Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader.* He captured slaves in battle.* He had, in most circumstances non consensual, sex with his slaves.*And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur'an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day. Spoiler The Qur'an: Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" *This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners.* Others are restrained to four wives, but may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear: Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."** This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves.* See also Qur'an (70:29-30). Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."* Even sex with married slaves is permissible. Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good"* A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part.* The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them." Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..."* Breeding slaves based on fitness. Qur'an (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female."* The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal.* The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's). Qur'an (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means praise be to Allah."* Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master.* In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will.* (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored). From the Hadith: * Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, 'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'"* * Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven. * Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property.* They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt. * Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed.* The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval. * Bukhari (34:432) - Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad's approval.* In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them.* Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus. * Bukhari (47.765) - A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl.* The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave). * Bukhari (34:351) - Muhammad sells a slave for money.* He was thus a slave trader. * Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves.* This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad.* In this case, the slave is of African descent. * Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave. * Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself.* He cast lots to determine which two to free. * Bukhari (47:743) - Muhammad's own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command. * Bukhari (59:637) - "The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, 'Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?' When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, 'O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?' I said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'"* Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves.* This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really "wives," since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living. * Abu Dawud (2150) - "The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur'an 4:24) 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" *This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur'an.* Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands.* (See also Muslim 3432) * Abu Dawud 1814 - "...[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?"* The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement. * Ibn Ishaq (734) - A slave girl is given a "violent beating" by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it. * Ibn Ishaq (693) - "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons."* Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property.* (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight). * Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture.* A captured woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled. * Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition.* Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged... And of the five references to freeing a slave in the Qur'an, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin, and limits the emancipation to just a single slave.* Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are "good."* This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through the taking and ransoming of hostages, which began under Muhammad. At least 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were brought out of Africa by Islamic traders - far more than the 11 million that were taken by the Europeans.* However, these were only the survivors.* As many as 85 million other Africans were thought to have died en route. Here are a few more verses... Spoiler Qur'an 8:1 "They ask you about the benefits of capturing the spoils of war. Tell them: 'The benefits belong to Allah and to His Messenger.'" Ishaq:510 "We ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.' He used to say this of every town he raided." Ishaq:327 "Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'" Tabari VII:64 Ishaq:307 "The Messenger of Allah gave orders concerning the contents of the camp which the people had collected, and it was all brought together. Among the Muslims, however, there was a difference of opinion concerning it. Those who had collected it said, 'It is ours. Muhammad promised every man that he could keep the booty he took.' Those who were fighting said, 'If it had not been for us, you would not have taken it. We distracted the enemy from you so that you could take what you took.' Those who were guarding the Prophet for fear the enemy would attack him said, 'By Allah, you have no better right to it than we have. We wanted to kill the enemy when Allah gave us the opportunity and made them turn their backs, and we wanted to take property when there was no one to protect it; but we were afraid that the Meccans might attack the Prophet. We protected him so you have no better right to it than we have.' When we quarreled about the booty we became very bad tempered. So Allah removed it from us and handed it over to His Messenger." Ishaq:307 "The 'Spoils of War' Surah came down from Allah to His Prophet concerning the distribution of the booty when the Muslims showed their evil nature. Allah took it out of their hands and gave it to the Apostle." Tabari VII:65 "Allah's Messenger came back to Medina, bringing with him the booty which had been taken from the polytheists.... There were forty-four captives in the Messenger of Allah's possession. There was a similar number of dead." Bukhari:V5B59N512 "The captives of Khaybar were divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him." Tabari VIII:116 Ishaq:511 "So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some of its people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself." (Then he raped her, just after slaughtering her family in front of her. Nice guy.) Ishaq:511 "When Dihyah protested, wanting to keep Safiyah for himself, the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." (traded like baseball cards) Ishaq:515 "Allah's Apostle besieged the final [Jewish] community of Khaybar until they could hold out no longer. Finally, when they were certain that they would perish, they asked Muhammad to banish them and spare their lives, which he did. The Prophet took possession of all their property." Ishaq:521 "When the spoil of Khaybar was apportioned, the settlements of Shaqq and Nata were given to the Muslims while Katiba was divided into five sections: Allah's fifth [which Muhammad was custodian]; the Prophet's fifth; the share to the kindred [Muhammad's kin]; maintenance of the Prophet's wives [now there's an honest report]; and payment to the men who acted as intermediaries in the peace negotiation with Fadak [which enabled the prophet to steal the entire spoil]." Qur'an 48:19 "He rewarded them with abundant spoils that they will capture. Allah has promised you much booty that you shall take, and He has made this easy for you." Tabari IX:13 "Abu Talhah alone took the spoils of twenty men whom he had killed." Ishaq:571 "I went up to a man and struck off his hand. He fell and I killed him while he was down. But I was too occupied with fighting to pay any more attention to him. So one of the Meccan Muslims passed by and stripped him. Then when the fighting was over and we had finished with the enemy, the Apostle said that anyone who had killed a foe could have his spoil. I told the Apostle that I had killed a man who was worth stripping but had been too busy killing others at the time to notice who had spoiled him. Abu Bakr said, "To Allah's lions who fight for His religion go the spoils that come from their prey. Return the booty to the man who killed him.' The Apostle confirmed Abu Bakr's words. So I was given the property of the man whom I had killed. I sold it and bought a small palm grove with the money. It was the first property I ever owned." Ishaq:592 "The Apostle held a large number of captives. There were 6,000 women and children prisoners. He had captured so many sheep and camels they could not be counted." Ishaq:594 "The Apostle gave gifts to those whose hearts were to be won over, notably the chiefs of the army, to win them and through them the people." Qur'an 59:6 "What Allah gave as booty to His Messenger He has taken away from them [the Jews]. For this you made no raid. Allah gives His Messenger Lordship over whomsoever He wills. Whatever booty Allah has given to His Messenger and taken away from the [Jewish] people of the townships, belongs to Allah and to His Messenger.... So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you." Ishaq:309 "'Bind Abu Aziz tight for his mother is rich and she may ransom him for a great deal of money.'" Tabari VII:71 "Among the captives was Abu Wada. Muhammad said, 'He has a son who is a shrewd merchant with much money." [The son] "slipped away at night, went to Medina, ransomed his father for 4,000 dirhams." Ishaq:312 "The Prophet said, 'Abbas, you must ransom yourself, your two nephews, Aqil and Nawfal, and your confederate, Utbah, for you are a wealthy man.' 'Muhammad,' Abbas said, 'I was a Muslim, but the people compelled me to fight against my will.' Allah knows best concerning your Islam,' Muhammad said. 'As for your outward appearance, you have been against us, so pay to ransom yourself.' The Messenger had previously taken twenty ounces of gold from him following the battle. So Abbas said, 'Credit me with this amount towards my ransom.' 'No,' Muhammad replied. 'That money Allah has already taken from you and given to us.'" Ishaq:313 "The Muslims told Abu Sufyan to pay them a ransom to free his son, Amr. He replied, 'Am I to suffer the double loss of my blood and my money? After you have killed my son Hanzala, you want me to pay you a ransom to save Amr?'" Tabari VII:80 "When the events of Badr were over, Allah revealed the 8th surah, 'The Spoils of War,' in its entirety. The two armies met [there were no armies - just merchants and militants] and Allah defeated the Meccans [with Muslim swords]. Seventy of them were killed, and seventy were taken captive. Abu Bakr said, 'O Prophet of Allah, these are your people, your family; they are your cousins, fellow clansmen, and nephews. I think that you should accept ransoms for them so that what we take from them will strengthen us.'" Tabari VII:81 "'What do you think Khattab?' Muhammad asked. 'I say you should hand them over to me so that I can cut off their heads. Thus Allah will know that there is no leniency in our hearts toward the unbelievers.' The Messenger liked what Bakr said and did not like what I said, and accepted ransoms for the captives." Ishaq:327 "Allah made booty lawful and good. He used it to incite the Muslims to unity of purpose. So enjoy what you have captured." Tabari VIII:38 "The Messenger divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims." Ishaq:465 "When their wrists were bound with cords, the Apostle was a sea of generosity to us. Allah's Messenger took his fifth of the booty. He made known on that day the extra shares for horses and their riders - giving the horse two shares and the rider one. A Muslim without a horse got one share of the spoil. It was the first booty in which lots were cast." Tabari VIII:39 "Then the Messenger of Allah sent Sa'd bin Zayd with some of the Qurayza captives to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms." Tabari IX:28 "The Muslims were concerned. They did not want to give up their share. So Muhammad said, 'He who holds a share of these captives shall get six camels for every slave from the next booty we take.' So the Muslims returned the women and children captives." If you would like the verses regarding advocating the rape of the captive slaves, look it up or just ask BTW, I'm from Australia, not America. Cheers mate.
The military was a hetero tradition. The police force was a hetero tradition. Putting out fires was a hetero tradition. Teaching school was a hetero tradition. The Boy Scouts is still a hetero tradition. Before each of these things was a hetero tradition, it was a white men-only tradition. But then those darn women and blacks "crowded their way in there." Gays have to crowd their way into normal, human traditions just as women and blacks did. You have a good heart. I believe one day you'll realize this is about equal rights. If you do, the answer will be made simple for you. You're either for equal rights for all or you're against them.
After all the debates and arguments on this issue, I still do not understand. Marriage is a creature of religion. That being the case, the government should not be in the marriage business period. The family laws and protections are a civil union that is separate from the religious union created in the eyes of whatever church performs the ceremony. Equal protection under the law would extend all rights and responsibilities to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. This would allow all couples to freely inherit from their loves one, to make medical decisions when needed and would protect them and their property in the event that the relationship terminates. Extending these rights at law to all couples is simply the right course of action.
Gotta love people who are selectively rational and selectively literalist. Paint your own religion in the best light, and the other's religion in the worst light. Bravo. Because, y'know, there's certainly no rape of female slaves in the Bible or anything like that.
The diffrence being, Christians are told to be a reflection of Christ, and live in the way of Christ, just as Muslims are told to follow the example of Muhammad. Whose example do you think would be the Better one for humanity to follow? Can you give an example of where Jesus approves of, endorses or participates in slavery, murder, rape and piracy (as the Prophet of the Religion of Peace did)? The old testament is an authoritive historical record, and it does contain what we would consider atrocities in today's society, but Christians are followers of Christ...hence the word Christians. Christ delivered unto us new commandments, namely the love our neighbour and do unto others, as you would have done unto you. If the world followed these two commands, it would be a better place. Agree? The link that you have provided gives verses with no context, and is guilty of cherry picking. I've already discussed the dueteronomy 'rape' verse earlier in this thread. Once again as I continue to say, it has become fashionable to become a Christian basher, and that is your right to do so, but there is a fear to confront the truth about anything to do with Islam, or respond to any of the questions posed in regards to the religion of peace. Leftie sidestepping at its best. God bless bro.
Fixed. I also notice that you haven't responded to anything in my previous post, which certainly could be described as what is apparently your favorite word: sidestepping. I've even conveniently numbered my points for you. Got nothin'?
No sidestepping, most if not all of your points have already been addressed in this thread. We are just going over the same ground, and I'm about to cook dinner for my wife & children. Yes, I've let my wife off her oppressive Christian leash for the night and I am going into to the kitchen to cook...with a George Foreman grill. If you would really like me to respond to each of your points I will, in the mean time why don't you respond to some of mine?
Riiiight. Sounds like a "sidestep" to me. But whatever. Truth be told, I never actually expected you to give a substantive response. Truthfully, I really don't want to get into another one of these Biblical discussions. They never go anywhere. No one ever convinces anyone else in this kind of setting. I'm reminded of when I got into a conversation with some guy with Campus Crusade for Christ when I was in undergrad. I asked him how Methuselah could have gotten to be 969 years old, as the Bible asserts. He explained that when the flood of Noah came, the firmament burst (that is, the dome of water separating the waters in the sky from the earth, as described in Genesis), and that all that water that used to be above the sky fell on the earth. Afterwards, we no longer had any water protecting us from ultra-violet rays, which are now killing us far more quickly. I'm not making this stuff up. The guy actually believed this. I see you rationalizing things in the Bible that are evil, or contradictory, or that just don't make sense. And in seeing you doing so, I am continually brought back to the point in my first post which I did in fact identify as my most important one, namely: that I don't regard the Bible or any other holy book as authoritative, because 1) there are multiple such claims (such as the Bible on one hand and the Quran on another) which are mutually exclusive, so that only one can possibly be right (and more likely neither), making any subscription to any one of them nothing better than a glorified guess, and 2) I don't need a book that's thousands of years old to tell me what's right and what's wrong. And to be clear, the second point here is the overriding one. So no, I'm really not at all interested in discussing Biblical and Quranic interpretation in gruesome detail. Not only can it be twisted in so many directions as to become ultimately meaningless, the fact is that I only care about the reasons themselves, not what person or what book asserted them. So, all that said, the thread is titled "Christianity and homosexuality." So let's start over, and you can provide your reasoned views as a Christian on homosexuality... reasons other than "because the Bible just says so." That's not a reason. I could equally argue a stance and assert the truth of my view "because X said so," whether X be some other religious book, some scientist, the sun, Woody Allen, Santa Claus, or Papa Smurf. If an authority is not accepted by both parties in an argument, then appeals to that authority cannot be argued, just asserted back and forth, impressing neither party. I do not believe in the text you hold to be authoritative, just as I'm guessing you don't find Woody Allen authoritative. So we'll need to appeal to reasoned arguments instead. Got any reasons like that? How are homosexual sex and homosexual relationships harmful to other individuals or to society? I'm stumped over here. I've already provided some rebuttals to common arguments in the second half of my first post. Feel free to start there if you wish.
Repped. One of the best posts I've read on this thread. As I was helping my wife cook, ( yes she stepped in because it is her kitchen, and she is a better cook than I am :grin I looked over and saw this... Spoiler I then realised that there are more pressing issues & needs in the world that require my time and effort, and as you said these Biblical discussions in this setting lead nowhere. And to quickly answer your question...homosexual sex & relationships don't affect anyone outside else in society, until they start forcing their views on society, and start demanding that society change to suit them and their needs. In reality, who am I to tell people how to live their lives if it doesn't affect me, my community or society? If I believe that it is doing them harm, I can point that fact out to them, but it would be wrong of me to impose my will onto them. As a Christian I point the way to salvation through Christ, and live my best according to the way that Jesus would have me live...but that is my choice, that I made. I can't demand people to give obligated devotion to my God. ( I was going to say like that other religion, but I won't. :grin Do I hate or dislike homosexuals? No. In fact I employed a homosexual guy for a sales team a few years back for Kirby Vacuums ( yes we have Kirby vacuums in Australia). He had no forms of travel, so he stayed at my home for a few months, only going home only for the weekend because Church wasn't his thing. He used to do my wife and daughters hair, really well I might add. So I don't hate any individual, sometimes I just don't agree with their activities or beliefs. And that is my right. With the Islam thing, I don't hate Muslims at all...but I don't agree with Islamic doctrine, and find it funny that people are quick to throw dirt on and offend Christians, but will not dare offend any other religion, and are quick to defend Islam while also championing gay rights...reminds me of a meme... Spoiler Anyway, bygones. Picture of my dinner... Spoiler God bless.
I agree. There's a lot in the NT about the union of a man and a woman. Sometimes very affirming things as well. Fortunately, I'm not in a position to be a Christian homosexual where I'd be forced to reconcile the two while following to the tenets of my faith. But for those who are, I can imagine it to be heavy and constant for some to deal with. They have the details and the overall message conflict in their minds constantly...and likely more than most American Christians would have to deal with in their lifetimes. But because the government and the religious institution of marriage is completely muddled and interconnected together...sometimes deliberately, other times out of traditional customs...I think the best outcome here would be for organized religion to take the initiative and reformulate their traditions of marriage and segregate it from the government institution completely. What good is a religious marriage if it ends up in divorce? Ever since King Henry VIII, the religious consequences has been eroded to what it has become now. Let the idea and questions swirling about "real marriage" or whatever it'd be called be contained by its followers. Pour some time and consideration about what and where modern Christianity has become or is going instead of forcing it into the public forum of secular law. Is it really persecution by taking the higher ground and acknowledging the secular takeover of one tradition? In doing so, I'd argue that it'd preserve the original meaning and value that the Christian side of the debate is lobbying for.
I get your point except that none of those other institutions necessarily join two people together. Gays have "always" been in the military. Same for police force, firefighters, schoolteachers and boy scouts/leaders. Remember I support the concept of gay marriage, but I have to ask what is it really about? I would think the truly important aspect is equal treatment under the law for gay "married" couples. Only speaking from a perspective I know, the Christian, marriage was designed by God for hetero couples. Why should that tradition not be protected? Talking about equal rights, I'm ready for that million-dollar bench warming job in the NBA... not everybody has a right to everything. Maybe the thing to do is to award existent marriages the concurrent status of civil unions (they do require marriage licenses, no?) because that is really where the issue of equal rights comes up: status under the law not in the church.
Good post except just to quibble with one thing. Marriage isn't the creation of any specific religion but is as much the creation of government as it is religion as it was created at a time when there was no separation of church and state. Looking at marriage practices historically it looks like for most of its history it also had little to do with love but much more to do about disposition of property, forming alliances between families and diplomacy. In that sense all the way from the tribal level to empires government has always been involved in marriage.
As I have said before I would support the compromise of "Civil Unions" but if that is the case then that must be applied to all government sanctioned unions whether heterosexual or homosexuals. At the moment those against gay marriage are only pushing that "civil unions" under laws apply to homosexuals while heterosexuals get to keep the term "marriage". That isn't quite equality under the law. Also your quip about being in the NBA shows you don't really understand the concepts of 'rights' vs 'opportunities'.
Hate, disapproval, finger pointing, etc. Christians are free to do so but the problem is when such attitudes are codified into a law that goes against the right to equal protection.
Thus my suggestion that all current marriages be recognized as civil unions on an equal status with every civil union whether hetero or gay. Leave the word marriage to the religious institutions. My quip was intended to show that you can't just get whatever you want. I can't even get a tryout with an NBA team... :grin: ... so not even an opportunity much less a right.
