Condemning European Slavery Sparing Islam, the Bigger Culprit

This is an eye oppener. This article should be sent to every African American or any black person.

Read The African Continent., Before and after Islam

and watch these Videos

Islam and African Slavery-1

Islam and African Slavery-2

yeezevee

Dr. Sina
I am trying to alert my people to this horrible paedt of the slavery issue. The book, Religious Bullying by Raisin Head-Xlibris or Barnes and Noble has many article about the black and white slave issue. Like most Christians dont read the Bible, muslims dont read the Quran. Blacks in American have been bamboozled by black men who get rich off of racism. The bean pie, the big lie and the bow tie has been part of the reason. Now that the Arabic Muslims are in America, Black Muslims are no longer needed.
The dating services show white muslims not one black muslim, yet the black muslims say and do nothing.
Schools in black communities say Egypt is Arabic. PleaSE get the book and read it. The ones I know that have read the book, say they were glad that the book was written. Once Blacks get this information IslaM IS DEAD IN THE bLACK WORLD. noi AND THE aFRICAN muslims will leave it or die trying. FGM will be destroyed Pedophilia will be stopped. Africans who left Islam are also trying to warn American Blacks. Money is being used by SaUDI arabia to pay blacks to keep quiet.

The very obviously sad paradox most visible in this article is the blame of practicing slavery by Muslims going straight to condemn their religion, Islam, while the same crime by Christians, keeps their religion, Christianity, untouched and clean. I think the writer, Mr. Khan, whoever he may be, must grow a little bit more intellectually, before embarking upon projects that deal with history of events and practices by peoples of different faiths in the larger human perspective. Biases of this nature not only degrade a man on educational level, but dehumanize him.
The other basic flaw in this writing is the total absence of references from the authentic books of history. And he wants people to believe his figures and share his childish insinuations. To think that Arabs caused 90% mortality of their own slave merchandise on their travel routes, will be the most commendable idea of the century!!! Any trader will be bankrupt forthwith by trading in this style!!!
Honestly speaking the title should have been Condemning Christian slavery, Sparing Islamic slavery. Very foul smelling little cheap technical mistakes !!

well written

i think we need to send this Article directly to Washington to President Obama
well see even you are a christian and living in Europe or in any other place excluding Islamic countries you can criticize on church

but even if u r a Muslim or not you have to praise Mohammad cox u live in Islamic country

Moron we are saying Islam did slvery before Christians did. Africans went to seed the first Christians and were baptized by Phillip, not enslaved. Muhammad sold slaves, both male and female, gay or not he sold them and made money. He said allah created Africans Blacks to be slaves to whites and then go to hellfire.
Christians who did slavery was not doing it for Christianity because i Tim l:8-10 said slavery was as evil as murder and fornication or adultery.

Moron I am a descendant os slaves sold to Europeans by African and Arab slavers, like the Luo tribe of Kenya. Africans did slavery of other Africans and Arabs did too. Arabs sold Hindus to Europeans and a lot of Indians slaves ended up in the West Indies, like Trinidad. Today Trinidad is 52% Indian and 48% are mixed.

85% of African Americans are mixed with Indians (American) and European whites. Look at Blacks in America and see most are lighter than Africans or even Indians. I am a black American and proud, very proud. I love all of my relatives, from the whites to the blacks and some Asians. Family reunions are great. We even have an Arab. He married a lighht skinned cousin.loooooooool Poor fellow found out that her brother was a dark skinned man. Being dark skinned in unislamic.loooooooooooooool.

Raisin Head wrote:

Blacks in American have been bamboozled by black men who get rich off of racism.

I say:

Hey did you hear what happened to Henry Louis Gates a few days ago and Barack Obama's response?

moron:

The very obviously sad paradox most visible in this article is the blame of practicing slavery by Muslims going straight to condemn their religion, Islam, while the same crime by Christians, keeps their religion, Christianity

I say:

Christians stopped the practice of slavery a 140+ years ago. In fact it was the Christians ( like William Wilberforce ) who abolished slavery. Islam still practices slavery and it looks like no Muslim wants to abolish it.

moron:

The other basic flaw in this writing is the total absence of references from the authentic books of history.

I say:

Read White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam's One Million White Slaves by Giles Milton

"An overwhelming majority of Muslims believe that Islamic history is devoid of the abhorrent practice of slavery. Rocky Davis (aka Shahid Malik), an Australian Aboriginal convert to Islam, told the ABC Radio that “Christianity were the founders of slavery. Not Islam.”

It was the Muslims who brought slavery. Davis's accusation is full of flaws because Christianity has been in Africa since the 1st century and non of the African Christians had anything to do with slavery. It was the White Europeans who took part in slavery and this took place 15 hundred years after Christianity arrived in Africa. When the Muslims invaded Africa they brought the slave trade with them.

Moron (name, not insult!) you wrote:
"The very obviously sad paradox most visible in this article is the blame of practicing slavery by Muslims going straight to condemn their religion, Islam, while the same crime by Christians, keeps their religion, Christianity, untouched and clean."

The underlying theme is whether the religion supports slavery or not, not whether individuals or groups of Muslims/Christians practiced it.

Now, we know that Mohammed practiced slavery, as did his companions.
Yes, he set some free, but he kept many more.

Jesus never had slaves at all, neither did his 'companions' (apostles).
The NT acknowledges slavery (it was a fact of 1st Century life in the Roman empire after all), but does not condone it, either by word or action.

Therefore, the comparison is that Moslem slavers follow their prophet's example, Christian slavers are, on balance, in opposition to the teachings and practice of Jesus and the Apostles.

Thus, I suggest, the actual religion of Christianity does come out "untouched" albeit somewhat tarnished by the actions of some of its adherents, whereas the religion of Islam is fully involved.

Moron said:
"The very obviously sad paradox most visible in this article is the blame of practicing slavery by Muslims going straight to condemn their religion, Islam, while the same crime by Christians, keeps their religion, Christianity, untouched and clean."

I say: That's just it. I am a Darwinist but I can see how Christianity developed in a beneficial way for mankind. It would not bother me if the old habits of Christianity and Christians were condemned, just as Islam and Muslims would be. But it is of vital importance to know as much as we can about History, when Islamic propaganda does the opposite, namely bashing Christianity on account of past misbehavior of Christians, like the Atlantic slave-trade. While at the same time keeping Islam untouched, clean, or even a so-called peaceful and shining example for mankind. If that rosy picture of Islam is thoroughly discredited, making Islam a religion that is not one iota better than Christianity or any other major religion, it is enough for me. And the reason for that is that I am for a society that is as democratic as can be, and I view Islam now in opposition to that.

I also am for dealing with history or events and practices of different faiths in the large human perspective. I am first and foremost for unbiased truth, as much as possible. But there are in this respect 2 other perspectives to view history, the one pro-Islamic (or Islam-apologetic), the other anti-Islamic, and when the one is allowed on the world-scene so much, then it's very comforting and reassuring we also have the other! So as to research, compare well, with better chances to arrive at the truth.

Try explaining this to a black Muslim, you would be lucky if you come out alive!

Raisinhead has gone sentimental in her old way. More so, since the subject matter has a particularly sensitive relationship with her ancestors and their unlimited known and unknown sufferings. Slavery has been a curse. Man has inherited violence and savagery from old times and that has persisted in varying degrees until this day, in spite of the short intervals of peace and security that we find in our history, in one part of the world or the other. Here I refer to the advent of Messengers with Divine Guidance from time to time with the sole purpose of establishing kingdoms of God. However, sentimentality should not enforce the discipline of biased exaggerations bordering with lunacy. That is exactly why, with all of my sympathies with her, I find myself unable to agree with her blind generalizations.
Marie’s claim of slavery still practiced among Muslims is again unsubstantiated. It was prohibited by Sultan Abdulaziz Al-Saud in the early 1900s. Her other claims also deny the history.
Jonc’s remarks are again a denial of facts. Islam is Quran and Quran had abolished the slavery immediately as that Book was revealed. For those slaves that were already there in the Arab community, special orders were given for their assimilation within the society as free men and women. Lots of references can be quoted from Quran. The main source of slaves was wars. The divine ruling was to set the prisoners free, either on payment of some small amount of tax or as a free grant, after the war has ended:
“Imma Mannan ba’adu wa imma fidaa’an”
I wish dear Jonc gets more serious when talking about and making serious allegations and commitments regarding a discipline of life having followers all around the world and second to Christianity only, in numbers in the vast array of faiths still alive on earth. Says “Muhammad practiced slavery”. The most erratic statement. Isn’t it just like saying “Jesus committed adultery”? Dozens of the most eminent Christian and non-Christian scholars & intellectuals have declared Muhammad as a symbol of peace, security, mercy and blessings for all the humanity. The names can be listed. The same must be true for Jesus.

For Demsci:
It is pure bias when you blame the religion for its followers’ sins. The fact is that no religion is being followed in letter and spirit, and in essence every religion was a message of peace, security and mercy. The essence is that we should forget the past and start building a peaceful world from now onwards. If I were you, I would forget Islamic apologetics and Islamophobes alike, and stop helping and cooperating with the dictators in Islamic countries where a lot of humanity is still enslaved and suffering. It is with your help that there is no democracy, no free speech and no employment and sustenance for the poor people in Islamic countries. And it is the opulent and the powerful nations of the west who are on a rampage around the world with their military might. I would appreciate if your modern and educated public raise their voices against their rulers and stop their hegemonistic designs on false political and religious pretexts. There ought to be only one perspective for our thoughts and behaviour. And that is the humanistic perspective. That is the only truth and all philosophies end at this point. That is what eventually can change the present ugly scenario.
Trying to hurl indecencies upon a religion whose true face is hardly known to the world of today, and assuming the air of self-styled scholars of Islam, is a practice in futility.
The ones boasting of democracy a lot, need not have a narrow perspective. They look from the angle of their own society and feel satisfied. Whereas their rulers do not impart or disseminate democracy around the world. On the contrary, they are vehemently encouraging slavery of humanity through their pet despots in and around the Muslim world. Do not hate and try to kill the already dead.

Hey, Moron [the name and its respective insult]! Might I add how keen it is of you to give yourself such a fitting name! You say that Muhammad practised slavery is an "erratic" claim. Do you even know what erratic means? Dictionary.com defines erratic as "deviating from the usual or proper course in conduct or opinion; eccentric; queer." Muhammad's practise of slavery is standard, conventional history. If anything, your denial of Muhammad's enslavement of others is a most erratic one, an apologist fabrication of much darker sinister side of the man you consider "Ar-Rahmat ul-'aalameen."

Here a few examples of Muhammad's dispositions to slavery in Sahih Al-Bukhari

Volume 3, Book 47, Number 765:

Narrated Kurib: the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles." [Freeing slaves is supposedly a good deed in Islam, yet here Muhammad exposes his hypocrisy.]

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/musli...

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637: Narrated Buraida:

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."

Volume 8, Book 80, Number 753:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him," or said something similar. [This destroys the claim that many Muslims make that slaves are not considered property.]

Saheeh Muslim Book 015, Number 4112:

'Imran b. Husain reported that a person who had no other property emancipated six slaves of his at the time of his death. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called for them and divided them into three sections, cast lots amongst them, and set two free and kept four in slavery; and he (the Holy Prophet) spoke severely of him.

Also in Abu Dawud, no. 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.'"

You say that "Dozens of the most eminent Christian and non-Christian scholars & intellectuals have declared Muhammad as a symbol of peace, security, mercy and blessings for all the humanity." Does that actually mean that Muhammad was such a thing in reality? Even mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung have their supporters to this day. That does nothing to vindicate him. Even then, under what motives did these intellectuals and scholars have. Did they want votes, or just pander to the leftist agenda of appeasing Muslims? Sure, Muhammad did a few good things. He fasted, he prayed, he gave alms, he even freed some slaves. However, there is also another side to the story which not only nullifies his good deeds but makes a depraved sinner who only feigned goodness. That's how really evil types operate. Were these people aware of the slaves and concubines that Muhammad kept, his child-bride 'Aisha, his looting of Arabia, his crimes against humanity (especially against Banu Qurayza), his iconoclasm (intellectuals sure hate the destruction of art - but I'll give him a pass on this since I don't like idols that much either - though I must say this is an utter act of compulsion and disregard for the ancestral Arab religion), and that Muhammad was known to be possessed by Shaytan at least once (well if he was possessed by Satan once, then what stops us from coming to the conclusion that he may have been possessed more than once or perhaps most or even all of the time), the rapes he committed and sanctioned, et cetera. A man who freed some slaves but enslaved many others and though he encouraged emancipating slavery on some instances, but sanctioned the slavery of millions of human beings with his manifesto of jihad. What do you call this kind of person? A lying, cheating hypocrite! Such a man is not capable of being a prophet, and he is a far cry from a symbol of peace that you talk of.

As for your claim that Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud abolished slavery in the early 1900s, this is a fallacy. Slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia till 1962, which is in the mid 20th century. Abdul-Aziz died in 1953; the abolition occurred his successor King Saud ibn Abdul-Aziz. Do you know what reason Saud did this? Well, much like Muhammad, his royal highness had no qualms with slavery. He just desperately wanted to join the United Nations. To became a UN member you have to abolish slavery. That is not truly sincere, because this involves political expediency rather than an earnest desire to liberate the suffering of humans from bondage. If Saud had it his way, Saudi Arabia would have kept the ghulami racket to this day. De-facto slavery still does go on in Mauritania and the Sudan, and sex slavery is thriving in Dubai.

Agreed, Islam is (based upon, in large part the) Qur'an. You say that the Qur'an abolished slavery immediately after revelation. How can that be so, when we have the following verses:

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 a special command that Muhammad handed down to himself, allowing himself virtually unlimited sex. Others are limited to four wives, but may also have sex with an unlimited 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 allows 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 (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).

I am going to leave it to you, genius, to refute all these claims. However, what I fear you shall do is perform a series of what Ibn Warraq rightfully calls "mental gymnastics." Have fun making your points, Moron. By the way, is that your given name? I know that Moron is a Spanish name, it was the name of a drug lord on this Colombian telenovela "Sin Senos No Hay Paraíso." Have a nice weekend!

moron wrote:

Marie’s claim of slavery still practiced among Muslims is again unsubstantiated. It was prohibited by Sultan Abdulaziz Al-Saud in the early 1900s. Her other claims also deny the history.

I say:

Read this:

The Unknown Slavery: In the Muslim world, that is — and it's not over
National Review, May 20, 2002 by John J. Miller

When Henry Morton Stanley explored the Congo River's Boyoma Falls, the cascades weren't the only thing he noticed: "Every three or four miles we came in view of the black traces of the destroyers. The scarred stakes, poles of once populous settlements, scorched banana groves, and prostrate palms, all betokened ruthless ruin."

The perpetrators of this wreckage were slavers. As late as 1883 -- when Stanley wrote -- they were scouring the African countryside for people they could seize and haul into bondage. Their gruesome search destroyed whole villages, leaving once-prosperous areas devoid of inhabitants. Their forced marches to the coast were ghastly, with the exposed bones of captives who died along the way so numerous they practically served as trail markers. Those who survived the ordeal -- fewer than half, by some estimates -- were exported to the world's final repository of slavery: the Islamic world.
Related Results

The phenomenon of Muslim slavery is not often studied, and especially not the Muslim enslavement of black Africans. "A list of serious scholarly monographs on [Islamic] slavery -- in law, in doctrine, or in practice -- could be printed on a single page," wrote Princeton's Bernard Lewis in his pioneering but brief book Race and Slavery in the Middle East (1990). He went on to suggest that the subject is so "highly sensitive" that it would be "professionally hazardous" for young scholars to take it up. Indeed, among the thousands of professors and graduate students affiliated with Middle Eastern studies programs in the U.S., only a handful have dared to broach the controversial topic, and a comprehensive history and analysis of it remains to be written.

This stands in stark contrast to the huge amount of scholarship on slavery in the West. Judging by the sheer volume of material, one might come away with the mistaken impression that nowhere was the vile institution of slavery more entrenched than among the American hypocrites who declared that all men are created equal. And yet throughout Muslim history, starting with Mohammed himself, slavery was a vigorous and central part of Islamic civilization. This is not to say Islamic slavery was worse than American slavery; in many ways, life was easier under Muslim owners than under Mississippi owners. The problem, rather, is that the Islamic world has not experienced the same kind of moral reckoning on slavery that the West has. Muslim countries proved extremely resistant to abolition; many of them had to be dragged into it by the European colonial powers. It is hard to imagine a serious person calling for America to enslave its enemies. Yet a prominent Saudi cleric, Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, recently urged Palestinians to do exactly that with Jews: "Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women?"

Words are one thing, and actions another. Even today, however, Islamic abolition cannot be called a complete success: Slavery continues to be practiced in at least two nations whose regimes claim to derive their legitimacy from Islam. These nations are Mauritania and Sudan, and Muslims remain virtually silent about the practices of their coreligionists there.

Slavery is an ancient institution, as old as recorded history. Aristotle defended it; both the Old and New Testaments accept it as a feature of the human condition. The Koran takes a similar view -- though it also encourages (without commanding) slaveholders to treat their slaves well, and urges (without requiring) their release. In Islamic theology, slave ownership is a morally neutral act, but God smiles on those who give slaves their liberty.

The characteristics of Muslim slavery have been far from uniform over the centuries, but it is possible to identify a few general traits. For starters, slaves were accorded more legal protections in the Islamic world than they received almost anywhere else. Slavery came under an intricate set of regulations that, for example, forbade the use of slaves as prostitutes, and prevented mothers and young children from being separated. The act of enslavement also wasn't supposed to occur on Muslim soil, though the slavers and their customers didn't always pay close attention to this rule. In the 19th century, Captain G. F. Lyon of the Royal Navy described slaveholding in Libya: "They seize on the inhabitants of whole towns where the only religion is that of the Koran, and where there are mosques; and this is without scruple or remorse."

There was plenty of cruelty -- slavery, of course, always involves cruelty -- but many chattels of Muslims were essentially domestic workers who functioned as surrogate members of the master's family. "Slaves in Islam were directed mainly at the service sector -- concubines and cooks, porters and soldiers -- with slavery itself primarily a form of consumption rather than a factor of production," writes Ronald Segal in Islam's Black Slaves. Perhaps the most important difference between slavery in the West and slavery in Islam is a demographic one: Two-thirds of the slaves transported across the Atlantic were male, and two-thirds of those involved in the Muslim trade were female.

Over time, sub-Saharan Africa became the principal source of involuntary labor. Muslims were not the first people to enslave black Africans -- the ancient Egyptians had done it -- but they were the first to engage in it systematically on a massive scale. Going back to Islam's birth in the 7th century, historian Raymond Mauvy estimates that 14 million black slaves have been sold to Muslims. (This compares to Paul E. Lovejoy's estimate of 10 to 11 million Africans shipped in chains to the Western Hemisphere between 1650 and 1900; the vast majority of them were sent to Latin America and the Caribbean, and half a million to British North America and the U.S.) The journey from the slave's homeland to the Middle East was often a treacherous one, especially when it involved enduring the blistering heat of a Sahara crossing. Yet the march was dangerous everywhere -- an Islamic version of the brutal Middle Passage. The dead frequently outnumbered the survivors on these journeys, often by a lot. Slavers accepted the high casualty rates because their business was so lucrative. "It is like sending up to London for a large block of ice in the summer," wrote a 19th-century missionary in what is now Tanzania. "You know that a certain amount of it will melt away before it reaches you . . . but that which remains will be quite sufficient for your wants."
Related Results

The oddest aspect of Islamic slavery was the eunuch. Castrated male slaves became exceedingly popular in the Middle East sometime after the rise of Islam. They are best known for serving as harem guards, but they were also mosque custodians, administrators, and teachers. Eunuchs were bought and sold at a premium, in part because their grisly operation resulted in many fatalities. Their popularity remains something of a mystery. "One can only speculate that eunuchs were regarded as likely to be more devoted and dependable in serving their masters than other males, with normal distractions, would be," writes Segal. Whatever the reason, eunuchs became fixtures of Muslim culture. Islam teaches against physical mutilation, so Muslims found themselves searching for loopholes. Many eunuchs were castrated in non-Muslim territory immediately before importation, in the belief that this somehow kept Islamic land pure; a business in commercial castration thus developed along the fringes of the Muslim world. (Prague is said to have specialized in this during the period when Islam imported many slaves from Europe.) Muslims later accepted castration within their own lands, so long as non-Muslims performed the deed.

Slavery, in short, was an ingrained part of Islamic culture -- and it might still have been one today, but for European insistence that Muslims end it. As recently as 1878, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina served as major slave markets, trading 25,000 slaves annually. The eradication of slavery, in fact, is one of the great and unheralded legacies of colonialism.

The first Islamic countries to abolish slavery -- Tunisia, Egypt, the Ottoman Empire -- did so under pressure from the West. Others were more obstinate. In East Africa, slavery continued until after World War I. Its persistence into the 20th century explains why the League of Nations prioritized the abolition of slavery, even though doing so must have seemed an anachronism to unsuspecting Westerners. It wasn't until the start of World War II that Ethiopia and Liberia had gotten rid of slavery. Later still, the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights condemned slavery -- again, because the Islamic world had failed to wipe it out. In 1953, sheikhs from Qatar attending the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II included slaves in their retinues, and they did so again on another visit five years later. Saudi Arabia and Yemen didn't get around to abolishing slavery until 1962; three years later, a special report by the U.N. reported that the Saudi royal family continued to keep hundreds in bondage.

Mauritania outlawed slavery in 1980, apparently because its two earlier prohibitions (in 1905 and 1960) were ignored. Today, it is illegal for Mauritanians to say that slavery exists in their country -- a sure sign that it really does. By some estimates, at least 100,000 of Mauritania's 2.7 million people continue to live in unpaid servitude, most of them blacks toiling for light-skinned Moorish masters. Slavery goes back centuries in Mauritania, and there's a long tradition of slaves' working for the same family across generations. Apologists say that those who remain in this capacity aren't slaves at all, but servants who volunteer to trade their labor for room and board. Yet these claims are effectively rebutted by a small group of escapees who have delivered powerful personal testimonies of beatings and bondage. Reliable information on what's really happening in Mauritania is hard to come by because the Islamic government won't allow investigations. Foreign journalists must travel in the company of the secret police and face expulsion if they ask too many questions. In January, the government banned the main opposition party, which has demanded slavery's eradication. Mauritania has far to go before slavery ceases within its borders.

Sudan has received considerably more attention than Mauritania. In April, an organization affiliated with the Boston-based American Anti- Slavery Group made headlines by purchasing 3,000 slaves at $33 apiece and releasing them, and also negotiating the release of 3,000 others. Another group, the Swiss-based Christian Solidarity International, says it has bought freedom for 60,000 slaves in Sudan over the last several years. (This raises a separate question: Does buying slaves from modern-day slave traders wind up perpetuating their wretched business?) As with Mauritania, there are no truly credible numbers describing the extent of the problem. Sudan has engaged in slaving and slaveholding for ages; the current wave seems to have begun in 1983, with the imposition of Islamic law. Following the 1989 coup by the Islamofascist general Omar el-Bashir, the government became actively involved in arming the slavers and supporting their operations in the southern part of the country, where Muslims are outnumbered by Christians and other non-Muslims. These slavers' methods are especially vicious: The men are shot, the women and girls are sold into concubinage, and the boys are fortunate if they become unpaid cattle herders.

In considering the history of slavery in Islam and in the West, it is a mistake to decide that one branch of the same evil represents the greater sin. Instead, it is probably enough to say the human toll in both places was horrible: Call it "immoral equivalence." But there's an important difference today. The United States finds itself apologizing for slavery (at least when Bill Clinton visits Africa), handing out huge amounts of foreign aid (partly from a sense of guilt), and giving at least passing thought to financial reparations for the descendants of its own slaves. Yet when Muslim countries gather at international forums, they discuss none of this -- and instead spend their time writing resolutions bashing Israel and the West. They appear to feel no remorse for the past, and no responsibility for the present. While the West has its problems, it does not have this one.

As for my other claims, the story of Moses and Exodus inspired blacks slaves to fight for their freedom.

Also look up St. Augustine, Tertullian, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Cyprian, and Jerome. You will be surprised to find which continent they started from or flourished and it wasn't Europe.

Moron you wrote:
"Islam is Quran and Quran had abolished the slavery immediately as that Book was revealed. ...Lots of references can be quoted from Quran. "

Moron, please give the ayats that show that slavery was immediately abolished.
talking of the Koran, Moron can you explain the meaning of the phrase "those whom your right hand possess(es)", as found in K4:36; 25:6;33:50?
If slavery was "abolished ...immediately", why the ayats with reference to the (presumably now non-existant ) slaves? K4:92; 24:31,58;33:55

Have you the Hadith? Bukhari has several traditions about slaves, as does Muslim and other collections:
B34:432: " Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence. " (Similar found in B62:137)
B41:598: "Narrated Jabir: A man manumitted a slave and he had no other property than that, so the Prophet cancelled the manumission (and sold the slave for him). No'aim bin Al-Nahham bought the slave from him.
47:765 "Narrated Kurib:the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."

This is less than half the references to slaves in Bukhari and Muslim alone.
Now from these we can see that Mohammed wasn't bothered about his companions having (and raping) slave-girls taken in war that Mohammed sold a slave and said it was better to give a slave as a gift than free them.

Moron, you claimed that "Quran had abolished the slavery immediately as that Book was revealed".
If that is so, why didn't Mohammed obey the Quran and free these slaves?

You wrote: "The main source of slaves was wars".
Too true, dear moron, too true! Mohammed and all his companions took such slaves and sex-slaves (see above).

Have you ever heard of the Zanj rebellion? this was a slave rebellion that took place in (869-883 CE), about a quarter of a millenium after (according to you) your prophet 'abolished slavery'.
This one fact, on its own, would show that, despite all Moslem apologetic on the matter, slavery was not abolished by Mo, indeed it continues via the enslavement of non-Muslims (do we count, btw?) up to today (Sudan, Chad, Mauritania etc).

Moron, you wrote "[that I said] ' “Muhammad practiced slavery”. The most erratic statement. Isn’t it just like saying “Jesus committed adultery”? '
No, the two statements are nothing like at all.
I have just shown you that both Koran and Sahih Hadith show that Mo practiced slavery.
I'd just love to see your evidence that Jesus committed Adultery! You do know, don't you, that the Koran itself would states that your statement is untrue?

Nice rebuttal Marie - way to go!

Thank you Marie, for your very informative rebuttal, which I read several times. You are always so dedicated and thorough, my compliments. And thank you jonc for your rebuttal, which informed me so much too. You both are always much better with giving good sources, whereas I also read and know a lot, but then have trouble proving it with sources. So I often focus on the big picture instead. But we are all on the same side, supporting each other I suppose and hope.

Moron, much of your reaction to me was about the role and guilt of governments and I suppose giant companies in supporting and sustaining dictatorial regimes in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Well, in the past, in the era of the Soviet Union, this was certainly true, but since then Bill Clinton, George Bush AND Barack Obama and their governments have been in favor of the spread of democracy. They saw the mistake they were making, namely that when the West supports a tyrannical regime that is generally hated by its oppressed subjects, than the West gets hated too. That seems to be the case in Egypt, where the Mubarak regime indeed is still supported by America while it is hated by much of the Egyptian population, who are also very negative, in general, about America. But the opposite is true in Iran, where the regime and even the religion in whose name it performs, are much hated, despised, and where America is very popular among the many oppressed Iranians.

Now what is the role of Islam in the development of mankind towards ever more freedom, progress, prosperity, happiness in the 21st century?
First off: In our opinion it started with and still today it upholds a very high claim which is shown not to be true or perfect on this site and on many other places.
Second; On FFI, and many other places, it is oft shown how Islam and a part of the Muslims are rather primitive, 7th-century-ish, conservative, in opposition to democracy, to the extent of fighting it, and to the extent of advocating, supporting, condoning dictatorial regimes and organisations, and their oppressive policies and actions.
Third; In our opinion it is not more useful in comparison with other ways of organizing societies and personal lives. Here on FFI and elsewhere it is shown that its claims in that respect are not valid either. Many detrimental influences of Islam are shown. Then the relativity of these influences is oft argued by Muslims and Western Culture-relativists. Which makes it highly tenable for “our side” to likewise argue the relativity of Islam being able to stop all sorts of bad practices, even if it did not implement them. And to show the relativity of some kind of good influence coming from Islam, in the past and still today. So Islam in general really seems unfounded, in opposition to and irrelevant for something good and big in the 21st century.

Marie thanks for the information.

Slavery is going on right now in America. Muslims are going to jail right now for slavery in placews like Florida and Denver. Today African blacks are being sold for $`13 dollars for a female and $86 for a male.
Al Fawzan in Egypt and Saudi said Islam has rthe right to enslave people today. Whites are mamluks and blacks are abeeds. Under Sharia Muslims think they will enslave people again. I dont think so.

You're welcome Demsci and Raisin Head and thank you jonc.

The name moron was a bait to force some of you guys to open up and show the true picture of your state of mind. It did the trick. The one nicknamed Asif proved to be the most sinister one. A negative, libelous state of mind immediately gets “personal” in a highly sensitive matter of faith and convictions. And must essentially be ousted from discussion or ignored altogether if you do not intend to convert the discussion into a campaign of abusive titles.

However, the lengthy details he went to some extra lengths to quote from, were mostly from ‘RIVAYAAT’ which are nothing but a dirty rubbish invented and concocted by Asif’s ancestors and the likes, starting 1400 years ago. His shrewd keenness to quote from this baseless material shows that. The obvious fact that the early narrators of those Rivayaat themselves stated that they were not sure of what Mohammad said, declares them un-authentic and rubbish. Look what they say at the end of every concocted story: “Qaala Rasool ullah …… aoo kama qaala …..”So said the Messenger of Allah or said something similar to this, or as he might have said so” etc. etc.

Is this the material to quote from to prove a point? Shame for the childish style of useless maneuvering? But I am sure
he will continue reshuffling this heap of filth on different presumed pretexts. He gets paid for this mental gymnastic.

He also quoted some Quranic texts. As is usual, texts quoted out of their original contexts serve no purpose and are always used with the cheap motive of misleading and distortion.
However, had he contemplated seriously he would know that those commands are serving the purpose of assimilation of the already existing slaves into the society by marrying the women to make them legal wives. No further slavery was allowed as I quoted earlier.

Again the problem with this phony scholar or champion of Quranic interpretation is that he lacks the preliminary knowledge of Arabic.
All of them do.
I quote only one example of his distortion. In the translation of Ayat 33/50 he uses the words “O Prophet, we have made lawful to thee thy wives …”. “Ahlalna” is the word that he translates as “made lawful”. The champ does not know that “Ahllalna laka” here means “we have authorized the residence under your control of the……..” and then four categories of women are detailed who could live under His control or supervision being the head of the then Muslim State of Medina, where women also were migrating to, for want of peace and protection from the tyrants of Makkah. Halaal means “making lawful” as well as “allowing the right of residence with”. Go champ to your tutors and start scanning the Arabic dictionaries (authentic ones) and do not forget afterwards, to try to dip your face in your teachers’ sewage. And yes, Try not to meddle with Quranic interpretations because my Lord said : “la yamassahu
Illal mutahharoon”, meaning: the filthy minds cannot have inspirations from it (Quran). You need a thorough cleansing chum!

Right hand’s possession in Quran, dear Jonc refers to the same already existing slaves in the Arab community and all the verses in Quran that deal with slavery, deal only with the reformative measures for these slaves with the sole view of their assimilation in the society as free men and women. The fact that Muslims restarted the slave trade after 40 Al-Hejira, under the despotic regimes of Bani Umayyad’s tyrants, cannot be taken as Islamic. The situation had drastically changed after 40 Al-Hejira when dictatorship had again dominated the Arab and Muslim society.
As for Ahaadith you refer to from Bokhari and Muslim etc., please read the above paragraphs and you will know the reality of Ahaadith (or Rivayaat, meaning “narrated stories”).

I have to emphasize the point that what Muslims have been doing should not and cannot obliterate the glory of the divine discipline called Quran.

You can hate Muslims for their acts…..Not Islam. The slogan of Ali Sina is just the opposite to what it should have been. If he were to change this slogan to the pattern mentioned above, I can stand with him too.

And yes, I did not say Jesus committed adultery. I said “it is just like saying that Jesus…….” Because once you are convinced that Hadith is not Islam and abandon this dubious material, fabricated by enemies of Islam, under the later day dictatorial regimes, you will not be able to bring a single proof that Muhammad practiced slavery.
Sorry, no time to read the lengthy novels from Marie.

Hi friends

Quran/Islam/Muhammad never allowed any slavery. Please quote a verse from Quran with the context where Islam enjoins to have slaves.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Moron,

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.”

Is this “quoted out of its original context” Moron ? I don’t understand this correctly because of my “lack of preliminary arabic “ Moron ? Tell me.

After the Khaybar raid, the remaining men, the women and children “distributed among the Muslims” were new slaves, isn’t it ? They were not “already existing slaves.” And you say Muhammad abolished slavery !

Moron, all you know about Muhammad’s life comes from the Sunna and the Hadiths, which explain the Quran and you say that it’s a baseless material. You don’t believe Ishaq ? Is Khaybar raid an historic fact or not ? Where did you acknowledge Khaybar raid ? In the Quran ? There is no mention of this in the Quran. You can connect what is written in the Quran with Khaybar raid because of Ishaq and the Sunna, otherwise you would know anything.

This little piece of anthology is for our edification, and your's : Let wonder at the words of wisdom from Paraclete Muhammad which “should not and cannot obliterate the glory of the divine discipline called Quran” written by the same guy.

Ishaq:512 “The Apostle prohibited four things the morning of the Khaybar raid: carnal intercourse with pregnant women who were captured, mingling his seed with another man’s
[which means the Muslims were free to rape those who weren’t pregnant]; nor it is lawful
for him to take [rape] her until she is in a state of cleanness [not menstruating]; nor can a
Muslim eat the flesh of donkeys; nor eat any carnivorous animal; nor sell any booty before it has been duly allotted.”

My mind is enraptured at the higher altitude of spirituality, Moron ! Allah is great. And Muhammad also, certainly. What a man full of wisdom and what wise advices ! We should all follow them, Khuffir or not. Wisdom has no frontiers.

I meant, "Muslims or not", not " Khuffirs or not" , evidently,

Moron, you did not trick ourselves with your pseudonyme, but yourself Your subconscious knows very well who the muslim part of yourself is. You are half way to reintegrate yourself fully . You are on the edge. But i is really freightening to recognize the truth your subconscious knows so well.

paarsurrey, you haven't answer my question about child marriage. My question about slavery is the same. Pedo mo had slaves, muslims had sex slaves, it's clear to me.

Moron,
Assertion is not evidence, much less proof. You have stated that "Quran had abolished the slavery immediately as that Book was revealed. …Lots of references can be quoted from Quran. ”, but you have failed to provide a single ayat to back your claim.
Others here, however, have provided references from both Quran and Hadith to show that slavery was practised by Muhammed.

Now, you say that in the case of the former we don't understand the meanings because we are not native Arabic speakers and lack the necessary 'tools' to understand. In the case of the latter, you dismiss all the Hadith as "nothing but a dirty rubbish invented and concocted ... starting 1400 years ago."

Let me consider both your statements in turn.
The Quran:
Speaking for myself (and only for myself) I will agree that I do not speak Arabic. Therefore I have to rely on translations, so I concede that a translation may be mis-leading (intentionally or otherwise).
The translation I use is the Hilali-Khan one. Both Hilali and Khan are Professors at Medina Islamic University, Hilali's chair is that of Islamic faith and teachings. So this should be an authoritative and accurate translation.
Here is their rendition of Sura 33:49-50:
49:'O you who believe! When you marry believing women, and then divorce them before your have SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with them, no 'Iddah [divorce prescibed period] have you to count in respect of them So give them a present, and set them free in a handsome manner.
50:O Prophet! Verily we have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you you have paid their dower, and those [slaves] whom your right hand possesses, whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles, and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who igrated from Mekkah with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her ..." [emphasis mine]

Let's now consider four more translations; Pickthall, Yousuf Ali, Shakir and Rodwell. The last aught to be the most inaccurate, since Rodwell is not a Moslem.
33:49
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! When ye marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of 'Iddat have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present. And set them free in a handsome manner.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! when you marry the believing women, then divorce them before you touch them, you have in their case no term which you should reckon; so make some provision for them and send them forth a goodly sending forth.
Rodwell: O believers! when ye marry believing women, then divorce them before ye have consummated the marriage, ye have no termprescribed you which ye must fulfill towards them; so provide for them and dismiss them with a reputable dismissal.

I think that we can all agree that all FIVE translations say the same thing. Hilali-Khan is bluntest "sexual intercourse", Rodwell is more genteel "consummated the marriage" and Pickthall and Shakir are a bit twee "not touched"; but the context is clear: This verse is talking about sex, and the context carries forward to the next verse...

Verse 50:
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
RODWELL: O Prophet! We allow thee thy wives unto whom thou hast dowered and the slaves whom thy right hand possesseth and the daughters of thy uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thy aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thy uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thy aunts on the mother's side who fled with thee to Medina, and any believing woman who has given herself up to the Prophet if the Prophet desired to wed her - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

Again, all FIVE translations agree as to meaning. NOT ONE conveys your sense - that this was only about "residence" and "control" (or protection, perhaps?), given the context of v49, the "lawful" bit refers to sex.
If it did not, then why did none of the translations say something like:
"O Prophet! Verily we allow these to share your residence and be under your protection: your wives ..."
This would show that v50 was not on the same topic (sexual relations) as v49.

My problem here is this: If your version is the 'correct' one, then why has no (reputable) translator used it?
Clearly anyone who reads any of these translations will be misled by it. Is this not an evil thing to do, to deliberately lead a person away from the' guidance of Allah'?

The Hadith:
You said: "are nothing but a dirty rubbish invented and concocted ... starting 1400 years ago."
Now 1400 years ago would be ~610 CE.
Your prophet had his FIRST revelation in 610.
Are you seriously saying that from the very first moment, Mohammed's companions were busy making up "invented and concocted rubbish"?
If so, you do realise that you are also destroys any credibility the Koran has.
I am reminded of the saying about "throwing out the baby with the bath water"!
Further: Bukhari and Muslim (at least) are called "Sahih" collections. Do you disagree with rendering "Sahih" as truthful/reliable?

Now, I will agree that, perhaps, that by ~250 years after your prophet's death, things had gotten so bad that all the Muslim Imams and teachers, preachers and scholars were utterly corrupt, so that when Bukhari and Muslim wrote the Hadith, they were "invented and concocted rubbish"; or, perhaps, the only 'reliable' materials they had were the "rubbish" "invented and concocted" by the companions (who, btw, have to be the 'headliners' in the Isnad of any Sahih tradition).
What this means, of course, is that 250 years after Mo, Islam was a totally failed and corrupt religion.
You have my pity!
Even if this is so, the Hadith are still very valuable for two reasons:
1. they tell us how Muslims thought by this time.
2. They (along the the Koran) enable us to explore the roots of the Sharia and fiqh.

But you go further:
"The fact that Muslims restarted the slave trade after 40 Al-Hejira, under the despotic regimes of Bani Umayyad’s tyrants, cannot be taken as Islamic. The situation had drastically changed after 40 Al-Hejira when dictatorship had again dominated the Arab and Muslim society."
Are you aware of your claim here? (the Hijira was in 622CE, so 40 years after is 662CE - not allowing for shorter Islamic year.)
You are saying that a mere 30 year after of Mo's death (632CE), before the last of the 'companions' was dead, Islam was already a failed religion, with its' people abandoning clear Koranic presciptions?
My mind boggles.

So to summarise;
1. You claim to be better able to understand the Koran than Medinan Professors of Islamic Faith and Teaching and all other respected translators.
2. You regard all Hadith as "corrupt rubbish", thereby undermining Sharia and fiqh.
3. You accuse the companions of manufacturing "dirty and corrupt rubbish" from the first, thus destroying any veracity that the Koran may have.
4. You claim that within 30 years, the Umma was so corrupt that they had re-started the slave trade that was proscribed and forbidden, thereby admitting to Islam's failure as a religious/political entity in a very short time-frame.

Well, I am glad that we can agree, moron, I'd give you points 2-4 without demur.

Moron said:
“And it is the opulent and the powerful nations of the west who are on a rampage around the world with their military might. I would appreciate if your modern and educated public raise their voices against their rulers and stop their hegemonistic designs on false political and religious pretexts.”

Thank you, Moron, for that word; Hegemonistic”. That is what we think Islam is, or a big part of the Muslims are. It describes the world as divided in a Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb. This means that many Muslims see the hegemony of Islam in the Islamic countries as self-evident and justified. But without fair elections we really think it isn’t justified at all. Our goal should be to let people in all Islamic countries get a reasonable education. And a rational mind to think for themselves, to be independent. Then when they choose voluntarily for Islam it is OK.

You see, because Islam or many Muslims think so hegemonistic in the countries where they have power, it is only logical that the inhabitants of dar-ul-Harb think that they will want to think and behave like that in their own countries too. So Ali Sina, many FFI-visitors, many websites are fighting for Freedom and Islam uses and seems intent on using force, and force by and in favor of only a minority too. Look at Iran. And we think in the end Freedom can prevail over those who use force or want to use force, but for this victory we do have to fight.

It is for this freedom-fight that we seek to scrutinize, criticize, chastize Islam and the behavior of Muslims (especially when they are in power) and for this we also engage in a search for the truth. And please bear in mind, that Islamic scriptures are by no means only for Moslims, they are for the whole of mankind, to judge them as they please.

And we now have ample evidence that Islam cannot be wholly truthfull, perfect, or coming from God. There is simply a ton of reasonable doubt, for honest, logical minds. And if Islam were to be true after all, it is a big shame that a God, who presumably gave us our brains, nowadays, wants us to rely on a book, originating from the 7th century, without even the possibility of amending or improving it. Because we also have ample evidence of its mistakes, contradictions, ambiguity, and even very probably agressive texts.

If Muslims want to be left alone on this site, they should consider siding with democracy, relying only on the merits of Islam, to compete in a fair competition, and not to rely on force anywhere on Earth. They should side with the democratic forces in the world, especially in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other dictatorial Islamic countries. What kind of people are Muslims, anyway? In their own countries they play with unfair advantage, like playing soccer with 11 against 5, or playing Chess, with the opponents lacking the Queen and Rooks. Can’t you see Ali Sina basically, primarily, is only for fair play? If Islam were a small religion, he wouldn’t bother with refuting its claims on the truth!

It is for this hegemonistic behavior of Muslims that we are so glad with the Ex-muslims, who match the Muslims in zeal and who are in favor of Enlightenment and Democracy, who thus offer us a much better deal than the Muslims themselves by and large. And if you Muslims want us to refrain from thoroughly discrediting Islam, it is time for you to join our democratic side wholeheartedly, unreservedly against all those who want to obtain more than their fair share in society (through votes and honest campaigning). And yes, we would then gladly oppose with you all those other hegemonistic people elsewhere.

Jonc

My dear you sure are a full time professional working for this blog and are equipped with all the formidable paraphernalia that your “mission” demands. The paradigm in which this blog is operating does not justify a serious discussion, as the attitudes are fundamentally biased and above all, indecency seems to be the order of the day. Just have a look to some of the comments above and you will agree with my conclusion. The problem with me is the lack of that amount of time that the subject requires,,,and also my conviction that your mission is not understanding but dehumanizing the sacred personalities of Islam. This in itself a self-degrading tendency, humanly speaking. That fact precludes any wholehearted participation. And that is a discredit to your blog. It has earned a bad name due to its hate-mongering and filthy street slangs.

The predominant participation here is that of Christians. They boast of “love thy enemy” and “offer the other cheek when slapped on one”, and act in blatant contradiction. Still they do not want to admit that Christianity is and has been a total failure. I do think that the foremost priority must be to cleanse our own house first. Then go on to establish institutions and missions to malign the characters of others. The above two tenets of the Bible are not practicable now and have never been practicable throughout the human history, being totally against the nature of man, illogical, irrational and will definitely result, if tried to be practiced, into slavery or self-annihilation.

With this prelude, not very pleasant to the ears of course, I now try to offer short answers to your comments.

Quran abolished the slavery in two ways.
1. The major source of slaves among Arabs in Jahiliyyah were the battles. Men and women were captured and brought home and distributed among the victorious. Quran proclaimed:
47/4: ……..wa imma mannan ba’adu wa imma fidaa’an…….“When you fight those against you (kuffaar - don’t go here to the literal meaning. It means those who refuse or deny your right to live as free men), you also kill them and when you overcome them, capture the remaining ones. Later on, set them free on payment of a meager amount of tax (fidyah - fidaa’an) or as (those who are unable to pay) a grant.” And that was the major revolutionary command that shut the doors of slavery once for all. There is no mention of a start of a new era of slavery in Quran.

2. 7/157 : wa yadha’a a’anhum israhum wa al aghlaal allati kaanat alayhim : Quran is proclaiming here the objective of Muhammad’s advent, among other things, “to alleviate the burdens and remove the chains of slavery from the backs and necks of the humanity”.

3. The phrase “ma malakat Ayemaanukum”. Yes this word deals with the question of slaves. Those under your right hand’s possession, means slaves, servants, employees, and all those working under you. Quran has numerous verses containing this phrase. The phrase expresses the past form of verb. Those who were, or already are under you. This past tense undoubtedly proves that it only deals with the slaves already existing in the society and is not even mentioning any new slaves or slavery. And according to the traditions of the times, slavery was commonly in vogue all over the world, in the Christendom too at a very large scale. Those had to be assimilated in the society as equals. Therefore all the verses containing the words ma malakat ayemaanukum are giving instructions for the welfare and the gradual eradication of the already existing-from-the-past slavery from the society. Some of those verses order Muslims to marry the slave women to give them a free and respectable status. Some verses order setting free those slaves if you want forgiveness for a sin, etc. And some of them are ordering not to discriminate against and to grant equal status for your servants and employees. This paragraph refers to all the verses that specify the phrase “ma malakat ayemanukum”.

I hope and wish this answers your most important and persistent question of : “moron, give me a Quranic verse that abolishes slavery”.

Remember Jonc, I am going to great lengths, with all my limitations, to satisfy you only because your “demeanour” is quite humane. Your blog is not worth it. It’s a den of lunatics. Its targets are diabolic. They want to mass murder one and a half billion human beings on this earth and thus ruin the mother earth with their fire power.

You really have worked hard and have written at length about Quraanic tafaseers (interpretations), traditions (ahaadith or rivayaat), sharia and fiqh; and you have referred to many of them and recommended to take them as authentic ones. It will be tiresome to deal point by point. So I give a brief resume based on the scientific and research based insight in the history of early Muslim period. Hope that will deal with all of your points in general.

My dear, you are amazing. I feel as if I am in debate with a Muslim following the present No.2 Islam, as against the true No.1 Islam of the Quran. No.2 Islam coming out of human fabricated narrations (rivayaat - traditions), human made shariiah and fiqah (the jurisprudence), and of enemies’ fabricated, subjective tafaseers of Quran.
No.1 Islam being the True Islam of Quran, and of Those interpretations of Quran that are derived and originate from the Quran itself, objectively, strictly adhering to the rules and norms of classic Arabic grammar and authentic Arabic dictionaries and lexicons.

Your fight against me is in favour of No.2 Islam. Ironically it is embraced by 99% of the present day Muslims and it has an ugly face. They are in favour of all the four man-made ingredients of the No.2 Islam, as are you, for that provides you with your gun-powder. So their arguments against yours prove futile. They cannot go against the traditions, shariah, fiqah, subjective tafaseers. All these elements are against the true No.1 Islam and distort its face. So they cannot offer the truth about Islam from Quran and become apologetic. I am not the one to be apologetic and can show you many many lunacies and self-serving, human invented beliefs in Christianity. You only have to study Berterand Russel’s Why I am not a Christian, to know many things.

Before I give a general resume, as I said earlier, I will take up one of the verses to show serious flaws in translation/interpretations and that alone should suffice to prove that Yousuf Ali, Pickthal or others were all misguided and thus misconstrued the Arabic words and thus committed the crime of distorting the God’s genuine message by an urge of blind following.

Verse 33/5o : (you have detailed its traditional meaning and a repetition is not needed):
And now read the real meaning and feel dumb-founded:
“O Prophet, we have authorized the staying/residence under your control of the following categories of women: 1)Your wives unto whom……… 2) those already under your command from those that have come back to you from Kafirs (without having guardians)
3) those who are your cousins and have migrated with you (having no guardians) and 4) those who volunteer themselves for your mission. In case the Prophet sees fit he can GET THEM MARRIED. THS AUTHRITY IS SOLELY FOR YOU AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER MOMINEEN.”

Now the word Hallal has this second meaning that appropriately applies here. And “Ahlalna” means we allow, authorize, the stay or residence. See examples: “wa anta halla bi haza al balad”. Are you the resident of this city. “Allazi Ahlalna Dar ul Muqaamah”, whom we have given residence in place that will remain for ever, etc.

And there is the word “Istankaah” and that does not mean to marry. It means to arrange someone to get married. Resultantly, it is not the open licence for the prophet to marry as many women as he likes and establish a “Haram”, you know what I mean! Istankaah is from Baab Istaf’aal of the verb. Meaning to arrange to get something done not to do that himself.

I believe the above example will corroborate my claim that all, all the tafaseers are there to distort the Quran, be them by anybody!!!!!! And a lot of writing won’t be needed to establish this point.

About fabrication of Hadith, when I said 1400 years ago, I did not intend to be very specific about the figures. But you again went to point scoring and started exact calculations to prove the figure wrong. Be constructive my dear. I just gave an approximate figure and that was not the point of discussion.

Let me reply to your summarizations in the end of your commentary.
1. I have just proved my better understanding of Quran by pointing out either the ignorance or the dirty intentions of the interpreters.
2. I condemn with full responsibility the Hadith, the Sharia and fiqh and have explained that they are man-made not divine, under the despotic regimes of Muslims dictators of Bani ummayad and Bani Abbas.
3. I never accused the companions. I maintain that there were no real narrators of Hadith. There were ghost ones as their antecedents were either not verified or they were proved as enemies of Islam by the “scholars of Probe and Investigation” in the 2nd,3rd, 4th and 5th centuries AH.
4. I do claim that the true face of Islam had gradually disappeared starting 40 AH with the advent of the rule of old Quraishi despots, who just could never go along with the tenets of Islam.
It is the No. 2 Islam that all the Muslims have been following and which you are so apt to involve in the blame game of yours.

My brief summary of the history of early Islam, as to what actually happened and how, ……. Some time later.

As to your remarks about Islam being a failure, you have first to understand what Islam is and means. Only then you will come cross the reality of Islam being a failure or success. And it needs a lot more discussion.

Dear Moron,
thank you for your reply.
I am quite prepared to accept what you say about Mark 1 and Mark 2 Islam.

I would like you to believe me when I say that my 1400 year ago argument was not intended as point scoring (though I agree it could be taken as it). I was ascertaining just when, and who by, you thought the 'rot set in'.
Equally, please don't blame me if you use inaccurate figures. Let's not do a Richard Nixon here:
"I know that you believe you understand what it was that I said, but I am not sure you are aware that what I said was not what I meant."

Further, you are quite right - my arguments are aimed at the 99% of Moslems who believe mark 2. This is for two reasons:
1. They form the vast majority (99%).
2. (I am guessing here) they are the ones, (not the 1% true muslims as you put it) who provide the World with the 'service' of suicide bombers.

If I can show that the 'mark 2' form of 'Islam' as irrational, inhumane, inhuman etc - surely you will agree that that is a good thing?
Many of us here would be only too delighted to see an honest re-evaluation of the Islamic texts by the general muslim population!
-----
By the way, Christians are told to "love the enemy". what that means can be most easily grasped by a re-casting into a somewhat different form: 'love the sinner, not the sin.'
Thus we can love muslims and still be 'ferocious' critics of "Mark 2" Islam - though I concede that most Muslims (the 99%ers) would find that hard to understand.
As for "turning the other cheek" this is meant more that we should not seek revenge( in a general sense), though it can, and has been, applied in inter-personal situations effectively. However, there are cases where it is a worse evil to stand aside and allow evil to flourish unchecked than to opose it by force. For this reason I think that Christians were correct to fight (eg) the second world war against Hitler and his allies.
Perhaps, though, this is also something for another time.
-----
Is there a proper translation of the Koran available? I'd be genuinely interested to have one to compare and contrast with the (to pick your word) ignorant ones.

Who are the "scholars of Probe and Investigation”? I have to admit that I've never heard of them anywhere. Can you give me some sources, I'd like to see what they say.
-----
BTW, I'm not a "full-time professional" here. I've just had a prior existence among "mark 2" Moslems for a decade and a half. Am I to blame for the 'image' of Islam they communicated so clearly?

Oh,
I've just realised that my "btw" could be taken to mean that I'm an apostate from Islam.
I am not. I have never been a Muslim. Had I been, I'd have had far less trouble in my "previous existence", but I found "mark 2" Islam utterly opposed to my personal beliefs and attitudes.

Moron, could you comment on this verse ?

Q : 2, 178. " Oh you who believe ! The law of equality is prescribed to you in case of murder : the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the women for the women." ( Morally atrocious !)

! - What means "THE SLAVE FOR THE SLAVE", if the Quran abolished slavery right from the beginning. There is no need to say that, so much the more it is said for ever. If Muslims know that they may kill slave for slave, and this is an eternal word of God, is slavery an institution in Islam, till the end of the time even for eternity ?

How Muslims understood and understand this verse ?

Muhammad abolished slavery and Allah did not ?

2 - If Muhammad abolished slavery, as you say, why he did not simply say : "We abolishes slavery and slaves from now on are free and henceforth slavery is a sin and those who practice it will go to hell. "

How come we are still discussing slavery in Islam, here if the Quran abolished it 1400 years ago ? Is slavery still discussed in Christianism, Buddhism, at the ONU ?

Moron, these are very legitimate questions. We don't have any "mission".

"Christians are not better" is not an argument, it's an admission.

All your argumentation rests on an unreasonnable and unlikely question of translation you are the only one on earth to see. This is very weak.

I hope this should not need you hours and hours of researches and a " formidable paraphernalia " to answer.

Just answer simply, as you, a true Muslim, understands it but with more likely arguments, please.

2 - Don't you see the atrocity of this ? If I kill one of your slave you are allowed to kill one of mine ?

This should not need hours and hours of researches and a formidable paraphernalia.

paarsurrey, where are you? Do you still alive?
Hmmm, recently i watched tv that showed the life of muslims in french. There was an egyptian guy named tariq ramadan. He said that in islamic countries (including saudi arabia) the slavery is common practice. He talked about ijtihad or something like that. Want to know the reality? I can show you real events involving indonesian workers in islamic countries.

Mooo, Tariq Ramadan now works, and presumably lives, in my city, Rotterdam.

He is employed by the city-council as a professor, to help with the Integration of the Muslims in Rotterdam. He is of Egyptian origine, but his nationality is Swiss. I heard him speak on 2 occasions. And although he is controversial, I mightily liked it, when he told his predominantly Islamic Dutch audience, that they were primarily DUTCH, that Islam and Democracy are NOT mutually exclusive.

Lately he got into a controversy over some comments of him about Homosexuality. You know, that it is a disease and not liked by God. But he remained in office, after he denied it.

Hi friends

I asked a simle questeion.Quran/Islam/Muhammad never allowed any slavery; if somebody practices slavery ans he is a Muslim, it is his personal fault/sin; since Quran did not command to have slaves so Quran/Islam/Muhammad are not responsible for that act. I think it is neither fair nor a human act to accuse one like that .

Since Quran is the primary source of guidance of Islam;please quote a verse from Quran with the context where Islam enjoins to have slaves.This will logically end the discussion.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jonc,

Makes me surprisingly happy to see the academic etiquette that you displayed by accepting my explanations. Nobody today can make anybody believe his words or agree with one, while talking in religious context. But truth when proved with arguments and references and linguistic norms and principles just cannot be set aside. The example I explained, I believe, has confirmed my “allegations” that people generally copy from some pioneer source and spread the distortions far and wide blindly- - - - “having not even the preliminary knowledge of the grammar of the respective language”. When some centuries elapse on some religious writing, it automatically assumes the status of the sacred and the holy, and to probe, investigate, touch and alter that, becomes a sin,,,, Whether or not it consists of misinterpretations of nonsensically horrible diameters. Dear friend, the same exactly has happened with Quranic translations/interpretations (of course, under a very far-reaching, multi-dimensional and versatile conspiracy). And now when I say that, it does not remain an “assertion”, as I have proved it with authority in my last mail. Now I come back to answer your points:

Yes I totally accept your explanation about the figure of “1400 years”. We make some mistakes of precision and total accuracy in the flow of our analytical thinking. I think they are to be ignored and overlooked if they do not affect the main points of discussion.

I am again happy that you fully grasp the present situation of Muslims who are 90% (or may be 99%) followers of No.2 Islam. If you can believe my hard work and research, all the complaints of violence, narrow-mindedness, fundamentalism, whatever that the western world has against Islam, emanate from this No.2 Islam and its blind following. This No.2 Islam is madness. It is the Muslim clergy that gives it sustenance and perpetuity and it is they who, under its teachings (traditions, not Quran) inculcate the seeds of violence, hatred, bias and that “we” and “they” attitude.

The type of re-evaluation of Quranic texts that you hope Muslim can do, will be a farce in the present situation of clergy domination in the Muslim world. It should not be surprising for you to note that I am on the hit list for being a Quranic Muslim (No.1 Islam). For my protection, I have to maintain a counterfeit personality in my writings.

I already know the true interpretations of the Christian tenets “love thy enemy” and “offer the other cheek….”. Therefore I already agree with your explanations. I am a universalist and see things in global perspective. My conviction, based on Quran, is that all divine religions are true but everywhere mis-translations and misinterpretations have ruined many good aspects. I differ from your clergy only to the extent that they also adopt literal meanings of the above texts and when they preach those literal meanings, they become a joke. Just as Muslim clergy has made Quran a joke!!

Quran’s interpretations under the most scholarly and highly linguistic pattern have only recently been undertaken. They have not yet been compiled wholly and are in bits and pieces, subject-wise, and they are still not available in English. We face a tremendous challenge and Mullahs are out to kill, burn, bombard and destroy our very small groups scattered all over the country. It will take some considerable time before we come up with a comprehensive volume and more time will be needed for its English version. However, you are most welcome my dear to ask for explanations wherever needed in your quest to know the divine truth of things. There always have been scholars with true understanding of Quran in the past. They were killed on false pretexts and on Mullahs edicts and their writings were destroyed under the despotic Muslim regimes.

Quran recognizes Christians, Jews, Hindus, Parsees, all the faiths as divine. According to Quran, Muslim is not the name or monopoly of a particular group of people who are Mohammadans. Muslim is that, whatever faith he is recognized by, who surrenders to the will/verdicts of God …and….offers and provides peace and security to the humanity. This is a global perspective. In this way there are Muslims (true Muslims) all over the world in every faith and they are in majority among their own environments, for most of the human beings need and want peace. Also by this Quranic standard, those calling themselves Muslims (all of the No.2 Muslims) are not Muslims at all as they are badly entangled in the crisis of cognitive biases. Mullah is to be blamed in the first instance for this crisis, and then comes the despot, the unconscientious dictators ruling all across the Muslim world for almost 1400 years (don’t again calculate the exact period please!).

If someone brings to you a Quranic verse against the above explanations, you refer that to me for its true concept, according to its context, and for its true interpretation according to linguistic principles and in the light of the true overall message of Quran.
As for traditions (hadith, rivayaat), I have given the undeniable proof that they are rubbish and garbage. It is a laughing stock in view of the fact that they themselves deny their own authenticity! Hence those who quote from them become a laughing stock themselves. Take it or leave it. Entirely up to your intellectual judgement.

Scholars of probe and investigations were those scholars who took as their responsibility the mammoth task of verifying the antecedents of thousands of the narrators of traditions to check whether they can be taken as authentic or serious. In Arabic they are called: “Aaimma Jirah wa Ta’adeel”. Prominent among them were Imaam Zahbi. Hishaam bin Urwa, Imaam Maalik, Imaam Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qataan, Ibn-e-Adi, Imaam Sha’abi, Imam Yahya bin Moeen, Imaam Hambal …. There are many many names and need to be taken from old books and require time. The important thing is that almost all the references (narrators) were of dubious characters or non-existent and thus this material was declared as fabricated stories to malign the holy characters and the history of the golden age of Islam. All under the despotic regimes that started from 40 Al-Hejira, that lacked the true spirit of Islam.

I found you fully equipped with No.2 material against Islam, that’s why I guessed you belong to the pay-roll of this mission, and used the word professional. No insult ever intended. Also agree that you or others cannot be blamed for your laments as the No.2 face of Islam is in itself abhorrent.

I would only complain however, that people should listen to No.1, true Islam and try to understand the anomaly existing in this faith. There is no wonder that similar anomalies are existing in other faiths. Let us make our perspective global and humanistic…..rather universal. Try to see Quran, who is the final and most comprehensive edition of divine guidance, in its true universal perspective. There are people belonging to Quranic Islam (No.1) who will gladly come forward to help and consult. There is no implying here however that other faiths were not the true faiths when they were given. It is the crisis of man-made additions and wrong interpretations that we have to deal with for a total harmony. Thanks.

Jonc, even if you be an apostate, a No.1 (Quranic) Muslim like myself would love you, because Quran does not impose any sin or punishment or restrictions on leaving Islam and then coming back to it, and then doing the same act many times. Want to see the Quranic verses that apply?

Paarsurrey,

Where the Quran "ENJOINS" Muslims to have slaves ????!!!!!! Are you idiot or what ? You play on words ! Who, on earth, ever "ENJOINED" people to have slaves ? It is not necessary to "ENJOIN" people. Just speaking about slavery as an allowed custom or practice in a society is enough ! I just proved you that Allah, Muhammad the Paraclete and the Quran, approve slavery when they divide men in Free men and slaves. Is Quran eternal words of God or not ? Meditate upon this a little bit, please.

You try to deviate the discussion with a well known muslim trickery. Or you trick yourself.

Moron,

It is evident that the majority of Muslims don't have slaves. The question is not there. Slavery is an admitted institution sanctioned by Allah in the Quran which Muslims believe to be the eternal words of God. Muhammad did not sanctioned slavery and Muhammad is a model for Muslims. Muhammad benefited sexually from female slaves.
Why Muslims don't practice slavery ? Not because Quran does'nt give them the right to do so but because they are ashamed to do it in front of the civilized world. Islam never abolished slavery and it can't without negating the Quran.

Nobody can believe your "very far-reaching, multi-dimensional and versatile conspiracy" against Islam. I don't want to be harsh with you but your complaints, your pity on yourself, your feeling of victimization will not impede me to tell you the truth. It would be easier for you to quit Islam and change religion than to try to sustain what is absolutely unsustainable. Islam and your ideals don't fit together. Don't count on me to take pity on you, you must be put in front of your contradictions without menagements.

Please, I would like to hear your commentaries on Q: 2, 178. Did Allah, IN THE QURAN, divided society into free men and slaves or not ? Did Allah abolish slavery here ? Tell us where the Quran abolishes slavery, please.

Dear Moron,
You and I are in a lot of agreement here.
I can't begin to tell you how refreshing (not to mention unexpected and unprecedented etc) it is to have a Muslim (of any hue) unequivocally condemn the violence and madness of "type 2" Islam.

May I make a suggestion: Would you agree that we could call this type "historic Islam". I think this is an accurate, non-perjorative and non-claiming descriptor, since this is the 'face' that Islam has presented throughout the vast majority of its history.
Similarly, would it be acceptable to describe your beliefs as "early Islamic" for similar reasons? If you have another term (non-perjorative, non-claiming), then, wiithouit prejudice, I'll happily adopt that.
I think it would make this easier for others to follow.

I am sorry that the translation of the Koran you speak of into English isn't available. I hope it will be soon.

May I trouble you with a question or two:

1.What, according to 'your' Islam is the position of women? Allow me to elucidate a little; all here are well aware of the subordinate position of women in historic-Islam and the discriminatory nature of fiqh, Sharia etc.
How do you understand the treatment of women in the early days up to the start of the Ummayid Caliphate (which represents the 'point-in-time' when historic-Islam became ascendant)?
2. You mention "Imaam Zahbi. Hishaam bin Urwa, Imaam Maalik, Imaam Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qataan, Ibn-e-Adi, Imaam Sha’abi, Imam Yahya bin Moeen, Imaam Hambal". Can you offer any further guidance about them, such as dates, alternate spellings, locations etc.
Reason I ask:
Hishaam bin Urwa (or Hisham ibn Urwa?) I've found as a Hadith narrator in Bukhari (some sources claim he had a poor memory and is, himslef, unreliable!).
Imam Malik I assume is the Malik who wrote 'Al-Muwatta' the first book of fiqh and progenitor of the Maliki school of fiqh.
Imaam Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qataan -is this the sixth Imam of the Shia? (Also spelt Al-Quattan?)
The only dateable ref. I have found to Ibn-e-Adi is AH 365, which puts him well after the main Hadith collections and thus further removed from the sources.
Imam Sha'ab also escapes my identification apart from Dar-ul-sha'ab - a town in Iraq [I think!].
Imam Yahya bin Moeen, I can't find anywhere (online).
Imam Hambal (=HaNbal?), the one(s) I have found are also contemporary with Bukhari/Muslim.

I often have a problem with this: people's Arabic names being translated differently, or several people with the same name.
I'm trying to locate these folks and failing (at least insofar as being certain I've got the right ones!)
Help, please.
----
I sympathise with your lament, Moron. It seems to me that the "true Islam" (as you put it) is a small to tiny minority and utterly drowned out by hate-filled hist-Islam. All of us, yourself included, are fighting historic-Islam.
---
I'd be delighted to have the verses on apostasy. It will be interesting to compare then to H-Islam translations.

paarsurrey wrote:

"Since Quran is the primary source of guidance of Islam;please quote a verse from Quran with the context where Islam enjoins to have slaves.This will logically end the discussion."

Let's do the reverse, because it seems that you are having a hard time digesting reality. Is there any verse in quran that forbid slavery? Answer yes or no.

[...] This post was Twitted by g1namak [...]

PaarSurrey:
You said "Quran/Islam/Muhammad never allowed any slavery. Please quote a verse from Quran with the context where Islam enjoins to have slaves."

In the first place allowing and enjoining are not the same thing, so the Koran could certainly allow (or permit) slavery without enjoining it.

So let's separate out the two points. I'll take the second one "enjoining", first.

This word means "urge to do" (OED). As far as I know there is no verse in the Koran that directly urges Muslims to take slaves. So, to that extent you are correct.

But what about whether Mo "allowed" or permitted slavery?
The first answer comes from history, given the presence of slave-hareems, eunuchs etc, no one can rationally deny that Islam has historically allowed and practised slavery on a massive scale.
The second answer is this: (As far as I know) there is also no verse in the Koran that PROHIBITS slavery. If I am wrong on this, please quote the Sura and Ayat. I have searched several translations for "slave", "slavery" etc and can find none where slavery is stated to be prohibited.
The third answer comes from the ayats below:

K2:178 "O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, ..."
Comment: Note present tense: implies that thereare slaves.

K2:221 "... and certainly a believing slave woman is better than an idolater, ..."

K4:3 " ... you may marry whichever other women seem good to you, ... or your slaves ..."

K4:24 "Forbidden to you are women already married, except your slaves. God has ordained all this for you. ..."
Comment: God has "ordained" that you can have sex with your married slaves.

K4:36 "Worship God, join nothing with him. Be good ... to your slaves. ..."
Comment:The command to worship God is an eternal one Here it is linked to the good deed of being "good to your slaves". This 'good deed' is impossible without slaves on whom to perform it.

K4:92 "... If anyone kills a believer by mistake he MUST free a muslim slave ... Anyone who lacks the means [muslim slaves] to do this must fast for two consecutive months..." (emphasis mine)
Comment: freeing the muslim slave is the MUST, non-muslim slaves won't do.

K23:1-7 "Successful believers are those who ...abstain from sex ... except with their wives or their slaves. With these they are not to blame."
Comment: Again this is in the present tense, not the past and indicates an on-giong activity.

K23:31 "And tell the believing women to ...not reveal their adornment save to their own ... [female] slaves or male attendants who lack vigour [eunuchs]..."
Comment: Here women are told (by implication] that they can go naked in front of their female slaves and eunuchs. As far as I know, neither in Mecca nor Madinah did Mohammed and his companions have eunuchs. Thus this ayat 'speaks to the future' and presages the trade in Eunuchs that was carried out by the historical "dar-ul-Islam".

K24:32: "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves;"
Comment: Again: why say this if slaves aren't common-place and note the present tense of the translation.

K30:28 "He [Allah] gives you this example, drawn from your own lives: do you make your slaves full partners with an equal share in what We have given you? Do you fear them as you fear each other? ..."
Comment: "drawn from your own lives" that (today) means the lives of Muslims today. I say this because there is no reference to "the believers", "companions" or similar in the previous 10 ayats. Thus this verse assumes that Muslims will always have slaves. There is nothing in the next 18 ayat to contra-indicate much less contradict that either.

K58:34: "And (as for) those who put away their wives by Zihar [calling them their] mothers then would recall what they said, they should free a slave before they touch each other; to that you are admonished (to conform); and Allah is Aware of what you do. And whoever has not the means, he should fast for two months ..."
Comment: Apart from its general weirdness, this verse requires (first) the freeing of a slave if a man insults/divorces his wife in a particular way,. Note the emphasis here, the man is "admonished to conform" only if he "has not the means" (= doesn't happen to own slaves) is an alternative permitted.

[All translations are from Shakir or Haleem. I am aware that I am quoting part verses and using elipses to contract them, both highly dubious processes which can be abused to a criminal degree, so I ask readers of this to verify that I have not perverted the meaning of the verses as translated by the Moslem translators I used at http://al-Quran.info.]

Putting the Suras chronologically: Suras 23 and 30 are mid to late Meccan, between about 6 and 1 before Hijira. Suras 2,4,24, 58 are all medinan and range from 2AH to ~7AH respectively (Rodwell, quoting Arab authorities). Now I will accept that (assuming slavery was established in pre-Islamic Arabia) it is not unreasonable to suppose that Mo would give commands about existing slaves in the early days of his ministry. However, if he had banned slavery early on, I find it much harder to understand why he was still speaking of slavery in an uncritical, accepting manner 15 years( three quarters) of the way into his ministry (he died 12 years after the Hijira).
The Medinan ayats are particularly difficult to explain away: as translated by all texts I've been able to reference not only are they present tense, but their language refers to the Umma in general, ie all believers for all time.
The implication of this is that as time goes on, Mohammed gets more in favour of slavery rather than less and I find the Koranic evidence for this,as presented by the translators, frankly overwhelming. In particular K4:24 "ordains" sex with married slaves. Setting aside the plain nastiness of this ayat (as translated) if something is ordained it is compulsory. If sex with slaves is compulsory ... need I join the dots?

So, to answer your question: No, the Koran does not "enjoin" slavery, it merely assumes it as well as subtly condoning and advocating it. Further, as Mo's political power and wealth grow we find his acceptance of slavery increasing (possibly as a result of his gaining his own slaves - as recorded in the Hadith).

Dear Jonc,

I am happy that my comments have been refreshing for you. Pls. do not be disillusioned by the following comment:

“Islam No.2 has consisted of a lot of violence and madness and inhumanity, including invoking slavery on a massive level again. Christianity too was behaving in the same paradigm throughout the medieval history. Both were under tyrant, oppressive and autocratic regimes. And they had very little to do with the tenets of their holy books and the teachings of their prophets.”

I would thank you if we both have agreement here too.

As for your suggestion about the titles befitting to both the Islams, my opinion would be that calling No.2 Islam as “Historic Islam” would automatically include the first 40 years of true Quranic Islam too in it, and might confuse the reader. That is why I have given it No.2 in order of priority and chronology. But you still can think of another suitable title. However, No.1 Islam is the “True/Quranic Islam”. Your questions:-

1. Quranic Islam gives totally equal position to women and men as it elaborates in Chapter 33, verse 35:
“If men be capable of fully surrendering to Allah, Women also have this capability to surrender the same way. If men can offer peace to humanity then women can also do so. If men can preserve their potentialities for use only under the Quranic guidance, then women also are capable to do so. If men can prove the truth by their actions, then women can also do that. If men have perseverance and fortitude, then women also have it……..etc. etc.” All the capabilities of women are equal to those of men.
Chapter 9, verse 71. Peaceful men and women (Muslims) are companions and friends to each other. They both establish the good and prohibit the evil. Both establish the system of enforcing Allah’s orders (Salaat) and providing sustenance and nourishment (Zakaat). Both obey the orders of the Islamic Government (Allah and the Prophet means Quranic government). Both are those whom Allah has taken under the shadow of his un-ending mercy and Allah is the Dominant and the Wise.
Chapter 4, verse 32: Women’s ownership and legacy:
“Both should not wish for that which Allah has made ample and surplus for any one of them. The earnings and the legacy of Man is his and same of woman is hers. They can both earn and can keep what they inherit. And both should look to Allah (means Islamic welfare government here) for increase in their earnings. The government (Allah) is, or has to be, aware of their necessities.
Chapter 4, verse34: Because some natural characteristics or peculiarities of men and women are different from each other and because it is usually the duty of men to earn a living, so men, as a usual practice, are ordained to provide for the sustenance of women. In this way they (women) will enhance their capabilities and will use them for the purpose for which they have been created and will safeguard that thing (here reference is to the process conception, up to the birth and recuperation ) which has been entrusted to them. In case some women refuse to accept their role (as mothers….. and that is a big role in building a society) they must be briefed about it as a prime duty. Still if they do not agree, leave them alone in their privacies. And explain the whole thing again to them.” (There is no beating involved as is usually misconstrued in the No.2 Islam. The word used here is ”Azrabuhunna”. Azrab has many meanings including, strike, start a journey, and explain…..as in “Zarabullahu masalan”: Allah explains the example of….).

Your next question belongs to a subject of deep research in history. Yes, these Imaams were those who first heard traditions from a source and then publicized them to others as was the routine of that particular period. Everybody wanted to become a Sheikh al-Hadith and that usually gave them a high status in the Clergy and the illiterate society. But then some of them got fed up with this bogus material and started probing and investigating this material and its narrators’ antecedents in order to check their authenticity and separate the true from the false. Imam Maalik is the second Imaam of Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence), and comes after Imam Abu Hanifa - almost his contemporary. Imam Abu Hanifa (d.150 AH) did not refer to traditions at all and had a logical pattern throughout his life.
Whatever we find as Fiqh of Imaam Abu Hanifa has been written by two of his pupils, Imam Muhammad and Imaam Yousuf. Imam Malik (d.170 AH) wrote Al-Muatta and its different available manuscripts contain from 300 to 500 Hadith. As long as he was alive, he kept discarding hadith from his manuscript every year, becoming more and more unacceptable to him. Had he lived longer, there would be no Al-Muatta. Ibn Adi (d.365) wrote Kitaab adh Dhuafaa about the fabricated ahadith and the liers in the fourth century. Yahya ibn Moeen was called amir-ul-momineen of ahadith and was one of biggest critic of ahadith. He was a contemporary of the fourth Imaam of Fiqh Ahmed bin Hambal, both in the 3rd century. Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qattan was the greatest critic and investigator of Ahadith in 2nd century. He was not the sixth Imaam of Shi’its. Had nothing to do with Shiaism. Ahmed bin Hambal was the one whose verdict is very famous and that declares: There are three kind of books that have no reality in them - Books about Dreams (Mulaham), about holy wars (Maghaazi) and on Tafaseers of Quran (interpretations). Because all these books were based on Ahaadith (traditions, narrations, hearsay, having no sold bases).In the 2nd century, Imaam Sufyaan Sori (d.161 ah), Imaam Sha’abi or Sha’aba, Imaam Sufyaan bin Oyaynah (d.198), Fudhail bin Ayadh (d.157 AH), Dhahaak bin Muzahim (d.105) all bitterly opposed the growing tendency to quote self-made stories and label them as Hadith of Rasool. Imaam Bukhari of Sahih Al-Bokhar himself collected six hundred thousand of such stories and discarded five hundred ninety thousand something of them as false and fabricated.

Don’t try to locate these people Jonc, there are five hundred thousand of them and you will get lost. Your precious time will go waste. The original source to know Islam is the only one, the Quran, a Quran translated and interpreted according to the principles elaborated within this book, the main principle being “Tasreef al-Ayaat”, meaning collecting all the verses relating to one topic from the length of all verses and then sit down to interprete them in context with each other.

Apostasy according to Quran:
2/256: There is no compulsion or forcefulness in the matter of religion (way of life - Deen), as the right guidance from the wrong have been elaborated.
3/89-90: “Those who adopted Eimaan then turned to Kufr, and then kept going ahead in their Kufr, the repentance of such people will not be acceptable and those are the lost ones.” Check there is no punishment by anybody except in the hereafter.
4/137: “Those who accepted Islam (Eimaan), after that became Kafir, then became Momin, then turned to Kufr, after that exceeded in their Kufr, Allah will not provide them protection and they will not be guided to the right path by Allah.” Again, no punishment.
5/54: “O people of faith, whoever become apostate from amongst you, then Allah will create another group of people in their place, whom Allah would love and they would love Him (meaning obeying his laws)”. Again, no punishment of any kind.

There are many others conforming to the same principle of man’s own choice. But on the contrary, you will find heaps of material in the ahaadith that will order punishment of the apostates against the very clear and open tenets of Quran. The chapter of Apostates opened separately in this blog, while analysing in the light of Quranic verdicts, stands nowhere. Yes, a lot of benefit has been derived from traditions (ahaadith) that represent the false No.2 Islam. Yes the present Islamic Clergy must be blamed for that, not the true Islam.

I must appreciate the depth of your studies in Muslim faith. That again confirms your being very seriously involved. I pray this involvement takes a positive turn from this point and we all can work for peace, security, pluralism and tolerance among humanity.

Moron you wrote:
"...Christianity too was behaving in the same paradigm throughout the medieval history. Both were under tyrant, oppressive and autocratic regimes. And they had very little to do with the tenets of their holy books and the teachings of their prophets.”
Yes, I'd pretty much agree with that. Christianity was very peaceful for the first ~3 centuries - right up to the time that it 'conquered' the Roman Empire.
Once that happened, there was the conflation of religion and politics within the Church and so Christianity (or perhaps more accurately, Christians) embarked on a period of violence etc, both internally and externally as people did the Church's bidding without question, since it held both temporal and spiritual Authority, which is something that Jesus did not advocate.
One factor among many that caused Christians to reject the idea of the "Church Militant" was the introduction of printing which put the Scriptures into the hands of all, from "Pope to pauper" (so to speak) and allowed first hand knowledge of Christ's teaching.
(Note: I am not speaking here to warfare between states.)

Compare this with the current state of Islam: the Umma has access to the Koran, translated into all languages as well, but their seems to be no lessening (if anything an increase) in the violence, both verbal and physical of said Umma towards the "kurf".

Now you will say (and I lack the knowledge to dispute this) that the reason is that the Umma only has corrupted translations and understanding of the Arabic Koran.
Now, whilst I will not comment (yet) on the original interpreters of the Koran (I use that rather than translators becuase I expect that in the first Islamic Century or two the Koran remained in Arabic - please correct me if I am in error here), but I accept that once the errant understandings became disseminated, these formed the basis for the interpretations (tafsir). Thus, in particular once the "door to ijtahid was closed" (opportunity to make your own interpretation- simplistically), these understandings/interpretations would become ossified in the Muslim psyche.
Consequently, when modern translators translate the Arabic, they only see the ancient interpretations and understandings and so, despite their own personal integrity, they too mis-translate.
Is that a fair representation?

Women:
You will not be surprised when I say that I cross-referenced the verses you quoted with my own Koran and I agree with what you wrote.
However, how do you interpret the following (I'll only give you the references): K2:223,228, 282; 4:3,11,176?

Forgive me for continuing to chase this down: your scholars are:
Imaam Zahbi. Hishaam bin Urwa, Imaam Maalik, Imaam Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qataan, Ibn-e-Adi, Imaam Sha’abi, Imam Yahya bin Moeen, Imaam Hambal …. indeed I can't track them down and I have given up, apart from:

Imam Malik, founder of Maliki school of fiqh - the second school.
Imam Hambal - founder of fourth school of fiqh, which my sources call the Hanbali (with an "N") Mahdab or fiqh.
Assuming I am right on these, do you regard the Maliki and Hanbali fiqh ( and by association the Hanafi and Shafi'i) as sound?

paarsurrey, where is my answer?

tHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN iSLAM and Christianity as far as slavery is concerned is that the Bible said slavery was evil, same as sodomy. 1 Tim 1:6-10. Slavery was legal in Rome at the time as such Christians were to obey Roman Law.

Islam on the other hand had slavery legal and holy as allah and Muhammad said so.
slaves
right hand possessions all through the quran a book written by allah. Muslims can never change Allah's words right Admadi and other Muslims. Allah is your god and you must obey allah.

As an infidel, I say to you and allah and dead Mo-NEVER AGAIN!

THE INFIDEL HOLY BOOK SAYS:

DO UNTO MUSLIMS BEFORE MUSLIMS DO UNTO YOU.

MAKE SLAVES OF MUSLIMS BEFORE THEY MAKE YOU A SLAVE

LIE TO MUSLIMS BEFORE THEY LIE TO YOU

WHITE MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENSLAVE aFRICAN BLACK ONES

INFIDEL GOD SAID DO NOT ALLOW MUSLIMS TO BE AROUND YOUR CHILDREN

PUT MUSLIMS IN JAIL FOR SEXING CHILDREN

WATCH YOUR ANIMALS BECAUSE MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED TO SEX ANIMALS

MAKE SURE THE ANIMALS PURCHASED FROM MUSLIMS WERE NOT SEXED AS iRANIAN AYATOLLAH SAID IN 1990, THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK RELEASED IN 1990

LET MUSLIMS ENJOIN EACH OTHER IN MOSQUES AND HATE EACH OTHER, SUNNI vs SHIA, AHMADHI vs NOI ETC.

SOUNDS GREAT.

GOD CREATED PIGS AND CAMELS BEFORE HE MADE MAN AND SAID GOOOOOD. GENESIS. ON THE 6TH DAY. I WILL EAT THEM LIKE NOAH WAS TOLD TOO AND DRINK WINE, LIQUOR AND BEER. THANK YOU GOD THE TRUE CREATOR. GENESIS 9:3

I asked a very simple question and paasurrey didn't respond to it. Hmmmm, what's the matter??????????????????

Jonc,

Dealing with the subject of slavery, we have come far away. But still the main focus of our discourse is discovering the basis of slavery in the context of the clash of good and evil. This clash has been going on since times immemorial and for peace to prevail violence is necessary. Violence on the part of the good is not called violence as it is aimed to eradicate the evil. Peace cannot be established unless evil is eradicated. Evil is always powerful and wars, meaning violence, are imminent to subdue and abolish it.

Your quest for knowledge compels me to spend time with you above and beyond my humble limitations. At the same time, imparting knowledge has always been a noble undertaking. I think we both are after some good and therefore some more-than-normal pre-occupation is justified.

Your agreement to my historic and logical hypothesis was also encouraging. It proves that we are proceeding with a broad-mindedness that borders with a wide human perspective. The mutual aim being the investigation into the basis of evil that overtook the good that came with the advent of prophets with divine mandate, and was enforced by those holy souls for a certain span of time. However, as I said earlier, the topics you are touching need very long and exhaustive study and writing. Yes, the Ummah had access to Quran, and still has, (And this fact alone enables people like us to reach the truth) and they were originally Arabs and understood the actual essence of that Discipline. But when true beliefs were not desirable and went against the ruthless monarchy that had taken over, who cut off heads indiscriminately, who would dare to raise the voice of truth and have his (and his whole family’s) heads cut off? Look very briefly what happened, and fit the things together yourself.

570: Birth of Prophet Muhammad
576: The whole Yemen captured by Sassanids.
578: Hormuz the 5th, became emperor. Because of him approximately six hundred thousand highly educated and well-organized Jews had to migrate to Arabian Peninsula from Iraq and they settled in almost all the parts of the peninsula. They were rich and bought lands, farms and other property and emporiums and they established organized institutions (monastries, I may say) for learning in religion and Sufism.
Surrounded from three sides by Sassanid and Roman empires, due to its strategic location and its confirmed status as free territory, Arabia was the only refuge of the people condemned by both the empires. And a large number of highly educated and civilized people were settled therein. As a result the Arabian Peninsula had a larger number of educational institutions than its adjoining areas. It already was a trade thoroughfare and a trade emporium and traders of many nationalities crossed every year and caused the intermingling of different civilizations.
The Jews were in great numbers in and around Medina. The main tribes being Banu Quraizah and Banu Nuzair. The second stronghold was Khyber where they had nine fortifications of their own. They, due to their wealth and education, were influential in Medina and elsewhere.
611: Mohammad awarded Prophet-hood and stood up against Quraishi tyrants and demanded human rights and equality for the down-trodden. Proclaimed the exclusive right of Allah to rule.
622: Mohammad and companions, during the course of their deadly struggle, undertake a strategic move and migrate to Medina where the main trade route came under their jurisdiction. Quraish baffled. It was the life blood of their economy. The Kingdom of God established in Medina. Al-Hejira calendar started.
Quraish prepared to invade Medina. Influential and rich Jews automatically lost their luster and felt threatened to become second class citizens. They had been waiting, historically, for the last Prophet to emerge from within the children of Israel. He emerged, on the contrary, from Ishmaelites. Having disillusioned they became the worst enemies of the Islamic movement. Started negotiations with the Quraishi despots. Adopted an unfriendly stance. Tried to kill the Prophet by inviting him to their dens on false pretexts. Poisoned him once. Insulted him always. Eventually after some battles between 622 and 628 they were subdued and changed their stance from open wars to underground sabotage. This was the strategy where they were, and to this day have been, supreme. They waited for their turn. Many of their scholars were commissioned to act as Muslim scholars and the mission was to gain confidence of the state elders. So we find one Ka’ab Ahbaar (the Jewish scholar) among the close circle of Caliph Omar, always saying that I will convert to Islam only when I have seen the fruits of its teachings myself.
632: Muhammad pbuh passed away. They could not kill him. But went in league with other enemies of Islam. Caliph Abu Bakr took charge, sends armies to stop Roman incursions in the north-west. Upto 634: Lakhmi kingdom of Heerah (the lackeys of Romans) and Ajnadin (between Ghaza and Jerusalem) captured. Abu Bakr passes away. Omar takes charge.
Both empires started being defeated bit by bit and expansion of the Kingdom of God continued unabated. People badly suppressed under tyrannical empires fully supported the Muslim armies. Except warriors, no life was taken; no property or harvest was burnt. No genocide or atrocity was noticed. Comes 644: and the unholy alliance of Jews and Paarsis succeeded in assassinating Caliph Omar.
This was perhaps the biggest blow they inflicted upon Muslims’ Kingdom of God. There was some Christian participation too. Jafina Al-Khalil the Christian, Former Officer of the Byzantine Court (or the Court of Heera, I am not sure) was one of the conspirators. The Kingdom of God was so organized and the dynamism the new faith had generated was so powerful, that within no time Othman bin Affan was chosen as successor and the chain of conquests went on un-abated. While back home everyone of the public was covered with welfare funds from the day a child was born. The attributes of God, the most merciful, the beneficient, were incorporated into practical pattern by the Kingdom of God.
656: The unholy underground alliance succeeded in killing Caliph Othman at his home in Medina. All the stories in the history about his being surrounded by Muslim mutineers in Medina have no substance. The assassins worked quietly in the dark of the night as there used to be no guards and no barriers in the way to reach the Caliph. A big rampage was then created in the name of revenge of Othman’s blood.
Ali immediately elected. Muaawiyah, the son of the old Quraishi despot, Abu Sufyaan made the best of this opportunity to declare his independence, while working as governor of Syria in Damascus, where he had become very powerful. Two caliphs ruled for five years simultaneously on parts of Muslim Kingdom. The unholy alliance once more succeeded and their assassins killed Ali in 661. Muaawiyah used brutal force to take charge. And the despotic rule of the Bani Umayyad started. Ali had made Kufa his capital. Muaawiyah moved further away from the roots and made Damascus as his capital, away from the watchful gazes of the remaining elderly companions of the Prophet. The impetus and the dynamism and the discipline generated by the Kingdom of God, started serving the evil aims and objectives of the dictators. Victories and expansion continued unabated, but with vicious designs from then on. It was no longer a merciful and benevolent regime.

The unholy grand alliance in the guise of Muslim scholars offered their services immediately to the despotic regime. They were well acquainted with the etiquette of the Royal courts and knew how to please the autocrats and create goodwill for them in their hearts. The tenets of the Quran formed the biggest impediment in the way of the tyrannical rulers. These scholars started offering explanations from Quran in a way to satisfy the psyche of the rulers and in return they were awarded with estates, high offices and esteem in the Royal court. They became advisers, ministers and judges. Of course, the process needed considerable time and everything couldn’t have been accomplished in a short span of time. Muawiya’s 20 years rule saw the slow conversion taking place from Kingdom of God to the Autocracy. Shifting of minds and brainwash and tyranny produced results. Then came the parting of the faith into two branches: The religion, the personal contact between man and God; and the politics or rule, by the kings. The first part was safely entrusted into the hands of crypto Jewish scholars and given free hand to do as they liked, their targets having been declared pro-autocratic regimes.

Under the dictators, those fabricated interpretations were given the official status, to deny which was a crime liable to be punished by beheading. The true Quranic elite were left back home in Medina and Makkah. What was done to them, under advice from crypto Jewish advisers, and to those cities, is appalling.

In this way my friend, slavery and all other kinds of suppression were restarted in the kingdom of those who called themselves Muslims. Autocratic Kings and emperors live in palaces and establish Harams (the residence of concubines), whether they belong to any faith, by name. So they cannot do without hundreds of slaves and slave girls. So they sponsor and develop slave trade and they keep war prisoners always in their custody to use them as slaves.

The Jewish authority had started a counter-revolution against Islam when the Prophet was still alive. They arranged to get the companions wiped out as they were the real soldiers in the clash of good and evil and knew the Quran in its deepest details and essence. This target was achieved by secret assassinations to mass killings. They achieved this target fully in 693 by the death of Abd Allah bin al-Zubair. It had started by the mass killing of Hirra (Medina) in 683. Earlier than that the target was the killing of the four holy souls. Abu Bakr, Umr, Othman and Ali. Among them the first one died within 2 years of the death of Rasool. Rest of the three were murdered. Third: the killings of the 10 sacred ones. From amongst them Zubair bin Awaam and Talha were killed. Abu Obaidah died in epidemic. Saeed bin Zaid and Abd al Rahman bin Aof were forced to go in seclusion and die there. Saad bin Abi Waqas died in the end after a long secluded life. Fourth: Elimination of the participants of the battle of Badr. Fifth: Elimination of the Quran.
Sixth: To do away with all the records of the Kingdom of God from Medina, the capital, or elsewhere. They succeeded completely in the Sixth target. Not a single paper from the record of the magnificent Kingdom of God is available anywhere in the world. Except one or two letters sent by Muhammad to some of the rulers.

Then came the idea of creating books of guidance parallel to Quran. Why? The interpretations were distorted and confused but due to some physical facts, Quran itself could not have been abolished and eliminated altogether. They then tried to divert the centre of attention from Quran to other things that served their purpose of completing their counter-revolution. So, bizarre stories, ascribed to the Prophet, started appearing on the scene, starting the later part of the 1st century Al-Hejira, and continued for three to four centuries. In the 2nd and 3rd century when some of them were compiled in the form of Books, the governments were used to declare them sanctified and authentic. Whoever denied or raised his voice against, an edict followed from a religious scholar and the man was beheaded. Islamic history is full of bloodshed of Muslims by their own Muslim brethren.

The Jewish authority remained very active underground, and in disguise, openly, until the year 990 AD when their planned counter-revolution reached its climax and Muslim Umma, out of their own elite, started producing religious scholars who were never to be pushed away from the path of evil. The Jews made sure that their successors will always keep Quran abandoned and will take their guidance and judgments from traditions (Books of Hadith) and man-made Shariah and Fiqhs. Then the time was ripe for them to leave the Muslim world, leaving behind a legacy of fallacious beliefs, baseless convictions and an evil pride for possessing a “sacred material” that was libelous, slanderous and obscene in nature. Almost all of their 500,000 sacred old scholars (or Imaams) were either crypto Jewish scholars or the unconscientious lackeys of the ruling tyrants. And you can see that material ruthlessly being used against them in this blog. But the shameless idiots never think of disowning that. May that ruin the character of their Prophet or may that deface the true spirit of Quran!!!

I however would not blame them. The blame, as a matter of principle, goes only to the Muslim despots and tyrants, who allowed the Jews to carry out their conspiracy right under their noses, i.e., under their supervision. This class of rulers still rules Muslim countries and plunder, repression and slavery of many kinds are rampant. Some of them come up through votes….the votes which they get from poor people under threat of social boycott, damage to property or to means of sustenance and of murder. It’s a long story again. They have to put up a false democratic face.

Coming to verses that you asked Quranic explanations of:

2/223: The context starts from 2/222 : O Prophet, they ask you about the menstrual cycle of the women. Tell them that this period is of a discomfort for women. So abstain from sex until that cycle is over and they get cleansed. After that you are allowed sex within the boundaries prescribed by divine laws. If you have been on the wrong path before (i.e., have been doing it in menstrual cycles) and now, under these instructions, return to the righteousness (Tawwabeen) God will love you (love is a symbolic word here, not literal) and He loves those who keep clean of transgressions. 2/223: In this context, do understand that women are not the objects of sex. They enjoy the status of your crops (hars) from where you earn your yield or produce of the season. From them you acquire your next generation. So the concept of going to the women has to be to get your offspring. Keeping in view this object, go to them as and when (anna shi’tum) you wish to have your offspring. Always do good that may develop your inner self (Qaddamu li anfusakum) as that self will be transferred to the hereafter for an eternal life (not the body) and for that purpose, obey the divine laws (wat taqoo) and be informed that you cannot escape the divine law of requital. Those who believe in this law and become peace-providers (al-momineen), there are good tidings for them.
2/228: And those women, who have been divorced, should abstain from fresh marriage until three menstrual cycles (or 3 months for those who may have some problems with their menstrual cycle). It is not fair for them to hide if they are pregnant, if they believe in divine laws and in the rewards of the hereafter. Their ex-husbands have the first right to have them retrieved/returned to themselves in case they both agree to forget their differences. They both have identical rights and equal responsibilities towards each other. But only men here have the benefit of the first priority in case of re-marrying. Allah ordains this procedure as he is dominant power and has all the wisdom.
2/282: It is a long verse. The point of your interest, I guess, is the witness of 2 women as against one man. So, I come to your point directly, starting with words : Fa illam yakoona rajalain….. :”If two men witness may not be available then have one man and two women, whom the concerned parties of the deal mutually agree upon. And two women are just to take care that if one of them gets nervous/confused, the other one might encourage/remind her.” (No inferiority for women is implied here. On the contrary, precaution has been taken in favor of women, as women are not accustomed to legal, male only, environment outside their own household lives).

4/3: Here the context is dealing with the problems of orphans, whose number has increased due to the conditions of war and migrations prevailing in the revolutionary Muslim society. “And if you fear that you won’t be able to deal justly with the problems of increasing number of orphans (Orphans here are children as well as their widow mothers, who all need shelter and protection), then you may marry those of them who may be suitable for you from amongst those widows, up to two, three or four of them. Again, if you fear you can’t be fair with more than one wife, (another verse says that it is not possible to be fair, in this situation) then stick to the mandatory law of one wife only. Or stick with that one that you already have under your right hand’s possession (there is suggestion here to the slave women already in the community from pre-Islamic era and Muslims were ordered to marry them to give them a free status of a wife). This is much better to avoid injustice and to avoid having a large number of children. And give the women their due freely and lavishly. Only if they offer you something out of that, of their own free will, you can take the benefit of it gladly. (Now here comes a very important implication of “a certain mandatory regular payment” to your wives for their household and child-bearing and raising services. Some other verses also suggest that. The matter is under serious consideration of the modern enlightened scholars.)

4/11: Deals with inheritance. The main point here is that women are given half of what sons are allowed. And this is no injustice in a community where women are totally free of economic burdens. Where men are made wholly responsible for the family’s sustenance and maintenance; and Muslims are gladly shouldering this responsibility. Still, women are not prohibited from working if they are free from their prime duties of raising children. And what they earn is solely their own. Men would still gladly pay for the whole family’s expenses. In this way, whatever inheritance women get, need not be spent and they can keep it safe and do with it whatever they like.

4/;177: This verse also deals with inheritance. The same principle applies here too. This part of the Law of Inheritance is, in particular, dealing with the inheritance of Kulala, the one who died without offspring or living parents. And only has brothers and sisters.

You are right bout your list of scholars. However, as I said, there are 500,000 of those phony scholars in Muslim history and you run the risk of getting lost in categorizing them. None of them is on record declaring the despotic regimes as inhuman or un-Islamic. But they are on record as unreliable and ridiculing and belittling their own contemporaries. Such is the case with this whole creed that is called rabbi, priest, mullah and Brahmin.

Moron,

This is a new version of The Arabian Nights, no more no less from the beginning to the end of your “commentary”. A real fairy-tale. This recount is lyric and apologetic , fantasmagorical but not historic at all. And still a jewish conspiracy !!!!!! Absolutely useless to try to refute your fantasies. You are completely delirious, pardon me to tell you this.

“The Jewish authority remained very active underground, and in disguise, openly, until the year 990 AD when their planned counter-revolution reached its climax and Muslim Umma, out of their own elite, started producing religious scholars who were never to be pushed away from the path of evil. The Jews made sure that their successors will always keep Quran abandoned and will take their guidance and judgments from traditions (Books of Hadith) and man-made Shariah and Fiqhs. Then the time was ripe for them to leave the Muslim world, leaving behind a legacy of fallacious beliefs, baseless convictions and an evil pride for possessing a “sacred material” that was libelous, slanderous and obscene in nature. Almost all of their 500,000 sacred old scholars (or Imaams) were either crypto Jewish scholars or the unconscientious lackeys of the ruling tyrants. And you can see that material ruthlessly being used against them in this blog. But the shameless idiots never think of disowning that. May that ruin the character of their Prophet or may that deface the true spirit of Quran!!!”
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Good luck, Jonc !

Moron:
With regard to the verses: I am not sure that you have translated them so much as interpreted them.
I agree the context of 2/223 is 2/222. Does making a woman your "crop" much improve on her status vis a vis being your "tilth"? So, she is where you get your offspring. I'm sorry, but that sounds to me a though she is now a baby-factory, rather than an equal partner, but I guess it is a step up from being a sex-object.
2/228: So the men do have greater rights in terms of reconciliation.
2/282: Your writing does not contradict the fact that in law the word of a women = half that of a man, which is not equality. It still means that unless two women have witnessed the event, the witness of one woman is in-admissible. Further, you are now saying that a woman would be nervous or unsure out of her home. This is only sustainable if that is where she is kept and that too implies inequality if men can go outside, but women can't (normally) do so.
4/3: I take it then that you understand "orphan" as "fatherless-child" rather than its usual meaning "parent-less child". I note further that you do not deny that the Muslim man can marry up to four wives if he can "deal equally" with them. Again, I submit that this is not equality. (I am also assuming that the oxymoron of marrying up to 4 women and the "MANDATORY law of one wife only" is the result of a misprision.)
BTW: How is marrying 4 women going to REDUCE the number of children? Assuming no naughty goings-on with unmarried widows and orphans of course.
4/11: If the women are totally dependant on the men for their maintenance (as you claim) then in one sense this rule is probably not unjust. However, I submit again, that it is inequal. Further, if the women are (normally) dependant on the men then this is, de facto, a subordinate position. Which is why women in the West fought so long and hard to get into the workplace.
4/176: Agreed -see above.

In your "Early History of Islam" I note you omit the Ridda wars conducted by Abu Bakr in this first year to 18 months (approx) of his Caliphate. These were his first actions - taken against a large number of Arab tribes who broke away from his control on the death of Mohammed. Only then did he (re-)launch his expansionist wars against the edges of Persia and Byzantium.

Let me summarise:
The 'corruption' of Islam is the result of (predominately) Jewish and Christian activity, beginning about 628, a mere 6 years after the Hejira and before Mohammed's death. By about 50 years of Mohammed's death, Islam's corruption was pretty much complete.
Consquently we can put no reliance in Hadith, Tafseer, Sirat, Sharia, Fiqh etc, ALL of which post-date this period.
The only genuine document surviving in the Koran itself - and that has been subject to such a degree of mis-interpretation (even by Arabs) that it's true meaning is effectively lost (except to a few like yourself who hold to the true faith).

This is a fantastic tale.

I must admit that the first comment that springs to my mind is to point out that your position to your own Holy Book is very much like that of the 'conventional' Islamic scholars who claim that Jews and Christos have "changed their Scriptures" either by altering the words (not a genuinely sustainable charge) or (as in your claim vis a vis the Koran) by twisting the interpretation.

My second point is that you state not a single reference. So my question is, is this your own interpretation of Islamic history, or due you have documentatary evidence to show it, dating back to (near to) the times mentioned? Is there any non-Islamic evidence to support you?

My third point is this: if many of the companions and their followers (Tabin) were corrupt (which tends to be the Shia position), this says little about Mohammed's ability know people, it even calls into question Allah's promise in the Koran to protect the book from corruption (15:9), since there is now no guarantee that the Uthmanic recension is accurate or complete.

Fourth: I note the Jews are responsible for everything bad again (no change there!) even though you blame the Muslims for permitting it. You mention one: "So we find one Ka’ab Ahbaar (the Jewish scholar) among the close circle of Caliph Omar..." I find him as Ka'ab al-Abhar, a Jewish convert. Sunnis regard him as trustworthy, but Shia think him a liar. But these opinions (Sunni/Shia) are based in Hadith, of course, which you have already dismissed as unreliable (to put it mildly), thus whence you information?

Fifth: If this "conspiracy" was active before Mohammed's death (as you state), why was no 'revelation' sent down to combat it? Why did Allah not "name names"? Surely this would be in accordance with Allah's promise to protect the book? (15:9) Allah claims that the "plots of satan are weak" (4:76), several verses (eg 27:70, 35:10) claim that mohammed should not be worried by plots (presumably because they would fail, or be turned back against the plotters, not because they would succeed in undermining Islam!). Indeed one ayat (10:21) says:
"... They take to plotting against Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)! Say: "Allâh is more Swift in planning!" Certainly, Our Messengers (angels) record all of that which you plot."
From this we learn that Allah is able to 'out-plot' the plotters and that the plotters' plots are recorded by angels. Thus Allah would certainly have the 'resources' to identify the plotters and via revelation overthrow them. (this would apply even if they were only contemporaries of Mohammed's and only started their sedition after his death for surely Allah sees the hearts of men.)
Despite Allah's assurances to the contrary in the Koran, according to you Allah did not act aginst these "plotters". Yet there are plenty of verses in the Koran that were 'revealed' in response to a given set of cirumstances (eg. those ayat starting "people ask...") or, come to that, the verses on orphans and widows that you interpretated for me.
' "Curiouser and curiouser" as Alice said, quite forgetting her grammar.'
I will leave you on the horns of the dilemma where you have placed yourself, Moron.
---
Without Sirat and Hadith, Moron, it seems to me that you have a poor skeleton (and a rather dis-jointed one at that) of a religion on whose bones you can only place the flesh of your own interpretations.
Are women equal? you say yes, yet your answers to my questions do not show it. Which verses are abrogated and which abrogating? How can you decide (without the histories or tafseer you cannot even decide the chronology of many ayat)?
In truth you scarcely know how to perform your rites: where in the Koran are there PRECISE instructions for Wudu or Salat or how many Rakat should be performed at each prayer? How EXACTLY should you perform the Hajj? Where is the Koran is the rate or threshold for Zakat fixed?
I will grant the Koran gives you detail enough for the Fast of Ramadan and the Shahada, but how stable is your Islam minus three of its five pillars? You stand on an unstable pedestal, my friend!

I am reminded of the ryhme: "Here lies a fallen god, his fall was not a small one. We did but build his pedestal, a narrow and a tall one."

Jonc,
You went the way of all flesh, and bias in the end overtook you. I am free in making my own conclusions and those that I make now do not differ from those I expressed earlier. You are on the payroll of an unholy mission whose aim is hatred. So, long live your source of bread and butter and blind loyalty to your employers, that succeeds all noble aims and goals beneficial to humanity. In the end your assessments are those of an obstinate child and I would say, grow up my dear. The time is ripe to get out of all prejudices.

I have nothing more to say as I have replied to all of your questions which you acted pretty serious in asking so vehemently. About comments on Salat and Wadhu etc. the ritual of worship, which you claim comes from only Hadith and traditions and which form five pillars, I still regret your totall ignorance and inadequacy in the knowledge of Arabic language and about real Islam (which I have already proved many times, admit or not). Still you people keep trying to act as Arabic scholars. You look almost illiterate!
There is no worship in Quran like prayer, wadhu, haj, fast, etc. as is portrayed by your target, the No.2 Islam. These words in the authentic Arabic dictionaries mean quite different things than the ones being followed. Do you have the heck of an idea what Zakat is? Of course you do not need to probe that now that your total lack of knowledge and your myopic observation are evident. You live on lies, organized fraud and conspiracy, just that which your Jewish masters are so expert in. May be you also are a Jew, who knows! The Islam you prefer to discuss and debate and believe in, has to be the No.2 Islam fabricated bit by bit by your Jewish elders, Isn’t it so? Bravo.

Your perspective in analyzing my explanations was that of your own naked, almost 80% bastard society which you stupidly assume as the best model. Self assumptions and self-praise do not work, or please fools only. Tell me Jonc, how can a community be a model for the humanity where 80% of the babies are bastards? Why did you abolish the institution of marriage? Was it on the advice of Jesus Christ? Was it so only because poor Jesus himself had no father….he was fatherless, orphan?
And aren’t your women bearing children without husbands because the “chaste, virgin“ Mary gave birth without a husband?
Do women become baby machines if they give birth to children? Then why Jonc have they been given the machinery to give birth?
Bibles says homosexuality is an abomination, then why Christian societies have made this abomination fair and legal?
Any answers? I don’t think you or any other guy in your bunch has the answers. You only have heaps of filths to hurl upon others.

Just stick to No.2 Islam Jonc and get lost in advocating it as true (as it was fabricated by your elders) and then keep busy in criticizing it abusively, as well. This kind of dilemma is faced by only sick souls like you.

And stick also to bogus Christianity that forgives all sins and crimes before they are even committed!!! You just have to utter a belief of a very stupid kind that the Christ was crucified. And that does it!! How about salvation of No.2 Muslims who are your brethren in believing in Christ and also in believing in his crufication? Would they also be salvated? It is their right friend? Any answer?

The poor self-styled champion of Arabic, does not know the a,b,c,d of Arabic grammar and is entrusted with the mission to understand Quranic Islam……understand only to declare it null and void!!!
I am not sorry for this kind of end of our discussions as this has always been inevitable on this blog.

Claude,
You kept poking your dirty nose in the discussion I followed to expose the real face of your colleague. I kept ignoring you because your interruption was like constant barking of a dog on a passer by, whether kicked or not. Don’t get offended. Dog is a very lovely, domestic pet.

You started your first comment with an arrogance and haughtiness that bordered with lunacy, in view of the reality that you were unable to pluck even a hair from a part of my body! So what use was the haughtiness my dear? When un-responded and humiliated, you started changing your demeanour and in the end came down to the word “pardon”. I liked that. I would love you if you still come down to another pedestal of human evolution which is called “submissiveness”. I think this is the education given to you by your God Jesus, who was very poor and humble, walked on foot, or mounted a starved donkey, as you have shown in your films, and was beaten up and eventually crucified on the instigation of Jews. All his companions, only 12, I suppose, were disloyal to him, being Jews originally, and then got him apprehended.
What a poor fate. Yes, arrogance on your part is justified against Jews alone, who used your Jesus so badly.

Dear Claude, this world is full of stories like Arabian nights, no wonder. All credit goes to the magnificent Jews who excel in plotting high conspiracy, intrigue and sabotage, keeping utmost secrecy, perseverance to materialize and achieve the goals that have been negative in nature, throughout the history.
Isn’t it from Arabian nights that Christians, in the last few centuries, did the hardest of toil, built, invented and produced, and the Jews came and just “got hold” of everything. They are go-getters. And now the poor Christians are their lackeys. Even the President of the World’s greatest power, USA, cannot be elected without blessings of the Jews. All the finances, the economy of the whole world, trade, industry, banking, publishing, performing arts, sports, all have been taken over by Jewish gamblers and they have made a gamble and a betting source of everything….even of fine and performing arts. Ethics and morality of things just done away with.
Want to listen to more Arabian Nights stories Claude? There are endless stories. Why should I be bothered? Read Henry Ford III what he wrote about the Jews and the whole scenario will be open to you.
Don’t mind my reprimand which is due to your tone being reflective of a harsh minded youngster. But grow up please. I still love the Jews who are the children of Jacob pbuh, and I love you in spite of knowing your evil intentions very well.