The powerful Biblical case for Apartheid and slavery explored

Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 19.06.28

Did you realise that the best Christian theologians in America in the nineteenth century argued that God instituted slavery and approved of it? Yes, the fact is that leading evangelical and Reformed theologians argued that slavery was instituted by God and approved by him.

Rev Professor Scott McKnight is an American New Testament scholar (who follows me on twitter, bless). He links to a fascinating article on his blog by Rev Dr Kevin Giles entitled The Silence of Complementarians on Slavery. He examines the “biblical” case for Apartheid and slavery as expounded by leading evangelical theologians. 

Regular Christian readers of Blogging Theology (like Ken) might find the article a salutary challenge. Muslims will gain an insight into a mature Christian debate on a subject that deeply divides evangelicals.



Categories: Bible, Extremism

31 replies

  1. The only slavery in the law of Moses is economic slavery where the “slave-owner” owns the labour of the slave. Not like Islam where the whole life, time and actions of the slave are under the power of his master with no end in sight.

    Liked by 1 person

    • What a load of crap! Christian apologists can be such liars when the unpleasant aspects of their “scripture” are exposed for all to see!

      “44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another” (Leviticus 25:44-46).

      Like

    • faiz,

      http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

      pages

      Slavery (1 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
      Slavery (2 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

      have a nice read

      Like

    • Very interesting. Thanks for this. It further exposes the apologetic lies and attempts to sugarcoat the unpleasant nature of slavery in the Bible.

      Like

    • Yes, but there are limitations imposed on the situation and freedoms given which are not imposed or given in Islam.

      The families may not be split apart and their family life, the right to bear and bring up their children, is sacrosanct. This is not the case in Islam.

      Under Sharia once a woman is take as a prisoner of war, an act which is forbidden under the law of Moses, her marriage is automatically annulled and she is effectively cut off from her husband and family. This is a dreadful injustice and infliction of suffering.

      The alien cannot be as free as the Israelite in Israel as he is not in a covenant relation to God.

      The fact that the alien is the possession of the family or tribe that bought him protects him and his family from the fear of being sold back to a pagan nation.

      Like

    • Madmanna, either you are ignorant or are flat-out lying. We find in Numbers a clear proof of families being split apart, not by simply taking women as prisoners, but by…ahem…murdering their families and taking the virgins alive. See Numbers 31.

      Also, see the following:

      “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall by thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).”

      Like

    • The context of this scripture is Joshua’s conquest and the battles associated with it. This conquest was a judgement upon the Canaanite tribes who lived there because of their sins. God used the Israelites to judge and cleanse the land. These commandments are only valid in the context of this judgement and cleansing and within the confines of the promised land.

      Like

    • More nonsense. What difference does it make what the “context” is? Were people killed in a wholesale genocide or not? I could care less what the “context” is. Apparently, you think that it was not a “dreadful injustice” to kill entire nations and spare only the little virgins! Christian hypocrisy strikes again!

      Like

    • Leviticus 18 v 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

      If you want to call it genocide that’s fine by me. It is still the will of God.

      Like

    • So you don’t agree that it was a genocide? What is your definition of it?

      I can’t understand why the above it not a “dreadful injustice”. It seems to me that anything in the Bible is not unjust but anything in any other book is.

      Like

    • The above link by Robert states:

      “It’s only to Hebrew slaves that all this applies. Hebrewswere indentured servants, to be released on
      the seventh year, who could not be kidnapped, and who could not be treated harshly. Conversely, non-Hebrew slaves (foreign slaves) were slaves for life, their children were slaves for life.
      They could be kidnapped, they could be captured in war, they could be purchased, against
      their will. They could be treated harshly, as “slaves,” which means they could be beaten,
      even beaten to death, so long as they didn’t die immediately! This is exactly like slavery in the antebellum South. In the South, you couldn’t enslave a U.S. citizen. But you could purchase a kidnapped African. In the same way, in Israel, you couldn’t permanently enslave an Israelite, but you could kidnap, capture, or purchase a foreigner against their will” (http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf). See p. 168.

      Like

  2. “They could be kidnapped, they could be captured in war, they could be purchased, against
    their will. They could be treated harshly, as “slaves,” which means they could be beaten,
    even beaten to death, so long as they didn’t die immediately! ”

    Anyone can claim this rubbish. Say so don’t make so.

    Like

  3. An Eye for an Eye
    (Matthew 5:38-48; Luke 6:27-36)

    17And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. 18And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. 22Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. 23And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

    Like

    • This doesn’t change the fact that the death of a slave was not punishable as long as he/she did not immediately die after being beaten.

      Like

  4. It may be a fact for you, it’s not for me.

    Like

  5. “Also, freeing a slave was a meritorious act.”

    Meritorious and profitable. The best of both worlds.

    It was forbidden to make a man a slave under the law of Moses:

    Exodus 21 v 16:

    King James Bible

    “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

    Taking a man away from his family and possessions was equivalent to stealing him. Selling him was a crime worthy of death.

    Also if a slave was harmed he was to be freed. If he had a bad owner he could run away and could not be compelled to return.

    “6And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”

    Deut 23 v 15Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 16He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

    Do these laws apply in Sharia?

    Like

    • “Meritorious and profitable. The best of both worlds.”

      LOL, here comes the ignorant missionary side manifesting its ugly face.

      How exactly would freeing a slave be a “profitable” act? The owner would be losing out on his services! Nice try, but it’s back to the drawing board with you!

      You said:

      “It was forbidden to make a man a slave under the law of Moses:

      Exodus 21 v 16:

      King James Bible

      “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

      Taking a man away from his family and possessions was equivalent to stealing him. Selling him was a crime worthy of death.”

      LOL, unless of course, you were at war with the man’s nation. Then it was allowed to enslave them, kill them and their families and steal their land. Yes, that’s very “humane”. LOL.

      Also, the context of Exodus 21 is regarding HEBREWS, not non-Hebrews.

      As far as Deuteronomy 23:15 is concerned, the Jewish commentator Rashi stated:

      “As the Targum [Onkelos] renders it [עֲבַד עַמְמִין, a Jewish servant who had been sold to a gentile] (Gittin 45a). Another explanation: even a Canaanite servant of an Israelite who fled from outside the land to the Land of Israel” (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9987#showrashi=true).

      So, most likely, this was referring once again to Jewish slaves, or less likely, to non-Jewish slaves who had escaped from outside Israel. As for what to do with escaped slaves from within Israel? Well, since slavery was acceptable, obviously the slave would have to be returned.

      As for the Islamic view, here are the rules regarding slaves:

      “Worship Allah; join nothing with Him. Be good to your parents, to relatives, to orphans, to the needy, to neighbours near and far, to travellers in need and those whom your right hands possess. Allah does not like arrogant, boastful people.” [Surah An-Nisa, 4:36]

      “If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly, if you know they have good in them, and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.” [Surah An-Nur, 24:33].

      The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Fear Allah in regards of those whom your right hands possess. They are your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands (authority). Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them.” [Muslim]

      The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him.” (narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud on the authority of Sumra bin Jundub).

      He (SAW) said: “Whichever man frees a Muslim man, Allah ta’ala will liberate for each of his organ an organ from the Fire” (narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

      He (saw) said: “Whoever slaps his slave or strikes him, his atonement (kaffara) is to free him.” (Narrated by Muslim on the authority of Ibn Umar). Although, we should add that it was permitted to discipline a slave, as long as it was not painful or violent.

      See? The Quran and Sunnah are much more humane than the Bible.

      Like

  6. “LOL, unless of course, you were at war with the man’s nation. Then it was allowed to enslave them, kill them and their families and steal their land. Yes, that’s very “humane”. LOL.”

    The context of Joshua’s conquest is judgement on a restricted basis, in contrast to Islam’s perpetual and unbounded judgement against the unbeliever initiated by the summons to believe and submit, in obedience to the audible commands of God. The non-Israelite could not be free in the holy land which was given to the Israelites under the covenant with Abraham and Moses whether anyone likes it or not. There is no such covenant with Muslims.

    “Also, the context of Exodus 21 is regarding HEBREWS, not non-Hebrews. ”

    The moral law is universal because all men have the same human nature and bear God’s image.

    Paul confirms this in the NT:

    Romans 2 v 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

    “They could be kidnapped, they could be captured in war, they could be purchased, against
    their will.”

    Not by the Israelites, and by extension, all men. Except in the context of a limited judgement on a particular people at a particular time and place as in the conquest of Joshua. Not a perpetual unbounded injunction to fight all non-believers in Jihad until all religion is for Allah and Sharia is the universal law under which all men live.

    Offensive wars purely for the purpose of making booty and slaves is condemned in the bible, for example by the ten commandments. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet. So Jihad is condemned by Moses whom Muslims claim to be their prophet.

    I know that they were allowed to be purchased but that does not mean that the creation of a slave was condoned or encouraged. If the law was followed there would be no slaves to be purchased.

    “Well, since slavery was acceptable, obviously the slave would have to be returned. ”

    But he would have a place of refuge until the court ruled on his grievances and returned him to his master who would be reprimanded or punished as the case may be.

    ““Worship Allah; join nothing with Him. Be good to your parents, to relatives, to orphans, to the needy, to neighbours near and far, to travellers in need and those whom your right hands possess. Allah does not like arrogant, boastful people.” [Surah An-Nisa, 4:36] ”

    Being good to the slave doesn’t correct the wrong of making him your slave in the first place.

    ““If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly, if you know they have good in them, and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.” [Surah An-Nur, 24:33].”

    Very generous I must say considering that the slave has no means.

    My understanding as an outsider is that the problem with the hadiths is that they are not on the same level of authority as the Koran so they are not mandatory. The Muslim always has this excuse that he does not know for certain that Mohammed said this or that, only that it was reported that he said this or that. So they are not obligatory as are the commands of the Koran and wherever the hadiths agree with the Koran.

    As a fundamental evangelical my belief is that scholars have no authority and 99 percent of the time irrelevant. All scripture must be taken at face value.The plain meaning of a text of scripture can only be qualified by another scripture.

    Like

    • “The context of Joshua’s conquest is judgement on a restricted basis, in contrast to Islam’s perpetual and unbounded judgement against the unbeliever initiated by the summons to believe and submit, in obedience to the audible commands of God. The non-Israelite could not be free in the holy land which was given to the Israelites under the covenant with Abraham and Moses whether anyone likes it or not. There is no such covenant with Muslims.”

      This is typical apologetic nonsense. First of all, even if Joshua’s conquest “is judgement on a restricted basis”, how does that excuse genocide? What difference does it make that tens of thousands of people were killed “on a restricted basis”? Christian logic strikes again!

      Secondly, Islam only permits war against hostile non-Muslims. This fact is known by all learned individuals, whether you like it or not.

      Thirdly, you have no problem with Biblical discrimination against Gentiles, just like a typical Christian hypocrite and yet harp about Islam’s alleged “injustices”. Thank you for showing what a hypocrite you are!

      “The moral law is universal because all men have the same human nature and bear God’s image.”

      That is complete BS, and you know it. You just said above that:

      “The non-Israelite could not be free in the holy land which was given to the Israelites under the covenant with Abraham and Moses whether anyone likes it or not.”

      WOW! Christian inconsistency strikes again! So which is it? Is the “moral law” universal or was a “non-Israelite” unable to be “free in the holy land”?

      “Not by the Israelites, and by extension, all men. Except in the context of a limited judgement on a particular people at a particular time and place as in the conquest of Joshua. Not a perpetual unbounded injunction to fight all non-believers in Jihad until all religion is for Allah and Sharia is the universal law under which all men live.”

      Um yes. I already showed that. Regardless of the “limited judgement”, the fact remains that the Israelites were allowed to enslave non-Israelites. If you think think because it was “limited” to that time, it somehow makes it better, then you are just a very sick person. Thank you for showing the sick, twisted mentality of the Bible.

      “Offensive wars purely for the purpose of making booty and slaves is condemned in the bible, for example by the ten commandments. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet. So Jihad is condemned by Moses whom Muslims claim to be their prophet.”

      LOL! Jihad is a defensive war against those who try to harm Muslims. Also, Muslims are FORBIDDEN to kill non-combatants, especially women and children. In contrast, your Bible claims that God ordered the murder of tens of thousands of people, including BABIES! Yet, like a self-righteous hypocrite, you think you have any moral ground on which to judge Islam! Hilarious!!!

      “I know that they were allowed to be purchased but that does not mean that the creation of a slave was condoned or encouraged. If the law was followed there would be no slaves to be purchased.”

      Sorry, but your attempts to make Biblical slavery laws sound better than they were is not going to work. You should try that line on someone who is not as educated on what the Bible teaches.

      “But he would have a place of refuge until the court ruled on his grievances and returned him to his master who would be reprimanded or punished as the case may be.”

      LOL! Where does the Bible say that? Care to clarify?

      “Being good to the slave doesn’t correct the wrong of making him your slave in the first place.”

      LOL, and yet it’s okay if the Bible allowed it? Christian hypocrisy strikes yet again!

      “Very generous I must say considering that the slave has no means.”

      Try using your head for once. The verse says to make a contract with the slave. In other words, the work the slave does counts as payment. It is between the two parties to work out the details. Also, the verse clearly says:

      “…and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.”

      In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.

      “My understanding as an outsider is that the problem with the hadiths is that they are not on the same level of authority as the Koran so they are not mandatory. The Muslim always has this excuse that he does not know for certain that Mohammed said this or that, only that it was reported that he said this or that. So they are not obligatory as are the commands of the Koran and wherever the hadiths agree with the Koran.”

      LOL, another typical argument. When you got cornered, you change gears and now attack the authority of the Ahadith. Regardless of your “understanding”, the Ahadith ARE authoritative. Muslims regard both the Quran AND Ahadith as authoritative. The Ahadith explain the meaning of the Quran, as Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to teach people. He brought the Quran and then explained its meaning.

      So, regardless of your ignorance, Muslims are obligated to follow both the Quran and Ahadith. You are cornered!

      “As a fundamental evangelical my belief is that scholars have no authority and 99 percent of the time irrelevant. All scripture must be taken at face value.The plain meaning of a text of scripture can only be qualified by another scripture.”

      Sounds very convenient. I, on the other hand, do not close my mind to reason. God gave me a brain. I will use it to discern good from evil, sense from nonsense and true scripture from fraudulent “scripture”.

      Like

  7. Faiz,

    “how does that excuse genocide? What difference does it make that tens of thousands of people were killed “on a restricted basis”? Christian logic strikes again!”

    >>>>>>> Why do you keep harping on about genocide? If 150,000 humans die every day isn’t that a form of genocide? Or does Allah only kill male unbelievers who have attacked Muslims? I’m sure we could find a number of examples of deaths that don’t fit the paradigm of the squeaky clean koranic deity who only kills adult males who refuse to give up shirking around and various other forms of mischief in the land and attack peaceful muslims for some unknown reason.

    “WOW! Christian inconsistency strikes again! So which is it? Is the “moral law” universal or was a “non-Israelite” unable to be “free in the holy land”? ”

    >>>>>>>> The moral law which forbade the kidnapping or stealing of a man to make him a slave was universal as were all the moral laws given by Moses. The fact that an alien slave could be purchased does not annul the law itself which forbids the initial act of creating the slave by kidnapping or “stealing him”.

    The alien is not ransomed, redeemed or chosen to be in covenant relationship to God therefore he cannot fully enjoy the benefits accruing therefrom. I suppose you could say it is one of the side effects of election.

    On the whole it is still a plus for the alien to be a slave or bond servant in Israel as there appear to be no other restrictions placed upon him except the choice of whom he should work for. He can run away and he is under the protection of the royal law applied by the courts of the land. Under the law he is equally a “neighbour” to all others as all others are a “neighbour” to him. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Like

    • ” Why do you keep harping on about genocide? If 150,000 humans die every day isn’t that a form of genocide? Or does Allah only kill male unbelievers who have attacked Muslims? I’m sure we could find a number of examples of deaths that don’t fit the paradigm of the squeaky clean koranic deity who only kills adult males who refuse to give up shirking around and various other forms of mischief in the land and attack peaceful muslims for some unknown reason.”

      Your hypocrisy and sickness have come to the surface. Do you believe that the Holocaust was a genocide? What about the Rwandan and Bosnian massacres? Were these acts of genocide or not?

      Death by natural disasters, disease etc. is not what we are talking about. If you think that is the same as actually ordering MASS MURDER and INFANTICIDE, then you are more sick than I imagined.

      Muslims are not allowed to kill non-combatants. Your Bible wants us to believe that God COMMANDED the Israelites to mercilessly kill BABIES! What kind of a person tries to defend such behavior? I guarantee that if a similar story was found in the Quran (which it is not), you would be harping about it and condemning it as “injustice”. Christian hypocrites never learn.

      “The moral law which forbade the kidnapping or stealing of a man to make him a slave was universal as were all the moral laws given by Moses. The fact that an alien slave could be purchased does not annul the law itself which forbids the initial act of creating the slave by kidnapping or “stealing him”.”

      No, it wasn’t, as I have already shown. The Israelites made slaves out of the conquered peoples; well, at least those that WEREN’T slaughtered.

      “On the whole it is still a plus for the alien to be a slave or bond servant in Israel as there appear to be no other restrictions placed upon him except the choice of whom he should work for. He can run away and he is under the protection of the royal law applied by the courts of the land. Under the law he is equally a “neighbour” to all others as all others are a “neighbour” to him. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

      This is pure nonsense, and you know it. You are just lying at this point. Slaves could not run away and expect to be “protected”. They could also be beaten, so long as the injuries didn’t kill him right away.

      You didn’t answer my challenge:

      The verse says to make a contract with the slave. In other words, the work the slave does counts as payment. It is between the two parties to work out the details. Also, the verse clearly says:

      “…and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.”

      In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.

      Like

  8. “The verse says to make a contract with the slave. In other words, the work the slave does counts as payment. It is between the two parties to work out the details. Also, the verse clearly says:”

    Where does it specifically say that the work of a slave is renumerated? The slave has to find a sponsor. You are just adding the context of your choice because this is what you want to believe. This is a simple contract for a ransom payment. That word you don’t like using because it makes the slave a chattel.

    16:75

    Sahih International

    Allah presents an example: a slave [who is] owned and unable to do a thing and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision, so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allah ! But most of them do not know.

    Islamic slaves are not even allowed to reproduce without leave of their masters.

    Biblical slaves on the other hand are assumed to thrive and multiply in the land and have normal family lives:

    Leviticus 25

    45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

    An example of prophetic love for slaves which contradicts your claims:

    Abu Dawud Book 004, Hadith Number 1814.

    Chapter : Not known.

    Narated By Asma’ bint AbuBakr : We came out for performing hajj along with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh). When we reached al-Araj, the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) alighted and we also alighted. ‘Aisha sat beside the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and I sat beside my father (AbuBakr). The equipment and personal effects of AbuBakr and of the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) were placed with AbuBakr’s slave on a camel. AbuBakr was sitting and waiting for his arrival. He arrived but he had no camel with him. He asked:

    Where is your camel? He replied: I lost it last night. AbuBakr said: There was only one camel, even that you have lost. He then began to beat him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?

    Ibn AbuRizmah said: The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) spoke nothing except the words: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (wearing ihram), what is he doing? He was smiling (when he uttered these words).

    “In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.”

    Release of Hebrew Servants

    (Exodus 21:1-11)

    12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. 15And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

    Like

    • “Where does it specifically say that the work of a slave is renumerated? The slave has to find a sponsor. You are just adding the context of your choice because this is what you want to believe. This is a simple contract for a ransom payment. That word you don’t like using because it makes the slave a chattel.”

      Maybe if you did some actual research instead of just copying pseudo-scholarly sources from the Internet, you would be able answer your own question. Your personal and ignorant opinions do not add anything to the discussion.

      We know that the verse is talking about the slave providing payment via his skills. As Ibn Kathir explained:

      “This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract. Al-Bukhari said: “Rawh narrated from Ibn Jurayj: `I said to `Ata’, “If I know that my servant has money, is it obligatory for me to write him a contract of emancipation” He said, “I do not think it can be anything but obligatory.'” (www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2426&Itemid=79)

      “16:75

      Sahih International

      Allah presents an example: a slave [who is] owned and unable to do a thing and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision, so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allah ! But most of them do not know.

      Islamic slaves are not even allowed to reproduce without leave of their masters.”

      Oh , good Lord. Now you are resorting to quoting verses out of context? Is that how desperate you are? This verse is a parable demonstrating the difference between a believer and unbeliever. It has nothing to with slavery! Ibn Kathir writes:

      “Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said: “This is the example which Allah gives of the disbeliever and the believer.” This was also the view of Qatadah and Ibn Jarir. The servant who has no power over anything is like the disbeliever, and the one who is given good provisions and spends of them secretly and openly is like the believer. Ibn Abi Najih reported that Mujahid said: “This is an example given of the idol and the True God – can they be the same”” (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2958&Itemid=71).

      “Biblical slaves on the other hand are assumed to thrive and multiply in the land and have normal family lives:

      Leviticus 25

      45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. ”

      LOL, now you’re just getting silly. This verse essentially condemns entire generations to slavery. How is that just? They are reduced to mere “possession”.

      “An example of prophetic love for slaves which contradicts your claims:

      Abu Dawud Book 004, Hadith Number 1814.

      Chapter : Not known.

      Narated By Asma’ bint AbuBakr : We came out for performing hajj along with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh). When we reached al-Araj, the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) alighted and we also alighted. ‘Aisha sat beside the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and I sat beside my father (AbuBakr). The equipment and personal effects of AbuBakr and of the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) were placed with AbuBakr’s slave on a camel. AbuBakr was sitting and waiting for his arrival. He arrived but he had no camel with him. He asked:

      Where is your camel? He replied: I lost it last night. AbuBakr said: There was only one camel, even that you have lost. He then began to beat him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?

      Ibn AbuRizmah said: The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) spoke nothing except the words: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (wearing ihram), what is he doing? He was smiling (when he uttered these words).”

      LOL, no this is an example of Christian hypocrisy. We have already seen that the Bible allows for the beating of slaves to the point of leaving them critically injured and possibly dying.

      What his hadith shows is that it was allowed to discipline a slave, but not to the point of actually injuring him and leaving him on his deathbed! Also, other ahadith state that the expiation for slapping or beating a slave for something he did not do is to set him free:

      “Ibn ‘Umar said, “I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, ‘The expiation for someone who slaps his slave or beats him more than he deserves is to set him free.'””

      I once again challenge you to show me anything comparable from the Bible.

      ““In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.”

      Release of Hebrew Servants

      (Exodus 21:1-11)

      12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. 15And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.”

      LOL, this is about HEBREW slaves. What are you not getting? This is exactly what we have been talking about all this time! The Bible allows for such provisions ONLY for Hebrew slaves, NOT for non-Hebrews, the GENTILES. Not only that, but even this verse does not give the slave the opportunity to be freed earlier! He has to serve at least 6 years, without choice! In contrast, Islamic law does not make such stipulations. A slave can request his freedom at any time, provided he is able to compensate his mater. You have failed to meet my challenge thus far. So again, I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.

      Like

  9. Come out, come out wherever you are madmanna…

    Like

  10. STILL no response from madman? Oh well…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: