F.H. hi mate :)

err.. just for the record, the information about the position of captive slaves in Islam/Sharia was taken from 2 different sources.
Here is one, from 2005

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=12375

The 2nd one refers to the same site.

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=16699&pid=241049&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry241049

The important point in this F.H. is that this is 2005, and these answers are being trotted out by 'TODAY's mulims in good ol Sydney, on the issue at hand.

So, with this kind of 'flavor/tone/mentality' rife among local muslims, we have every right to be highly concerned that current beliefs are no different from the understanding we have been presenting from the foundation documents, among a significant number of Muslims in our own country. Notwithstanding your own views.

So, please don't tell us we are referring to some 12 century has been :)

Hope your weekend is going well.
Blessings

Boaz,

Again it was a judgement of that time. As per my above posting the legislation in the Quran is to end slavery.

The site you choose, Islam.tc have no sponsor and is an Ishmaailites sect of 20,000 globally. It doesn't really reflect mainstream Islam but of course you chose and let me guess: Philo, Kalweb, Kaktuz are all now regular visitors!

Anyway, this site explains position in depth:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547546

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015662&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

Also, stay tuned for my new blogspot, it is my little contribution for a better world. You will like it.

http://musliminsight.blogspot.com/

Criminal Laws are made for offencive behaviour and have time and place. These are framed for negative behaviour, they don't express ideal behaviour. Examples: Hamurrabi law for Chaldean, Mosaic law for Israel, shari'ah law for Mahomet's community [based upon the 2nd Jewish Talmud]. Laws always relative: never absolute.

Opressive laws applied by Jewsish lawyers to descendants and proselytes of Moses accused Jesus of violation. He ate with unwashed hands, and was denounced unclean by legalists. Jews never allowed cats or dogs because the're unclean, carry diseases that affect human health.

Jesus healed outcasts whose sores were licked by dogs [they carry less diseases than cats]. His focus was upon the positive aspects of living and relating to human needs, he violated the Sabbath by healing a sick man, also reaping grain for his need. He said the laws were made for man and not man for the laws. He was a revolutionary in his time to change oppressive rulings by Talaban type Jewish lawyers.

Never assume that the laws of Moses or Shari'ah are absolute, current Australian law is based upon reformed Christian Theology that takes into account all persons are equal before its standard set by the ruling lawyers. Of course there's corrupt judges. Laws are applied and removed as situations change. We can evaluate principles set by former laws i.e. Moses Torah and Mahomet's Qur'an and see what effect they had on social order. Though they had application in their day, they both fail the ideal society lived by compassion and equality.

The most benificial teaching we give young people is not laws and how they apply, but demonstrated example of ideal character and encouragement. Note: Jesus never laid down religious laws [he never wrote a book of rules], he demonstrated by his life the living, compassionate word of God. He wasn't into control over others, which is what law is, he was into demonstrating that sacrifice and forgivness even to one's enemy overcomes hostility and enmity. He made the ultimate expression of that in his igminious death.

F.H. ... better take that wound in your foot to the hospital :) shooting yourself there is not recommended u know...

<<In addition, Islam established many other ways by which slaves could easily gain their freedom. For example, a baby born from a slave and her master is not only considered free, but also guaranteed the freedom of his mother. >>

Note that tricky little bit 'a baby born from a master' CONFIRMS the our understanding of Sura 23:5-6 and numerous other texts which directly state a man can have sex with his slave girls as they are his POSSESIONS. Babies are not found under cabbage leaves F.H. they begin with intercourse.

Can you show me from the QURAN where a slave girl having a baby to her master is freed ? Chapter and verse please.

The article refers to a 'systematic plan'... I'm afraid nothing I've seen suggests such a thing even in the slightest. The verses in the Quran are 'incidental' and just show how a man can obtain forgiveness for certain sins by freeing a slave, which assumes at the same time that apart from such sins there is no need to free slaves.

The article claims 'Mohamed never had slaves'.. well it lost credibility right there because even you know he did.

Finally.. the deceitfulness of that article is seen in this.

'Islam condemns taking free men as slaves and selling them'....

but it does NOT forbid taking them in WAR, it describes them as 'booty.

This little tactic is similar to Muslim leaders claiming "Islam condemns attacks on INNOCENT' civilians" but this is different from condemning an attack on civilians who are members of a society which supports the USA for example.

How should Muslims treat 'Kafirs' ? read THIS =>http://muslimconverts.com/muslim/al-wala2.htm

F.H. do you know what 'wala' is ?

Boaz,

To judge others (ie kafirs, infidels, ungrateful, etcc..) in the Quran is a judgement reserved to God only according to people intent.

According to the Quran, the reason why God created us different so that we get to know and learn frm one another "Lettarafu" and not to judge one another.

Rather than occupying yourslef with wahabi sites, here is a link to the inter-faith Muslim Christrian dialogue initiated by the Islamic world council forum.

http://taarafu.islamonline.net/English/Taarafo_Conference/2003/article14.shtml

More on my blog soon.

F.H. thanx for that.. actually, I had no idea what 'type' of site that was, I didn't look for that kind of mentality specifically, I was trying to find a meaning of 'Wala', I just found it in a random search. It struck me rather forcefully, because of the actual stipulation to 'hate kafirs'.

Had a look at your blog. Quite well done. Glad you will eat my salad and chicken :) but hey.. why not my well cooked steak ? smothered with mushies and onions and tomato and chippies with a couple of fried eggs.. (drooling yet ? I am) ... no 'flowing blood' in that steak old son.. (oops.. ur 39, "young fella" :)

My main concern for you F.H. is that you are clearly a man of kind heart but you live in a world of Islamic radicalism. Have a read of Alchemists report from his trip to Europe... in the other thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3856
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 20 November 2005 2:17:53 PM

As I've often said, it's not the moderates who drive the agenda..its those annoying radicals. I can see where Hitler went wrong in his biblical interpretation to justify his desire to remove the Jews, (its clearly wrong) but I struggle to 'not' see the connection between the Islamic radicals and the Sunna. They may be overemphasizing one aspect, but it still is a real aspect with roots in that Sunna.

This is interesting, because as Pastor Daniel Scott said in his seminar, 'Muslims are very flexible, they will emphasize what is appropriate to the conditions' and that is exactly how its working out.

But there is no point in revisiting that which Kactuz and myself and Philo and others have spelt out. I don't wish to sound like a broken record :)

Hey..where is your PIC on your blog...you don't need to worry about we Christians coming 'after ya' :) we don't believe in that 0_-
Take care and have a good weekend.