One of the aims of islamic Jihad is to destroy the families of non-Muslims by breaking them apart and imposing slavery on the individual members. To the true God of the bible all families are sacred and inviolate and may not be broken apart by force. This is the fundamental difference between islamic and biblical slavery. Biblical slavery never destroys the family unit whereas islamic slavery deliberately sets out to do this in the case of non-Muslims

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to One of the aims of islamic Jihad is to destroy the families of non-Muslims by breaking them apart and imposing slavery on the individual members. To the true God of the bible all families are sacred and inviolate and may not be broken apart by force. This is the fundamental difference between islamic and biblical slavery. Biblical slavery never destroys the family unit whereas islamic slavery deliberately sets out to do this in the case of non-Muslims

  1. θ says:

    Truth will tell how Islam has a better treatment of slave.
    Christian apologists just try to project their hateful loathing desperation of inhumane slave mistreatment in the Bible – even Jesus is quite cruel on treatments with selling, beatings and cutting asunder – and the Bible never advises the manumission of slave, whereas Islam forbids even a slapping of slave.
    Worse, Jesus is a slave of Romans himself.

  2. madmanna says:

    “and the Bible never advises the manumission of slave”

    The biblical slave belongs to his\her family, including spouse if they are married, as well as to his\her master. The islamic slave does not.

  3. madmanna says:

    All the good enjoined to the slave by Sharia does not rectify this evil wickedness sanctioned and enjoined in the Sharia.

  4. θ says:

    “madmanna says: All the good enjoined to the slave by Sharia does not rectify this evil wickedness sanctioned and enjoined in the Sharia.”

    You confusing Shari’ah law with Hudud. Shari’ah is about goodness, good cause, good manner, good fruits, and for competition of goodness with others. Hudud is penal code.

  5. madmanna says:

    The goodness of destroying the family of the slave. What goodness? Evil of Islam.

  6. θ says:

    “madmanna says: The biblical slave belongs to his\her family, including spouse if they are married, as well as to his\her master. The islamic slave does not.”

    Islamic slaves belong to Ummah. One portion of Zakat is for a liberation of slaves.
    Islamic slaves have economical rights to keep some money.
    Islamic slaves have social rights to have a contract of liberation (buying their freedom with Zakat of Ummah and with their money).
    Hence, the Islamic slaves just belong to Ummah, as well as his and her self, and those rights can’t be denied by any slaveholder.

    Bukhari, Kitab Al-Mukatabat.
    It is recorded that Sirin, a slave of Anas, a companion of the Holy Prophet, desired his master to give him a contract of freedom on payment of a certain sum, but Anas, thinking that he was a rich man and needed no money, refused to make the required contract. Sirin complained to Umar, the second successor of the Holy Prophet, who summoned Anas and ordered him to give Sirin the desired contract. Anas refused; Umar thereupon hit him with a whip and recited the Qur’anic verse which says, “As for those slaves who desire to enter into a contract of Mukatabat with you, make such a contract with them.” Thereupon Anas agreed.

  7. madmanna says:

    “Islamic slaves belong to Ummah.”
    Exactly. That’s the problem. The biblical slave belongs to God, his family and the slavemaster.

  8. θ says:

    “madmanna says: The biblical slave belongs to God, his family and the slavemaster.”

    Do you mean in the Bible God runs a lucrative slave industry with the Slave Market and razzias to maintain a supply, demand, flow and distribution of slaves? In the Bible God never advises the manumission of Gentile slaves.
    Jesus never liberates any slave at all, even worse he is factually a slave of Romans, he approves the selling out of wives and daughters to pay the debtor’s bill, he approves the penalty of cutting asunder and beatings of slaves.
    In the Bible God allows man to sell his daughters for other than a debt reason.

    Slave Market in the OT.
    Joel 3:8
    And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

    Slave Market in the Gospel.
    Mt 18:25
    But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

    Human Trafficking.
    Exo 21:7
    And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

  9. Anonymous says:

    One other bad feature in the Bible beside the worse treatment of slaves is the complete absence of “consent” for the female slave, especially the beautiful one, so that she just can’t say “No” whenever her master, or mistress, or even her master’s daughter decided to force her to be a bride for someone she didn’t know of.
    It happens on story of two female slaves Bilhah and Zilpah whose master and master’s daughter, (Laban and Rachel) agreed to force them to be the brides of Jacob.

  10. madmanna says:

    You don’t quote Jewish Encyclopedia.

    We argue from Koran or Hadith or the Bible.

    Nothing else.

    comments with Jewish Sources quoting some nobody’s opinion will be deleted.

    Making assertions without quoting biblical texts will also be deleted.

  11. madmanna says:

    All comments referring to underage without proof will also be deleted.

  12. madmanna says:

    “It happens on story of two female slaves Bilhah and Zilpah whose master and master’s daughter, (Laban and Rachel) agreed to force them to be the brides of Jacob.”

    Why should they have objected to being the wives of Jacob? They did know him and you are just arguing from silence. They must have been single and they wanted to have children so why not? Do you know that they objected to the arrangement and were forced against their will? No you don’t.

    Isaac and Rebekah did not meet either before their marriage but Rebekah agreed to go with Eleazer.

    It was left to the families to decide on the compatability. God has made all men and women compatible for each other as long as the age difference is not so great, like your prophet. The modern idea that the “right one” first has to be found was not the way that people thought in those days. A man could marry any woman and vice versa or are you saying that there is something wrong with the way God has created?

  13. madmanna says:

    If you start flooding the comments section with baseless assertions without attempting to prove them your comments will disappear. You are warned. I am a warner just like Mohammed.

  14. θ says:

    “madmanna says: Why should they have objected to being the wives of Jacob? They did know him and you are just arguing from silence. They must have been single and they wanted to have children so why not? Do you know that they objected to the arrangement and were forced against their will? No you don’t.”

    Well, If every Christian apologists have a good thought and goodwill without prejudice like yours, perhaps we Moslems would not have got busied and troubled a lot by the insults of Islamophobia, especially on the issues of slavery under Shari’ah, such as the infamous event of Awtas, captives of Qurayza, Shafiyya of Khaybar, et cetera. Why should the slaves have objected to being the wives of Moslems or the wives of other slaves under the ruling of the Shari’ah law (Q.24, v,32)? They must have wanted to have children so why not? Nobody could argue that they objected to be part of Moslem family and were forced against their will.

  15. Anonymous says:

    “madmanna says: A man could marry any woman and vice versa or are you saying that there is something wrong with the way God has created?”

    No, a man can’t marry a woman without getting her consent. Consent is what defines the rape.
    The Bible doesn’t require man to ask the woman’s consent for marriage.

    No, a man can’t marry prepubescent woman. Puberty is what defines marriage.
    The Bible doesn’t require man to wait girl’s puberty for marriage.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Let me ask: Does the category of “beautiful captive” in Deut 21″11-13 include the prepubescent woman?
    Dt 21
    11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;13 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 be thy wife.

  17. θ says:

    “madmanna says: A man could marry any woman and vice versa or are you saying that there is something wrong with the way God has created?”

    It is irony that a Biblical permission of keeping the Gentile’s female captives – especially the beautiful ones with preference of not reaching puberty – is a main reason why the Jews refuse to enter the Canaan Land under Moses, and once again refuse to drive out all seven tribes of Canaanites under Joshua.

  18. madmanna says:

    “especially the beautiful ones with preference of not reaching puberty”

    The permission to take foreign women in marriage was limited to sexually ripe females, not all females.

    Permission was given to take the pre-pubescent females of the Midianites in to the Israelite community, not in marriage until they were ready for it.

    “Let me ask: Does the category of “beautiful captive” in Deut 21″11-13 include the prepubescent woman?”

    Prepubescent woman? Oxymoron.

  19. θ says:

    “madmanna says: The permission to take foreign women in marriage was limited to sexually ripe females, not all females. Permission was given to take the pre-pubescent females of the Midianites in to the Israelite community, not in marriage until they were ready for it.”

    By reading some Christian apologists’ arguments, such as of answeringislam, it can easily be known their reasoning is too flawed, weak, and too amateurish. Exo 21:7 talks about the selling out of a daughter who has not yet had her “consent” (that is, to say no), still being under the authority of her father, as she is counted as a “property” of her father, hence she must be a prepubescent one.
    Exo 21:7
    And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

    Ezek 16:7 talks about the age of “Na’ar” (prepubescence) of a little girl that Ezek 16:22 references again. It is the age that spans from the juvenile age (still being naked and bare) to the time of birthing.
    In Hebrew, Na’ar means a little child that doesn’t know yet or experience what sexuality is.
    Na’ar: Properly passive participle from H5288 as denominative; (only in plural collectively or emphatically) youth, the state (juvenility) or the persons (young people):—childhood, youth.
    Ezek 16:7
    I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.
    Ezek 16:22
    And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth [Na’ar], when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.

    Hence, according to Ezek 16:22, Ezek 16:7 is about Na’ar (little girl) whose natural ignorance of woman’s nakedness and sexual shame is still common.

    The same case (Ruth 3:4-9) happens to a little girl Ruth who doesn’t yet understand the “sexual appeal” her mother orders her to kindle for turning on Boaz, that is by secretly sneaking and crawling upon the “uncovered feet” of Boaz. If Ruth were a mature female, she should have been ashamed by her “soft seduction” of a sleeping man at night.
    Afterward, just as Ezek 16:7-8, a man (such as Boaz) could lay his skirt upon her, meaning to proceed further to make a sexual activity with her.

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