Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different PP here.

OP, speaking of insanity, what is the definition of "insanity"? It's repeatedly doing things you know don't work.

In this instance, it's your endless attempts to spin arguments you've lost. "Spin" is a generous adjective here. You keep posting so-called summaries that carefully reframe issues to make it seem like you won the debate. You lost many of these debates. When I say you lost the debates, I'm not challenging your right to your own personal version of Islam: I'm saying that what you post here frequently goes against the Quran and/or against shariah and hadith. I have to say, as a bystander with reasonable cognitive capacities, that the other poster seems to have won almost all the points.

I simply cannot understand why you think reframing debates you lost makes any sense. Do you think nobody here can go back three pages and read the exchanges for themselves? Do you think it wouldn't occur to anybody to challenge your misleading summaries of debates we actually participated in or followed?

You obviously did not read the threads carefully. Read again. Proof was provided again and again and again. It looks like Muslims have a rapid following of a few pitbulls who are up in arms that anything positive is posted about Islam. Their harassment has been my incentive to dispel the distortions they preach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You pulled the sharia law....from bbc? For real?

And you call ME a googling queen?

Didn't you use the Sharia as authoritative proof yourself first? Now you object to it's use as authority. Hmmm……predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid, a female slave who had borne her owner a child

Here's what is TRUE Islam - what is in the Quran. The Hadith may be valuable in providing context or details, but only on issues that were already mentioned in the Quran. The hadith can not be relied on exclusively. There are many people, particularly from the Arab region that do not practice true Islam. For example, the Sharia in some countries states the woman must return her dowry upon divorce. This directly conflicts with the Quran. If a woman is guilty of fornication, they may stone her. However, the Quran does not authorize death for such a crime. There are many other examples like these. So you can see that the Quran is not being followed properly in some states. So why should their behavior represent the hundreds of millions of Muslims who practice Islam the way it was intended to be practiced? It reflects poorly on those of us who do practice what the Quran says and it reflects poorly on Islam. This is what I am objecting to.

Do you understand that the very link from bbc you posted says umm walads are freed after their master's death? You may want to check things you reference a bit more closely. They make you look awkward.

I do believe you have comprehension challenges. No matter. I have time to explain to you again. Read again. There were three categories listed of how freedom may be obtained and here they are AGAIN (pay clsoe attention to the third category):
The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid: a female slave who had borne her owner a child


Post a reference from the Quran specifically stating that umm walads are freed when they get pregnant. Not a verse enjoining kindness to slaves. The verse commanding that a pregnant concubine is freed.

Already did that. Quranic verses were provided that showed compassion and kindness was ordered by God. The above was quoted from Sharia. Ahh...Don't tell me...you changed your mind and don't want any authority from the Sharia now.

Compassion and kindness has many forms. You think that it should take the form of freeing the concubine upon news of pregnancy. There are no sources confirming that. If that's your theory, that's fine, but no need to sell it as scholarly consensus.

The link you posted says "MAY be obtained" - get it? "May". It doesn't say pregnancy means freedom. All three categories of slaves you listed fall under "has the right to freedom at some point in future."

I posted multiple sources confirming umm walid's freedom came after her master's death - from Sharia AND from the bbc source you posted, in fact on that same very page. How do you explain the fact that the bbc source you posted confirms my position (freedom upon master's death), not yours (freedom upon pregnancy)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You pulled the sharia law....from bbc? For real?

And you call ME a googling queen?

Didn't you use the Sharia as authoritative proof yourself first? Now you object to it's use as authority. Hmmm……predictable.

No, I love shariah but I am amused that you use bbc as the source on shariah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Tell me -- what do you think people should have done in those times with the large numbers of women who were left alone and behind after their husbands, fathers, uncles were killed in war? How would women have supported themselves?

Women have supported themselves before Islam and during Islam just fine. I think a really good way not to create large numbers of women left behind would have been not to kill their husbands, fathers and uncles. But hey, if you think the only way to take care of them was to usurp their right to their bodies, who am I to argue?

(There ARE ways of taking care of women without sleeping with them, you know.)

Ahhhh…there were many ways of women supporting themselves in 600 AD, you say? And many did support themselves too? But you just can't, to save your life, think of those ways right now though? Supreme bs answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You pulled the sharia law....from bbc? For real?

And you call ME a googling queen?

Didn't you use the Sharia as authoritative proof yourself first? Now you object to it's use as authority. Hmmm……predictable.

No, I love shariah but I am amused that you use bbc as the source on shariah.

You love the Sharia? So you finally accept that the Sharia orders freedom of pregnant slaves then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I do believe you have comprehension challenges. No matter. I have time to explain to you again. Read again. There were three categories listed of how freedom may be obtained and here they are AGAIN (pay clsoe attention to the third category):
The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid: a female slave who had borne her owner a child

Pay close attention, again - this is from the link you posted,

"Being a concubine did have some benefits: if a slave woman gave birth to her owner's child, her status improved dramatically - she could not be sold or given away, and when her owner died she became free. The child was also free and would inherit from their father as any other children."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You pulled the sharia law....from bbc? For real?

And you call ME a googling queen?

Didn't you use the Sharia as authoritative proof yourself first? Now you object to it's use as authority. Hmmm……predictable.

No, I love shariah but I am amused that you use bbc as the source on shariah.

You love the Sharia? So you finally accept that the Sharia orders freedom of pregnant slaves then?

Post the source and we'll see.

I love to use shariah as a source. I don't actually love it like one loves dogs or icecream or good shoes. Not in that sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Tell me -- what do you think people should have done in those times with the large numbers of women who were left alone and behind after their husbands, fathers, uncles were killed in war? How would women have supported themselves?

Women have supported themselves before Islam and during Islam just fine. I think a really good way not to create large numbers of women left behind would have been not to kill their husbands, fathers and uncles. But hey, if you think the only way to take care of them was to usurp their right to their bodies, who am I to argue?

(There ARE ways of taking care of women without sleeping with them, you know.)

Ahhhh…there were many ways of women supporting themselves in 600 AD, you say? And many did support themselves too? But you just can't, to save your life, think of those ways right now though? Supreme bs answer.

Muhammad's first wife was a rich lady. Weren't there business women? Tradeswomen? Property owners? Women from rich families? Come now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Tell me -- what do you think people should have done in those times with the large numbers of women who were left alone and behind after their husbands, fathers, uncles were killed in war? How would women have supported themselves?

Women have supported themselves before Islam and during Islam just fine. I think a really good way not to create large numbers of women left behind would have been not to kill their husbands, fathers and uncles. But hey, if you think the only way to take care of them was to usurp their right to their bodies, who am I to argue?

(There ARE ways of taking care of women without sleeping with them, you know.)

Ahhhh…there were many ways of women supporting themselves in 600 AD, you say? And many did support themselves too? But you just can't, to save your life, think of those ways right now though? Supreme bs answer.

Muhammad's first wife was a rich lady. Weren't there business women? Tradeswomen? Property owners? Women from rich families? Come now.

Besides, you say this like their fathers, husbands and brothers just dropped dead from a sudden bout of flu. There were dead at wars that Muslims participated in, both defensively and offensively. Might there have been fewer widows if the Muslim empire didn't feel the need to expand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You pulled the sharia law....from bbc? For real?

And you call ME a googling queen?

Didn't you use the Sharia as authoritative proof yourself first? Now you object to it's use as authority. Hmmm……predictable.

No, I love shariah but I am amused that you use bbc as the source on shariah.

You love the Sharia? So you finally accept that the Sharia orders freedom of pregnant slaves then?

I accept that sharia orders freedom of slaves who borne children to their owners upon the death of these owners, and I posted an actual book source - not a stupid bbc page - to confirm that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid, a female slave who had borne her owner a child

Here's what is TRUE Islam - what is in the Quran. The Hadith may be valuable in providing context or details, but only on issues that were already mentioned in the Quran. The hadith can not be relied on exclusively. There are many people, particularly from the Arab region that do not practice true Islam. For example, the Sharia in some countries states the woman must return her dowry upon divorce. This directly conflicts with the Quran. If a woman is guilty of fornication, they may stone her. However, the Quran does not authorize death for such a crime. There are many other examples like these. So you can see that the Quran is not being followed properly in some states. So why should their behavior represent the hundreds of millions of Muslims who practice Islam the way it was intended to be practiced? It reflects poorly on those of us who do practice what the Quran says and it reflects poorly on Islam. This is what I am objecting to.

Do you understand that the very link from bbc you posted says umm walads are freed after their master's death? You may want to check things you reference a bit more closely. They make you look awkward.

I do believe you have comprehension challenges. No matter. I have time to explain to you again. Read again. There were three categories listed of how freedom may be obtained and here they are AGAIN (pay clsoe attention to the third category):
The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid: a female slave who had borne her owner a child


Post a reference from the Quran specifically stating that umm walads are freed when they get pregnant. Not a verse enjoining kindness to slaves. The verse commanding that a pregnant concubine is freed.

Already did that. Quranic verses were provided that showed compassion and kindness was ordered by God. The above was quoted from Sharia. Ahh...Don't tell me...you changed your mind and don't want any authority from the Sharia now.

Compassion and kindness has many forms. You think that it should take the form of freeing the concubine upon news of pregnancy. There are no sources confirming that. If that's your theory, that's fine, but no need to sell it as scholarly consensus.

The link you posted says "MAY be obtained" - get it? "May". It doesn't say pregnancy means freedom. All three categories of slaves you listed fall under "has the right to freedom at some point in future."

I posted multiple sources confirming umm walid's freedom came after her master's death - from Sharia AND from the bbc source you posted, in fact on that same very page. How do you explain the fact that the bbc source you posted confirms my position (freedom upon master's death), not yours (freedom upon pregnancy)?

I will try to help you. ONCE AGAIN here's the entire section from the link:
Slave rights to freedom

"Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid: a female slave who had borne her owner a child"

The above are the THREE conditions for freedom. The last one is when the slave becomes pregnant.

For the rest of you DCUMers, concubinage is rarely practiced anywhere now, yet these rabid anti Islam posters want to keep pounding on old, archaic rules that are rarely, if ever applied. Simply evidence of their islamophobia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You pulled the sharia law....from bbc? For real?

And you call ME a googling queen?

Didn't you use the Sharia as authoritative proof yourself first? Now you object to it's use as authority. Hmmm……predictable.

No, I love shariah but I am amused that you use bbc as the source on shariah.

You love the Sharia? So you finally accept that the Sharia orders freedom of pregnant slaves then?

I accept that sharia orders freedom of slaves who borne children to their owners upon the death of these owners, and I posted an actual book source - not a stupid bbc page - to confirm that point.

Oh Lord. Don't ever apply to law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will try to help you. ONCE AGAIN here's the entire section from the link:
Slave rights to freedom

"Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid: a female slave who had borne her owner a child"

The above are the THREE conditions for freedom. The last one is when the slave becomes pregnant.

Not according to the source you quoted. This is what your source says:

Pay close attention, again - this is from the link you posted,

"Being a concubine did have some benefits: if a slave woman gave birth to her owner's child, her status improved dramatically - she could not be sold or given away, and when her owner died she became free. The child was also free and would inherit from their father as any other children."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h7

There are no sources that say freedom came upon pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Tell me -- what do you think people should have done in those times with the large numbers of women who were left alone and behind after their husbands, fathers, uncles were killed in war? How would women have supported themselves?

Women have supported themselves before Islam and during Islam just fine. I think a really good way not to create large numbers of women left behind would have been not to kill their husbands, fathers and uncles. But hey, if you think the only way to take care of them was to usurp their right to their bodies, who am I to argue?

(There ARE ways of taking care of women without sleeping with them, you know.)

Ahhhh…there were many ways of women supporting themselves in 600 AD, you say? And many did support themselves too? But you just can't, to save your life, think of those ways right now though? Supreme bs answer.

Muhammad's first wife was a rich lady. Weren't there business women? Tradeswomen? Property owners? Women from rich families? Come now.

Besides, you say this like their fathers, husbands and brothers just dropped dead from a sudden bout of flu. There were dead at wars that Muslims participated in, both defensively and offensively. Might there have been fewer widows if the Muslim empire didn't feel the need to expand?

Yes, Muhammad's first wife was a rich merchant. And so your logic goes something like this -- Muhammads first wife was a rich merchant, therefore all women in 600 AD were as well. Is that it?
And to add, male guardians of women died only from Muslim murderers. There was no such thing as Christian crusaders who murdered anyone, though. Only Muslims murdered and left women orphans and widows. Is that your logic?
I just want to make sure DCUMers can see the inner workings of your mind.