Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Lower Nubia]

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم enslaved captives on multiple occasions, so إن شاء الله you will be careful to qualify your remarks on that

And then freed them as soon as he could.
Again, I point to where in the Qur’ân it says the pagans of Makkah do not engage in “good worship”, and then says that good worship is freeing slaves.

“As soon as he could”? Can you enlighten us on that glossed over but important phrase.

[Lower Nubia]

This thread is wild. You know when I said Muhammad was morally inferior to Jesus (so why did Allah make Muhammad his final prophet and not the morally superior Jesus). Yeah. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Didn’t send armies to retaliate.

How can it not be obvious here who should actually be emulated.

[Chess Reloaded]

And then freed them as soon as he could.
Again, I point to where in the Qur’ân it says the pagans of Makkah do not engage in “good worship”, and then says that good worship is freeing slaves.

“As soon as he could”? Can you enlighten us on that glossed over but important phrase.

There are all sorts of apologetics here, such as when he could be sure they wouldn't fight him, or inform on the Muslims. But that's unnecessary because you don't need to enslave people for that, you can just keep that as pow's which he did until they were ransomed. Sometimes he also executed prisoners which he considered too dangerous or harmful, others he freed without ransom because they had families to support back home and were too poor to pay. Those he enslaved did generally end up converting and being freed at some point. But there was no rule established by this necessarily, although the Quran says if a slave desires freedom you must give them a reasonable way to attain by work. This actually was how Muhammad ﷺ gained one of his wives, Safiya رضي الله عنها. She was taken captive and divided among the other captives but she demanded terms of manumission so her master agreed to a contract for a certain amount of labor. She then asked that Muhammad ﷺ witness the agreement to be sure he didn't renege and when Muhammad ﷺ saw her he offered to pay for her freedom on the spot if she would marry him. A'isha رضي الله عنها narrates as soon as she saw Safiya she hated her, the reason being because she was beautiful and she knew Muhammad ﷺ would propose. But A'isha رضي الله عنها though jealous was honest and never demeaned her character. Safiya agreed, after which all of her extended family was freed because the Muslims wished to please the Prophet ﷺ by pleasing his wife. She actually narrated several Hadiths. She naturally hated Muhammad ﷺ at first because the Muslims had killed her family but on the other hand her husband and father beat her very brutally and she found the Prophet ﷺ a lot kinder and also somewhat sympathetic toward her loss and he tried to explain he didn't want to fight her father but her father sought to betray him and destroy the Muslims and he had no choice. She eventually grew to love the Prophet ﷺ and converted and rose to a powerful position.

[Chess Reloaded]

This thread is wild. You know when I said Muhammad was morally inferior to Jesus (so why did Allah make Muhammad his final prophet and not the morally superior Jesus). Yeah. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Didn’t send armies to retaliate.

How can it not be obvious here who should actually be emulated.

Jesus عليه السلام according to Christians is the God of the Old Testament, so by that logic he ordered people to be enslaved, invaded and pillaged

[Washington Resistance Army]

This thread is wild. You know when I said Muhammad was morally inferior to Jesus (so why did Allah make Muhammad his final prophet and not the morally superior Jesus). Yeah. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Didn’t send armies to retaliate.

How can it not be obvious here who should actually be emulated.

Jesus عليه السلام according to Christians is the God of the Old Testament, so by that logic he ordered people to be enslaved, invaded and pillaged

This is very true and why there's been no shortage of Christian heresies professing the god of the Old Testament and Christ to be wholly distinct. God in the OT is a violent, cruel, jealous and arbitrary being who is more or less a great standard for an evil deity. By comparison Christ is morally upstanding by most any metrics and professes things that most all people can find to be good even if you don't accept his divinity. There's a very sharp disconnect there.

[Chess Reloaded]

Jesus عليه السلام according to Christians is the God of the Old Testament, so by that logic he ordered people to be enslaved, invaded and pillaged

This is very true and why there's been no shortage of Christian heresies professing the god of the Old Testament and Christ to be wholly distinct. God in the OT is a violent, cruel, jealous and arbitrary being who is more or less a great standard for an evil deity. By comparison Christ is morally upstanding by most any metrics and professes things that most all people can find to be good even if you don't accept his divinity. There's a very sharp disconnect there.

I think both are a bit extreme. From a Muslim perspective the Old Testament presents a very warped and at times amoral picture whereas the New Testament is excessively pacifistic in ordering people to just roll over for wrongdoers

[The Blaatschapen]

This is very true and why there's been no shortage of Christian heresies professing the god of the Old Testament and Christ to be wholly distinct. God in the OT is a violent, cruel, jealous and arbitrary being who is more or less a great standard for an evil deity. By comparison Christ is morally upstanding by most any metrics and professes things that most all people can find to be good even if you don't accept his divinity. There's a very sharp disconnect there.

I think both are a bit extreme. From a Muslim perspective the Old Testament presents a very warped and at times amoral picture whereas the New Testament is excessively pacifistic in ordering people to just roll over for wrongdoers

During the old testament, God was an angry teenager. By the new one he mellowed out and was a hippie.

Currently he's a boomer.

[Genivaria]

This is very true and why there's been no shortage of Christian heresies professing the god of the Old Testament and Christ to be wholly distinct. God in the OT is a violent, cruel, jealous and arbitrary being who is more or less a great standard for an evil deity. By comparison Christ is morally upstanding by most any metrics and professes things that most all people can find to be good even if you don't accept his divinity. There's a very sharp disconnect there.

I think both are a bit extreme. From a Muslim perspective the Old Testament presents a very warped and at times amoral picture whereas the New Testament is excessively pacifistic in ordering people to just roll over for wrongdoers

Except for the whole whipping the bankers out of the temple bit, and personally leading the army of heaven in Revelations.

[Diarcesia]

I think both are a bit extreme. From a Muslim perspective the Old Testament presents a very warped and at times amoral picture whereas the New Testament is excessively pacifistic in ordering people to just roll over for wrongdoers

Except for the whole whipping the bankers out of the temple bit, and personally leading the army of heaven in Revelations.

The reasoning the Christians would give is that Jesus can do it because he's God. While Christians are expected to be like him, many people think that only God can do things seen as "violent, cruel, jealous, and arbitrary" because he is dispensing justice according to his law. Man, being flawed, can't be trusted to do the same with righteous motive.

[Chess Reloaded]

Except for the whole whipping the bankers out of the temple bit, and personally leading the army of heaven in Revelations.

The reasoning the Christians would give is that Jesus can do it because he's God. While Christians are expected to be like him, many people think that only God can do things seen as "violent, cruel, jealous, and arbitrary" because he is dispensing justice according to his law. Man, being flawed, can't be trusted to do the same with righteous motive.

So Christians think the military and justice system should be abolished?

[Diarcesia]

The reasoning the Christians would give is that Jesus can do it because he's God. While Christians are expected to be like him, many people think that only God can do things seen as "violent, cruel, jealous, and arbitrary" because he is dispensing justice according to his law. Man, being flawed, can't be trusted to do the same with righteous motive.

So Christians think the military and justice system should be abolished?

Far from it, as Paul wrote that the secular governments are appointed by God and Christians are encouraged to follow their laws as long as they don't break God's law. Jehovah's Witnesses are hard pacifists, while more mainline Christians have their ideas of a just war.

[Chess Reloaded]

So Christians think the military and justice system should be abolished?

Far from it, as Paul wrote that the secular governments are appointed by God and Christians are encouraged to follow their laws as long as they don't break God's law. Jehovah's Witnesses are hard pacifists, while more mainline Christians have their ideas of a just war.

Roman Laws conflicts quite a bit with Biblical law, almost all secular law does.

[Diarcesia]

Far from it, as Paul wrote that the secular governments are appointed by God and Christians are encouraged to follow their laws as long as they don't break God's law. Jehovah's Witnesses are hard pacifists, while more mainline Christians have their ideas of a just war.

Roman Laws conflicts quite a bit with Biblical law, almost all secular law does.

You mean the Law of Moses?

[Chess Reloaded]

Roman Laws conflicts quite a bit with Biblical law, almost all secular law does.

You mean the Law of Moses?

I mean God's law, the law the prophets ruled by, what do you mean, Law of Moses? Yes it was revealed to him

[Diarcesia]

You mean the Law of Moses?

I mean God's law, the law the prophets ruled by, what do you mean, Law of Moses? Yes it was revealed to him

Christian theology holds that it's no longer required once Jesus died and resurrected. It's the primary reason they don't do sacrifices as prescribed in the Torah.

[Chess Reloaded]

I mean God's law, the law the prophets ruled by, what do you mean, Law of Moses? Yes it was revealed to him

Christian theology holds that it's no longer required once Jesus died and resurrected. It's the primary reason they don't do sacrifices as prescribed in the Torah.

I see, so the law of Caesar is still required, but not the law of God.

[Diarcesia]

Christian theology holds that it's no longer required once Jesus died and resurrected. It's the primary reason they don't do sacrifices as prescribed in the Torah.

I see, so the law of Caesar is still required, but not the law of God.

In the sense that God appoints them as leaders of secular governments. The only caveat is if following the law of Caesar means disobeying God, like worshipping Caesar as a god for example.

[Chess Reloaded]

I see, so the law of Caesar is still required, but not the law of God.

In the sense that God appoints them as leaders of secular governments. The only caveat is if following the law of Caesar means disobeying God, like worshipping Caesar as a god for example.

God is therefore appointing people to write laws to replace his?

[Diarcesia]

In the sense that God appoints them as leaders of secular governments. The only caveat is if following the law of Caesar means disobeying God, like worshipping Caesar as a god for example.

God is therefore appointing people to write laws to replace his?

Definitely not to replace his law, because he also appoints the pagan rulers. And rulers have the free will to choose to disobey God and make laws that glorify man instead.

[Lower Nubia]

“As soon as he could”? Can you enlighten us on that glossed over but important phrase.

There are all sorts of apologetics here, such as when he could be sure they wouldn't fight him, or inform on the Muslims. But that's unnecessary because you don't need to enslave people for that, you can just keep that as pow's which he did until they were ransomed. Sometimes he also executed prisoners which he considered too dangerous or harmful, others he freed without ransom because they had families to support back home and were too poor to pay. Those he enslaved did generally end up converting and being freed at some point. But there was no rule established by this necessarily, although the Quran says if a slave desires freedom you must give them a reasonable way to attain by work. This actually was how Muhammad ﷺ gained one of his wives, Safiya رضي الله عنها. She was taken captive and divided among the other captives but she demanded terms of manumission so her master agreed to a contract for a certain amount of labor. She then asked that Muhammad ﷺ witness the agreement to be sure he didn't renege and when Muhammad ﷺ saw her he offered to pay for her freedom on the spot if she would marry him. A'isha رضي الله عنها narrates as soon as she saw Safiya she hated her, the reason being because she was beautiful and she knew Muhammad ﷺ would propose. But A'isha رضي الله عنها though jealous was honest and never demeaned her character. Safiya agreed, after which all of her extended family was freed because the Muslims wished to please the Prophet ﷺ by pleasing his wife. She actually narrated several Hadiths. She naturally hated Muhammad ﷺ at first because the Muslims had killed her family but on the other hand her husband and father beat her very brutally and she found the Prophet ﷺ a lot kinder and also somewhat sympathetic toward her loss and he tried to explain he didn't want to fight her father but her father sought to betray him and destroy the Muslims and he had no choice. She eventually grew to love the Prophet ﷺ and converted and rose to a powerful position.

Big oof.

This thread is wild. You know when I said Muhammad was morally inferior to Jesus (so why did Allah make Muhammad his final prophet and not the morally superior Jesus). Yeah. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Didn’t send armies to retaliate.

How can it not be obvious here who should actually be emulated.

Jesus عليه السلام according to Christians is the God of the Old Testament, so by that logic he ordered people to be enslaved, invaded and pillaged

Big problem with this one. First, it confuses the intentional moral relativism of Ancient Israel with the moral Absolutism of Christ's incarnation. Two, as Christ is God, we're all slaves anyway because "Potter and pot". No man can own another, Christ, as a man, owned nobody. Christ, as God, owns everyone.

[Chess Reloaded]

God is therefore appointing people to write laws to replace his?

Definitely not to replace his law, because he also appoints the pagan rulers. And rulers have the free will to choose to disobey God and make laws that glorify man instead.

As opposed to using His laws?

[Chess Reloaded]

There are all sorts of apologetics here, such as when he could be sure they wouldn't fight him, or inform on the Muslims. But that's unnecessary because you don't need to enslave people for that, you can just keep that as pow's which he did until they were ransomed. Sometimes he also executed prisoners which he considered too dangerous or harmful, others he freed without ransom because they had families to support back home and were too poor to pay. Those he enslaved did generally end up converting and being freed at some point. But there was no rule established by this necessarily, although the Quran says if a slave desires freedom you must give them a reasonable way to attain by work. This actually was how Muhammad ﷺ gained one of his wives, Safiya رضي الله عنها. She was taken captive and divided among the other captives but she demanded terms of manumission so her master agreed to a contract for a certain amount of labor. She then asked that Muhammad ﷺ witness the agreement to be sure he didn't renege and when Muhammad ﷺ saw her he offered to pay for her freedom on the spot if she would marry him. A'isha رضي الله عنها narrates as soon as she saw Safiya she hated her, the reason being because she was beautiful and she knew Muhammad ﷺ would propose. But A'isha رضي الله عنها though jealous was honest and never demeaned her character. Safiya agreed, after which all of her extended family was freed because the Muslims wished to please the Prophet ﷺ by pleasing his wife. She actually narrated several Hadiths. She naturally hated Muhammad ﷺ at first because the Muslims had killed her family but on the other hand her husband and father beat her very brutally and she found the Prophet ﷺ a lot kinder and also somewhat sympathetic toward her loss and he tried to explain he didn't want to fight her father but her father sought to betray him and destroy the Muslims and he had no choice. She eventually grew to love the Prophet ﷺ and converted and rose to a powerful position.

Big oof.

Jesus عليه السلام according to Christians is the God of the Old Testament, so by that logic he ordered people to be enslaved, invaded and pillaged

Big problem with this one. First, it confuses the intentional moral relativism of Ancient Israel with the moral Absolutism of Christ's incarnation. Two, as Christ is God, we're all slaves anyway because "Potter and pot". No man can own another, Christ, as a man, owned nobody. Christ, as God, owns everyone.

Trying to pretend God's revelation was purely cultural relativism is a hard case to prove because the people of Israel were punished over and over for disobeying it.

The second point is ill-considered. By the same reasoning no man can rule because we're all subjects of God

[Diarcesia]

Definitely not to replace his law, because he also appoints the pagan rulers. And rulers have the free will to choose to disobey God and make laws that glorify man instead.

As opposed to using His laws?

It's not always mutually exclusive. In the New Testament, for instance, God doesn't care if you eat poultry or fish or pork as long as it's not offered to an idol. He's less interested in a legalistic way of life akin to what the Pharisees were doing in Jesus's day.

[Chess Reloaded]

As opposed to using His laws?

It's not always mutually exclusive. In the New Testament, for instance, God doesn't care if you eat poultry or fish or pork as long as it's not offered to an idol. He's less interested in a legalistic way of life akin to what the Pharisees were doing in Jesus's day.

I see so He no longer considers laws important as per your doctrine?

[Diarcesia]

It's not always mutually exclusive. In the New Testament, for instance, God doesn't care if you eat poultry or fish or pork as long as it's not offered to an idol. He's less interested in a legalistic way of life akin to what the Pharisees were doing in Jesus's day.

I see so He no longer considers laws important as per your doctrine?

The best that I can put it is that he places more importance on the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

What are the greatest commandments?
1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40). The Old Testament law has three parts.
1. Ceremonial (no longer observed by Christians because they believe Jesus fulfilled it)
2. Civil (applies to the nation of Israel as it existed in the Old Testament)
3. Moral (the Ten Commandments, timeless and universal)

In Islam, how similar are the delineations of God's commands and laws? Which ones apply only to, say, Arabia during Muhammad's time? Which ones would be more like the Ten Commandments?