A unique part of history, a terrifying part of history that shows how the Bible was used to justify slavery. It’s entitled, “Parts of the Holy Bible selected for use of the Negro Slaves in the British West-India Islands”. Shocking to say the least.
This Bible is said to have omitted themes of slavery, so passages from the Book of Exodus were removed. It is currently housed at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC.
and God knows best.
Categories: Abominations, Christian extremism
You see I told you Islam is pro-slavery!!
Take that Muslims!
who started the african slave trade. they must follow a shocking book whoever they are.
Slavery was an institution before Christianity existed, see the Book of Exodus, it teaches about the enslavement of the Jewish people. I’ve not read or seen anything where YHWH in that Book abolishes it, though I do stand to be corrected should that be the case.
The book of Philemon. It’s a good one for insight on slavery. Understanding cultural context helps to. The year of jubilee was a year for all freedom in the OT too. As Jesus said “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” Same for slavery.
It was started before Islam and continued by Arab, Berber and BLACK Muslims and other non-Muslims, both black and white. It has nothing to do with racism.
Chattel slavery is against the Royal Law and the Golden Rule, which are not found in Islam, which treats different sections of society in different ways, according to whether they are Muslims or not.
In Islam there is no law, such as the above, to limit the extent to which the freedom of the slave can be reduced or impinged upon, even to the extent of mutilating the slave and making it incapable of sexual relations, for example. Also freedom of movement and association and the right to family life is grounded in the Royal Law, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In Islam the family unit of the slave is automatically dissolved when the slave becomes a slave. It becomes an isolated piece of chattel that has no human relation with any other human being.
Just to try and defend your religion’s attitude to slavery by saying that slavery was accepted in the bible is running away from the problem.
1- Royal Law and the Golden Rule have nothing to do with Christianity.
2- Everything you said about slavery rules in Islam is made up.
3- Royal Law and the Golden Rule have nothing to do with Christianity.
No one is running away here. Your book is the most inhumane when it comes to slavery.
When Europeans came in contact with Muslims, they saw how the Muslims treated their slaves. They saw how the slaves even negotiated with the their masters which came as a shock to the Europeans. We don’t treat them like dirt unlike in your religion.
And please save me this “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” nonsense which clearly doesn’t apply to slaves.
Royal Law and Golden Rule are basically the same. Do to yourself as you would do to others or treat your neighbors as you treat yourself. But this is pure nonsense if you think this is applied to slaves.
If you would treat your slaves as you would treat yourself then they wouldn’t be slaves in the first place. Because you treat yourself as the master of those people. So if you are a slave owner and you wish to your slaves what you wish to yourself then you should let them go free cus you yourself want to be free (as you are cus you aren’t the one that is the slave here).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Royal Law and Golden Rule are basically the same. Do to yourself as you would do to others or treat your neighbors as you treat yourself. But this is pure nonsense if you think this is applied to slaves.”
That’s not pure nonsense, that’s the explicit command.
1 Timothy 6:1-2: All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.
The contemporary slave trade of the Roman world to the biblical author did not take seriously the welfare of the slaves, so the Bible condemned the Roman slave trade.
None of you will believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself. [Bukharee & Muslim]
The believers are nothing else than brothers. [Quran, 49:10]
If a Slave of a Muslim becomes a Muslim, he is automatically considered a brother in religion. In such case, one should not, would not, cannot hold a brother in Islam in slavery. Therefore, unlike Christianity, embedded within Islam is a mechanism to gradually end slavery.
Slavery is mentioned in at least twenty-nine verses of the Quran, most of these are revealed in Medina and refer to the status of slaves. The verses are largely restricted to manumission (freeing of slaves) and marital relations. The Quranic references to slavery mainly contain broad and general propositions of an ethical nature rather than specific legal formulations.
The Quran uses “slavery” in the past-tense, thus an indication only to those individuals who were already enslaved at the time of revelation. This meant that slavery was never compatible with the commandments of the Quran and was in fact outlawed by Quranic Law.
The Quran recognized the practice of inequality between master and slave and the norms at that time about the rights of the former over the latter. But the Quran stated that from a spiritual perspective, “the slave has the same value as the free man, and the same eternity is in store for his soul.
The Quran urged kindness to the slave and recommended their liberation by purchase or manumission. The freeing of slaves is recommended both for the expiation of sins and as an act of simple benevolence. It exhorted masters to allow slaves to earn or purchase their own freedom.
The Quran, however, did not consider slaves to be mere chattel; their humanity was directly addressed in references to their beliefs, their desire for freedom and their feelings about being forced into prostitution and forced labor. In one case, the Quran referred to master and slave with the same word, rajul (man). Later interpreters presumed slaves to be spiritual equals of free Muslims. For example, verse 4:25 urged believers to marry believing maids that your right hands owned and then stated: “The one of you is as the other,” which the Jalaalayn (exegeses of the Quran by Jalal ad-Din Mahalli and Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti) interpreted as “You and they are equal in faith, so do not refrain from marrying them.” The human aspect of slaves was further reinforced by reference to them as members of the private household along with wives and children.
The purpose was not to promote or sustain slavery but to eliminate it completely. It took Muslims some 1400 years to realize this intent and now slavery is completely banned in all countries including the Muslim majority countries. http://www.islamicity.org/14269/misreading-slavery-and-polygamy-in-the-quran/
“That’s not pure nonsense, that’s the explicit command.”
With all due respect but you didn’t deal with the issue. My point never was that slaves shouldn’t obey and serve their masters while being fed and clothed by their masters.
The point was that you can’t apply the ‘do to yourself as you would do to others’ rule cus then they wouldn’t be slaves to begin with since the master would free them cus he wished them to be free as he wishes himself to be free.
And btw “devoted to the welfare of their slaves” can have many meanings. It has to be looked at in light of all the other passages about slaves. The master has rights just as the slave has rights. If the master is rude and abusive towards his slave then can he obtain freedom? No. In Islam if a master abuses his slave by for example hitting the slave on the face than freeing of that slave is required. IS there such a thing in Christianity? According to Exodus one can beat his slave to a near death experience (literally) and not only will their be no punishment on him, the slave gets ZERO justice. How is that fair?
Jesus doesn’t think slaves should even be thanked for their service.
7 “Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? 8 Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? 9 Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’” –Jesus, Luke 17:7-10
Compare that to a first century Roman pagan:
“‘They are slaves,’ people declare. NO, rather they are men.
‘Slaves! NO, comrades.
‘Slaves! NO, they are unpretentious friends.
‘Slaves! NO, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave.
But why should they think it degrading? It is only purse-proud etiquette… All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb… They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies… This is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.
‘He is a slave.’ His soul, however, may be that of a free man.”
— Seneca the Younger (4 BC – 65 AD), Epistulae Morales, 47.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Depends what you mean by slavery. Your guy Brown says the meaning is hard to pin down.
Forcing someone to work for his debtor is an acceptable form of slavery. That is within the gambit of loving your neighbor as yourself. After all the debtor is under the law too. So he loves his neighbor the slavemaster by paying back his debt.
And I guess beating your slave to the point of death is also “acceptable” and falls within the gambit of loving your neighbor?
Please Ignoramus, spare us your Christian nonsense.
His method of arguing is basically:
1- say whatever you want about Christianity
2- say whatever you want about Islam
3- say that Christianity is better than Islam based on this
Wow, the way slaveowners used religion as a tool cannot be denied. I bet it is fair to say most of the revolutionary texts were removed. This information would have been part of the socialisation of the children. Just sad.
Faiz that is bs because he wont recover in a day or two.
But you’re the one who is arguing for the “Golden Rule” in your defense of Biblical slavery!
So I guess you agree that the Bible’s slavery laws are unjust?
That would also constitute attempted murder which must be punished.
Why are you inserting your opinions into the text? Doesn’t your Bible allow beating a slave as long as he does not die?
“A beating which left any mark or wound would be against the law.”
A slave owner who strikes his slave a fatal blow with a stick or a club (שׁבט) is to be punished unless the slave survives the blow for a day or so. In that case, he is to suffer no punishment beyond his financial loss in the death of his slave.
Durham, J. I. (2002). Vol. 3: Word Biblical Commentary : Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 323). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
If the servant returns to work on the second or third day after the assault his injuries cannot be that bad.”
how do you know ? are you saying that master can beat the shit out of someone ONLY if the injuries are not severe? how about a kick to the backside ? or a powerful push ? or pinching the slave to abuse him? paul tells christians to get abused in all possible ways.
According to Erasmus’s understanding of his own faith, Christianity could be described as a brutal, uncaring and merciless religion.
American Christian Slave holders routinely punished slaves brutally causing broken bones, cuts, tears, branding, burning, whip lacerations, blunt force trauma, broken teeth, torture, rape, humiliation and not to mention immense psychological damage, pain, suffering.
But all of that is ok with Erasmus and Christianity as long as slave gets up and back to work in 2-3 days. Keep in mind that this was all done by White Christian masters, to their own black slaves who were supposedly “Brothers and Sisters” in Christian faith. – Wow! Where is the mercy in Christianity?? Where is the sense of brotherhood??
If I was an African descendant of Slaves I would seek refuge in Islam, like Malcolm X, and never have anything to do with Christianity ever again.
The brutal merciless punishment and torment of the slave in Christianity can theoretically be repeated again and again as long as the slave gets up and returns to work every 2-3 days indefinitely.
What a horrific nightmare.
White Christian Slave masters, forced their African (often Muslim) slaves to accept Christianity.
The best act of revenge that a modern Christian African descendant of slaves can do, is to return to the religion that their own ancestors were physically forced to abandon, and return home to Islam, where Muslim brothers and sisters are awaiting them with open arms.
Nothing would spite the old white Christian Slave masters (and modern Christian racists) more – Poetic Justice.
Faiz: “But you’re the one who is arguing for the “Golden Rule” in your defense of Biblical slavery!
So I guess you agree that the Bible’s slavery laws are unjust?”
The golden rule doesn’t preclude the obligation to pay the debt. Otherwise the whole arrangement would not be entered into.
Faiz: “Why are you inserting your opinions into the text? Doesn’t your Bible allow beating a slave as long as he does not die?”
A beating which left any mark or wound would be against the law. A severe beating would be classed as attempted murder:
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
If the servant returns to work on the second or third day after the assault his injuries cannot be that bad.
Is Exodus 21 specifically in regard to a slave, or in reference to a “neighbor?” It is not clear that a severe beating of a slave would be considered as a criminal act.
“If the servant returns to work on the second or third day after the assault his injuries cannot be that bad.” – Such a statement cannot be confirmed to be true in all cases.
I would support banning Erasmus. He diverts from the topic by talking about debt slavery ignoring the enslavement after conquests which exists in Biblical law. He made up claims about Islamic slavery in the most blatant way without even trying to give proofs.
Discussing with such a person is worthless in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Erasmus has definitely attempted to divert the topic with discussion about debt slavery which is different than institutional slavery. Fortunately, Erasmaus’s misguided remarks are generally easy to refute and address by any Muslim with a small amount of knowledge.
The main topic of the original post is that Christians ACTUALLY developed and published a Bible which contains only verses which are suitable for slaves, and withheld verses and entire chapters which may have caused slaves to question their lowly status and possibly even revolt. That Christians did this, to their own Christian brothers and sisters who happened to be enslaved black people is utterly disgusting and hard to believe.
As I commented above, Islam set in place the mechanism for the eventual eradication of slavery. But most importantly, the fact remains that Muslims have never published a separate Qur’an for slaves only, no matter if one is a King or a Slave, there is only 1 Qur’an for all to see and read.
Alhamdullah, anyone who reads the Qur’an correctly and clearly could never own another human being (most especially a co-religionist) as a slave.
There he goes again…inserting his own opinions into the Bible! Have you no shame, Ignoramus? You are contradicting your god. Your modern and secularized opinions have no merit.
Reblogged this on The Quran and Bible Blog and commented:
Here is a shocking example of the lengths Christians have gone to edit or hide certain parts of their own scriptures. We already know historical examples of theological controversies which led Christians to edit their books, but here is a fairly recent example of editing the Bible for economic/political purposes.