• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"[W:132]

Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

HowardBThiname said:
If He did (assuming he actually existed), it wasn't recorded. But, He didn't advocate it.
Click to expand...

so it was just coasting along with old testament slavery with some new guidelines
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

blarg said:
so it was just coasting along with old testament slavery with some new guidelines
Click to expand...

The issue of slavery didn't come up at all in the gospels. I don't think that that time, slavery as an institution was at all controversial. It was just considered a fact of life. The passages quoted on this thread were from letters attributed to St Paul.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

HowardBThiname said:
If He did (assuming he actually existed), it wasn't recorded. But, He didn't advocate it.
Click to expand...

That's a weak argument. Obviously, there was not enough there to mitigate its role in Christian society...AT ALL. Slavery didn't even slow down after Jesus. But, the gross exploitation of humans remains a problem here and abroad. However, today we call it other things, like the "free market", hoping a money-centric definition is more palatable than a human-centric one.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

D_NATURED said:
That's a weak argument. Obviously, there was not enough there to mitigate its role in Christian society...AT ALL. Slavery didn't even slow down after Jesus. But, the gross exploitation of humans remains a problem here and abroad. However, today we call it other things, like the "free market", hoping a money-centric definition is more palatable than a human-centric one.
Click to expand...

Sure, slavery continued, but the question raised earlier in this thread was comparing Muhammed's owning of slaves to whether Jesus advocate for slavery. I'm just pointing out the differences in the stories that have been passed down over the centuries. Slavery is still a problem today in some parts of the world.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Slavery exist today in Muslim countries around the world.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

blarg said:
Ephesians 6:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Timothy 6:1-2New International Version (NIV)

6 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[a] of their slaves.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to leave out the bolded part (included to show the full import of Paul's letter).

The term "slave" is not the same thing that we think of. It's a wiling choice to be a slave for a set period of time, usually due to a substantial financial hardship (taxes were the big one). It wasn't forcibly owning another person for their entire life, it was someone offering usually 1-7 years of their life in exchange for an immediate cash payment.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

bearpoker said:
The issue of slavery didn't come up at all in the gospels. I don't think that that time, slavery as an institution was at all controversial. It was just considered a fact of life. The passages quoted on this thread were from letters attributed to St Paul.
Click to expand...

it mentions how you should treat them and how slaves should treat their masters
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

faithful_servant said:
Nice of you to leave out the bolded part (included to show the full import of Paul's letter).

The term "slave" is not the same thing that we think of. It's a wiling choice to be a slave for a set period of time, usually due to a substantial financial hardship (taxes were the big one). It wasn't forcibly owning another person for their entire life, it was someone offering usually 1-7 years of their life in exchange for an immediate cash payment.
Click to expand...

that dosent make it better

dont tell me by roman times you did not have unwilling slaves
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

HowardBThiname said:
Says the KJV, but, go ahead with the diatribe you dreamed up in your imagination. No one's looking.
Click to expand...

o yes you just say thats the accurate version

prove it
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

HowardBThiname said:
The King James Version, which is considered by many as closest to the original documents, uses the term, "servant," not "slave," which indicates being in the employ of another.
Click to expand...

It's really amazing how time and translation can change the meaning of things.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Tigerace117 said:
I don't see any Muslims arguing that slavery was no big deal or that slaves had it good. I especially didn't see any America Muslims firebombing churches full of little children or burning people alive for registering American citizens to vote. That was all "good christians". So spare us the faux indignation. You don't care about Washington; you routinely insult him and his memory, in fact, by trying to equate him to your jumped up slaver heroes.

You, as usual, are just upset no one is giving you free reign to tyrannize and **** all over the Constitution.
Click to expand...
As usual? How the hell would you know what I usually say? You don't even know who the hell I am. Must have me confused with someone else.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

RabidAlpaca said:
The old testament is included in the bible and is the same god, he did not change. The OP's right, time to tear them all down.
Click to expand...

So you're ok with tearing mosques down?
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

HowardBThiname said:
Not just to sanitize, but to revise.

They want to remove the legacies and memories of those whose actions would not be "proper" in today's light. It's a practice in intellectual dishonesty, but I don't think the folks who are advocating the removal of the monuments are too bright. They're more just bandwagon-riders who want to feel as though their lives matter because they've latched onto a "cause."

I don't think they're the brightest crayons in the box.
Click to expand...

The Confederate memorials that you guys are all butthurt about were revisionist history in the first place.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

blarg said:
o yes you just say thats the accurate version

prove it
Click to expand...

I'm tired of your silly games. I gave you my position and now it seems as if you just want to disagree for the sake of disagreement.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

SgtRock said:
Yes, but did Jesus own slaves? The answer is no. He was a reformer. Muhammad on the other hand owned sex slaves, murdered innocent people, and was a pedophile. And if you read my op you would see that I said of course we shouldn't tear down the mosques.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, definition of Paedophile is:

"Pedophile: also spelled PAEDOPHILIA, psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children. The typical paedophile is unable to find satisfaction in an adult sexual relationship and may have low self-esteem, seeing sexual activity with a child as less threatening than that with an adult."

Indeed, his first wife Khadiga was twice widowed before and was older than him by 15 years. All his wives except Aisha were widows. Therefore, it is evident that Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was an exception and Prophet Muhammad did indeed find adult relationship. Prophet Muhammad also did not have low self-esteem, as it is evident from his his biography.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

SgtRock said:
It started with the Confederate monuments. Now there are demands that Washington and Jefferson monuments and memorials be taken down. In fact just this week the church that George Washington attended for over 2 decades announced they would be removing a plaque to Washington because some people didn't feel safe in the church.
Click to expand...

Sources?
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

holbritter said:
It's not faux if the person is in fact outraged.
Click to expand...

It is 'outraged' over false information.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

SgtRock said:
Yes, but did Jesus own slaves? The answer is no. He was a reformer. Muhammad on the other hand owned sex slaves, murdered innocent people, and was a pedophile. And if you read my op you would see that I said of course we shouldn't tear down the mosques.
Click to expand...

Jesus had plenty of opportunities to denounce slavery directly. Never did. The only time in the NT we come close is when an escaped slave seeks refuge with the apostle Paul. Paul promptly returns him to his master, along with a letter saying that he hopes that he would treat his slaves better in the future. That's it.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

FieldTheorist said:
Sources?
Click to expand...

It's mentioned on some right wing sites, and is a misrepresentation> the plaques are being relocated, because of the controversy with the lee plaque, and they moved the both, because they were installed together, and they wanted to keep them together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom