Islam vs. Slavery

[Janitor]

Opened the wiki link laughed , then exited .

There's a difference in the Arabic meanings and English meanings there , I don't care whoever translated this but he doesn't know Arabic more than me .

In some verses it meant childs/boys , other verses meant slaves which is not the modern standing for a slave back in times.

Really the Arabic-English translating shit is pissing off because either people should know what they are translating or not at all.

[-Lame]

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell them but some people over here is stupid as fuck.

[Empire]

Opened the wiki link laughed , then exited .

There's a difference in the Arabic meanings and English meanings there , I don't care whoever translated this but he doesn't know Arabic more than me .

In some verses it meant childs/boys , other verses meant slaves which is not the modern standing for a slave back in times.

Really the Arabic-English translating shit is pissing off because either people should know what they are translating or not at all.

Ugh.


How many times do we have to go over this?

You are arguing translation by Islamic scholars. This isn't some hack translating, this is people who have dedicated their lives to it.
-But more to the point, its pretty clear even in arabic it means slaves.
------------------------------------------
"other verses meant slaves which is not the modern standing for slaves back in times"
-Oh please, do enlighten me.
---------------------------------



Gotta love muslims, they always make some excuse with flimsy standing.


"oh its the translators"

Ok, go find me an english translation then.
-Unfortunately, I found my source, you have yet to post yours.
(when I can go look up any translations and you haven't posted one, makes me think you are lying)...

[robinvanpersie]

lolz is this Empire guy still here hating on Islam to make himself feel better? It is no use "debating" with these Islamophobes, all they really want is an argument to keep themselves busy so they can escape from reality. Here is a good video on how Islam helped remove slavery, from a guy who has a PHD in Islamic history. He talks about how Islam changed the image of slavery (which was seen as the lowest form of a human being) into the highest form a human being could achieve, the slave of Allah swt.

[Empire]

He talks about how Islam changed the image of slavery (which was seen as the lowest form of a human being) into the highest form a human being could achieve, the slave of Allah swt.

"Slave", you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Lehsyrus]

lolz is this Empire guy still here hating on Islam to make himself feel better? It is no use "debating" with these Islamophobes, all they really want is an argument to keep themselves busy so they can escape from reality. Here is a good video on how Islam helped remove slavery, from a guy who has a PHD in Islamic history. He talks about how Islam changed the image of slavery (which was seen as the lowest form of a human being) into the highest form a human being could achieve, the slave of Allah swt.

Use non-bias sources and then we'll talk. Insulting Empire when you have not brought out a single non-bias source is simply moronic.

[αяgуяσѕ]

Use non-bias sources and then we'll talk. Insulting Empire when you have not brought out a single non-bias source is simply moronic.

Well generally most information is bias so I doubt he will find anything about it. (Due to history being bias)
A little note almost everyone is biased in some type of way.

Islam is still a type of third world country, the main problem is that Islam gets all of its issue from other countries.
I am sure you heard of the domino effect correct?

Islam was a really good country in the past till around the early time, this was done mainly by Egypt and plagued most of the world.
Slavery wasn't very big till around the 1600s when the Portuguese decided to start selling slaves which made other countries start on this as well.

So if you look at this way their slavery is viewed as the same way that America and the rest of the world did during the 17-18th century.

But this seems to be the issue what if a Slave was not treated as property but as a human then would he still be considered a slave?
Also Slavery is illegal in every country but most slaves are in debt bondage.

Debt bondage = A person's pledge of their labor or services as repayment for a loan or other debt.

According to the Anti-Slavery Society:
Pawnage or pawn slavery is a form of servitude akin to bonded labor under which the debtor provides another human being as security or collateral for the debt. Until the debt (including interest on it) is paid off, the creditor has the use of the labor of the pawn.
Debt bondage has been defined by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" and is prohibited by international law.
It is specifically dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. It persists nonetheless especially in developing nations, which have few mechanisms for credit security or bankruptcy, and where fewer people hold formal title to land or possessions. According to some economists.

[Coituz]

Well generally most information is bias so I doubt he will find anything about it. (Due to history being bias)
A little note almost everyone is biased in some type of way.

Islam is still a type of third world country, the main problem is that Islam gets all of its issue from other countries.
I am sure you heard of the domino effect correct?

Islam was a really good country in the past till around the early time, this was done mainly by Egypt and plagued most of the world.
Slavery wasn't very big till around the 1600s when the Portuguese decided to start selling slaves which made other countries start on this as well.

So if you look at this way their slavery is viewed as the same way that America and the rest of the world did during the 17-18th century.

But this seems to be the issue what if a Slave was not treated as property but as a human then would he still be considered a slave?
Also Slavery is illegal in every country but most slaves are in debt bondage.

Debt bondage = A person's pledge of their labor or services as repayment for a loan or other debt.

According to the Anti-Slavery Society:
Pawnage or pawn slavery is a form of servitude akin to bonded labor under which the debtor provides another human being as security or collateral for the debt. Until the debt (including interest on it) is paid off, the creditor has the use of the labor of the pawn.
Debt bondage has been defined by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" and is prohibited by international law.
It is specifically dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. It persists nonetheless especially in developing nations, which have few mechanisms for credit security or bankruptcy, and where fewer people hold formal title to land or possessions. According to some economists.

That's what I'm trying to tell but he never gets it , the slavery isn't a religious problem from any religion but it is coming from you as a human . Qur'an mentioned it because it exists and when It exists you must put rules from the muslim slaves so how will they do and etc ... just like the atheists in the Qur'an it was mentioned many times does it means they approved being atheist ? no . But It exists.

[Empire]

Well generally most information is bias so I doubt he will find anything about it. (Due to history being bias)
A little note almost everyone is biased in some type of way.

Islam is still a type of third world country, the main problem is that Islam gets all of its issue from other countries.
I am sure you heard of the domino effect correct?

Islam was a really good country in the past till around the early time, this was done mainly by Egypt and plagued most of the world.
Slavery wasn't very big till around the 1600s when the Portuguese decided to start selling slaves which made other countries start on this as well.

So if you look at this way their slavery is viewed as the same way that America and the rest of the world did during the 17-18th century.

But this seems to be the issue what if a Slave was not treated as property but as a human then would he still be considered a slave?
Also Slavery is illegal in every country but most slaves are in debt bondage.

Debt bondage = A person's pledge of their labor or services as repayment for a loan or other debt.

According to the Anti-Slavery Society:
Pawnage or pawn slavery is a form of servitude akin to bonded labor under which the debtor provides another human being as security or collateral for the debt. Until the debt (including interest on it) is paid off, the creditor has the use of the labor of the pawn.
Debt bondage has been defined by the United Nations as a form of "modern day slavery" and is prohibited by international law.
It is specifically dealt with by article 1(a) of the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. It persists nonetheless especially in developing nations, which have few mechanisms for credit security or bankruptcy, and where fewer people hold formal title to land or possessions. According to some economists.

History is biased......really? Please due explain how history is biased.
-------------------
Actually i had a whole response written(edited out), but I want to hear this.


You think history is biased? Please, do tell.

[Empire]

That's what I'm trying to tell but he never gets it , the slavery isn't a religious problem from any religion but it is coming from you as a human . Qur'an mentioned it because it exists and when It exists you must put rules from the muslim slaves so how will they do and etc ... just like the atheists in the Qur'an it was mentioned many times does it means they approved being atheist ? no . But It exists.

You more or less just admitted to god being made up by mankind. Good job, its a start. Next up is you learning basic world history.

[αяgуяσѕ]

History is biased......really? Please due explain how history is biased.
-------------------
Actually i had a whole response written(edited out), but I want to hear this.


You think history is biased? Please, do tell.

Are you that stupid?
Take a little look at this image:

This image is from the book commonly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, The book tells the story of the persecution of Protestants in England and was first published shortly after Queen Mary's death. If this was the only source we had and we knew nothing else about that period of history we would end up with a very one-sided view as this book is very anti-Catholic. However, because we have other sources and we know a lot about Tudor history we can recognise that this source is biased.

What you got to understand is when you say or do something there will be a person who will always do the opposite.

Another example the World War 2 Hitler thought he was doing a really good job with his country by trying to kill all the jews and making a pure race of Germans, but almost rest of the world did not see it like that.
Since history is written by humans and I repeat by humans no matter who they are, they cannot be fully objective.

[Empire]

Are you that stupid?
Take a little look at this image:

This image is from the book commonly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, The book tells the story of the persecution of Protestants in England and was first published shortly after Queen Mary's death. If this was the only source we had and we knew nothing else about that period of history we would end up with a very one-sided view as this book is very anti-Catholic. However, because we have other sources and we know a lot about Tudor history we can recognise that this source is biased.

What you got to understand is when you say or do something there will be a person who will always do the opposite.

Another example the World War 2 Hitler thought he was doing a really good job with his country by trying to kill all the jews and making a pure race of Germans, but almost rest of the world did not see it like that.
Since history is written by humans and I repeat by humans no matter who they are, they cannot be fully objective.

:/ So here's the part where I'm trying to help you actually debate for once:


How is this relevant to your topic and what connection can you draw from that?

 

I could go on and disprove what you said because you haven't read Foxe nor should you argue ethics are a "now we know" ordeal, but lets just leave it at that for now.

[Lehsyrus]

Are you that stupid?
Take a little look at this image:

This image is from the book commonly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, The book tells the story of the persecution of Protestants in England and was first published shortly after Queen Mary's death. If this was the only source we had and we knew nothing else about that period of history we would end up with a very one-sided view as this book is very anti-Catholic. However, because we have other sources and we know a lot about Tudor history we can recognise that this source is biased.

What you got to understand is when you say or do something there will be a person who will always do the opposite.

Another example the World War 2 Hitler thought he was doing a really good job with his country by trying to kill all the jews and making a pure race of Germans, but almost rest of the world did not see it like that.
Since history is written by humans and I repeat by humans no matter who they are, they cannot be fully objective.

You said HISTORY was bias, as in history as a WHOLE. History is made up of multiple sources of information, not simply one, to create the factual picture. It was your lapse in information that lead to this issue. Be more specific next time.

[αяgуяσѕ]

:/ So here's the part where I'm trying to help you actually debate for once:


How is this relevant to your topic and what connection can you draw from that?

 

I could go on and disprove what you said because you haven't read Foxe nor should you argue ethics are a "now we know" ordeal, but lets just leave it at that for now.

What do you mean?
Everything comes from history, slavery is a part of history.
What it has to draw is that Islamic slavery is not the same as it was back around in the 16-17th century most of Islamic slavery is from Debt bondage.
If you would've read more of my other post next time you wouldn't just have read only the history part and gotten to what I said about slavery.

You said HISTORY was bias, as in history as a WHOLE. History is made up of multiple sources of information, not simply one, to create the factual picture. It was your lapse in information that lead to this issue. Be more specific next time.

Oh what could you possibly mean?
I am being more specific then you think I am.


But as a whole slavery in any part of the world is still illegal as said by the UN themselves.
But to clear it even more up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery

[Lehsyrus]

Oh what could you possibly mean?
I am being more specific then you think I am.

You said "history is bias", then when Empire called you out you showed an example of how multiple SOURCES of history are needed for an accurate picture, which is still history as a whole. History is NOT made up of just one source. That is already a known fact, hence why when you called history AS A WHOLE bias, you were called out. Understand now?