m worshipping is known to ALLAH, U havent yet asked me whom I worship still U are busy in cooking up things like a fake prophet. Plz wake up doing such individual attacks, its for ur welfare only. I m not judging any individual but a bunch of individuals who I see doing unislamic things like devouring haram Interest. thats why I dare to comment on that group of ppls. And plz stop writing obscene language, there are sisters too in this forum if U know. Havent U learned how to talk decently in places like this???

Ok, so then tell me, who is your God? Do you believe that Krishna and Ramayan and all such could ever be Gods? If you say you only believe in one God and say there could be no Gods besides him then I will stop arguing with you right here.

If not, then inspite of all the crap you talk, you are still a hindu.

LOL, few gay ppls celebrating on streets makes a whole nation of 1000 million ppls including urself butt buddy of america??? Wow at ur hatred for the nation U are living in. Ever consulted ur alim how islamic it is???

It is not the people it is the goverment, people follow the leader simple as that the question for the gay day or whatever wasn't to say whatever ppl did, it was to point out that government has allowed such actions which implies it will only get worse for YOUR PEOPLE in the future. Think a little bit before you answer.



[/quote]U are able to produce following four verses from Bhagvad Gita the only authentic hindu scripture,

[41] The works of Brahmins, Ks.atriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras are different, in harmony with the three powers of their born nature.
[42] The works of a Brahmin are peace; self-harmony, austerity, and purity; loving-forgiveness and righteousness; vision and wisdom and faith.

[43] These are the works of a Ks.atriya: a heroic mind, inner fire, constancy, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and noble leadership.

[44] Trade, agriculture and the rearing of cattle is the work of a Vaishya. And the work of the Shudra is service.

It clearly talks about the works given to them. Nowhere it says that one cast should be treated lowly than others. Its only cooked up story of religious haters. I hope U have understood at last.

Secondly, do U believe in holy quran? According to ur belief, all scriptures have been altered. So when U bring out scriptures to defame a religion, U are indirectly pointing ur fingers towards ALLAH. Coz Bhagvad Gita is nothing but words of ALLAH. Now its upto U whether U believe or not. [/quote]

Amazing is your reply, you yourself admit your scripture has been altered and yet you defend it? Tell me according to your words, whats better something that hasn't been altered or something that has been?

Exactly this what I have been trying to make U understand. Hinduism never says that shudras are worse than brahmins, still is hindus do it than its not fault of religion its fault of hindus only. And as for sati, U again failed to bring out any authentic source of ur baseless allegation.

baseless allegation? I just gave you a milliong links go read on it, if not read up Indian history? You're trying to tell me something that happened in history doesn't exist? Whats your authentic source really? You yourself admitted that your scriptures have been altered so my question to you is how is it even authentic to begin with and why do you even believe in something has been altered?[/quote]

LOL, I have answered ur questions, U havent yet answered my few questions from previous post. Plz read that carefully in case U have missed them, otherwise I assume that U have no answer to that, and I wont ask U again. Again I request U not to use some words in presence of sisters, its only a request if U are kind enough to listen.

Peace to U Indian brother.

What questions did you ask? Im sure i replied to everyone but you reply to my questions here... it is very obvious y ou are just arguing for the sake of argument.

Let me ask you again? Who is your God? And do you believe that there could be any God besides the one God?

[Uthman]

I of course meant to say that it's not something I don't acknowledge. I don't know how to edit posts here.

When you have 50 posts, you will be upgraded to full member and then you will be able to edit posts the same way as it is done on UI.

[justahumane]

Let me ask you again? Who is your God? And do you believe that there could be any God besides the one God?

Ur previous post deserved a detailed reply,but due to lack of time I m forced to reply this small but most important portion of ur previous post.

My GOD is the GOD who created this universe. HE is one and only.And yes there could be no other god besides HIM. I hope U got ur answer.

Peace to U.

[abdullah_001]

Ur previous post deserved a detailed reply,but due to lack of time I m forced to reply this small but most important portion of ur previous post.

My GOD is the GOD who created this universe. HE is one and only.And yes there could be no other god besides HIM. I hope U got ur answer.

Peace to U.

:sl:

Ah, peace to you too, do you believe that Muhammad(sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) is his messenger?

All my arguments stop here.

:wa:

[Santoku]

This is not about semantics and as usual I'm not going to indulge people in a diversion to semantics from the topic. What we were talking about is about what the religion itself defines as slavery and the rules it sets on the matter. I hardly think that an exposition on the truth of that matter shouldn't be part and parcel of this discussion. It's absolutely essential to a discussion on this topic.

If by "work of a thousand years" you're referring to more of those instances of Muslims doing unIslamic things in the matter then the existence of these acts is certainly something I don't acknowledge--just like I acknowledge that the Conquistators pillaged and enslaved in the name of Christianity and the thugees murdered thousands while allegedly adhering to or basing their beliefs on Hindu doctrine. It's time that the world acknowledged that the only possible application such things could be to a discussion of what a religion itself teaches, when what it teaches is contrary, is pure ad hominem-based prejudice and/or aggression. No one ever has discussions about questioning the rule of not looking at your opponent's cards in poker because so many people break it and win repeatedly claiming to do they do for love of the game. These days, only religions get treatment like that.

Semantics? No, facts, for a thousand years muslims raids for "something" people dragged away from their homes and families, in Europe and in Africa. These are what we call slaves, now suddenly there is a new meaning of the words slave, an Islamic meaning. (That , by the way, is the meaning of the "work of a thousand years")
If you wish to compare treatments of ??????s then we have to define what you mean by a ?????. And what you call the ?????s.

These raids went on for a thousand years and was indulged in by people of all levels in muslim society, that is the work of a thousand years I referred to, that is more than one or two people behaving unislamically.

You choose not to acknowledge these slave raids but do acknowledge the Christian slave raids. So despite the fact that muslims raided for and traded far more slaves than Christians you acknowledge only the Christian raids. You are quite right there is no point in continuing the discussion.

[justahumane]

:sl:

Ah, peace to you too, do you believe that Muhammad(sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) is his messenger?

All my arguments stop here.

:wa:

Hmmmmmm, I would say that I m not very much sure about that. Sometimes I wish to believe, sometimes my heart says otherwise. A bit confused in this issue. Lets see what happens in future.

Peace to U.

[abdullah_001]

Hmmmmmm, I would say that I m not very much sure about that. Sometimes I wish to believe, sometimes my heart says otherwise. A bit confused in this issue. Lets see what happens in future.

Peace to U.

That is a very weird disposition. You believe that Vedas was a revelation, yet don't believe Qur'an is a revelation? Yet use Qur'an to judge rather than using your own book?

[justahumane]

That is a very weird disposition. You believe that Vedas was a revelation, yet don't believe Qur'an is a revelation? Yet use Qur'an to judge rather than using your own book?

No neither I believe vedas nor Gita were revealations, or word of GOD. When I told U that Gita is word of ALLAH than I was using sayings of holy quran only. I believe that if some book is divine, than its holy quran.

Peace.

[abdullah_001]

No neither I believe vedas nor Gita were revealations, or word of GOD. When I told U that gita is word of ALLAH than I was using sayings of holy Quran only. I believe that if some book is divine, than its holy Quran.

Peace.

Qur'an doesn't say gita is a revelation. If you believe that Qur'an is the revelation then what is holding you back and why do you call yourself a kafir?

[justahumane]

Qur'an doesn't say gita is a revelation. If you believe that Qur'an is the revelation then what is holding you back and why do you call yourself a kafir?

I know holy quran doesnt say this, but it says that ALLAH has given books to all Nations.

I m still a kafir coz some part of holy quran puzzles me. Like ALLAH can forgive any sin but wont forgive if someone associate partners with him. This is something which I m unable to swallow. Coz it makes great ppls like Mother Teresa dweller of hell while ppls like Saddam hussain still have chances of Paradise.

Why would ALLAH just put me into hell coz he himself destined me to be born in hindu family? How could he expect his all creations to think alike and believe in holy quran and his messenger? Even if he and she is born in a non-muslim religious family???

Its all so confusing.

Peace.

[Salahudeen]

The sin of shirk is forgiven unless one dies upon it, in todays world nearly everyone has heard about and been given the message of Islam.

Once a person has been given the message of Islam then he doesn't have an excuse of being brought up as being a hindu.

it's not hard to swallow at all because Allah says he is willing to forgives all sins except for disbelieving in him or asscoiating parnters with him, it's not that he can't forgive it's that he won't forgive, there's a difference.

Allah said that he does not forgive if you go to chaper 4 verse 48 Allah says

Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a treme

you see the verse in the Qur'an also this is mentioned in chapter 4 verse 116

Verily! Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, has indeed strayed far away.

so Allah already laid down the rules for us and he said that if you repent sincerly to him, if he pleases he will forgive your sins but the only unforgivable sin to him that he will not forgive is dying upon associating partners with him or worshiping other than him.

About the part where you said

"Why would ALLAH just put me into hell coz he himself destined me to be born in hindu family? How could he expect his all creations to think alike and believe in holy quran and his messenger? Even if he and she is born in a non-muslim religious family???"

Every person is born on fitra, which is the innate human nature, it's apart of our human nature to believe in 1 creator and worship him.

This means that if a child was born and his parents didn't influence him in anyway he would grow up beliving in god and worshipping him alone. But it's because of the influence of parents that they make the child divert from the pure human nature that everyone is born with and convert him into a hindu or christian.

That doesn't mean that they have the right to blame their families because they have a sane mind, they have a brain and they can research for themselves. It doesn't make sense to a normal person to worship a cow for example.

So if they receive the message, the message of Islam alhamdulilah reaches everywhere, so the message is out there they have to do their part, they have to research and find out.

God doesn't destine you to hell, you destine your self to hell, there are certain things in your life that you will have to go through, some of the things god has ordained on you,

something is going to happen in your life, for example somebody dies, you get a car accident, you lose a job, there a certain things you have to go through in your life.

But this is the test upon you, how are you going to react to those things which is upto you, yes God is all knowing, he knows how your going to react to these things already ahead of time. he has the knowledge of how your going to react to these things but never the less that doesn't change the fact that you reacted to these things so you can't ask a question and say well i'm predestined to go to hell because I was born in a indian family that's not true that's nonsense you have a choice if you make the right choices it doesn't matter if your born in an indian family or an italian family.

it's a duty upon everybody to reasearch and find out for themselves and find out the truth, even if your born into a Muslim family that doesn't mean your upon the correct path, that doesn't mean everything is ok and your guided.

there is alot of children that are born into Muslim family's that are misguided big time even they go as far as they go out the fold of Islam. Many people are born into Muslim family's and they get taught tradition more than Islam and sometimes they get mixed up and end up praticing tradition more than Islam itself

so it's a duty upon everybody to reasearch, everybody has to find out their path, you can't say I was born in an Indian family that's it I'm gonna have to go to hell.

you choose the path that takes you to hell or you choose that will lead you to paradise with the mercy of god.


God gave us a brain to think if a person is born in a hindu family and is worshipping an animal like cow or rat he must use his brain a little bit and think how can a cow or rat help me.

so it's very easy, people often say

"is it my mistake that I was born in a non muslim family, it's not my fault god made me born in a hindu family so you know it's not my mistake I'm born a hindu i must continue hindu",

this is illogical,

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Th-th-th-th-th-th-that's all folks!