thanks for asking question about my religion But i am confused that what is the meaning of asking irrelevant question? You may start another topic, so we have more Islamic threads at DP or may be i am not getting what are you asking here? and plz readthe both mentioned verses complete not half or incomplete, you will found out the ans yourself and plz double check my previous post http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=2017052#post15375216
These questions relate to the slavery topic posted by OP above & since this is also a religion forum, the view of any religion can come into play. I want to hear the answers from you, not from Zakir or Yousef. I didn't understand what zakir was saying but Dr. Yousef answered the question in a totally irrelevant manner. If Islam teaches you that you're Allah's slave (according to Dr. yousef), then there is a big difference between Christians who are sons and daughters of God. Not only that but we shall inherit the kingdom of God in the afterlife.
non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn person slaves are considered human beings and possessed of rights on the basis of their humanity. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. Prophet Muhammad and his companions purchase thousands of slaves from non-Muslims to make them free from slavery.
Ahem. The people Muhammad and his caravan raiders enslaves were freeborn persons. They were free until Muhammad and his hooligans murdered their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons and took them as sex slaves. Apparently these rights included "the right to be murdered" and "the right to be raped". Seriously, you should do your research before posting again.
Why is it that I am the one reading the Quran and you're the one who is afraid to. Of course, the Hadith's are interesting too, like this passage from Sahih Muslim where Muhammad physically assaults Aisha: I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?
Thanks for asking question about my religion. But does this question make any sence with this topic? plz start a new thread, it would be cool to see lot of Islamic thread here Answer to the mistranslation: The term used in the hadith is: Imam Nawawi in his Sharh states that: The word "lahada" according to the lexicographers means, "to push" (dafa'a). The usage of the word "struck" is not a correct translation. Rather, the phrase should be translated as (as sheikh Gf haddad said): - He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore Secondly, this calls to an important matter that is related to the Hand imposition of the Prophet - Allah bless him - because it is a gesture associated with driving away evil influence (waswâs) and conferring blessing as the following reports show: 1. Ubay ibn Ka`b said: "There occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet him - saw how I was affected, he slapped me on the chest. I broke into a sweat and felt as if I were looking at Allâh in fear." (Sahih Muslim) 2. Jarir ibn Abdullah Al Bajalî was sent by the Prophet - Allah bless him - on a mission to destroy Dhu Al Kahalasa, the idol-house of Khatham, nicknamed the Yemenite Kaba. Jarr narrates: "I went along with a hundred and fifty horsemen but I could not sit steadily on horse. I mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet him - who then struck his hand on my chest so hard that I could see the trace of his fingers on it, saying: 'O Allah! Grant him steadfastness and make him a guide of righteousness and a rightly-guided one!' (Bukhari and Muslim) More proof that the correct translation is ‘He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore’ Aaishah (Radhiallahu 'Anha) said: "Allaah's Messenger (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) never hit anything with his hand ever, except when fighting in the path of Allaah. Nor did he ever hit a servant or a woman." [Recorded by Ibn Maajah. Al-Albaanee graded it Saheeh.] Wife-beating can’t be considered "in the Cause of Allaah" - the reference in the Hadeeth is a reference to Jihaad on the battlefield. "When the prohibitions of Allaah were violated" is a reference to someone committing a crime, and their being tried and then punished by flogging. This is not a reference to the way a husband should treat his wife. So here we clearly see in a sahih (authentic) hadith that Aisha clearly told that the prophet ‘never hit a servent or a women’. So this is also a clear proof that the usage of the word "struck" is not a correct translation. Rather, the phrase should be translated as (as Gf haddad said): - He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore Conclusion: Visiting anti religion websites can wash brain smartly!
Following your idiotic logic, if I strike you in the chest so hard it hurts, I fully expect you to get on your knees and worship me like a god. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Ah, I'm fairly certain he's quoting Quran. For easier reading, I'd suggest starting here: http://www.amazon.com/Quran-Little-Muslims-Audio-CD/dp/B0026J2S2G
Really? How about 1,000 American-born children being forced into the sex trade in Ohio every year, yes that is Ohio alone: Read more:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/11/national/main6196454.shtml
Thats the problem with American Media. We like to sensationalize everything. It would be very interesting to read the actual report the story claims to report about. From your link: The story opens up talking about human trafficking and mingles tales of voluntary child prostitution as if the two were the same thing. I have no doubt there are some children in the US who are abducted and trafficked for sexual services. The numbers from the world report tell the tale quite nicely.
The real beauty of American media? It's something I like to call the "Shark Affect". Let's say on average there are 10 shark sitings by swimmers in the US per year. Let's also say on average there are about 5 reported attacks by sharks in the US per year. Let's also say on average there are about 3 actual confirmed shark attacks in the US that result in injury per year. Let's finally say that on average there are generally 1 death as a result of a shark siting, attack, injury in the US per year. 3 shark attacks occur in the same general area in South Florida over the span of several weeks. The news media now concocts never ending stories and coverage about how off shore oil wells and over fishing are to blame for the rise in shark attacks in the US. The reality is, the average was not breached. Nothing abnormal happened, and everything is status quo, but because of the sudden appearance of a recurrence of something that happens on average (rarely) and because there is no news that day - suddenly there are now thousands of shark attacks occurring all over the US and every one is in utter panic. Its a swelling affect. The SHARK AFFECT. You can apply the same thing to any other news item, newsworthy or not that seeks to sensationalize and expand on a story that really is not much of a story at all. High school shootings, bombings, terrorist attacks, crazy weather, you name it.. If Bush was not responsible for it, you can bet somewhere there's a news agency seeking to exaggerate and expand on it. For every 1,000 American-born kids in the sex trade in Ohio, I can find just as many white buffalo and four leaf clovers. So would CNN, PMSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc., as well if they were bored enough. BTW, did anyone happen to read the report? I found this part interesting. It starts just after it talks about those youth that may be at potential risk with regard to sex slave trade: The study itself never really sites any hard evidence or research to conclude, validate or invalidate it's claims conclusively. http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/...the-Prevalence-of-Human-Trafficking-in-O.aspx
Muslim brother! very nice! good question Luke. it is verse of 24 of Chapter 4: AN-NISA (WOMEN) "and (forbidden to you) all married women, except those whom your right hand owns. such allah has written for you. lawful to you beyond all that, is that you can seek using your wealth in marriage and not fornication. so whatever you have enjoyed from them give them their obligated wage. and there is no fault in you in what ever you mutually agree after the obligation. allah is the knower, the wise. (24)" it mean if a Muslim enslaves a married woman allowed to intercourse with her. I guess in all Abrahamic religions slavery permitted and I agree with vebtool, it need another thread. Chapter 33: AL-AHZAB (THE CLANS) verse of 51 this verse about our prophet deal with his wives. verse of 50 says. I guess God was more kind toward prophet Solomon!