Misconceptions about Islam

Status
Not open for further replies.
The topic of “sex” slaves
Many were led to believe that slaves are exclusively females (there were actually more male slaves than female) whom their masters may rape freely and treat harshly, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Unlike other nations who rape women during and after war, this is not permissible in Islam. It’s not permissible to rape a maidservant, this a form of mistreatment and mistreatment is prohibited. It’s actually incumbent to treat them well, to feed and clothe them, etc. the Sahaba would actually feed their slaves from what they ate and clothe them with clothes similar to that which they wore. Here are some narrations concerning the treatment of slaves:

Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657)

A man entered upon Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) and found him making dough – and he was a governor. He said to him: O Abu ‘Abd-Allaah, what is this? He said: We have sent our servant on an errand and we do not want to give him two jobs at once.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

It was narrated that ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan tweaked the ear of a slave of his when he did something wrong, then he said to him after that: Come and tweak my ear in retaliation. The slave refused but he insisted, so he started to tweak it slightly, and he said to him: Do it strongly, for I cannot bear the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. The slave said: Like that, O my master? The Day that you fear I fear also.

The narrations regarding the virtues of a slave are well-known and numerous. Slaves can also pay their masters to manumit themselves if they gather enough wealth to do so. The way a slave is treated in Islam is superior to many modern forms of employment (those that include mistreatment, overburdening of employees, child labour, underpayment, hazardous work environment, etc). Think about it; the slaves are not mistreated, they have food, clothes, shelter and all that’s required of them is labour. Khalas. All slaves are eventually manumitted; through all the reading I’ve done, I’ve never come across a slave who was at least a 3rd generation slave. Many freed slaves have acquired fame as scholars and educators, wealthy merchants, held authoritative positions, etc.

What baffles me is when people call out Islam for supposedly being immoral by permitting slavery; what do they suggest? That the Muslims release all of their enemies only to be attacked again?

Slavery is also not permitted if it's not a result of war. It's prohibited to unjustly enslave another person.

The notion that the Prophet (SAW) unjustly tortured people
This is simply not true. The Prophet (SAW) never unjustly tortured someone. He (SAW) was also known to have never hit a woman or child, nor did he ever yell at those who were under his authority when they made a mistake. He would frequently grant his enemies freedom even after they’ve confronted him with the intention of killing him.

“Muslims live as robots who don’t think for themselves”
I’ve come across this statement a few times and when I’ve asked one of the individuals who’s made a similar statement to elaborate; do you know what they said? “Because Muslims have guidelines on everything, from the manner in which they should greet people to relieving themselves in the toilet”. Does anyone here not see how absurd this is? These things are habits anyway, everyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) has their own habits regarding how they eat food, etc.; we’re just asked to adjust these habits in a way that would please Allah (SWT).

“You always enter the toilet with your left foot, you don’t think for yourself”. Like wth?! As if entering the toilet requires pondering, the same goes for how we eat food, etc. all are habits. They make it seem like it’s something major that affects your worldview or something, kulaha you don’t think for yourself. If anyone here actually wastes time pondering before they do ANYTHING, even things that are usually habitual (like what hand to eat with), then you need to see a psychiatrist.

Miracles in Islam
We are often asked by atheists and critics, “do you believe Muhammad (SAW) ascended to heaven?”, and other similar questions. We Muslims believe in a omnipotent being, and since Allah (SWT) is omnipotent, it’s not impossible for him to manipulate/bypass the very laws of nature he created. Rather, that’s easy for Allah (SWT). Miracles are miracles because they transcend the laws of nature/physics. It’s thus, for this very reason, absurd to demand scientific evidence for something that’s believed to be/have been a miracle.

“If Islam is (fill in space), then why do Muslims (fill in space)?”
This is the type of question only a doqon would ask. What Muslims do does not always reflect on the teachings Islam. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims.

“Islam has pagan elements”
There are people on this forum that propagate this nonsense and they use tawaf and other rituals of the ka’bah as an example (since this was also practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs). What they don’t understand is, some of the practices of the pre-Islamic Arabs were remnants of the religion of Ibrahim (AS). Just like the way Roman Catholics adulterated Christianity with paganism, the pre-Islamic Arabs have done a similar thing with the religion of Ibrahim (AS) who was a Hanif.

Islamophobes frequently (and deliberately) misquote the Prophet (SAW) and cherry pick key-words and phrases from hadiths while excluding the context to distort the image of this beautiful religion.

Let's expose the misconceptions about our religion spread it's beautiful teachings.

The topic of this thread is clearing up misconceptions about Islam/spreading it’s beautiful teachings. If you want to contribute, you may do so. No derailing or mockery. Thanks.
 

The_Cosmos

Pepe Trump
The topic of “sex” slaves
Many were led to believe that slaves are exclusively females (there were actually more male slaves than female) whom their masters may rape freely and treat harshly, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Unlike other nations who rape women during and after war, this is not permissible in Islam. It’s not permissible to rape a maidservant, this a form of mistreatment and mistreatment is prohibited. It’s actually incumbent to treat them well, to feed and clothe them, etc. the Sahaba would actually feed their slaves from what they ate and clothe them with clothes similar to that which they wore. Here are some narrations concerning the treatment of slaves:

Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657)

A man entered upon Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) and found him making dough – and he was a governor. He said to him: O Abu ‘Abd-Allaah, what is this? He said: We have sent our servant on an errand and we do not want to give him two jobs at once.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

It was narrated that ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan tweaked the ear of a slave of his when he did something wrong, then he said to him after that: Come and tweak my ear in retaliation. The slave refused but he insisted, so he started to tweak it slightly, and he said to him: Do it strongly, for I cannot bear the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. The slave said: Like that, O my master? The Day that you fear I fear also.

The narrations regarding the virtues of a slave are well-known and numerous. Slaves can also pay their masters to manumit themselves if they gather enough wealth to do so. The way a slave is treated in Islam is superior to many modern forms of employment (those that include mistreatment, overburdening of employees, child labour, underpayment, hazardous work environment, etc). Think about it; the slaves are not mistreated, they have food, clothes, shelter and all that’s required of them is labour. Khalas. All slaves are eventually manumitted; through all the reading I’ve done, I’ve never come across a slave who was at least a 3rd generation slave. Many freed slaves have acquired fame as scholars and educators, wealthy merchants, held authoritative positions, etc.

What baffles me is when people call out Islam for supposedly being immoral by permitting slavery; what do they suggest? That the Muslims release all of their enemies only to be attacked again?

Slavery is also not permitted if it's not a result of war. It's prohibited to unjustly enslave another person.

The notion that the Prophet (SAW) unjustly tortured people
This is simply not true. The Prophet (SAW) never unjustly tortured someone. He (SAW) was also known to have never hit a woman or child, nor did he ever yell at those who were under his authority when they made a mistake. He would frequently grant his enemies freedom even after they’ve confronted him with the intention of killing him.

“Muslims live as robots who don’t think for themselves”
I’ve come across this statement a few times and when I’ve asked one of the individuals who’s made a similar statement to elaborate; do you know what they said? “Because Muslims have guidelines on everything, from the manner in which they should greet people to relieving themselves in the toilet”. Does anyone here not see how absurd this is? These things are habits anyway, everyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) has their own habits regarding how they eat food, etc.; we’re just asked to adjust these habits in a way that would please Allah (SWT).

“You always enter the toilet with your left foot, you don’t think for yourself”. Like wth?! As if entering the toilet requires pondering, the same goes for how we eat food, etc. all are habits. They make it seem like it’s something major that affects your worldview or something, kulaha you don’t think for yourself. If anyone here actually wastes time pondering before they do ANYTHING, even things that are usually habitual (like what hand to eat with), then you need to see a psychiatrist.

Miracles in Islam
We are often asked by atheists and critics, “do you believe Muhammad (SAW) ascended to heaven?”, and other similar questions. We Muslims believe in a omnipotent being, and since Allah (SWT) is omnipotent, it’s not impossible for him to manipulate/bypass the very laws of nature he created. Rather, that’s easy for Allah (SWT). Miracles are miracles because they transcend the laws of nature/physics. It’s thus, for this very reason, absurd to demand scientific evidence for something that’s believed to be/have been a miracle.

“If Islam is (fill in space), then why do Muslims (fill in space)?”
This is the type of question only a doqon would ask. What Muslims do does not always reflect on the teachings Islam. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims.

“Islam has pagan elements”
There are people on this forum that propagate this nonsense and they use tawaf and other rituals of the ka’bah as an example (since this was also practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs). What they don’t understand is, some of the practices of the pre-Islamic Arabs were remnants of the religion of Ibrahim (AS). Just like the way Roman Catholics adulterated Christianity with paganism, the pre-Islamic Arabs have done a similar thing with the religion of Ibrahim (AS) who was a Hanif.

Islamophobes frequently (and deliberately) misquote the Prophet (SAW) and cherry pick key-words and phrases from hadiths while excluding the context to distort the image of this beautiful religion.

Let's expose the misconceptions about our religion spread it's beautiful teachings.

The topic of this thread is clearing up misconceptions about Islam/spreading it’s beautiful teachings. If you want to contribute, you may do so. No derailing or mockery. Thanks.

1) Slavery. This must be one of the saddest things to talk about. Humans being owned, literally, by other humans the same as they would a bag of sweets. Sure, the prophet did talk about the freeing of slaves and he did talk about the good treatment of slaves but nonetheless doesn't rationalise the enslavement of women and children by supposedly the greatest man whoever lived. We know what happened to the people of Banu Qurayza who were literally annihilated for supposed treason (I disagree on that and I can provide sources of required). After the prophet killed every male who reached puberty, he then took the women and children as slaves and divided them amongst the sahaba. I mean, how could you rationally and humanely justify this? It is wrong plain and simple!

Also, there are accounts where the prophet discourages freeing of slaves.

Narrated Kurib: 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."
Sahih Bukhari 3:47:765

Also, a slave couldn't marry without the permission of their masters:

"Ibn Umar reported the prophet as saying: "If a slave marries without the permission of his master, his marriage is null and void."
Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, Ch. 597, No. 2074

The common Muslim epithet 'slave of Allah' suggests that, according to Islam, slavery is in fact humanity's natural state. Moreover Allah plainly takes a dim view of slaves, and scoffs at the idea of freeing them:

Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;)) praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.
Qur'an 16:75
And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?
Qur'an 16:71

Let's move on to punishing slaves:

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves).
Abu Dawud 38:4458

So much for a great man!!

Muhammad brought more slaves than he sold:

"Mohammed had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He once sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold. He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out."
Zad al-Ma'ad, p. 160

2) I love how you play a game of words on your second point. I love how you claim he never "unjustly" tortured someone. When is torture ever justified??? Even the CIA came out and admitted (with all its torturing) that there is no evidence torture actually works in acquiring information. The Prophet should've known considering he was sent down by God.

Also, of you're answer includes the irony of the prophets torturing veing something fully justified at his own time, then you contradict yourself and the religion of Islam because the Prophet is an example for all time and his actions are examples for everyone irregardless of century.

3) the third point is highly laughable if we're all honest. Religious people in general, are robots who do as they're told and rarely ever think for themselves. Of course, that's not always the case (I'm not claiming you're blind or a robot but I'm sieaking broadly) and there very clever and freethinking religious people.

Let's look at the facts, most Muslims are Muslims due to be born a Muslim. Same for Christians, Jews, Hindus and pretty much every religious group. The general rule of thumb is that if you're born into a certain religion you tend to stay to that certain religion thanks to child indoctrination of course. Again, this is general and not specific therefore you shouldn't take offence.

4) About the miracles. I don't doubt you believe your God can do anything, my point and the point of most skeptics is that you're making claims without any form of objective evidence. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn't just assume the natural it assumes that which is based on evidence. If Muhammad did fly to heaven on a winged horse (the buraq) Muslims should have no problem in proving it, otherwise it isn't a miracle it's lies.

5) Nothing to add to this point. Islam should be judged on its content rather than its believers.

6) this is again just another baseless claim. I mean, what evidence do you really for Abraham ever existing? What evidence do you have that the Pagans stole those practices from him? Look, you can claim whatever you want but what differs the rational from the irrational is evidence. When I state that Islam is just a plagiarised religion, I'm stating that on the evidence at hand. The Pagan Arab religions came first and there is no evidence that Abraham existed or established the practices that the Pagans stole. It also doesn't make any sense, why didn't god defend his religion from being defiled? This question is broader and includes Christianity and Judaism.

From an academic perspective, even the term Allah can be traced back as being the chief God of the Kaaba who was most well known as Hubal. If you wish to look further into this, look into the works of Julius Wellhausen.
 
Last edited:

The_Cosmos

Pepe Trump
If I may add one more thing about Islam you did not include.

Muslim apologists love to dismiss the Aisha affair with the baseless and contradictory claim that "It was another time!!" This is of course nonsense because Muhammad divine rights to marrying this child. It Allah who apparently gave him the notion to marry her in his dreams:

Sahih Bukhari 9.140 Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.

The verse above clearly reiterates this point.

Others claim that Abu Bakr approached the prophet but in reality he was actually uneasy about this:

Sahih Bukhari 7.18 Narrated ‘Ursa: The prophet asked abu Bakr for 'Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “but I am your brother.” the prophet said, “you are my brother in Allah’s religion and his book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

The Prophet listed for a child and God conveniently gave her to him.
 
1) Slavery. This must be one of the saddest things to talk about. Humans being owned, literally, by other humans the same as they would a bag of sweets. Sure, the prophet did talk about the freeing of slaves and he did talk about the good treatment of slaves but nonetheless doesn't rationalise the enslavement of women and children by supposedly the greatest man whoever lived. We know what happened to the people of Banu Qurayza who were literally annihilated for supposed treason (I disagree on that and I can provide sources of required). After the prophet killed every male who reached puberty, he then took the women and children as slaves and divided them amongst the sahaba. I mean, how could you rationally and humanely justify this? It is wrong plain and simple!
Is it a better idea to just leave the women to rot after their men have been defeated/captivated? Yacni literally leaving them with the responsibility of building their society and economy from the ground up; even then they'd need to pay jizya (Muslims pay Zakah btw, so I don't want anyone making Jizya seem to be an unjust phenomenon) all the more so increasing their burden. Or do you think it would be better to provide them with a roof over their heads, food, clothes, good treatment, etc. in return for burdenless labour?

> Women-only civilization :wtf:

Narrated Kurib: 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."
Sahih Bukhari 3:47:765
This is because her maternal uncles were in great need of them. Other than that, it would have certainly been more virtuous to free them, no doubt. The general rule is that freeing a slave is one of the most virtuous deeds that a Muslim can do.

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

Also, a slave couldn't marry without the permission of their masters:

"Ibn Umar reported the prophet as saying: "If a slave marries without the permission of his master, his marriage is null and void."
Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, Ch. 597, No. 2074
What's the problem with this? :what:

Surely the master has the right to know since this would affect their availability among other things.

Slaves could marry among themselves with their master's permission - or with free men or women. They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over an impious free man. This is a fact.

The common Muslim epithet 'slave of Allah' suggests that, according to Islam, slavery is in fact humanity's natural state. Moreover Allah plainly takes a dim view of slaves, and scoffs at the idea of freeing them:

Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;)) praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.
Qur'an 16:75
And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?
Qur'an 16:71
This is why people don't like atheists runnti. What's with these nonsensical interpretations and outright fabrications?

Are you giving a tafsir of the Qur'an? :cryinglaughsmiley:

Allah (SWT) does not "scoff" at the idea of freeing slaves. Qatadah, the well-known mufassir said of that ayah (16:75):"All this is an example given of the idol and the True God."

"The first parable is of two men, one of whom is a slave completely under the dominion of another, with no powers of any sort, and another a free man, who is gifted in every way, and is most generous in bestowing out of his opulent wealth (material as well as intangible), privately and publicly, without let or hindrance; for he is his own master and owes no account to any one. The first is like the imaginary gods which men set up,-whether powers of nature, which have no independent existence but are manifestations of Allah, or deified heroes or men, who can do nothing of their own authority but are subject to the Will and Power of Allah; the second describes in a faint way the position of Allah, the Self-Subsistent, to Whom belongs the dominion of all that is in heaven and earth, and Who bestows freely of His gifts on all His creatures.

The implication is equally clear: if even these two kinds of man cannot be deemed equal, how could any created being, with its intrinsic, utter dependence on other created beings, or any force of nature conceivable or imaginable by man, be thought of as possessing powers comparable with those of God, who is almighty, limitless, inconceivable – the self-sufficient fount of all that exists? (This argument is continued and further elaborated in the subsequent parable.)"

The slave must obtain the permission of his master and cannot act on his own accord. While the freeman is free to do as he wishes, spends freely, etc. This does not mean that their master will not refuse to give them permission though. As we've seen, many of them were governors, scholars and prominent people.

It's sad that your source is wikiIslam. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Slavery

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves).
Abu Dawud 38:4458
The punishment for zina applies to free people and slaves alike. This wasn't a punishment that was exclusively carried out on slaves. Wth?

2) I love how you play a game of words on your second point. I love how you claim he never "unjustly" tortured someone. When is torture ever justified??? Even the CIA came out and admitted (with all its torturing) that there is no evidence torture actually works in acquiring information. The Prophet should've known considering he was sent down by God.

Also, of you're answer includes the irony of the prophets torturing veing something fully justified at his own time, then you contradict yourself and the religion of Islam because the Prophet is an example for all time and his actions are examples for everyone irregardless of century.
Relax, I was OBVIOUSLY using the word "torture" as a verb in this context, not a noun (since it's past tense). Thus none of what you said here applies to the point that I've made.

3) the third point is highly laughable if we're all honest. Religious people in general, are robots who do as they're told and rarely ever think for themselves. Of course, that's not always the case (I'm not claiming you're blind or a robot but I'm sieaking broadly) and there very clever and freethinking religious people.
How do we "rarely ever think for ourselves"? We're required to perform certain rituals and acquire certain habits, but that doesn't mean we don't think for ourselves. What nonsense is this? Rather, the opposite is true; we think for ourselves in all of our personal affairs.

6) this is again just another baseless claim. I mean, what evidence do you really for Abraham ever existing? What evidence do you have that the Pagans stole those practices from him? Look, you can claim whatever you want but what differs the rational from the irrational is evidence. When I state that Islam is just a plagiarised religion, I'm stating that on the evidence at hand. The Pagan Arab religions came first and there is no evidence that Abraham existed or established the practices that the Pagans stole. It also doesn't make any sense, why didn't god defend his religion from being defiled? This question is broader and includes Christianity and Judaism.
Some people during and before the Prophet (SAW)'s time were still Hanifs, following the religion of Ibrahim (AS).

From an academic perspective, even the term Allah can be traced back as being the chief God of the Kaaba who was most well known as Hubal. If you wish to look further into this, look into the works of Julius Wellhausen.

His claims have been refuted. Hubal =/= Ha-baal.

The statue of Hubal was of a male figure with a golden arm - a replacement of a broken-off stone arm when Hubal came into possession of the Quraysh. ʿAmr ibn-Luhayy imported Hubal and it was first set up by Khuzaymah ibn Mudrikah ibn al-Ya's ibn Mudar. Consequently, it used to be called Khuzaymah's Hubal.

Julius Wellhausen claimed that 'Amr brought Hubal from the Moabs without providing any evidence: in his attempt to interlink Hubal with Ha-baal, the deity worshiped by the Moabs.

"From the Islamic traditions, it is unclear where the Hubal idol in Makkah originated from. Al-Azraqi says ʿAmr ibn Luhayy brought Hubal from Hit in Mesopotamia, a town situated on the Euphratus, while Ibn al-Kalbi implied that it came from al-Balqa' in Bilād al-Shām.[5] Ibn Hisham and Ibn Kathir, on the other hand, say that it came from Moab in the land of Balqa' in Transjordan. There is no clear-cut position that can be adduced from the Islamic traditions on the issue of the place of origin of the Hubal idol at Makkah, although all of them are united on its foreign origin."

The hypothesis that Hubal was originally the proper name of Allah suffers from serious difficulties. In the battle of Uhud, the distinction between the followers of Allah and the followers of Hubal is made clear by the statements of Prophet Muḥammad and Abu Sufyan. Ibn Hisham narrates in the biography of the Prophet:

When Abu Sufyan wanted to leave he went to the top of the mountain and shouted loudly saying, 'You have done a fine work; victory in war goes by turns. Today in exchange for the day (of Badr). Show your superiority, Hubal,' i.e. vindicate your religion. The apostle told ‘Umar to get up and answer him and say, God [Allah] is most high and most glorious. We are not equal. Our dead are in paradise; your dead are in hell.

The same incident is related in Sahih Bukhari: Abu Sufyan ascended a high place and said, "Is Muhammad present amongst the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abu Sufyan said, "Is the son of Abu Quhafa present among the people?" The Prophet said, "Do not answer him." Abu Sufyan said, "Is the son of Al-Khattab amongst the people?" He then added, "All these people have been killed, for, were they alive, they would have replied." On that, 'Umar could not help saying, "You are a liar, O enemy of Allah! Allah has kept what will make you unhappy." Abu Sufyan said, "Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!" Abu Sufyan said, "We have (the idol) al-‘Uzza, whereas you have no ‘Uzza!" The Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They said, "What may we say?" The Prophet said, "Say: Allah is our Helper and you have no helper."

Read this thorough refutation: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html

The person who has written that article uses numerous of reputable sources.

If I may add one more thing about Islam you did not include.

Muslim apologists love to dismiss the Aisha affair with the baseless and contradictory claim that "It was another time!!" This is of course nonsense because Muhammad divine rights to marrying this child. It Allah who apparently gave him the notion to marry her in his dreams:

Sahih Bukhari 9.140 Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.

The verse above clearly reiterates this point.

Others claim that Abu Bakr approached the prophet but in reality he was actually uneasy about this:

Sahih Bukhari 7.18 Narrated ‘Ursa: The prophet asked abu Bakr for 'Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “but I am your brother.” the prophet said, “you are my brother in Allah’s religion and his book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

The Prophet listed for a child and God conveniently gave her to him.
This is claim is very easy to refute. A'isha (RA) was already engaged to another individual before the Prophet (SAW), Jubayr ibn Mut'im (who at the time was a disbeliever). So of course it must have been a normal practice back then.

As for what Abu Bakr (RA) meant by "brother", we'll see below.

“ ‘Urwah reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aa’ishah’s hand in marriage, and Abu Bakr said to him: ‘But I am your brother.’ He said: ‘You are my brother according to the religion and Book of Allaah (i.e., my brother in Islam), and she is permissible for me (to marry).” (Bukhaari, 4691).

In his commentary Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Ibn Abi ‘Aasim reported via Yahyaa ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Haatib from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent Khawlah bint Hakeem to Abu Bakr to ask for ‘Aa’ishah’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr asked her, ‘Is she right for him? Because she is the daughter of my brother.’ Khawlah went back and mentioned this to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He told her: ‘Go back and tell him: “You are my brother in Islam, and your daughter is right for me.”’ She went back to Abu Bakr and told him, and he said: ‘Call the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).’ So he came and the marriage was performed.”

The phrase “You are my brother according to the religion and Book of Allaah (i.e., my brother in Islam)” was referring to the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islamic religion)…” [al-Hujuraat 49:10] and other similar aayaat. The phrase “she is permissible for me (to marry)” means it is permissible to marry her even though she is the brother’s daughter, because the kind of brotherhood that would prevent such a marriage is the brotherhood of descent (same parent) or of radaa’ah (by being breastfed in infancy by the same woman), not the brotherhood of faith.

If you want to carry on this debate, make another thread or PM, don't derail.
 
The topic of “sex” slaves
Many were led to believe that slaves are exclusively females (there were actually more male slaves than female) whom their masters may rape freely and treat harshly, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Unlike other nations who rape women during and after war, this is not permissible in Islam. It’s not permissible to rape a maidservant, this a form of mistreatment and mistreatment is prohibited. It’s actually incumbent to treat them well, to feed and clothe them, etc. the Sahaba would actually feed their slaves from what they ate and clothe them with clothes similar to that which they wore. Here are some narrations concerning the treatment of slaves:

Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657)

A man entered upon Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) and found him making dough – and he was a governor. He said to him: O Abu ‘Abd-Allaah, what is this? He said: We have sent our servant on an errand and we do not want to give him two jobs at once.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

It was narrated that ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan tweaked the ear of a slave of his when he did something wrong, then he said to him after that: Come and tweak my ear in retaliation. The slave refused but he insisted, so he started to tweak it slightly, and he said to him: Do it strongly, for I cannot bear the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. The slave said: Like that, O my master? The Day that you fear I fear also.

The narrations regarding the virtues of a slave are well-known and numerous. Slaves can also pay their masters to manumit themselves if they gather enough wealth to do so. The way a slave is treated in Islam is superior to many modern forms of employment (those that include mistreatment, overburdening of employees, child labour, underpayment, hazardous work environment, etc). Think about it; the slaves are not mistreated, they have food, clothes, shelter and all that’s required of them is labour. Khalas. All slaves are eventually manumitted; through all the reading I’ve done, I’ve never come across a slave who was at least a 3rd generation slave. Many freed slaves have acquired fame as scholars and educators, wealthy merchants, held authoritative positions, etc.

What baffles me is when people call out Islam for supposedly being immoral by permitting slavery; what do they suggest? That the Muslims release all of their enemies only to be attacked again?

Slavery is also not permitted if it's not a result of war. It's prohibited to unjustly enslave another person.

The notion that the Prophet (SAW) unjustly tortured people
This is simply not true. The Prophet (SAW) never unjustly tortured someone. He (SAW) was also known to have never hit a woman or child, nor did he ever yell at those who were under his authority when they made a mistake. He would frequently grant his enemies freedom even after they’ve confronted him with the intention of killing him.

“Muslims live as robots who don’t think for themselves”
I’ve come across this statement a few times and when I’ve asked one of the individuals who’s made a similar statement to elaborate; do you know what they said? “Because Muslims have guidelines on everything, from the manner in which they should greet people to relieving themselves in the toilet”. Does anyone here not see how absurd this is? These things are habits anyway, everyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) has their own habits regarding how they eat food, etc.; we’re just asked to adjust these habits in a way that would please Allah (SWT).

“You always enter the toilet with your left foot, you don’t think for yourself”. Like wth?! As if entering the toilet requires pondering, the same goes for how we eat food, etc. all are habits. They make it seem like it’s something major that affects your worldview or something, kulaha you don’t think for yourself. If anyone here actually wastes time pondering before they do ANYTHING, even things that are usually habitual (like what hand to eat with), then you need to see a psychiatrist.

Miracles in Islam
We are often asked by atheists and critics, “do you believe Muhammad (SAW) ascended to heaven?”, and other similar questions. We Muslims believe in a omnipotent being, and since Allah (SWT) is omnipotent, it’s not impossible for him to manipulate/bypass the very laws of nature he created. Rather, that’s easy for Allah (SWT). Miracles are miracles because they transcend the laws of nature/physics. It’s thus, for this very reason, absurd to demand scientific evidence for something that’s believed to be/have been a miracle.

“If Islam is (fill in space), then why do Muslims (fill in space)?”
This is the type of question only a doqon would ask. What Muslims do does not always reflect on the teachings Islam. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims.

“Islam has pagan elements”
There are people on this forum that propagate this nonsense and they use tawaf and other rituals of the ka’bah as an example (since this was also practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs). What they don’t understand is, some of the practices of the pre-Islamic Arabs were remnants of the religion of Ibrahim (AS). Just like the way Roman Catholics adulterated Christianity with paganism, the pre-Islamic Arabs have done a similar thing with the religion of Ibrahim (AS) who was a Hanif.

Islamophobes frequently (and deliberately) misquote the Prophet (SAW) and cherry pick key-words and phrases from hadiths while excluding the context to distort the image of this beautiful religion.

Let's expose the misconceptions about our religion spread it's beautiful teachings.

The topic of this thread is clearing up misconceptions about Islam/spreading it’s beautiful teachings. If you want to contribute, you may do so. No derailing or mockery. Thanks.
Why did the most benevolent Allah even allow slavery to begin with? Human ownership isn't right.
 
Why did the most benevolent Allah even allow slavery to begin with? Human ownership isn't right.
It's only permitted if it's a result of war; other than that, it's strictly forbidden. There are 3 possiblities, the opponents of Islam can be either:

1) Murdered (which is what happens when nations are at war with each other)
2) Held as captives
3) Released without repercussion only for them to attack again

The third option is self-evidently absurd, I don't even need to explain why.
 
It's only permitted if it's a result of war; other than that, it's strictly forbidden. There are 3 possiblities, the opponents of Islam can be either:

1) Murdered (which is what happens when nations are at war with each other)
2) Held as captives
3) Released without repercussion only for them to attack again

The third option is self-evidently absurd, I don't even need to explain why.
Fair enough but why did Saudi Arabia only abolish slavery recently?
 
Fair enough but why did Saudi Arabia only abolish slavery recently?
Like I said in my OP, what Muslims do does not always reflect on the teachings of Islam.

The Saudis have enslaved those Africans unjustly anyway prior to freeing them and abolishing slavery.
 

Jujuman

Accomplished Saaxir
Like I said in my OP, what Muslims do does not always reflect on the teachings of Islam.

The Saudis have enslaved those Africans unjustly anyway prior to freeing them and abolishing slavery.

Isn't it the case lakiin that for a slave to be manumitted they must be Muslim
:cosbyhmm:
 
Isn't it the case lakiin that for a slave to be manumitted they must be Muslim
:cosbyhmm:
No, but converting to Islam would give a slave more chances of being freed since it's more virtuous to free a Muslim slave.

Well, duh! If you don't feed them they're gonna die and lose their utility. Also, not being allowed to rape slaves is factually inaccurate.
I don't mean feeding them as in providing them with the bare minimum to survive. I mean feeding them to satiety, literally from the food that the master himself eats. Do prisoners in the UK eat the same food as normal people do that are not in prisons?

Slaves back then were pretty much treated as an additional member of the family tbh.

Also, it's not factually inaccurate that it's forbidden to rape slaves. Provide evidence if you're suggesting the contrary.
 
Slaves back then were pretty much treated as an additional member of the family tbh.
First of all, I think you're missing the main point as to what makes slavery such a despicable act - namely, that the person is being held against their will. You can twist it however you want, but it's still the same despicable act. It almost sounds like you're taking the piss when you speak of supposed 'perks' like light duty and good food. The fact that a master can have sex with a slave at will makes it the worst form of slavery.
 
Slaves back then were pretty much treated as an additional member of the family tbh.

:cryinglaughsmiley::mugshotman:
They would eat from what their hosts would eat, wear similar clothes, attend similar gatherings, hold prominent and authoritative positions, you could not even tell them apart from their masters most of the times.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

The Prophet said, "...one should not say, my slave (Abdi), or my girl-slave (Amati), but should say, my lad (Fatai), my lass (Fatati), and 'my boy (Ghulami)." (Bukhari)

First of all, I think you're missing the main point as to what makes slavery such a despicable act - namely, that the person is being held against their will. You can twist it however you want, but it's still the same despicable act. It almost sounds like you're taking the piss when you speak of supposed 'perks' like light duty and good food. The fact that a master can have sex with a slave at will makes it the worst form of slavery.

Kulaha raping maidservants is allowed... :geek:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead.

In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)

"There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Saheeh Bukhari no. 6731; Saheeh Muslim, no. 142)

Allah's Apostle said, "He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward." (Bukhari)

I can provide a lot more evidence, but I think this is sufficient for now.
 
They would eat from what their hosts would eat, wear similar clothes, attend similar gatherings, hold prominent and authoritative positions, you could not even tell them apart from their masters most of the times.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

The Prophet said, "...one should not say, my slave (Abdi), or my girl-slave (Amati), but should say, my lad (Fatai), my lass (Fatati), and 'my boy (Ghulami)." (Bukhari)



Kulaha raping maidservants is allowed... :geek:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead.

In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)

"There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Saheeh Bukhari no. 6731; Saheeh Muslim, no. 142)

Allah's Apostle said, "He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward." (Bukhari)

I can provide a lot more evidence, but I think this is sufficient for now.

I-dont-believe-you.gif
 
This shows that you know nothing about your own religion. It's in the Koran. No one ever argues against it, furthermore.
The Qur'an permits having sexual intercourse with them similar to the way it permits having sexual intercourse with one's spouse.

It doesn't say you can rape them. :geek:

"Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed" (70:30)
 
The Qur'an permits having sexual intercourse with them similar to the way it permits having sexual intercourse with one's spouse.

It doesn't say you can rape them. :geek:
No, it doesn't. It says you're permitted to have sex with your wives or slaves. It actually uses the word 'or'. Go and read it.
 
No, it doesn't. It says you're permitted to have sex with your wives or slaves. It actually uses the word 'or'. Go and read it.
Slaves have their rights too, among them is the right to good treatment.

Premise: it’s forbidden to mistreat a servant

Rape is a form of mistreatment.

Therefore, rape is not permissible.

The fact that there’s expiation (kafaarah) for raping a slave proves that it’s not a permissible act. All scholars have unanimously agreed with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending

Top