Islam Brainwash?

[lunar oracle]

As well as ISIS

[dusk mason]

Balance? If Islam is a religion of peace, why is balance so necessary to preserve it?

[lunar oracle]

One of the worst terrorist groups

[dusk mason]

If it were truly peaceful, it would be peaceful regardless of a disruption of balance.

[lunar oracle]

Where does Islam teach violence?

Again

[dusk mason]

Everywhere.

[lunar oracle]

you are mixing religion and people

[dusk mason]

You want me to start listing passages?

[lunar oracle]

Another bold claim

[lunar oracle]

Sure

[dusk mason]

So far, I've backed my claims up. You haven't.

[lunar oracle]

What claims havent I backed up other than providing the differences among the bibles

And you havent backed up many of your claims

Your claim of "Quran saiyng the gospel is truth" is false

Literally false

you havent backed it up

you still havent

but you mentioned it multiple times

[dusk mason]

Surah 5:43-46

Since I apparently didn't post that before.

[dusk mason]

This is what, 630 AD? At that point, it is clearly saying that the Jews have the Torah and should be using that for guidance, since it's provided by Allah.

Then it goes into Jesus and the gospels.

Doesn't get to Muhammad until Surah 5:47.

And it's speaking in the present tense, as in something people should be using right now (in 630 AD)

[lunar oracle]

The Quran acknowledges that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) possess the Torah (the Jewish scripture), which contains guidance and laws from Allah. However, despite having access to the Torah, they may come to the Prophet Muhammad seeking his judgment. This behavior is criticized as contradictory, indicating a lack of true belief.

The Quran also acknoledges that the Torah/Gospel also have been corrupted

It acknoledges that the Torah and Gospel were revealed to Jesus and Moses but were corrupted afterwards

It says that the rabbis were entrusted with keeping the book uncorrupted/unaltered

[dusk mason]

I see that you're changing what the text is saying, adding your own flaws

[lunar oracle]

Yes they have said that it was guidance since it has some\ of Allah's judgement's but still seek judgement from Prophet muahammad

[lunar oracle]

Not changing, rather trying to explain what it means

[dusk mason]

Based on your own understanding, but not based on what the text says.

It's okay, this is a common theme in Bible discussions too.

We're all human, after all.

[lunar oracle]

The text clearly talks about the Gospel and Torah as no other relevation books have been mentioned. (Other relevations also could have been corrupted)

[dusk mason]

The Bible clearly documents the corruption that took place with the Torah. It had nothing to do with altering the text.

You don't have to guess at what happened.

It actually just says it

[lunar oracle]

It doesnt directly mention the Gospel or Torah however it is pointed at the word of Allah which would also be the Torah and Gospel and then is said that they were knowingly corrupted

[lunar oracle]

Exactly I dont and I didnt

[dusk mason]

You're claiming the text was altered. That's not what the Quran says.

[lunar oracle]

Anyway I got to go sleep now Im 30 minutes late im gonna talk to ya tommorow

[lunar oracle]

corrupt and altered are similar as corrupt means its been changed so does alter

gn

[dusk mason]

That's not what it says, and not what happened. Reading that into it is weird. Hearing the word and corrupting it is what happens when you hear the word and then decide that you're going to ignore it and force people to follow different rules instead, which is what happened and is documented in the gospels. That has absolutely nothing to do with creating different written text and then passing that down as if it were the Torah.

The amount that you're reading into the text of the Quran that just isn't there is exactly why I say that translations of the Quran haven't removed any of the natural difficulty associated with it.

Besides that, in this context, it's much more common that you'd be hearing the word, not reading it. So changing it would be much more likely to refer to repeating it differently for yourself and others rather than writing down different words to create a counterfeit Torah.

Sleep well

[lunar oracle]

I think it’s hypocritical to say that I’m adding too much context or too much in general to that text when you did even more when adding to Surah 5:43-46

[dusk mason]

You're not adding context. You're changing context.

[lunar oracle]

You said it directly says that the Gospel is truth

[dusk mason]

No I didn't

[lunar oracle]

Which it doesn’t even mention the Gospel

[dusk mason]

I said it says that the gospel is truth

That's not the same thing

[dusk mason]

And it really does, by any normal reading of the passage

Don't change your words and they pretend you didn't

I never said "directly." That was your wrong interpretation.

The passage clearly paints the gospel as truth. It's not subtle at all.

Did you even bother to read the passage?

[lunar oracle]

?? All I mentioned was that in the Surah I showed recently, was that it basically the Gospel and Torah were corrupted ( Through means of logic )

[dusk mason]

Which is not what it says at all

[dusk mason]

You're implying that the text has been changed. That there's some counterfeit version running around because the Jews changed it. That's not what the Quran says at all.

[lunar oracle]

It says that a group would hear the word of Allah ( which includes Torah and Gospel ) and willing will corrupt it

[dusk mason]

It literally says hear. How do you see the word hear and then think, "that means they must have written a counterfeit version." It's nonsense.

[lunar oracle]

When they hear the word of Allah and teach something else that also means they wrote something else entirely in order to align the Gospel/Torah with what they were saying or trying to make them believe

[dusk mason]

Is it so hard to imagine words being corrupted in a way that doesn't involve writing them down? That's so ridiculous to just read into that and then refuse to see that it doesn't say that.

[dusk mason]

It doesn't mean they wrote a different version of the gospel.

You have to think that yourself. It's not in the text.

[lunar oracle]

It pretty much refers to changing some of the prophets teaching and writing the Gospel or Torah with their newly created teachings, they didn’t directly change the text as there may not have been any because it doesn’t refer to any specific timeline

[dusk mason]

That's your own interpretation. It's not in the text.

There's nothing about that text that says that the text of the Torah or the Bible has been changed and is now corrupted.

[lunar oracle]

Well the text refers to groups hearing the word of Allah and corrupting it, in general that also means that they corrupted the word of Allah in the teachings of Jesus and Moses

[dusk mason]

You can corrupt teachings and teach something different entirely without rewriting the text.

You have interpreted that to mean the text is now corrupt, which is just wrong.

[lunar oracle]

It doesn’t have to directly refer to Torah or Bible because it refers to most of the other prophets ( as we have many) and their teachings being corrupted

[dusk mason]

If it says "their teachings were corrupted," that's not saying, "and they wrote a counterfeit version of the Torah and the gospels."

Those are not the same words at all.

[lunar oracle]

You can but it also means that they most likely also corrupted the text and even the other dude agreed that there have been altercations or corruptions in the Old Testament and Torah

[dusk mason]

No it doesn't.

And why on earth would I care about the agreement of some other dude that you're taking out of context?

[lunar oracle]

It can I didn’t say it doesn’t but most already agree that the Old Testament/ Gospel and Torah have been changed

[dusk mason]

He specifically rejected that the Bible was corrupted.

You're lying about his words

[dusk mason]

That doesn't even make sense.

"Corrupted" and changed are not the same thing, first off.

Second, of course things have changed. We use "you" instead of "thee". So what?

[lunar oracle]

My bad it had been modified, doesn’t change the fact they changed the word of literal god and also I got school like right now talk to ya later

[dusk mason]

Third, did you really not read the passage?

What do you think the translations of the Quran are??? There are 50 different translations right now, and they don't say the same thing.

And maybe actually finish reading the passage that you ignored, so you can stop calling me a liar.

Surah 5:46. I don't understand why I have to educate you about your own religious text.

Anyway, enjoy school

[lunar oracle]

The rest isn’t too important

[lunar oracle]

I never said they are, I just said you can appreciate most of the meaning through the translations alone

[lunar oracle]

Well it is of course but I mean in the conversation we are having

[lunar oracle]

Thanks btw I think I kind of did

Just a little worried about wtf I’m gonna do In the future

[dusk mason]

What? What do you mean the rest isn't important? Is that how you normally read passages? Just stop reading and then claim the passage that you didn't read doesn't say what the other person says it said?

[lunar oracle]

It is but not relevant to what we are talking bout now

[dusk mason]

Remember this?

Remember where you didn't read the passage?

[lunar oracle]

It doesnt directly mention the Bible in that Surah that you were referring to

or rather

line

[dusk mason]

That's not what you said. You said it didn't mention the gospel.

Even though it directly mentions the gospel and the Torah.

[dusk mason]

But now a passage directly referring to the Torah and the gospel isn't relevant for a discussion about the Bible?

Surah 5:46

I know this religious text stuff is hard. You have to keep reading

Like when someone mentions a passage, you actually have to look at that passage and not the one next to it

[lunar oracle]

however you were specifying that specific surah

also

wait

It may mention that Allah has given the Torah to Moses and Gospel to Jesus, that doesnt change the fact that the Surah was referring to it being revealed and being true before the changes

[lunar oracle]

The change part is

[dusk mason]

You mean it may mention exactly what I said it mentioned, and not at all what you said it said? Yes. Yes it does.

It says nothing about changes. You're coming up with that all on your own.

[lunar oracle]

In the later surah it does obviously but I was referring to Surah 5:43

[dusk mason]

It also says that they should be following it. As in present tense. Not, "they shouldn't be following it now because it's changed anyway." No sir.

[lunar oracle]

Corrupt and change have similar meaning \

If something has been corrupt you can say it has been changed but not vice versa

[dusk mason]

Obviously, despite the fact that I clearly stated 43-46, and then directly said 46 a couple times.

[lunar oracle]

my bad ignored that part

but

[dusk mason]

The difference is pretty important

[lunar oracle]

The difference is that you can apply change to corrupt but not vice versa

[dusk mason]

You can't just say change = corruption.

Because that means 75% of Muslims rely on corrupted text.

Including you

[lunar oracle]

if someone corrupted a text (and changed it) then you can say its changed and corrupted in some way

[lunar oracle]

😂 Now this is a wild claim

I dont wanna go crazy or anything but that claim is BULLSHIT

its actually fucking crazy how you simply say its a corrupted or changed text without any evidence

[dusk mason]

Why is that? 75% of Muslims don't speak Arabic. They rely on changed text to read the Quran.

[lunar oracle]

They rely on a translated version

thats not changed

[dusk mason]

Lol. That's not what your own religion teaches.

It's literally changed.

You can't go through a translation without changing text.

And there are 50 translations that do not use the same words.

So how is it not changed if they use different words?

[lunar oracle]

Because they do not have the words to describe something, however that does not mean changed because changed is misleading

[dusk mason]

So it's the same. Despite being different.

[lunar oracle]

Translated is the best word to describe this because everyone knows that if you translate something then it may not be 100% accurate

[dusk mason]

Keep going buddy. I think you might start making sense to yourself at some point.

[lunar oracle]

😂

[lunar oracle]

Again, Changed is misleading

as if its purposefully changed

in order for one's benefit or something

but not translated

Anyway

[dusk mason]

You mean the way you're misleading people by claiming "changed" and "corrupted" are the same?

[lunar oracle]

The Quran does not explicitly state that the entire Bible and Torah are corrupted. Instead, it asserts that while the original revelations given to Moses and Jesus were true and valid, over time, alterations, additions, and interpretations by humans may have affected the integrity of the scriptures. Verse examples are: Surah Al-Baqarah (2:79) Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:13) Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:41)

[lunar oracle]

i didnt say they are the same, I said that changed is applicable to corrupted but saying something is corrupted when something was changed is not

If something was corrupted, for example The text went from "The word of god is truth" to "The word of god is not truth" then it would not only be corrupted but also changed as the text has changed. But if the text would simply change without being corrupted then it would be something like this "The autumn breeze whispered softly through the trees, its gentle caress soothing the weary souls of the travelers" to "The autumn breeze whisteled softly through the trees, its gentle caress soothing the weary souls of the travelers"

Thats the point I am trying to make however English is my second language so its pretty hard to actually express what Im trying to say

[dusk mason]

I don't think it asserts that at all. I'm pretty sure that's your interpretation.

[lunar oracle]

its not really my personal interpretation

[dusk mason]

What it actually says, quite directly, is that the revelations confirm the scriptures. Are you arguing that it's confirming something that is corrupted?

Surah 2:40-41

[lunar oracle]

1 sec

[lunar oracle]

Whats the point of this Surah

oh right

as I said

the original relevations given to Moses were true and valid but over time the alterations and additions were made

[dusk mason]

But we have versions of scripture that predate Muhammed.

And the revelations confirm those scriptures. So what exactly are you trying to say?

That they were corrupted before then, but the Surah is still telling people they should be following that scripture?

[lunar oracle]

Ofc the Torah and Gospel were made before the Prophet Muhammad pbuh

[dusk mason]

So if those are corrupted, why do the revelations confirm those?

[lunar oracle]

They confirm them at their time of revelation untill being altered, added upon

[dusk mason]

Should you not also do as the revelations specifically command and follow the Torah and the other scripture?

[lunar oracle]

I dont think you actually understand and you are looking at this Surah from a biased point of view

its actually pretty crazy how you dont see such simple things

[dusk mason]

Of course I have biases, and you clearly have yours.

[lunar oracle]

Your biases are actually pretty fundamental when reading these Surah's

[dusk mason]

But this text is very clear. You are ignoring scripture that this Surah specifically says you should follow.

You're not doing a decent job of explaining anything.

[lunar oracle]

The surah does not tell people to follow that scripture directly in this time stamp of when the Quran is revealed, its more of when the Torah was originally revealed

[dusk mason]

Why are you posting 2:51?

2:79 says woe to those who distort the scripture. It doesn't say that the scripture is distorted and therefore should be ignored. Earlier, it actually says that those who follow the scripture will be rewarded, which is the opposite.

[lunar oracle]

Surah 2:40-41 does not explicitly confirm whether the Torah is truth or not Instead, it emphasizes the importance of believing in what Allah has sent down. It does acknowledge that the previous scriptures sent down to children of israel (Torah) and that it held truth (some) and calls upon/encourages the israelites to follow the new relevations (Quran) and to not reject it out of disbelief or pride

It all in all underscores the unity and consistency of divine guidance throughout the scriptures and emphasizes the importance of faith, acceptance, and continuity in receiving Allah's message

I also will question your bible

You said that the bible has not been corrupted changed or whatever, or rahter you actually said that the bible HAS been changed but through the translations and because of the translations

Then why does Old Testament teach completely different things than the new testament

Also why does the trinity need to be a thing and why was it not taught by Jesus himself, Trinity belief in one god existing in three persons is just not logical. When god is one he can do whatever he wants he does not need to pray to himself to communicate with himself or something it just doesnt make sense. Why would Jesus pray in the first place when he is god.

Also why did God die to mere humans

thats also dumb, the almighty dying to his creation 😂

Also if you are to talk about why islam does not teach peace or whatever you were saying, then why does the Old testament treat women so badly and allow slaves which is just dumb

[dusk mason]

"Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing."

[lunar oracle]

its also interesting why christianity is the one that is only getting most of their new followers through newborns but not from actual converts compared to islam who has lots more converts (lots of them being women despite people saying islam treats women badly) and most likely overtaking Christianity in population

[dusk mason]

It's fascinating how often you directly contradict the religious writings you say you follow.

[lunar oracle]

Yeah the Torah was truth but Quran also acknowledges that the Torah has gone through changes and alterations. The torah and Gospel still keep the core teachings but have gone through changes and alterations

I will be back later I am done for today because I need more sleep unlike last time I stayed up to 12 am lol, I still need my daily exersice and showers

GN or good morning idk where u are

[dusk mason]

You think that because it doesn't explicitly say "the Torah is truth" but instead says things like "confirming the Torah revealed before him" and "confirming what was revealed in the Torah - a guide and lesson to the God-fearing" that this means you can just ignore the Torah? How does that make sense?

[silk hazel]

The original manuscripts are the real one

I don't see the point of this. If I write a book very similar to the book "To Kill A Mockingbird", no one in their right mind would consider it a version of "To Kill A Mockingbird", it'd be a different book.

[dusk mason]

The whole concept of "the real one" is silly. For the Quran, it has to be the standardized version, which itself was created by destroying all the other variants, making it one of many variants that happened to survive and be selected. There was no original version, as it was both written and oral before it was standardized. As I mentioned before, destroying all the versions except one doesn't magically make that surviving version more accurate. It actually reduces overall accuracy and makes it harder to come by the true meaning.

Then you add in the layer where it's perfectly acceptable to use one of a hundred translations today, which 75% of Muslims have to do since they don't speak Arabic. Translations are not the original and change the meaning of words. It's the exact same difficulty as you have with Bible translations, but it's compounded because now there's only one version to compare to for translation instead of multiple that would make the overall meaning clearer.

The double standard is unreal. Translate the Bible: You changed it and now it's corrupted.
Translate the Quran: It wasn't really changed, it's all the same, even though the translations use different words and a different language and therefore clearly represent changes from the original.

[lunar oracle]

I just had a look in what you were talking about and right before I go to sleep Im gonna respond

(1) So I did more research and during Caliph Uthman's reign islam faced challenges related to the recitation and preservation of the Quran. With the rapid expansion of the Muslim empire and the conversion of people from various linguistic backgrounds, there was a need to standardize the text of the Quran to ensure uniformity in its recitation and prevent potential discrepancies

• For him to address this issue, Caliph Uthman commissioned a committee of scholars to compile an official version of the Quran based on the recitations of companions who had learned directly from the Prophet Muhammad. The committee produced a standardized text, known as the Uthmanic codex, which was then distributed to various regions of the Muslim empire. Other existing copies of the Quranic text, which may have contained variations in recitation, were ordered to be collected and burnt to avoid confusion and ensure the uniformity of the text
  ^ Decision to do this was not motivated by any belief that the Quran had been corrupted or altered but to ensure the Unity and preservation of the Quran

(2) The Bible Old testament and New testament is what I was referring to not the translations and Ive said it multiple times. The old testament and new testament are very different.

• The Quran does not teach violence and its wrong to associate people's decisions and religion. However for me the teachings of the Bible in general doesnt make sense (obviously I agree with many things in the Bible as it has maintained some of its truth throughout the time), For example allowing slavery and the "Trinity" where you believe in 1 god in three persons is again not logical for me, the Bible already mentions that Moses was a prophet so why did god have to (or as my friend explained) split into 3 persons in order to guide the people. Jesus himself didn't even teach the trinity.

[lunar oracle]

Also if Jesus is god then why did he die to mere humans, doesnt make sense either and why did he pray to god (himself) 😂? <- Also the fact that Christianity in general is losing their own people's faith rapidly is saddening both to me and to you and there are reasons of course but I also dont actually feel "God" in some way in christianity meanwhile I do in islam and islam has hard working and practicing people. If you think islam's way of growing was violent or islam's nations were violent (which again you cannot associate people with religion) then you should look at some extreme cases of Christian nations and the attrocities they were and are commiting.

(3) I think I am going to for the most part refrain from talking here much as you and I both have wasted lots of time trying to convince one another of one's beliefs. I think you have made bold claims and are extremely misleading or taking things out of context. And when you talk this way it more sounds like you are an islamaphobe (maybe you arent but you sure do hate on the modern day muslims) and not really actually trying to "guide" anyone or prove someone wrong. I think Defending Islam from you is pointless when you clearly arent the best listener.

-For example you saying the Quran confirms the Torah and Gospel being truth and to follow them when it clearly doesn't tell them to follow it now that the Quran has been revealed as well as The Quran mentioning that it has been corrupted / altered over time and to follow the Quran now that it has been revealed.

[olive hedge]

Not here to join a long winded debate because I'm not well versed in the Quran, but isn't the first bit of it something like "The Final and True Revelation of God?" I feel like this wouldn't be necessary if the previous revelations weren't corrupted. Just from that one point it sounds like the whole purpose of the Quran is clarification on the way to live (which wouldn't be necessary if the previous texts were complete and accurate).

[dusk mason]

A decision to destroy legitimate and accurate accounts is ridiculous. Additionally, you didn't address the fact that some were burned to prevent them from being used in the standardized version, because there was actually discord and disagreement amongst the early followers of Muhammed. Uthman did the classic, "This is my version, and any other versions should be burned." It makes it much worse that they were burned without being suspected of being wrong. That's not better at all.

You're constantly claiming things without backing them up. Meanwhile, when I point out that the Quran says something, you argue with me a dozen times before I get you to even read the verse I've plainly typed. The number of times this conversation that I've had to point out the same thing multiple times before you've actually read it is ridiculous. How many times did I have to say 5:46? Four times? More? But you refused to actually read it, not knowing how your own religious writings work. That's embarrassing.

[midnight ridge]

Jesus is a prophet not a good

Simply the son of god

[midnight ridge]

And the fact is that Christianity is not the only religion loosing its believers however the most prominent one because they greatly out source other religions by land slides

[midnight ridge]

It is factuality that the quoran is the only holy book that hasn’t been altered through time

There are so many branches of Christianity it’s insane

Just basically asking for everything they want and claiming it’s a new branch

[midnight ridge]

It doesn’t correlate to changes

More like errors

Since the words cannot be truly remade into the other language

The bible is not corrupted

Simply altered

The translated quoran is simply an error

But also not factuality as it’s made for people who can’t speak the language the quoran is written in

In the same sense the bible was originally written in Greek

And later translated

[midnight ridge]

Throughout history the Middle East has treated women worse yes

And in the modern wokeism view Islam is simply some form of self improvement religion

Many of the converters believe in it to refine themself thus making their reasoning impure correlating to corruption within the religion

[midnight ridge]

Forced marriage

Sex slaves

Slaves

Trades

Prostitution

The Middle East has always had it worse than Europe and America in most era’s

Both of you just waste time cause you don’t come here to be impartial you both come here to say what u wanna say ignoring the counter parts words and arguments

Many of the things you both have said is propaganda and is not factually backed up and simply subjective to a level that’s insane to me

Which is in other words extreme loyalty

Ahh yes, we definitely didn’t slaughter entire nations burn the library of Alexandria

To the ground loosing ALOT of historical knowledge

They defo did some bad things like Some of the passages most commonly criticized include colonialism, the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, condemnation of homosexuality and transgender identity, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments.

I think Christian’s forget we crucified criminals on town square in Christian lands

And many streets would have blood tracing down them because we slaughtered and hung up so many people whom didn’t agree with us

We chained people to poles and threw rocks at them for simply having sex with someone other than ur husband

So I mean if ur a ethics of attitudes guy and u deem that as good deeds then good for u but Christian’s certainly aren’t innocent

Neither are Muslims

[midnight ridge]

Also as I said Jesus is not a god

He’s a prophet

A mere human like Muhammad

Mohammed died

So did Jesus

Even in the quoran Jesus is a holy prophet

Mentioned more times than Muhammad

Even

[midnight ridge]

Christianity is not loosing their faith in that manner

We are simply nurturing a bunch of psychopathic incels whom have no remorse and no after thought of their actions thus making almost everyone desensitised and thus making them not religious or not disciplined

Religion is both religion and a way to live life

The 12 wisdom words god gave Moses or the 5 poles in Islam it’s the same thing

However Islamic people often live in the Middle East and it’s bad there and they learn to accept what they have while western Christian’s seem spoiled

And ur saying Christianity is loosing their believers I could make the argument that 30% of Sweden is Muslims and many of them break laws more than Aryan Swedish people do

98% of violence in Sweden is caused by immigrants

Many more crimes etc are the cause of immigrants

[dusk mason]

What have I said that's propaganda?

[hot cypress]

You're now the third person here to miss the joke lol

[dusk mason]

What joke?

[olive hedge]

That Christians never did anything wrong

[dusk mason]

I mean jokes are usually funny because they're based on some measure of truth, but people complain freely about religious violence in order to bash religion and then ignore how the worst atrocities in history were recent and were committed by atheists, murdering millions of people. Even the worst religions haven't managed that much evil in such a short time period.

You can't justify someone's acts of evil by saying someone else committed acts of evil. If a Christian somewhere did something horrible, that doesn't excuse a Muslim doing something horrible. You should actually look at the context behind what they were doing and the reasons for their actions, and if they were evil actions, maybe don't do the same things.

[olive hedge]

You're just yapping bro.

[lunar oracle]

Actually Islam teaches to treat women much much better than Christianity but as for who got treated worse throughout history I wouldn’t know because I didn’t do research

[lunar oracle]

Exactly so your belief is the same as a Muslims belief 👍

I will be responding now and then for the fun of it but I can’t do it as much anymore finals gonna come up in a month

I will be responding now and then for the fun of it but I can’t do it as much anymore finals gonna come up in a month

I will be responding now and then for the fun of it but I can’t do it as much anymore finals gonna come up in a month

Wtf

[lunar oracle]

Interesting fact, immigrants in general commit many crimes when going to western countries also immigrants doesn’t mean Muslims in general despite a good chunk of them actually being Muslim

This the only picture I found on statistics for crime rate on ethnicity

98% is a huge exaggeration, as well as not all immigrants are Muslims and you mix people with religion which is not what you should do because then I will pull up hitler

I ain’t reading allat tho

[lunar oracle]

What legitimate and accurate accounts? As I said anyone that differed was burned because if 1/10000 people that memorized the Quran said that the Quran has “You shall kill those who say Islam is bad” then who would believe him? Those are the ones that were destroyed so everything that was agreed upon is compiled in the standardized version. You are acting as if the ones that differed are part of the Quran which they weren’t

The disagreements were there but they werent huge like ur saying

[lunar oracle]

There are some things that we know I don’t need to back up and already may have

[lunar oracle]

I can tell ur not a Muslim or Christian but u have some key beliefs of a Muslim

[lunar oracle]

And the only book that didn’t get any controversy

[lunar oracle]

It is because not of translations but Old Testament New Testament different beliefs but both still Christian and if you were to convert to Christianity u wouldn’t even know wtf is the real Bible to follow

[lunar oracle]

Also the Middle East unfortunately was the inter connecting place for Asia Africa and Europe so most of the wars did also happen there and you cannot categorize Middle East in general as Muslims or true believers

[lunar oracle]

He ignored my arguments but I answered all of his, crazy

[lunar oracle]

Also yes they are, you ask the typical Christian that I ask at my school and they cannot decide wether Jesus pbuh is god or son of god because literally most Christian’s barely have belief in their religion and just claim to be Christian

Also Old Testament hated gays which I respect but people are starting to allow gays in their churches to pray or get married which is just dumb, this is where I feel bad for Christian’s or Christianity in general

[lunar oracle]

Quran is truth and Quran + Hadiths are the way of life

[lunar oracle]

It’s bad there because of western countrys wars, idiots that corrupt the government and civil wars popping out of no where and Israel genocide, I am not Arab or Persian so I don’t feel especially connected with them but I know the people there are a lot more hospitable than anywhere else

[lunar oracle]

Laws or Islam laws? Also anyone in western countries lose belief over time for some reason I don’t get it, a better way to explain it is if you give too much freedom people think they can break the law and still be right but if you give too little then people will fight for it. In western countries since people haven’t got much to worry bout they relax and don’t really care about the religion they follow (I was losing faith overtime when I was in Canada)

[lunar oracle]

Immigrants hold up a good chunk of your population so ofc there will be lots of crimes from immigrants and locals but the 98% statistic is heavily exaggerated

Anyway back to school lol

[dusk mason]

You really didn't, and you're constantly contradicting yourself and the Quran.

[dusk mason]

If you mean that I didn't answer your giant word vomit where you brought up 27 topics at once while stating that you were done talking with me, then yeah. You're right, because that's not how you do a discussion where you're actually expecting an answer.

[torn gale]

[lunar oracle]

😂 how

I am not all done talking but I just said I will mostly stop talking

I only continued since my friend here starting responding to everyone out of no where

He is the least expected one to be joining this conversation

[midnight ridge]

y make a joke that seems like an idiotic statement

i dont know u

i dont know ur intellectuality

[olive hedge]

Just accept you missed a joke it's not that big of a deal

[fervent flame]

I feel like I'm a bit late to this convo but with regards to the original post, you really cant compare todays standards to that of 1400 years ago. Kids became mature a lot younger than nowadays. 9yr old kids were NOT as our 9yr old kids today. It was completely common back then for men to marry very young women, as long as the parents were ok with it, AND she's ok with it too. Ayesha was never forced to marry the prophet. She wanted to. In fact, the prophet died when she was 19, and she lived to be in her 70s, and if she really didnt love the prophet and felt compelled to the marriage, then why didn't she spend the 50 years after his death telling everyone about how oppressed she felt? She never did that, in fact, she never married another man after him, because she truly loved the prophet.

Another point to be made is that the idea of morals is something that is very dependent on the era. Just because right now it's immoral to marry young women doesn't mean that this is the same case many centuries ago. As an example, let's say a 23 yr old man wants to get married. Right now the legal age of marriage is 18. Otherwise the man becomes a pedo. Well let's say the man marries a 19yr old woman. Now a while back one of the states (I forgot which one) was considering raising the age of marriage to 21. So if that happened, can we say that oh this man is a pedo because he married a 19yr old? No that would be very unfair because it was completely fine in society during his time.

Btw I love deep conversations so I'll be happy to hear anyone's thoughts on this 👍
(Also I haven't read any of the previous responses so idk if anyone had already said all this lol)

[olive hedge]

I really don't understand this line of logic that we cant compare things from the past to now. There are plenty of things from the past that can be considered wrong even if was common back then. Racism and slavery, wrong. Doesn't matter when or how common it was, it was and is wrong.

[silk hazel]

commonality and morality, while sometimes they can match up, aren't the same.

[olive hedge]

Exactly

[fervent flame]

Sure but I repeat my point that the age of maturity has changed over the course of more than a millennium. Especially in the arab world, boys and girls were raised to be men and women at a very young age. Men at 15 would become soldiers, girls a lot younger than that were mature enough to be capable of handling a household. Unlike nowadays where you find these 25yr old guys jobless and playing video games all day, and 20yr old girls on instagram all day and don't know how to make macaroni.

So with that said, obviously nowadays no one should marry a 9yr old. I don't endorse that 😭

[olive hedge]

I can force a kid to act grown early even today, but that doesn't mean their brain is fully developed. The same thing applies then. Just because a child acts mature doesn't mean they are totally mature, especially not enough to marrying a significantly older man.

Changes don't happen without a reason. It was wrong then and that's why it's changed

[fervent flame]

Whats your opnion on lgbtq?

[olive hedge]

Can I ask the relevance first

[fervent flame]

You said that it was wrong then and thats why it changed, well lgbtq was wrong back then and that changed, do things always change for the better?

[olive hedge]

Things don't always change for the better, but I think you'd have the cards pretty stacked against you to try and say that the age of consent being raised was wrong.

Especially considering you yourself said you wouldn't advocate for 9 year old marriages today.

Let me ask you this. If kids acted more mature today would your stance change?

[lunar oracle]

If kids were as mature as they were back then, then you could easily consider dropping the marriage age

[olive hedge]

Wild take

[lunar oracle]

There are some things that were not okay back then and were common but it doesn’t change the fact that some things were both common and ok

[lunar oracle]

I’m not that old but I think it’s a true statement

[olive hedge]

If you read my previous messages I'd say it's pretty clear that your take is wild. The brain simply isn't developed to the extent that it would be remotely okay for marriage or anything similar at 9 years old.

[lunar oracle]

Right now the age marriage minimum is 18 but if it’s raised over the next centuries would it be pedophilia

[lunar oracle]

Well it was relatively okay morally back then and it was with consent of her, her parents and I don’t think he actually wanted to have sex that much but it’s about completing the marriage

[olive hedge]

The brain isn't fully developed until what, 25? I think if time passed and it was raised you might have some people that raise the question, but I would argue the difference in maturity between and 18yr and 9yr is significantly greater than between 18yr and 25yr.

[olive hedge]

Having to argue that they didn't want to have sex but still did isn't the great argument you might think it is. You're just proving it wouldn't be okay even then.

[lunar oracle]

Still it would be considered pedophilia no? And as he said, maturity was achieved a lot younger despite the brain maybe not reaching its full development

You can still see people at 15 or 12 being MUCH more mature than millions of adults now

[lunar oracle]

I’m just saying that there’s a chance they didn’t, anyway wouldn’t change much

[olive hedge]

Maturity isn't achieved, it's mimicked. There's a reason you don't see people being okay with adults dating children that are so called mature today. And you ignored my point about the difference of development within the brain between the two different ages.

[olive hedge]

Then why try to explain it away to begin with?

[lunar oracle]

There is a difference but you have to keep in mind that a 9 year old then was more mature than a 18 year old now, also wdym mimicking maturity when truly everyone was much more mature at younger ages up until the last 50-100 years

[lunar oracle]

Why not

[olive hedge]

Because you said it doesn't matter. The only reason at that point would be to make it more digestible to other people. Because most people don't wanna follow and believe in someone that would do something like that.

[lunar oracle]

Most people now would think that it’s morally not ok at this age and time but back then it still was and if they had something against it (women) then I think they would be speaking out

[olive hedge]

Why do you think the age ever shifted to begin with then

[olive hedge]

I don't agree with this statement at all, so it's not something to keep in mind.

[lunar oracle]

The maturity of todays people is now fucked I meant back then 9 year olds witness killing and war and may have fought but now they are watching skibidi toilet bull shit

[lunar oracle]

Well you don’t have to agree but it’s truth so idk

[olive hedge]

Yes but being traumatized doesn't equal maturity. I mean there's a reason people have studied and we now know how brains work and develop.

And that still doesn't answer why it shifted

[lunar oracle]

Being traumatized is not good of course and forced maturity but it still was the case back then

It doesn’t change the fact the if the marriage age minimum changes to 25 then people marrying 18 year olds now would be considered pedophiles

And it would be considered not morally okay and “mimicked maturity”

That people now are still more mature then people to come in later generations (probably assuming what’s happening rn would continue)

[olive hedge]

Like I said you might have an argument in THAT instance but the gap in development is significantly less than that of a 9 year old to 18 year old. It's apples and oranges at that point and would only hold water in a world where that occurs. A 9 year old's brain is simply too far off from being mature even if you traumatize them to act a certain way.

[lunar oracle]

The gap development is big I agree but still it makes your argument still pretty invalid

[olive hedge]

I mean if what you're saying is true the age of consent should be lowered now to reflect what you believe to be possible maturity wise.

[lunar oracle]

People back then were MUCH more mature without being traumatized but rather with the rough conditions set back then

[olive hedge]

Rough conditions like war?

[olive hedge]

I also don't believe it makes it invalid considering people with major gaps in age are viewed as weird even if it's legal.

[lunar oracle]

It’s not like she was apart of those wars but I’m talking about the lack of water food no electricity and a fear of starving at some point

[olive hedge]

I would say that's trauma

[lunar oracle]

Well it still with the consent of that person maybe that person wants money or sum shit anyway I got school I will continue later

[olive hedge]

I just think the only way you can truly hold your view accurately and consistently is to have an extremely low age of consent because you always hold the idea that children are capable of being that mature.

Good luck with school tho

[dusk mason]

Dunno man. This idea that, "well they got married but probably didn't have sex" is so far into ridiculous. It's literally grounds for divorce if you fail to consummate a marriage. You can't just not have sex. That's not a thing. Besides that, saying, "well he was a grown man but probably didn't want to have sex with his new wife" is just so far outside the realm of sanity and reason, at least one historian from the 9th century clearly states that the marriage was consummated when she was nine. Arguing that it probably didn't happen just means that your modern morals recognize how that's a bit messed up.

If a religion is healthy, then its principles are timeless. Moral things don't suddenly become immoral and vice versa. That's not how it works. That's one reason why Islam is so weird to me. So much of it is, "Well, they did it back then, but it would be really messed up to do it now." Specifically because these people we're talking about are essentially revered as blameless. If you say something bad about Muhammed, you'll literally be murdered in many countries. But you recognize that you can't actually just do what he did, because that would be messed up.

[lunar oracle]

They did

[lunar oracle]

No that’s not the point I was making

Times are different now

People do not hold the maturity

[olive hedge]

But you believe them capable. Therefore it should be.

[lunar oracle]

They were capable

Not anymore

Now they watch skibidi toilet videos

[olive hedge]

That's a cultural shift. They are still capable if raised more maturely, correct?

You have two options here. You either admit that it's cultural and even today they could be mature enough to marry or you have to say it's physiological and they were developmentally different then and thus capable. You can't have this in-between where they were then but not now.

[lunar oracle]

Well who’s gonna raise their children in war torn areas and lack of water + food

[olive hedge]

What about Palestinian children rn? Can they marry? Or in other war torn areas rn?

[lunar oracle]

I think it’s entirely possible to lower the marriage of consent if they were mature enough now but it depends how low it gets

[olive hedge]

So you believe the age of consent should just continue to bounce back and forth in areas solely based on how their children are treated and raised?

[lunar oracle]

I think it’s possible for the marriage minimum to be 16 or 14 I’m not entirely sure what the calculations would be

[olive hedge]

Why not 9?

[lunar oracle]

It’s different there

Entirely different

[olive hedge]

War torn and a lot of famine seems pretty similar

If anything I'd say it's worse considering the bombing and advancements in weaponry

[lunar oracle]

Well to be fair you can see all them Palestine children being a lot more mature but it’s still very different

[olive hedge]

How so?

[lunar oracle]

Culture, the area they are in and conflicts and so on

[dusk mason]

Dunno what war torn, famine, or anything else of that nature has to do with sexual maturity. But this is the problem with needing a perfect prophet when he obviously did questionable things. Now you're going to also promote questionable things.

[lunar oracle]

Also it is cultural no?

But regardless it was common everywhere

[olive hedge]

What are the differences? You're being too vague. The similarities are there. Starvation, war, etc. Those were the criteria you gave.

[lunar oracle]

Questionable things in todays standards then yes, however would executing a group be questionable today even though he had reasons to do so

[olive hedge]

Commonality doesn't make things okay. Slavery was common but I don't think you'd argue it was okay.

[lunar oracle]

It’s the problem in your argument, comparing todays time to before is very different regardless

[dusk mason]

Worthless religion if it's only applicable to the past

[lunar oracle]

It was morally okay back then just like it’s morally okay to marry an 18 year old but later it may not be since they might raise it over time

[lunar oracle]

What are you

Christian?

It’s a bold claim to say it’s only applicable to the past

[olive hedge]

He's talking about the idea of being with a 9 year old

[dusk mason]

Wasn't my claim. That was yours, when you make the constant argument that times were super different.

[lunar oracle]

Because it’s not like the religion or prophet teach to marry young girls but something else

[dusk mason]

You consider Muhammed to be above blame, but then point out how his actions are not good for our time

[lunar oracle]

Slaves allowed in the Old Testament ? I mean it only applies to the past no?

[lunar oracle]

I don’t blame prophet Muhammad pbuh at all

[dusk mason]

You should try quoting something if you're going to make a claim.

I don't think you know anything about the old testament

[olive hedge]

Then why do you argue about whether or not he wanted to or did have sex with her

[dusk mason]

You don't blame Muhammed for Muhammed's actions. That makes little sense.

[olive hedge]

If he didn't want to, it's clear that you believe even then he could think it wasn't right.

[lunar oracle]

Ok give me a second let me just answer your accusation of prophet Muhammad pbuh being an all in all weirdo for marrying aisha

[lunar oracle]

He did once she reached puberty and gave consent that’s the bare minimum, and did it to consummate the marriage also he married her for reasons such as - Cultural Norms: During that era, marrying at a young age was not uncommon, and it was culturally accepted in Arabia.

Alliance and Kinship: Marriages were often used to solidify alliances and strengthen bonds between families or tribes. Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, one of Prophet Muhammad's closest companions and the first Caliph of Islam, so the marriage strengthened the relationship between Muhammad and Abu Bakr.

Education and Influence: Aisha later became a prominent figure in early Islam, known for her intelligence, knowledge, and contributions to Islamic scholarship. Marrying her allowed Prophet Muhammad to impart teachings directly to her, and she played a significant role in narrating Hadiths (sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad) which are essential in Islamic jurisprudence. If that is the only questionably thing you can find among the entire religion and it’s been answered then it’s a lot better off than Christianity or any other religion

[dusk mason]

Lol what? Who said that was the only questionable thing?

I think murder, betrayal, and adultery are pretty high up there as well.

[lunar oracle]

There are reasons which you simply won’t accept which is purely out of ignorance or hate, it’s interesting how you can ignore them and still accuse

[dusk mason]

It's not just having sex with a nine year old girl. See it's not about the start of puberty. Even back then, you wait until the end of puberty, which isn't and wasn't 9 years old.

[dusk mason]

Don't know how I can ignore something you haven't presented.

Just like you make claims about the Bible without mentioning a single verse.

[lunar oracle]

Exodus 21:2-11:
"When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever."

Leviticus 25:44-46:
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18:
"If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female

female slave you shall do the same."

[lunar oracle]

Pull them up

I have now you do

Also

Don’t ignore my point on the Bible

Answer why it allows slaves

[dusk mason]

About setting slaves free?

[lunar oracle]

I wanna question Christianity now

[lunar oracle]

Read Leviticus 25:44-46 properly

[dusk mason]

Yep, it outlines rules for dealing with slaves.

And?

Are you saying slavery is a horrible thing that ought to have been forbidden?

[lunar oracle]

😂 and??? It allows slavery in the first place wdym and??? 😂

[olive hedge]

Culture is not a reliable indicator of what is okay, especially when we're considering the biggest figure in an entire religion. You'd imagine they were more saint-like. I also don't believe that marrying someone 5 decades younger than you is necessary to become close to someone already, as you stated, close to the prophet. It also isn't required in order to pass on knowledge, that alone is just kind of ridiculous. You don't have to marry a plumber to be an apprentice of his.

[dusk mason]

I mean you realize that the Quran allows slavery, right? I would hear what your objection is.

[lunar oracle]

Well that’s your opinion however majority believe its justified regardless of what you think, I think it’s justified based on those reasons and its ur choice to think that cultural things don’t apply

[olive hedge]

The problem is this doesn't apply to anything else we talk about in life. It's completely inconsistent.

You're also ignoring the other two points I made

[lunar oracle]

It doesn’t, it encourages everyone to free slaves for sins they may have committed and they will be rewarded

[lunar oracle]

It isn’t required but he still did it to pass down knowledge and etc

[dusk mason]

That's odd, considering Muhammad himself sold slaves, and his followers owned slaves too. Muslims commonly enslaved people they conquered for 1400 years or so.

So I guess my point is that if you're laughing at the Bible for allowing slavery, isn't that condemning Muhammad?

[olive hedge]

Then why do it if it isn't necessary? I mean it genuinely makes no sense to say he did it for reasons that aren't necessary, also he may not have wanted to have sex with her but did, etc. There are too many things that don't add up.

[dusk mason]

Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

So I would hear what your objection to the verses in the Bible is.

[lunar oracle]

He didn’t sell slaves or buy them also you can’t associate people with religion because it’s completely inaccurate to do so because then we can have an entirely different conversation

[olive hedge]

Yeah if you point at followers your case is done, @dusk mason

[dusk mason]

I can't associate the early spread of Islam with Islam? Why not?

Why can't I talk about what Muhammad and his early followers did?

[lunar oracle]

Assosiating followers of a religion and religion itself in their wrong doings is wrong because I can pull out hitler and what he’s done, early or not doesn’t mean much they had slaves before Islam was revealed already

[olive hedge]

You can talk about Muhammed considering he's a figurehead but followers aren't held to that same standard. You'd have to point the finger at every person on the planet

[lunar oracle]

He spread Islam and fought anyone who tried to stop him with helping people to convert, he didn’t buy or sell slaves and his followers are irrelevant because they are just followers of Islam but their wrong doings are not related to Islam

[olive hedge]

There are so many Christians early and now that outright ignore or blatantly disregard scripture. It happens in every religion.

[lunar oracle]

You are a W mans for pointing that out despite him being on your side

[olive hedge]

It just doesn't add anything to the conversation. I'm genuinely just trying to understand you and your views.

[lunar oracle]

I mean it should be obvious that if you point out the followers to their religion I can pull out at least 1 thousands followers of Christianity that have done horrible things and some of them are relatively important figures

[dusk mason]

Tell me, is Sahih al-Bukhari part of your religious writings?

[lunar oracle]

Elaborate what you mean

[dusk mason]

I want to make sure I'm not quoting something that you don't consider part of your religious writings.

Islamic writings are unfamiliar to me, after all.

[lunar oracle]

Hadith is not necessarily apart of the Quran

It’s not considered as holy

[dusk mason]

Do you consider it to be valid?

[lunar oracle]

It’s simply teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh

[lunar oracle]

Wdym valid

[dusk mason]

So it's still part of Muhammad's teachings?

[olive hedge]

I think he's asking if they are accurate and everlasting today

[lunar oracle]

It is apart of prophet Muhammad’s pbuh teachings

[lunar oracle]

They are most likely as accurate as Hadiths get

[dusk mason]

Sahih Bukhari 2592
"Narrated Kuraib: the freed slave of Ibn `Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl? He said, Have you really? She replied in the affirmative. He said, You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."

There is much historical evidence that Muhammad and his followers definitely had slaves. All historical writings indicate such.

So I ask again, what is your objection?

[dusk mason]

The difference is that you're claiming that these original followers perfectly put together the Quran many years after Muhammad died. So it's not just a random imperfect follower, but rather the integrity of the Quran that's at stake with looking at these first followers. And then there's the objectionable acts of Muhammad himself.

[lunar oracle]

Family Support: In Arabian society, familial ties were highly valued, and providing support to relatives, especially close family members, was considered virtuous. By giving the slave-girl to one of her maternal uncles, Maimuna could have strengthened family bonds and provided for a family member in need.

Practical Assistance: Maternal uncles often played significant roles in the lives of their nieces and nephews, offering support, guidance, and protection. By entrusting the slave-girl to one of her maternal uncles, Maimuna could ensure that the girl would receive practical assistance and care within the family structure.
I think that it doesn’t change the fact that she would still be rewarded greatly for freeing the slave or giving her to her uncle so she could be taken care of and most likely freed either way

[olive hedge]

I tried looking into it and a couple interpretations of it say the reason he said this is perhaps because of concern for the slave's safety once freed. There were references to Quran 2:177 Righteousness about freeing slaves being best too to back it up.

Obviously this is just a quick search but it does kinda make sense

[lunar oracle]

Exactly my point

The slave girl would have received care from the uncle

As the uncle was close to prophet Muhammad pbuh

That girl most likely would not have had much to do after being freed I think but it depends

[olive hedge]

@dusk mason I'm begging you to not just try to be right and actually try to understand this stuff I had one google search 😭

[dusk mason]

The man is claiming that Muhammad didn't have slaves when every source says otherwise. I'm supposed to just ignore that?

[lunar oracle]

Show proof

[dusk mason]

I already did.

[lunar oracle]

No?

[olive hedge]

I didn't see him say that, I was just responding to the specific story you brought up.

[dusk mason]

I literally just listed a passage where Muhammad's wife owned a slave, and he told her she was wrong for freeing that slave.

[olive hedge]

It didn't say she was wrong. It also said he didn't know.

He said it would have been better to give the slave to an uncle, for reasons I stated before.

[dusk mason]

I don't know or care what more you want. Do a basic Google search. The entire internet agrees that he owned slaves. There's not one source or scholar that claims Muhammad didn't have slaves.

[lunar oracle]

She bought a slave and freed her, she wasn’t wrong about freeing that slave but would have been better to given her to her uncle because he would have taken care of that girl instead of her most likely going back to working and maybe being a slave girl

[dusk mason]

Muhammad said that the girl should have been gifted to her uncle, which means she would have remained a slave. The rest is speculation.

[olive hedge]

I just think the word better is important in that context. You can speculate about why it's better, but you cant say he said freeing her is bad. That's disingenuous

[lunar oracle]

Tell me, is it better to free a slave or buy one and give it to her uncle so she would have been taken care of. Also that doesn’t mean he also had slaves but had concubines

[dusk mason]

Concubines means adultery.

So there we have the next objectionable practice.

[lunar oracle]

He had 14 wives/concubines that he treated equally despite some of them being called concubines

[dusk mason]

What's better doesn't matter. The point is that he wasn't as antislavery as you make him out to be, and him and his wives and concubines engaged in slave trading regularly.

[lunar oracle]

I think now you are just getting desperate

[lunar oracle]

😂 wdym what’s better doesn’t matter

[dusk mason]

I'm not trying to argue the morality of what he was doing.

You claimed he didn't own slaves. By all evidence, that's an objectively false statement.

Whether it was moral or not is a different discussion.

Whether they were well-treated or not is a different discussion.

[lunar oracle]

His wife bought a slave and feed her I still can’t find where you find your claim of him owning slaves

[dusk mason]

Still can't find? I suggest Google.

[lunar oracle]

In religion morals and what would be better is often rewarded more because it is better

[dusk mason]

The point of the verse was that his own personal feelings weren't that every slave should be freed.

[lunar oracle]

He had concubines not slaves, but instead of treating them lesser he treated them equally

[dusk mason]

That's unrelated.

[lunar oracle]

Slave and concubines are different

[dusk mason]

Okay... well that's a literal sex slave.

[olive hedge]

This just feels disingenuous. It's clear in the text that he says better, not good. Thus both are good.

[lunar oracle]

No 😂 he married them and treated them equally not a sex slave

[dusk mason]

You... don't know what a concubine is??

[lunar oracle]

Concubines and sex slave is different things

[dusk mason]

You know that a concubine is not a wife, right?

[lunar oracle]

He married them

[dusk mason]

No.

That's not a thing.

[lunar oracle]

Yes.

[dusk mason]

You're either a wife or a concubine.

If you marry a concubine, they are no longer a concubine. Now they are a wife.

You don't get to be both.

[olive hedge]

I don't really know about the concubine stuff, I tried reading and all I could really find was that he may have had them because it was a better alternative to them being an unmarried woman in the society? Not a great response but it's what I could find. The rest of it just reiterated the idea of gradual change within society. Something you technically have to agree with if you're Christian.

[lunar oracle]

Yeah they weee concubines at first because they were gifted as concubines but then married them

[dusk mason]

Not all of them. He also maintained concubines.

And some of them were gifted to him as slaves.

[lunar oracle]

Yeah exactly and still married many

[dusk mason]

That means a woman living with him who is a slave that he has sex with.

Who is not his wife.

Whether he eventually married some of them or not doesn't change that.

[lunar oracle]

Anyway my battery is low I’m gonna continue later I’m on 5%

[olive hedge]

The concubine thing doesn't really make sense. If the alternative is for them to be in danger as a freed person, it would make sense to me that they would just be concubines in name only. Not being slept with, especially considering it would be outside of marriage.

[dusk mason]

Facts:
Muhammed owned slaves.
Muhammed was given slave-concubines, which were women he was not married to who lived with him for the purpose of sex, some of whom he eventually freed and married.
Muhammad, upon learning a slave had been freed, said the slave should have been gifted instead.
Muhammad consummated his marriage to a nine year old girl.

Why wouldn't he sleep with his concubines?

That seems like pure speculation with historical context that points to the opposite.

It was common for Muslims to take concubines as spoils of war, which were slaves that you were allowed to sleep with. This included Muhammad and his contemporary followers.

[olive hedge]

I wasn't saying he didn't, I'm saying the idea of him doing so doesn't seem necessary or the best thing he could've done. So considering he's the major figure, it throws up red flags for me.

[lunar oracle]

Gonna use up my 2%, Muhammad pbuh did not own slaves he had concubines, and upon learning a slave was free all he simply said that it would have been better to give it to his uncles for better care of that slave girl and other reasons that may be unknown to us. he may have slept with concubines I don’t know tbh but I got 2% I can’t do all my research yet until I get back home

[lunar oracle]

Again you associate followers with religion that’s just false

[dusk mason]

A concubine is a slave for Muslims during that time period. All concubines were slaves. Look it up.

[lunar oracle]

Also Humanitarian Considerations: In some cases, Prophet Muhammad's taking of concubines may have been motivated by humanitarian concerns, such as providing for widows and captives who had lost their husbands and families in conflicts. Taking these women as concubines may have provided them with protection, support, and a means of integration into Muslim society.

Political Alliances: Prophet Muhammad's relationships with certain concubines, particularly those from influential tribes or families, may have served political purposes by cementing alliances or forging connections with powerful clans.

Personal Circumstances: Like other historical figures, Prophet Muhammad's actions were influenced by his personal circumstances and the challenges he faced. The practice of concubinage may have been one way in which he navigated the complex social and political landscape of his time.

[lunar oracle]

Concubines were common before and shortly after islam for various of reasons as well

Concubines are not slave sex girls or whatever ur saying because this is the actual definition

[dusk mason]

You can't take a widow as a slave. You either marry her or she's not going to become your concubine.

Look it the f*ck up man. It is forbidden in your religion to sleep with someone who is not your wife unless they are your slave and a concubine. All concubines were slaves in Islam.

[lunar oracle]

They can still be concubines right before the marriage just saying

[lunar oracle]

😂 uh oh someone’s getting a little mad that they don’t know what they talking about LOL

They aren’t slaves, look up the definition of slave and concubine

[dusk mason]

Just annoyed that you keep lying about what your own books teach.

[dusk mason]

This is why it's so moronic to claim that the Quran is perfect and then not understand how translations work.

[lunar oracle]

I may have gotten some things incorrect because I started this entire conversation with little knowledge but you started this conversation with no knowledge and hatred towards Islam

[lunar oracle]

Who said I don’t know how translations work and how is this relevant LOL

[dusk mason]

Concubine is an English word. It's not going to perfectly capture the slaves that were taken by Muhammad and his followers, or describe Muslim law. But it's really, really not hard to look up.

Dude, you've been consistently incorrect.

[lunar oracle]

You tend to follow a religion that allows slaves but now you accuse me of. Following one that allows slaves which it doesn’t

[dusk mason]

That's a lie right there.

[lunar oracle]

😂 no?

[lunar oracle]

I mean I proved my case but you have proved yours so nice one

It’s interesting how biased and hypocritical you are

[dusk mason]

There was Muhammad consummating the marriage with a nine year old. There was having to tell you half a dozen times to read the verse that discussed the gospel when you claimed it didn't mention the gospel. There's pointing out that Muhammad owned slaves.

I mean I don't know what to tell you. You stating your own thoughts has nothing to do with proving your case.

[lunar oracle]

Again with no context on why it happend then it sounds wrong but ok

[lunar oracle]

Muhammad pbuh didn’t own slaves again you just think that concubines and slaves are the same

[dusk mason]

You were explicitly saying they definitely didn't have sex, despite the fact that historians explicitly state the marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old. It's not about the context, you were just wrong.

[dusk mason]

They were literally slaves.

You literally posted text in response to me that explicitly stated that Muhammad was gifted slaves.

[dusk mason]

Remember when you replied with this? Which explicitly states that Muhammad kept a slave that was gifted to him?

[lunar oracle]

Yeah and I was wrong but it doesn’t change the fact that it was still justified

At least I acknowledge I am wrong

[lunar oracle]

😂 keep lying lol

[dusk mason]

You did not until it was so freaking obvious. Up until then you just called people liars instead of researching it yourself.

[dusk mason]

You keep posting this as if you have any idea what it means.

[lunar oracle]

I didn’t call you a liar when you said he consummated the marriage I did my research and I was wrong but it’s still justified

[lunar oracle]

I do and you don’t it’s interesting

[dusk mason]

Here's some Wikipedia for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concubinage_in_the_Muslim_world#:~:text=Concubinage in the Muslim world was the practice of Muslim,cases%2C sometimes with free women.

So many people talk about this. It's not hard to find if you look at all.

[lunar oracle]

Concubines and slave roles/statuses can overlap but aren’t the same

Again someone can take in a concubines and slave but it doesn’t mean it’s the same

1% left I will continue later

[dusk mason]

Right, but the passage you posted literally says "slave-concubine"

Because that was the common practice at the time.

And the concubine not being a slave was, and I quote, a "rare, exceptional case." If you had a concubine as a Muslim, it was a slave, except in rare, exceptional cases. Argue with all those other scholars if you want. It's not like I created this stuff. I'm just looking it up like you could if you wanted to.

[lunar oracle]

Doesn’t change the fact they aren’t the same thing so you are wrong

[dusk mason]

I didn't say they were the same thing, I said that Muslim concubines were slaves.

Which they were, except in "rare, exceptional circumstances."

[lunar oracle]

So what was your point then, you are acting as if Christian’s didn’t take concubines slaves LOL

[dusk mason]

My point had nothing to do with Christians. My point was that Muhammad did that, and set that as the example for Muslims, who also did that.

Which directly contradicts your claims.

So are you going to admit you were wrong, or keep arguing?

[lunar oracle]

You also have to define slaves, while he was gifted them as concubine and slaves he treat them with kindness, justice and compassion and just like any other human being. That was the point of islam and his teachings

he didnt "own" them as slaves or nothing

because at that point they werent necessarily slaves when treated like normal people

[dusk mason]

One of the primary ways to legally acquire slaves as a Muslim was through war.

[lunar oracle]

ways*? Also how is that relevant when christians (romans germans americans etc) gathered slaves as means of trade or war as well (or colonisation)

You cant assosiate people with religion

its crazy i know but you simply cant

i think christianity as people have done worse things then islam in general (total) so you cannot actually use this as an argument

I dont blame christianity in general as a religion for crusades, germany ww2 and ww1 being caused by mostly christians and so on

Its getting more and more obvious not only through this topic but also the israel or palestine topic that you have some personal hatred towards islam

[midnight ridge]

https://tenor.com/view/yapping-yapper-yapping-man-old-guy-yapping-keep-yapping-gif-16586719177455162521

[dusk mason]

I'm not just talking about people hundreds of years later. I'm talking about Muhammad and his contemporary followers.

Why would that not be relevant?

[lunar oracle]

Lots of people from opposing sides were taken as war prisoners (and sometimes slaves) However theres quite the few reasons:

Defensive Warfare: Many of the military encounters involving Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims were defensive in nature, as they faced opposition and persecution from various tribes and groups in Arabia. The Muslim community often fought to protect themselves and preserve their right to practice their faith.

Treatment of Prisoners: Islamic teachings emphasize the humane treatment of prisoners of war. Prophet Muhammad instructed his followers to treat captives with kindness and compassion, providing them with food, clothing, and shelter. Islam also encourages the freeing of slaves as an act of virtue, and Prophet Muhammad himself freed many slaves and encouraged others to do the same.

Also these prisoners of war can actually be released by paying themselve out, slavery was still common back then but they have set up a plan to gradually eliminate this issue (atleast for the while that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was around) He encouraged the freement of these prisoners/slaves and freed many himself.

[midnight ridge]

https://tenor.com/view/birthday-trump-gif-16080642029461041519

[dusk mason]

At no point does the Quran suggest that slavery should be eliminated. There was no gradual phasing out. Quite the contrary. Please point to the relevant passages that I missed if they exist. So even if humane treatment was advocated for (which really isn't unique to the Quran), you're still choosing women to enslave as your concubines from nations as you are killing and conquering them, in addition to taking other regular slaves that won't become concubines.

[lunar oracle]

Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:89) in the Quran addresses the issue of freeing slaves as an act of expiation for certain sins. Here is the translation of the verse:

"God will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] - then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths. Thus does God make clear to you His verses that you may be grateful."

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:177):
"Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, and the Prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves."

^ This verse highlights the act of freeing slaves as a righteous deed and a sign of piety. It underscores the importance of using one's wealth for the benefit of others, including the liberation of slaves.

As well as the teachings of Prophet Muhammad pbuh as well to free slaves

[dusk mason]

Sure, freeing a slave is a good act. Where in there does it imply that you should stop taking new slaves?

[lunar oracle]

I think the fact that freeing a slave is a good act indicates that you shouldnt really take in new slaves, the Quran does not EXPLICITILY advise you into not taking new ones but Prophet Muhammads pbuh teachings of freeing slaves and the Quran rewarding those who free slaves is good enough for me

[dusk mason]

I mean, feel free to think that way if you want. Muhammad took slaves, his contemporary followers took slaves, and Muslims followed that example for 1400 years. However many they freed, they still took and kept more.

[lunar oracle]

Damn even with all the evidence provided you still have the exact same view on islam, its amazing how ignorant people get but alright you do you

[dusk mason]

I don't have a particular view, I'm just pointing out the actual facts of the situation. You trying to explain that away doesn't change the basic facts.

[lunar oracle]

Actual facts that have been proven wrong by me sure ok anyway its somewhat pointless to actually argue with you since you are not willing to accept anything, you are the most ignorant person ive met and your facts are either pure bullshit or out of context

[dusk mason]

Are you arguing that Muhammad and his followers didn't take slaves? Because those are the facts I'm pointing out here.

[lunar oracle]

Muhammad pbuh didnt personally have slaves, his followers are still irrelevant as I keep saying (to the overall morality of the religion) and prisoners of war are different even though some of them were taken as slaves (with plans to abolish slavery) and Prophet muhammad pbuh freed many of them

How about you start accepting these facts ^

instead of listing your opinions that are straight nonsense

[dusk mason]

None of those "facts" are actually found in your religious writings. The exact opposite is found.

Why would the actions of Muhammad's followers during the time Muhammad was alive be irrelevant?

[lunar oracle]

Our religious writings are the Quran, some sources do say he has concubines but thats different entirely. Show me some ACTUAL proof please I havent recieved any for a while now

[lunar oracle]

Theres no way I have to say this again and again I think ive said it 20 times already LMAO

[dusk mason]

You yourself posted one that discussed one of Muhammad's slave-concubines.

That's one you showed me.

[lunar oracle]

I have said this again but "You also have to define slaves, while he was gifted them as concubine and slaves he treat them with kindness, justice and compassion and just like any other human being. That was the point of islam and his teachings
he didnt "own" them as slaves or nothing
because at that point they werent necessarily slaves when treated like normal people"

[dusk mason]

That's adding context which isn't found in the historical texts. But even then, it doesn't change the fact that they were actual slaves.

Treating a slave like a normal person doesn't make them not a slave. That just makes you a good slave master.

The slavery part is very much still there.

[lunar oracle]

I think the context is needed for people like you, again the definition of slave has to be set because if someone treats another person like normal people then I dont think they are slaves anymore despite holding the status of one

[dusk mason]

Well they weren't free to do as they pleased. They weren't free to leave. And they couldn't choose to not do what was asked of them.

They were taken against their will and either sold or they were taken as spoils of war.

What definition of slave do you have that wouldn't apply to them?

[lunar oracle]

i think you should provide more evidence on that, because he treat them equally and as normal people he didnt command them to do as he pleased constantly

Prophet muhammad pbuh didnt buy or sell any slaves either infact

[dusk mason]

Why don't you provide evidence of that? Because what the text actually says is that they were slaves.

[dusk mason]

I don't know how you say he didn't buy or sell slaves. There's no reason to believe he didn't when he talks about giving them away and receiving them as gifts.

[lunar oracle]

Ive provided evidence that he treat them as normal human beings (from what he taught and hadiths said) and that means he didnt exaclty treat them like a slave master would. but I would REALLY LOVE you to actually provide evidence of him doing anything more questionable since you cannot provide evidence for anything else

[dusk mason]

Treating a slave well doesn't make them not a slave.

[lunar oracle]

There is no direct evidence that he didnt buy or sell slaves but you can assume that he didnt with his teachings and actions.

[lunar oracle]

I didnt hear him restricting people of their rights or anything have I?

[dusk mason]

Definitely would be a weird assumption, given that he owned slaves already. Why would you assume he didn't buy or sell others? Nowhere does it say that he freed all his slaves. As the leader of that people, he would have the most wealth and slaves of any of them. He could have freed dozens or hundreds as an act of virtue and still owned hundreds more.

My evidence and yours both point to him owning slaves. If you want more, you can find it yourself.

[lunar oracle]

Where did he own slaves you are still accusing him with no proof

[dusk mason]

I don't know how you point to a passage that clearly states that he had slaves, and then claim that well... in context they weren't really slaves, because he advocated for treating them well.

You yourself posted it man.

Your passage clearly says slave.

[lunar oracle]

They are not slaves when treated as normal people and non-slaves

[dusk mason]

That's not how it works. They weren't freed.

You're a slave unless you are freed, and freeing people was a big deal.

You can't just claim that someone who wasn't freed was actually free based on the context. That's a weird argument.

[lunar oracle]

Yeah he kept them well fed and under protection so I think they would have rathered stay with him anyway but they had the choice to leave (presumably because if they simply asked him he would have let them as he would gain good deeds for doing so)

[dusk mason]

There's no evidence that they had a choice to leave.

You're adding a lot of your own words that just aren't present in the text, in the same way you claimed he didn't have sex with a nine year old.

[lunar oracle]

He did but how is that relevant now, I accepted that I was wrong but you seem to not have that ability and its still justified 🤷

Its amazing how determined you are to be against this religion its the most detication ive seen honestly

[dusk mason]

I'm interested in the fact that you seem to be ignoring your own religious writings in order to defend Muhammad's actions and those of his followers.

You seem to think holding slaves is wrong, that having sex with 9 year old girls is wrong, that keeping sex slaves is wrong. So you're doing everything you can to explain away those actions, but having to rely on your own thoughts instead of on your religious texts.

[lunar oracle]

What writings am I ignoring and I do have the ability to defend Prophet Muhammad pbuh's actions without violating the Quran.

[lunar oracle]

Whats wild is that Prophet Muhammad pbuh didnt hold any of the slaves you think hes holding, the Sex with Aisha was justified and sex slave isnt concubines its different

[dusk mason]

It's literally a slave that you have sex with. I don't know why that would be inaccurate. You took a woman away from her family which you killed during a war, and then keep her as a slave and have sex with her.

[lunar oracle]

Concubine is the relation ship with a man thats similar to ones of a wife, not a sex slave its different

Also the concubines he recieved were gifts by roman emperors or others, theres a chance that some of them were from wars but still isnt a sex slave

[dusk mason]

The woman doesn't get a say in whether she becomes the slave. She is either purchased or taken as part of spoils of war. Whether you then treat her well or not doesn't change that fact.

[lunar oracle]

Here are some key points regarding the treatment of concubines in Islamic teachings:

Rights and Dignity: Concubines were to be treated with dignity and respect. They had rights to maintenance, and their children with their masters were considered legitimate.

Encouragement of Liberation: Islam encourages the freeing of slaves, including concubines. The Quran and Hadiths frequently mention the virtue of emancipating slaves.

Prohibition of Abuse: Any form of abuse or mistreatment of slaves or concubines is strictly prohibited in Islamic teachings. The Prophet Muhammad emphasized the humane and just treatment of all individuals, including slaves and concubines.

They didnt necessarily have a choice on what their fate would have been after the loss however that doesnt mean that they are sex slaves (I dont have to keep repeating this do i? 😂)

[dusk mason]

A slave that you treat well doesn't cease to be a slave.

Is a slave allowed to refuse sex if you treat her well and then want to sleep with her?

[lunar oracle]

Again, a Concubine and slave is different

[dusk mason]

Is it considered mistreatment to beat a disobedient wife?

[dusk mason]

I've already pointed out that concubines were slaves except in extremely rare cases.

I don't know why you keep bringing that up as if they weren't slaves when they were.

[lunar oracle]

But they werent "slaves" when with Prophet muhammad pbuh

actually it depends

They were gifted as slave concubines but were treated as concubines by Prophet Muhammad pbuh

those were from the Roman emperor

But he did recieve some after war

And those werent

[dusk mason]

They literally and legally were slaves.

But his followers also definitely had many slaves while he was alive, teaching and leading those followers.

[lunar oracle]

But they were slave concubines when under roman emperor, are they technically under prophet muhammad pbuh because he didnt treat them like slaves but like concubines and was against slavery in general

[dusk mason]

Considering it virtuous to free a slave is not the same as being against slavery.

[lunar oracle]

His followers still had slaves because almost everyone had slaves back then, but he developed the plan to abolish slavery despite it not happening. again you cannot assosiate the followers of islam with the religion 😂

[dusk mason]

That's like saying someone who advocates giving money to charity is against having wealth. Those aren't the same thing.

There was no plan to abolish slavery. That was never a thing and it's not taught in the Quran.

[lunar oracle]

Not in the Quran but prophet muhammad pbuh taught to remove slavery despite it never being taken place altogether

[dusk mason]

Give your money away does not mean you don't have money. Calling freeing a slave a virtuous act doesn't mean you're against slavery.

[dusk mason]

Where?

Where was that taught?

[lunar oracle]

My bad not "remove" but rather free slaves

Sahih Bukhari, Book 47, Hadith 765
and many more Hadiths

Anyway gotta do my daily exercise imma talk more later

[dusk mason]

Teaching that it is good to free slaves is not the same as abolishing slavery. Not even close.

Someone with 300 slaves is considered to have done a virtuous act if he frees 10 of them. What does that have to do with abolishing slavery?

[lunar oracle]

I think you get the point however, freeing slaves should be enough indication that having them wasnt morally good in islam

I think all in all I have proven all your arguments wrong although you still may have not changed your opinion on them, but you still ignore all my points I made about christianity so its interesting

[dusk mason]

That's objectively not the case.

Unless you're telling me that Muhammad and his followers while he was alive were immoral people.

You didn't actually make a point about slavery in the Bible, other than pointing out that it existed.

Show me in the Quran where it says it is better to not take slaves, to not have any at all. Show me where Muhammed teaches that you shouldn't have slaves at all.

A man who owns hundreds of slaves, according to the Quran, is a morally good man when he releases a few of them. It says nothing about the rest that he possesses, as long as he treats them well. He is morally still allowed to have hundreds of slaves.

[lunar oracle]

The bible literally allows slaves wdym I didnt make a point

[lunar oracle]

There isnt however Islam in general (Quran and Hadiths) teach to free slaves for greater reward

[lunar oracle]

😂 its like me saying Jesus pbuh owned hundreds of slaves, he didnt because its not true neither did Muhammad pbuh

[dusk mason]

All historians agree that Muhammad had slaves. Zero would ever argue that Jesus owned slaves.

I honestly don't know how you're even arguing that point. It's well documented.

[lunar oracle]

😂"All historians" 😂 I mean I dont tend to just act immature but all of what you are saying now its utter bullshit

[dusk mason]

Show me a single historian or publication that claims that Muhammad didn't have slaves.

[lunar oracle]

its actually funny to see how desperate you are getting now

[dusk mason]

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out the obvious.

[lunar oracle]

"A man who owns hundreds of slaves" 😂 Nah I mean if anything this just makes you a clown

[dusk mason]

Are you taking that out of context?

According to the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad, a man is allowed to have hundreds of slaves.

Freeing some of them would be a virtuous act. That doesn't mean he can't still have the rest.

Seriously, show me a single scholar, Muslim or otherwise, who claims that Muhammad didn't have slaves.

[lunar oracle]

I dont even want to repeat the same shit 100 times

I mean you think like youve won this argument

[dusk mason]

You could start with one

[lunar oracle]

but I just simply dont wanna repeat the same shit 100 times

[dusk mason]

That's okay, just start with one

[lunar oracle]

its amazing how desperate, ignorant and confused someone can get

[dusk mason]

Desperate for one man. Just one.

Not asking you to repeat yourself.

Give me one guy that agrees that Muhammad didn't have slaves. One guy amidst the sea of hundreds.

[lunar oracle]

You have asked the same questions multiple times and I answered multiple times

but you keep ignoring

[dusk mason]

Where's the answer? You haven't answered that

[lunar oracle]

(1) He has concubines whom were called slaves but werent treated like them, if you think they are still sex slaves then you are totally wrong.

(2) No one ever said other than you that Prophet Muhammad pbuh had hundreds of slaves, nor is there evidence (believe me hadith would have been written about it).

(3) The Quran or Hadith do not say that you arent allowed slaves explicitely but instead advises to free slaves as it gives higher reward. (As well as treating everyone equally or that everyone is equal)

Now the Bible meanwhile does allow slaves, and even said how to treat Hebrew Slaves.

This will be the last time I repeat it I think we'll see though, you keep ignoring my points and you never provide evidence for your claims. I have atleast provided the bear minimum 😂

[dusk mason]

I also didn't say that Muhammad had hundreds of slaves. You took that out of context and misread it.

[lunar oracle]

e

[dusk mason]

But none of that answers my question. I asked for a single scholar or historian that agrees that Muhammad didn't have slaves.

[lunar oracle]

So

Instead of directly saying that

instead

you lie

you simply lie

about the quran saying he had hundreds of slaves

[dusk mason]

What are you talking about? That's not what I said.

I said the Quran allows a man to have hundreds of slaves. I did not say Muhammad had hundreds of slaves.

You clearly just misread my words.

[lunar oracle]

"A man who owns hundreds of slaves, according to the Quran, is a morally good man when he releases a few of them." I dont think I miss read that

I think you fucked up your way of saying shit

[dusk mason]

???? What part of that says that Muhammad is that man???

I don't have any sources that say that Muhammad had hundreds of slaves. I have no idea how many he had, only that he definitely had them.

[lunar oracle]

We are talking about Muhammad pbuh

we are mostly talking about him

not his followers

or we were rather

[dusk mason]

We were also talking about the Quran allowing slavery in general.

Gosh man, keep up.

If I mean Muhammad I say Muhammad. If I mean a man in general then I say a man.

You still haven't given me a single scholar or historian that agrees that Muhammad didn't own slaves.

[lunar oracle]

The Quran does not say its not allowed to have slaves, but It encourages the freement of slaves so whats your point? I think its still a lot better than what I have read from those passages in the Bible 😂

Also

The Quran does not say that man is morally good just because he freed a few slaves and still has hundreds

[dusk mason]

The Quran would call it a virtuous act to free some of his slaves. It says nothing about needing to free all of them, or about it being wrong to have slaves.

Come on man. One scholar. One historian. That's all I'm asking for.

[lunar oracle]

Because that man doesnt treat every person individually equally or unfair most likely so it dosent actually mean that, that man is morally good

[dusk mason]

It's a hypothetical man. He treats all his slaves well.

Everything else is great. He just happens to own hundreds of slaves. That's fine, right?

According to the Quran, nothing against that.

[lunar oracle]

Listen the Quran doesnt say that you cant blow up an orphanage explicitaly however it doesnt mean that the man is fine because it doesnt say in the quran that it doesnt allow it

Its an extreme example but

you get the point

The Quran does not need to mention every little thing to ever exist

The Quran is a way of life and so are the teachings of Prophet muhammad pbuh

[dusk mason]

Right, but it actually does mention slavery. And it's clear that there are moral ways to be a slave holder in the Quran.

It's a virtuous act to free a slave. But nowhere does it command that you free slaves.

There's no virtuous way to blow up an orphanage.

All I'm asking for is a very simple task. One scholar or historian that agrees that Muhammad didn't have slaves.

[lunar oracle]

However its not the same kind of slavery, you have to treat them like they are humans in general and it still promotes the freement of slavery unlike the Bible

[dusk mason]

The Bible actually requires you to free slaves at regular intervals, depending on the context, but that really doesn't matter for our discussion.

You're claiming that Muhammad didn't have slaves. I just want one other person amongst the hundreds of scholars that agrees with you.

[lunar oracle]

I claimed before that he didnt have slaves and that statement is still half true, Yes "Technically" he did have a Concubine/Slave however is that person really a slave when treated like a Concubine rather than a Slave and plus the ones that were Concubine+Slaves were gifted by Roman emperors so its different there then it is in Prophet Muhammad's household.

[dusk mason]

That's not technically true at all. A slave treated well is still a slave, even if treated like family.

The only evidence we have explicitly says he had slaves. Whether he treated them well or not, they were slaves. Whether he eventually freed them or not, they were slaves.

And the idea that he treated them well or freed them and didn't buy any or take any as spoils of war, I mean all of that is just speculation.

[lunar oracle]

A Slave treated not anything like a slave is not a slave

[dusk mason]

It's much more likely, based on what we do have, that he had many slaves.

[dusk mason]

Where in the Quran is a slave no longer a slave without having actually freed that slave? That's not what it teaches.

You can't just treat a slave well and then act like you've freed the slave. You must actually free a slave to gain that reward.

Otherwise that's a perversion. You maintain power but pretend to have given it up.

[lunar oracle]

The Quran does not need to answer that specifically, it does not draw the boundary between a slave and a non slave however if you treat your brother like a brother but not like a slave then is that brother really a slave I think you might be a little biased on this because we are talking about islam here however if it was the case of the Bible you would be more lenient on the definition of a slave and thats just human nature I think

Not only that but that person was treated like a Concubine and never really a slave so is that really a slave or what?

[dusk mason]

Huh? The Quran doesn't draw a boundary between slave and non-slave? That's absolutely not true. It explicitly mentions freeing slaves many times.

Lol, no. You can treat a slave as well as you want. They are still a slave until freed. No amount of good treatment changes that.

[lunar oracle]

So if you treat that "slave" as a king would he still be a slave

[dusk mason]

Yes, obviously.

There were slaves in the south that had essentially control over entire cities. About as much power as a mayor. They were still slaves, legally subject to the orders of their owners.

[lunar oracle]

The concept of treating a slave "like a king" raises important questions about the fundamental nature of slavery. If a person is treated with the utmost respect, given full autonomy, and provided with the same rights and freedoms as someone who is not enslaved, then, in practical terms, that person would no longer be a slave. However, the legal and social status of slavery involves more than just the treatment; it encompasses the lack of freedom and autonomy inherent in being owned by another person.

Also I am not saying that Prophet Muhammad pbuh didnt have slaves and I have pointed out that he did have Concubines who were technically "slaves" however that doesnt mean they are sex slaves.

I also think that islam atleast reformed slavery in general by encouraging the giving freedom of that slave and to treat them like your brothers (if you eat or dress in a way then you have to treat your slave the same way like you treat yourself) \

It is a lot better off than what the Bible (old testament) teaches

[dusk mason]

That sounds a lot different than what you were saying earlier. Ultimately, slavery very much is about the legal ownership aspect. Treating someone well is required in many religions, including Christianity. You weren't allowed to mistreat slaves back then and there were regular intervals for freeing slaves, unless the slave decided to remain a slave by his own choice.

[lunar oracle]

You can find things a lot more questionable in the Bible and even the concept of trinity itself, if you only find the marriage and consummation with a 9 yr old that has been justified (atleast in billions of people's views) questionable then thats fine however you still take things out of context and just say something without any backround information

[dusk mason]

Look, I'm happy to say that there's context missing. But saying there's context missing is a lot different than saying it didn't happen.

[lunar oracle]

What I was saying earlier is that they weren't technically slaves in my view however their status was still a slave, he treat them like he treat himself and still encouraged the freedom of slaves and its a lot better than what the Bible teaches

[dusk mason]

We haven't gotten to the discussion of morality of any of these things because we've been stuck establishing the actual obvious facts.

[lunar oracle]

You dont seem to be too happy about that since all in all from what I have learnt about talking to you is that you have some personal hatred towards islam and I question why? I mean you deeply hate islam but not judaism or christianity despite being so similar. You also state things without context thus making them sound bad which isnt too nice as I could do the same and you wouldnt feel great would ya. I didnt think that when I would come here to discuss about religion I'd be insulted in the matter that my religion is just morally inaccurate or anything

[dusk mason]

Thus far, you've only posted verses in the Bible restricting who can be taken as slaves and designating periods after which certain slaves must be released.

[lunar oracle]

Slaves can be permanent if they arent hebrew btw

They can be kept permanent

HOWEVER

[dusk mason]

I'm definitely not happy about having to waste so much time arguing about basic facts that shouldn't be in dispute.

[lunar oracle]

I mean you have been the one that didnt necessarily state basic facts

you were lying most of the time

[dusk mason]

This "Yes, but" business is so frustrating at times.

[dusk mason]

Name one lie

Just one.

[lunar oracle]

I was wrong about him not having sex with Aisha but I atleast acknoledge it

[lunar oracle]

Alr hol up

[dusk mason]

And you were wrong about Muhammad not owning slaves

And you were wrong about concubines not being slaves in Islam, because except in extremely rare cases they were slaves

[lunar oracle]

E

[dusk mason]

You're going with the sex slave bit? That's the thing you're choosing to claim is a lie?

[lunar oracle]

I said that Prophet Muhammad pbuh didn't own slaves in the my view because he treated them like Concubines. However they still held the status of a slave.

[lunar oracle]

Concubines arent slaves

They can overlap

but

Concubines doesnt mean its a slave

[dusk mason]

In other cultures, but not Islam

[lunar oracle]

??

[dusk mason]

In Islam, you are not allowed to sleep with someone who isn't your wife unless they are your slave

You must marry them if they are free

That's why Muhammad always freed a woman before he married her

Because your wife isn't a slave, but a concubine is.

[lunar oracle]

*Concubines

[dusk mason]

I did not misspeak.

[lunar oracle]

You arent allowed to have sex with anyone but Concubines and your wife

[dusk mason]

I meant exactly what I said.

[lunar oracle]

^^^

[dusk mason]

If someone is not your wife, you must marry them to sleep with them.

Unless they are your slave. Then you make them a concubine.

[lunar oracle]

Again Concubines arent slaves, they can overlap but arent slaves that is the point im trying to make

[dusk mason]

And?

I have not been using the words as synonyms.

I mean exactly the words I'm saying.

[lunar oracle]

The point you are trying to make is Concubines literally being sex slaves

[dusk mason]

That wasn't the point I was making

The point I was making is that concubines, as in a woman you sleep with who lives with you who isn't your wife, is explicitly forbidden in Islam, and the punishment for such adultery is very severe.

[lunar oracle]

^^^^^

[dusk mason]

The exception to that is a slave.

[dusk mason]

Back then, not just now. Pay attention.

[lunar oracle]

You still lied

[dusk mason]

Gosh, you're arguing against a point I'm not trying to make.

[lunar oracle]

you said concubines are literally sex slaves

[dusk mason]

They are legally and literally slaves in Islam, because you are not allowed to have concubines who are not your slaves.

And the point of a concubine is to have sex with them

[lunar oracle]

Concubines are the only exception along with your wife

[dusk mason]

You cannot have a concubine who isn't a slave.

Please tell me where in the Quran concubines are allowed who are free women.

The only reason slave concubines are allowed is because you aren't able to marry a slave.

[lunar oracle]

Evidence?

Just show me any sort of evidence

Ill wait

[dusk mason]

Evidence:

1. Definition of concubine is woman you are intimate with who lives with you who isn't your wife.

Any objections so far?

[lunar oracle]

And thats your evidence

[dusk mason]

You realize that "1." means it continues, right?

[lunar oracle]

continue

[dusk mason]

I want to make sure we don't have to argue that first point.

[lunar oracle]

Also

first you have to continue

second

[lunar oracle]

I want evidence in the Quran where you cant have a Concubine without her being a slave

[dusk mason]

Look, if we can't agree on what a concubine is, there's no reason to continue.

That's kinda the basis for a lot of the discussion.

So there is no "2." until we finish discussing "1.". I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you, I'm just trying to get a solid definition that we both agree on.

[lunar oracle]

I wouldnt even shame you if you accepted the fact you are wrong

[dusk mason]

I just want to agree on a definition first. Is that so hard?

Is there a reason you need the definition to stay ambiguous?

[lunar oracle]

A definition that is in your favor? I mean I am going to use the google definition so go on

[dusk mason]

If you have a different definition, please provide it.

I don't care what the definition is, I just want us to agree.

[lunar oracle]

Google definition

Also Im asking for proof in the Quran where you cant have a concubine without her being a slave

I mean thats your statement I just want proof

[dusk mason]

What about my definition of concubine bothers you?

What do you disagree with?

Is it having intimate relations?

[dusk mason]

I don't care what it is, I just want to understand what the objection is.

[lunar oracle]

This is the definition im going off of

[dusk mason]

So you're saying they don't have to have intimate relations? Is that what you're saying?

[lunar oracle]

your definiton is different from googles, googles definition is more widely used

[dusk mason]

Are you saying that you don't need to have intimate relations for someone to be a concubine?

A woman who lives with a man with a lower status than a wife. Right? That's the definition we're going with?

[lunar oracle]

Typically concubines were for sexual relations however it doesnt necessarily mean that they had to however then it may be a different status.

[dusk mason]

I don't want to move on and then come back and have this argument. If we're going to have it, let's do that now.

[lunar oracle]

I am using the google definition of a concubine right now

But you still havent provided any evidence

[dusk mason]

So a woman who lives with a man with a lower status than a wife. Correct?

And we agree that typically this meant sexual relations, but it didn't have to.

Do we agree on that?

[lunar oracle]

Sure

[dusk mason]

Great.

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_concubinage#:~:text=The Quran prefers that a,means of emancipation for concubines.

If you think this article is wrong, I'd love to know where they went wrong.

[lunar oracle]

Im asking for Quran proof though?

[dusk mason]

It's in there

[lunar oracle]

Just post the Quranic verse here

I dont see it being that hard

I have

[dusk mason]

Na man, I'm good. I've got Wikipedia on my side.

I've already posted my evidence.

You are free to post something counter to that if you want

[lunar oracle]

Wikipedia isnt the Quran

[dusk mason]

Yeah, but if you look hard enough in the references, you find the verses.

I'm just tired of looking, when right now, it's on you to disprove my evidence instead of the other way around.

[lunar oracle]

Just post the evidence here and explain it the way I did I mean I dont mind waiting

[dusk mason]

Believe me, I'm happy to hear Wikipedia is wrong. But I don't like being called a liar when I'm in perfect agreement with Wikipedia.

[lunar oracle]

I didnt post no wikipedia here

[dusk mason]

I don't care! Wikipedia cites lots of sources.

[lunar oracle]

Wikipedia is different than actually posting the Quranic verses

[dusk mason]

True. Very true.

So if you've got verses to counter what Wikipedia is claiming, then feel free to post them.

[lunar oracle]

???

[dusk mason]

My claim was that in Islam, concubines were slaves. I didn't claim that the Quran specified this.

[lunar oracle]

Im not reading allat in the Wiki yet its 10:30 im bout to go to sleep, you still havent posted any quranic verses and explained how it relates or anything so unless you do that your case is gone

[dusk mason]

You're asking me to provide you with evidence for a claim I didn't make

So instead, I'm providing evidence for the claim I actually made.

[lunar oracle]

"You cannot have a concubine who isn't a slave.
Please tell me where in the Quran concubines are allowed who are free women."

[dusk mason]

Right. I was asking you for evidence from the Quran contradicting what I had read.

[lunar oracle]

Concubine can be a woman captured after a battle and is now a concubine, typically being a slave but not always

[dusk mason]

I didn't claim the Quran made the claim that a concubine must be a slave.

Because I'm not sure where that is in the Quran.

But I know that's how it was in Islam.

It might be in the Quran. It might be in the other teachings. It might just be something historically taught and documented by scholars. I don't know.

But when I Google Islam and concubines, it tells me they are slaves.

So it's up to you to tell me that that's wrong

[lunar oracle]

Your claim was that the concubine who isnt a slave cannot be a concubine, I am asking for the proof in the Quran

[lunar oracle]

And also what do you mean by that

[dusk mason]

I know you want proof in the Quran. Tough luck, I only have proof outside the Quran.

[lunar oracle]

Exactly so your claim is invalid

[dusk mason]

But the fact remains that I didn't make it up. I was just as surprised as you to find that out. I just investigated it and reported what I found.

It's not my claim. It's Wikipedia's claim.

So disprove it or don't, but if you don't, I'm sticking with it.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've spent hours looking at this stuff. I have other things I would love to do instead. I don't mind the discussion, but I'm not going to carry the weight of everything. I've stated my evidence clearly. If it's shaky, feel free to ignore it or disprove it.

[lunar oracle]

A concubine can be a female slave or a captive of war. A captive of war may be treated similarly to a slave but still differs. You can have a concubine who is a captive of war but not a slave.

[dusk mason]

Based on what?

[lunar oracle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concubinage_in_the_Muslim_world#:~:text=Concubinage in the Muslim world was the practice of Muslim,known as umm al-walad

I also pulled out the Wikipedia, I also could not find a single verse in the Quran that says that the Quran does not allow concubines to not be slaves.

However I found a verse that says "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you..." Which doesn't explicitly state that concubines could not be non-slaves however the views on this verse may differ.

[dusk mason]

"those your right hands possess" is thought to mean those you own, i.e. slaves. But this is the normal difficulty when dealing with translations.

[olive hedge]

I know this was a while ago, but I'm curious what your take is on this.

[lunar oracle]

Im done for today because I gotta get sleep

[dusk mason]

So based on what I read, you could have a free woman as a concubine only if you do not sleep with her. But this would be highly unusual.

It might be something you do for an old widow, so that she lives with you.

[lunar oracle]

Its extremely rare but yes it most likely happend before

aight well gn now

[dusk mason]

Sweet dreams

[haughty lily]

This take is wild

[haughty lily]

Huh?

Hitler was not even Christian

and WW1 was caused by european for Europeans?

its like saying Guys Tengri caused the mongol conquests

they are not at all related

dont draw religion into mans choices

the issue with Islam is you deify Mohammad

think he is without flaw

there is nothing wrong with saying marrying a 9 year old girl is weird and abhorrent

I would say the same about Abraham and his many many wives

some being children

Its weird and wrong

someone can be a prophet and still have flaws

Good people do bad things

[lunar oracle]

Hitler declared himself a none catholic but rather German Christian, thats still Christian

[haughty lily]

he declared himself many things

[lunar oracle]

He was still a Christian

[haughty lily]

his personal beliefs however show otherwise

he was a pagan or athiest most likely

bro ive read his works

and extensively researched this

he was not

[lunar oracle]

Bro thats exactly what im trying to say, you cannot associate people with religion but he did

[haughty lily]

his time in WW1 changed that

[lunar oracle]

He was still a Christian despite him doing other things

So is osama bin laden, he identified as a Muslim but he did not do what Muslims believe in

[haughty lily]

he claimed to be christian because it was expected he would be

your argument is like saying if Komeni is not muslim he would just say it

thats nonsense

it would demolish him

Hitler pandered to his supporters

[lunar oracle]

My argument was that you cannot associate people with their religion and say that the religion is bad

[haughty lily]

many of which saw themselves are ardent protestants

[haughty lily]

literally what you did

hence my comment

[lunar oracle]

I was using examples

[haughty lily]

and blaming christians

examples to blame chrstians for wars

when the wars were not even about religion

and you selected one war which was not even started by a christian

and another that was basically entirely fought by christians

The Ottomans were the only non christian in WW1

[lunar oracle]

I literally pointed out I don’t blame Christianity for everything lol

[haughty lily]

and even if that was your intent

you have not disproven my points

[lunar oracle]

Wdym I was making a point that you can’t blame religions for people’s mistakes

[haughty lily]

your worded it poorly then but thats fine

how about my other points?

[lunar oracle]

Is “I do not blame Christianity for crusades world wars “ not good enough?

[lunar oracle]

I don’t see that points that you are marking

[haughty lily]

you do

they are right after my point about religion starting wars

[haughty lily]

it starts here

[lunar oracle]

We don’t worship Muhammad pbuh

The thing is that Islam allows sex along these rules: Consent, Married/Concubine (now banned) and once they reached puberty

Also Christianity has multiple stories about older men marrying young girls

Some of them I believe are important figures in Christianity as well

Muhammad pbuh is also an important figure for us but no where near god