Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

In light of your recent exchange with Xray

I pitied the man, who feared the wrath of a god. Living in permanent fear of doing something wrong without knowing how the wrath of this being looks like.

I see.. So you prefer mankind fears absolutely no consequences at all for their actions?

I need to ask whether you take the regular invocations of Hell (or the Fire) in the Qur'an literally.

In your view, will everyone who significantly displeases God (including everyone who remains an "unbeliever" after encountering Islam and its proponents) spend an endless afterlife in Hell?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Now, here are my questions:

(1) Can an Islamic believer who attributes moral and legal authority to the Qur'an and the hadith make an Islamic case against the legality of slavery as an institution? Against the morality of holding or trading slaves?

(2) If this can be done, can you identify a significant indigenous social or political movement in any part of the Islamic world that actually did it?

(3) Who is the closest Islamic counterpart to William Lloyd Garrison? To Frederick Douglass? To William Wilberforce? To John Henry Newton? To Harriet Beecher Stowe?

Robert Campbell

Here is a short explanation on slavery in Islam for you that I found online [by Shehzad Saleem], it's quite good and explains a lot. Regarding the 3 questions I can say all of the answers are the Prophet Islam,the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the Muslims at that time. If you have more questions please let me know.

Adonis,

I held back from responding to your post on slavery for several days.

In part, this was because I wanted to get some sense of where Shehzad Saleem (whose articles appear on a site out of Lahore, Pakistan) was coming from.

I see from other short articles on that site that Saleem also tries to circumscribe Islamic law so that there is, at present, no death penalty for blasphemy. And he insists that any death penalty for apostasy or renouncing Islam applied only during the unusual circumstances of Muhammad's personal mission, expiring on his death in 632.

In a rough way, these kinds of explications resemble Christian attempts to identify the more extreme proclamations attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels (e.g., exhorting his followers to give away all their worldly goods) as an "interim ethic" that would hold during the brief period before the world ended and the Kingdom of God was ushered in (assuming, of course, that Jesus was really preaching an imminent apocalypse).

All I can say to Saleem, and others of similar persuasion, is good luck.

But the best that can be said about the treatise on slavery to which you directed me is that it is woefully uninformed historically. And I rather doubt that Saleem just fell off the Pakistani equivalent of a turnip truck, so I have to wonder whether he is being entirely sincere.

If Muhammad and his closest followers were actually seeking to eliminate slavery, they could have said so.

Well, the Qur'an never says so.

There is a breathtakingly wide array of attitudes and actions for which the Qur'an proclaims either the certitude or the high probability of endless punishment in the blazing Fire.

Nowhere in the Qur'an is owning slaves said to put the owner in danger of hellfire.

Nowhere is buying and selling slaves said to put the trader in danger of hellfire.

Nowhere is forcing female slaves (even those who are already married) to have sex with their male owner said to put the man doing the forcing in danger of hellfire.

Nowhere is there even a tempered condemnation of slavery, like the condemnation of divorce attributed to Jesus, with the qualifier that not everyone may be ready to "receive this teaching."

As for the historical issues, I still have to ask, before proceeding any further, whether you have any idea who John Henry Newton was. Who William Wilberforce was. Who William Lloyd Garrison was. Who Frederick Douglass was. And who Harriet Beecher Stowe was. Do you have the slightest idea what any of them actually did?

To my knowledge, what brought an end to slavery in the Islamic world (well, where it was successfully brought to an end—not even now in Sudan or Mauritania) was external pressure from the non-Muslim world.

In the 1800s, the pre-eminent external pressure was the guns mounted on British naval vessels.

In the 1900s, the external pressures were those of diplomacy and public opinion, from the entire Western world.

And besides the holdouts in Sudan and Mauritania, there is the spectacle of some imams in other parts of the Islamic world still defending slavery as a divinely ordained institution during the past century, even today.

What Muhammad and his companions did about slavery during his lifetime would never have led to its abolition.

And you have yet to identify any indigenous Islamic antislavery movement in operation between 632 and 2010.

Could that be because there never were any?

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

This does not say much. Nazi Germany had a low official crime rate too ...

How old were you when you lived in Syria, Adonis, and how long did you live there? Were you in a position at all to get insight into what is really going on behind the scenes?

I believe you see the political situation in Syria too rose-colored. Here is some reality behind the facade:

So you believe the only way to have a low crime rate is through having a police state?

I lived in Syria from April-December 2009. Yes, I'm quite aware of what goes on behind the scenes, I learnt things you could only have learnt by living there. I never have supported the political situation there and had to leave because I couldn't cope with not speaking out there.

No. For the husband sits in the same ideological cage since he can only demand of her what "God's will" allows.

So if he should ask her e. g. to mix him a Martini, she doesn't have to listen since drinking alcohol is on the verboten list for Muslims.

So you're saying that a woman must do what her husband says, providing that he is not asking her to do something forbidden in Islam?

You come across to me as both idealistic and naive here, but this may be due to your young age.

When I googled the Arabic word, I got an interesting link to a website maintained by ex-Muslims which might give you some insight:

http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Beating-Women-Sanctioned-By-Allah-Prophet.htm

Yes, I've read the link. Sure, many 'scholars' say many things, but I don't agree with such interpretations and neither do any of the scholars that I've ever followed. I also will point out once again that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh never raised a finger to his wives, even when they were rebellious. The only thing he did, was separate himself from them for a period of time which is the actual meaning of this word.

But suppose the people stoned did actually commit the sexual acts for which they were condemned, what would be your feelings then when seeing the videos? Would you feel compassion, empathy, shock and outrage at the sheer horror of watching a person cruelly put to death? Or wouldn't you?

Depends on the circumstances of the crime.

If there was a man who:

- Had a wife that did everything for him and loved him very much, trying to keep him happy.

- He didn't divorce her

Yet he was so selfish and inconsiderate, caring so little about her love for him that in return he not only cheated on her which would be bad enough, but had the audacity and arrogance to do so by having sex in full view of the public thus humiliating her in addition to cheating on her when it would have been more than easy to have divorced her. If he could provide no other reason for his scandalous actions like marriage problems etc and could be declared sane by psychiatrists (which I doubt many who do such things would be found mentally fit), then yes I would support it.

Those are the actions of someone who tries to intentionally hurt another person, and not just any other person, but someone who cares deeply for him and loves him, if not then he would have gotten divorced from her or at least done his actions in private away from the view of the public. He clearly felt no compassion or empathy for his wife in ripping her heart out and publicly humiliating her by having sex with someone else in plain view of others, so why should I have compassion or empathy for him?

In any other case, I wouldn't really support the punishment because there are usually always other factors that come into play such as marital problems etc.

Adonis, should you switch to Objectvism, imo you are basically exchanging one belief for another. Rand merely gave "God" another name: "Man". For it is "Man" who is Rand's god - a super-hero type of human being actually.

You want me to worship man? To submit to man?

Well, if that is the case, crimes are also "God's will".

Even within your own fallacious thought system, you fall into traps without realizing it. Like the determinist trap above where you claim: "EVERYTHING that happens is God's will". This reduces humans to puppets of a transcendent string puller.

Yes, all crimes are also God's Will.

But it is you that is falling into traps here, not me. You believe that simply because God allows something to happen, thus it being His Will. That he wants mankind to do it? No, God gave us free will to be able to do as we please in this life providing that we would take responsibility for our actions in this life and be held accountable for them in the next.

I need to ask whether you take the regular invocations of Hell (or the Fire) in the Qur'an literally.

In your view, will everyone who significantly displeases God (including everyone who remains an "unbeliever" after encountering Islam and its proponents) spend an endless afterlife in Hell?

Well simply encountering Islam isn't enough Robert. What if the Muslims they come across are terrible examples of Islam? Who could blame them for not wanting to be Muslim when seeing the actions of those people? It wouldn't be merciful for Him to punish such people when they had such a terrible example around them.

And what about those who search for truth their whole lives and never hear about Islam? How could God punish them?

What about those who stick to their religions like Christians and Jews, not harming others and seeking to please God and follow His commands to the best of their ability? Would God punish them?

No.. Of course not.. God isn't a being that takes pleasure out of punishment. Just like how a parent hopefully wouldn't take pleasure out of smacking their children when they really need such actions to get them in line.

And if we're talking about burning for eternity as you are, that is a big deal. We're talking about a certain group of people here and none of the above would fit into that. A Kafir is not just a non-Muslim as many would have you believe, it's not even inclusive of people who don't believe in God because they have no proof of His existence.

The meaning of Kafir, is one who conceals the truth. That means, if they KNOW that God exists and see clear proofs and evidences like those people who were alive at the time and saw the miracles of the Prophets, peace be upon them, yet still refuse to follow and not only refuse to follow, but refuse to tell other people it's true when asked. I'm not sure that anyone alive today could be considered as such.

Now, here are my questions:

(1) Can an Islamic believer who attributes moral and legal authority to the Qur'an and the hadith make an Islamic case against the legality of slavery as an institution? Against the morality of holding or trading slaves?

(2) If this can be done, can you identify a significant indigenous social or political movement in any part of the Islamic world that actually did it?

(3) Who is the closest Islamic counterpart to William Lloyd Garrison? To Frederick Douglass? To William Wilberforce? To John Henry Newton? To Harriet Beecher Stowe?

Robert Campbell

Here is a short explanation on slavery in Islam for you that I found online [by Shehzad Saleem], it's quite good and explains a lot. Regarding the 3 questions I can say all of the answers are the Prophet Islam,the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the Muslims at that time. If you have more questions please let me know.

Adonis,

I held back from responding to your post on slavery for several days.

In part, this was because I wanted to get some sense of where Shehzad Saleem (whose articles appear on a site out of Lahore, Pakistan) was coming from.

I see from other short articles on that site that Saleem also tries to circumscribe Islamic law so that there is, at present, no death penalty for blasphemy. And he insists that any death penalty for apostasy or renouncing Islam applied only during the unusual circumstances of Muhammad's personal mission, expiring on his death in 632.

In a rough way, these kinds of explications resemble Christian attempts to identify the more extreme proclamations attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels (e.g., exhorting his followers to give away all their worldly goods) as an "interim ethic" that would hold during the brief period before the world ended and the Kingdom of God was ushered in (assuming, of course, that Jesus was really preaching an imminent apocalypse).

All I can say to Saleem, and others of similar persuasion, is good luck.

But the best that can be said about the treatise on slavery to which you directed me is that it is woefully uninformed historically. And I rather doubt that Saleem just fell off the Pakistani equivalent of a turnip truck, so I have to wonder whether he is being entirely sincere.

If Muhammad and his closest followers were actually seeking to eliminate slavery, they could have said so.

Well, the Qur'an never says so.

There is a breathtakingly wide array of attitudes and actions for which the Qur'an proclaims either the certitude or the high probability of endless punishment in the blazing Fire.

Nowhere in the Qur'an is owning slaves said to put the owner in danger of hellfire.

Nowhere is buying and selling slaves said to put the trader in danger of hellfire.

Nowhere is forcing female slaves (even those who are already married) to have sex with their male owner said to put the man doing the forcing in danger of hellfire.

Nowhere is there even a tempered condemnation of slavery, like the condemnation of divorce attributed to Jesus, with the qualifier that not everyone may be ready to "receive this teaching."

As for the historical issues, I still have to ask, before proceeding any further, whether you have any idea who John Henry Newton was. Who William Wilberforce was. Who William Lloyd Garrison was. Who Frederick Douglass was. And who Harriet Beecher Stowe was. Do you have the slightest idea what any of them actually did?

To my knowledge, what brought an end to slavery in the Islamic world (well, where it was successfully brought to an end—not even now in Sudan or Mauritania) was external pressure from the non-Muslim world.

In the 1800s, the pre-eminent external pressure was the guns mounted on British naval vessels.

In the 1900s, the external pressures were those of diplomacy and public opinion, from the entire Western world.

And besides the holdouts in Sudan and Mauritania, there is the spectacle of some imams in other parts of the Islamic world still defending slavery as a divinely ordained institution during the past century, even today.

What Muhammad and his companions did about slavery during his lifetime would never have led to its abolition.

And you have yet to identify any indigenous Islamic antislavery movement in operation between 632 and 2010.

Could that be because there never were any?

Robert Campbell

Well I'm not going to discuss anything after the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him because that is not Islam's fault, rather these are the practices of people who followed leaders who were not suited to leading.

During the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's life slavery was an institution that was rampant, like any other terrible practice it was forbidden in stages. Alcohol followed a similar path, it wasn't forbidden just like that, rather the prohibition of the consumption of alcohol was passed down through several revelations..

To ban something straight away won't work, it has to be in stages because otherwise society wouldn't be able to handle it.

Let's look at slavery.

1. Slaves were then given rights that they didn't have before, the rights to eat what their master ate, sleep as their master slept and dress as their master dressed, they also could not be abused, beaten, raped etc. This meant that owning slaves became a whole lot more expensive for owners and in fact, too expensive for most to own and therefore, many were freed. This also changed the status of slaves from slaves that would be similar to the barbaric slavery that occurred in the USA to something more like servitude with rights.

2. Slavery was spoken out against and people were encouraged to free slaves as an act of charity and devotion to God and many slaves were released. From my understanding, selling slaves except for this express purpose was then forbidden.

3. Making free people into slaves was forbidden, except as a means of welfare to support those whose nations had to be taken over to get them to cease their military attacks against the Islamic State, thus losing all of their possessions as reparations for the immense toll in lives and wealth that such a campaign would cost the Islamic State.

4. Slave owners were then ordered, in the Qur'an to free all of their slaves and give them some wealth to begin their lives again. For those slave owners who could not afford it, they had to come to a reasonable agreement with their slaves as to an acceptable time period of servitude where the master could then afford to release them and give them some wealth to start their lives off.

[Xray]

Jeffrey,

The reason Rand considered both the Western theological religions and the major Eastern religions to be "primacy of consciousness" is that she considered any sort of supernaturalism (any claim that the natural world was made by, is controlled by, is pervaded by, or harbors superpowerful, disembodied superintelligences) to be a variant of the primacy of consciousness.

She also considered any claim that reality is basically unknowable to be dependent on the primacy of consciousness, because on the primacy of existence view, the basic business of mind or consciousness is to know what exists. If, say, the human mind can't know what is really there, either it is so defective in its functioning as not to qualify as a consciousness, or its basic business is something other than knowing what exists

Robert Campbell

It looks like Rand's mind was pretty defective as well when it came to knowing what was really there - she (for whatever reasons) thought an UFO had landed and never even considered that her senses could have tricked her:

DF: There are some interesting details in the book that were new to me, like the fact that Rand once saw a UFO in her backyard! "Do you see those junipers?" said Rand to Ruth Beebe Hill, "A UFO came by there last night" "It was hovering just above the junipers and then flying in slow motion. It was round and its outer edges were lighted and it made no sound." That's great news for UFO fans, even Ayn Rand saw a genuine UFO! I wonder whether this was perhaps a dexedrine-induced hallucination. There is some evidence that she sometimes took a lot of those pills. But Rand was sure that here senses couldn't deceive her (compare with the story of the IV-pole reflection in the hospital, that became a high tree in her perception).

There are lots of reasons different people see UFOs, so I wouldn't necessarily link Ayn Rand's reported sighting to her medications.

Perhaps not necessarily (it must remain speculation after all), but I think it is in her case the most likely explanation. We know that she did take that medication and probably sometimes in heavy doses, and that hallucinations are a well-known side-effect of that drug. Late at night, trying to stay awake with the help of some pills? The UFO moved slowly and was soundless. It doesn't have to be a completely "new" hallucination, but could be a distorted view of some natural phenomenon (like a distant plane). Just as she was later convinced that the reflection of an IV-pole in a window was a large tree. It doesn't seem likely to me that Rand belonged to the type of people who see UFO's everywhere and are allegedly regularly abducted by them. On the other hand, it struck me that Rand apparently didn't look for some explanation (like "I saw something strange I couldn't recognize, perhaps it was this or that...") but told the experience matter-of-factly as if it was a "genuine" UFO, i.e. some extraterrestrial craft.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Xray

[Robert Campbell]

During the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's life slavery was an institution that was rampant, like any other terrible practice it was forbidden in stages. Alcohol followed a similar path, it wasn't forbidden just like that, rather the prohibition of the consumption of alcohol was passed down through several revelations..

To ban something straight away won't work, it has to be in stages because otherwise society wouldn't be able to handle it.

Let's look at slavery.

1. Slaves were then given rights that they didn't have before, the rights to eat what their master ate, sleep as their master slept and dress as their master dressed, they also could not be abused, beaten, raped etc. This meant that owning slaves became a whole lot more expensive for owners and in fact, too expensive for most to own and therefore, many were freed. This also changed the status of slaves from slaves that would be similar to the barbaric slavery that occurred in the USA to something more like servitude with rights.

2. Slavery was spoken out against and people were encouraged to free slaves as an act of charity and devotion to God and many slaves were released. From my understanding, selling slaves except for this express purpose was then forbidden.

3. Making free people into slaves was forbidden, except as a means of welfare to support those whose nations had to be taken over to get them to cease their military attacks against the Islamic State, thus losing all of their possessions as reparations for the immense toll in lives and wealth that such a campaign would cost the Islamic State.

4. Slave owners were then ordered, in the Qur'an to free all of their slaves and give them some wealth to begin their lives again. For those slave owners who could not afford it, they had to come to a reasonable agreement with their slaves as to an acceptable time period of servitude where the master could then afford to release them and give them some wealth to start their lives off.

Adonis,

I think you need to back up the assertions you are making here.

They are not consistent with the Qur'an as I am able to read it (Dawood translation).

Nor are they consistent with the history of the Arabian Peninsula, which includes several of the very last countries in the world to abolish slavery.

I do not doubt that you personally oppose slavery.

What I doubt is the actual connection between your personal opposition and the religion that you profess.

It's interesting that you equate the status of slavery in Muhammad's time with the consumption of alcohol.

The Qur'an is slightly less ferocious in its condemnation of consuming alcoholic beverages than it is of a wide variety of other beliefs and practices.

Believers, wine and games of chance, idols and divining arrows, are abominations devised by Satan. Avoid them, so that you may prosper. Satan seeks to stir up enmity and hatred among you by means of wine and gambling, and to keep you from the remembrance of God and from your prayers. Will you not abstain from them? (5:90-91, Dawood translation)

But does the Qur'an ever say anything nearly this strong about holding slaves, or buying and selling them?

If it ever calls slavery a contrivance of Satan, or urges that Muslims give up owning slaves or trafficking in them, I've been unable to find the passage where it does either.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

But does the Qur'an ever say anything nearly this strong about holding slaves, or buying and selling them?

If it ever calls slavery a contrivance of Satan, or urges that Muslims give up owning slaves or trafficking in them, I've been unable to find the passage where it does either.

Robert Campbell

Robert, again. To be honest, after the Prophet pbuh was martyred everything went bad and almost every single leader that the Islamic world has had, has been a tyrant that didn't behave Islamically so telling me about Arabs being involved in the slave trade isn't really proving a point.

Also, regarding slavery in the Qur'an, have you looked?

"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing." (Qur'an 2:177)

"The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise." (Qur'an 9:60)

"We verily have created man in an atmosphere:

Thinketh he that none hath power over him ?

And he saith: I have destroyed vast wealth:

Thinketh he that none beholdeth him ?

Did We not assign unto him two eyes

And a tongue and two lips,

And guide him to the parting of the mountain ways ?

But he hath not attempted the Ascent -

Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is! -

(It is) to free a slave,

And to feed in the day of hunger.

An orphan near of kin,

Or some poor wretch in misery,

And to be of those who believe and exhort one another to perseverance and exhort one another to pity."

(Qur'an 90:4-17)

"It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood- money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise." (Qur'an 4:92)

"And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 24:33)

Hadith - Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.721, Narrated Al Marur bin Suwaid

I saw Abu Dhar Al-Ghifari wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (i.e. how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied, "Once I abused a man and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked me, 'Did you abuse him by slighting his mother?' He added, 'Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one's brethren under one's control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job)'

Edited January 17, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Did you say that Muhammad was martyred?

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Did you say that Muhammad was martyred?

Robert Campbell

Yes I did.

[9thdoctor]

Ultimately I have to say, I have no interest whatsoever of leaving my faith, nor becoming an objectivist. But I would never say no to learning about other ideas and comparing them to my own. It's the only way to really understand life.

Indeed. No one wakes up some morning saying “I just feel like changing my whole worldview starting today”, barring the use of some strong chemical stimulation. Instead, you test opposing views, have discussions, work through the arguments you can’t answer, and from there expand your understanding of reality. Intellectual honesty is the key virtue here.

Did you say that Muhammad was martyred?

Yes I did.

Please expand on this or give us a link. I’m familiar with the journalistic story of his fairly sudden death in Medina, where he was buried. Wikipedia only has the Medina story, is there another?

[Libertarian Muslim]

Please expand on this or give us a link. I’m familiar with the journalistic story of his fairly sudden death in Medina, where he was buried. Wikipedia only has the Medina story, is there another?

At the Battle of Khaibar, there was an attempt on his life and he was by some meat served to him by a woman. He took one or two bites but was then warned by God about it being poisoned and so he told everyone to stop eating. He questioned her about it and she said that she did poison the meat and did so to see whether he was a Prophet or just a king claiming power and said that if he was indeed a prophet, God would tell him and prevent him from eating all of the meat.

He forgave her, on the condition that no one died as if someone did, it would then be murder. Unfortunately one of the companions did die from the poison so she was given the death penalty.

He did complain years later on his death bed that he felt the poisoned meat from Khaibar left long term effects and maybe contributing to his death, he was a healthy man and he died quite suddenly.

So I and many others say that he was martyred.

[BaalChatzaf]

So I and many others say that he was martyred.

A glorious ending. It simply would not have done to just die in bed from either old age or illness.

Question: Did the Prophet get whoopy from his 72 Dark Eyed Houris?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 17, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Can you direct me to a source on Muhammad being poisoned, and possibly dying later from long-term effects of the poison?

The sources I've read say that he died of natural causes.

In today's world, people who appear to be healthy still occasionally die suddenly at the age of 62. Given the state of medicine in Muhammad's time, there has to be more than that going on for anyone to consider his death suspicious.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Can you direct me to a source on Muhammad being poisoned, and possibly dying later from long-term effects of the poison?

The sources I've read say that he died of natural causes.

In today's world, people who appear to be healthy still occasionally die suddenly at the age of 62. Given the state of medicine in Muhammad's time, there has to be more than that going on for anyone to consider his death suspicious.

Robert Campbell

He was poisoned 4 years before he died at the Battle of Khaybar. I believe that God kept the effects of poison from killing him until the message of Islam had been completed and then after it had, God allowed the poison to take effect and kill him. Thus making him a martyr.

Below are some hadiths relating to it from a Hadith book called Sahih Bukhari.

Volume 003, Book 047, Hadith Number 786.

Narated By Anas bin Malik : A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle.

Volume 004, Book 053, Hadith Number 394.

Narated By Abu Huraira : When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?'' They said, "Yes.' The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a ie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He siad, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O AbuAl-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.'' Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Ab Li-AI-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you."

Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 713

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'AbdurRahman bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse:-- "When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca . . ." (110.1)

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand."

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Edited January 17, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Xray]

So you believe the only way to have a low crime rate is through having a police state?

A "crime" is what the laws of a state declare as such. In Nazi Germany for example, it was a "crime" for "Arians" to have intimate contact with Jews.

Certain sexual behavior which is not considered as a crime in our society at all is regarded by fundamentalist Muslims as a crime warranting stoning.

In police states, the supreme terrorizers are the often the leaders themselves.

AV: I lived in Syria from April-December 2009. Yes, I'm quite aware of what goes on behind the scenes, I learnt things you could only have learnt by living there. I never have supported the political situation there and had to leave because I couldn't cope with not speaking out there.

So you have experienced how it feels to be oppressed and censored.

Have no illusions: any Islamic god state will oppress the people as well.

So you're saying that a woman must do what her husband says, providing that he is not asking her to do something forbidden in Islam?

Bascially yes. For if she doesn't, he can simpy declare her behavior as "rebellious" and is thus per the surah allowed to physically punish her.

AV: Depends on the circumstances of the crime.

If there was a man who:

- Had a wife that did everything for him and loved him very much, trying to keep him happy.

- He didn't divorce her

Yet he was so selfish and inconsiderate, caring so little about her love for him that in return he not only cheated on her which would be bad enough, but had the audacity and arrogance to do so by having sex in full view of the public thus humiliating her in addition to cheating on her when it would have been more than easy to have divorced her. If he could provide no other reason for his scandalous actions like marriage problems etc and could be declared sane by psychiatrists (which I doubt many who do such things would be found mentally fit), then yes I would support it.

Those are the actions of someone who tries to intentionally hurt another person, and not just any other person, but someone who cares deeply for him and loves him, if not then he would have gotten divorced from her or at least done his actions in private away from the view of the public. He clearly felt no compassion or empathy for his wife in ripping her heart out and publicly humiliating her by having sex with someone else in plain view of others, so why should I have compassion or empathy for him?

So you do think stoning a person to death here is justified, and that you also you have no empathy for them. Just wanted to make sure I had understood you correctly.

For I'm interested in researching to what degree slavishly adhering to the doctrine of a belief (no matter whether it is in a god or not, it could also be Objectvism) can erase empathy in humans. You offer material for study here.

AV: You want me to worship man? To submit to man?

I don't want you to "submit to man". I want you to check your premises which will point out your thinking error.

Ayn Rand is the hero worshipper, not me. I'm no 'Objectivist'. Ayn Rand was caught in the same illusion of "objectiver morality" as you are..

Well, if that is the case, crimes are also "God's will".

Even within your own fallacious thought system, you fall into traps without realizing it. Like the determinist trap above where you claim: "EVERYTHING that happens is God's will". This reduces humans to puppets of a transcendent string puller.

AV: Yes, all crimes are also God's Will.

But it is you that is falling into traps here, not me. You believe that simply because God allows something to happen, thus it being His Will. That he wants mankind to do it? No, God gave us free will to be able to do as we please in this life providing that we would take responsibility for our actions in this life and be held accountable for them in the next.

Again, check your premises. If you claim crimes are your "god's will", then your 'god' wants them to happen. For "will" suggests volition, period. "Allowing" something to happen is something entirely different than wanting something to happen.

AV: No.. Of course not.. God isn't a being that takes pleasure out of punishment.

Since there exists no evidence whatsoever of any god ever having ordered people anything, and books are written by human beings, the evidence indicates that the cruelties described in the Koran are mere sadistic revenge fantasies by human beings. Simple a that.

Bottom line: What you claim to be truth does not pass the litmus test of reality.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Xray

[Libertarian Muslim]

A "crime" is what the laws of a state declare as such. In Nazi Germany for example, it was a "crime" for "Arians" to have intimate contact with Jews.

Certain sexual behavior which is not considered as a crime in our society at all is regarded by fundamentalist Muslims as a crime warranting stoning.

In police states, the supreme terrorizers are the often the leaders themselves.

No that didn't quite answer my question. Do you think that the only way to stop people from breaking laws is to have a police state?

So you have experienced how it feels to be oppressed and censored.

Have no illusions: any Islamic god state will oppress the people as well.

Yes I have gone through it, but I know the differences between a proper 'Islamic State' and what I saw in Syria. You apparently, do not. I don't blame you though, the Muslims in the world are a pretty bad example of Islam and most don't even understand the concept of an Islamic State and see Saudi Arabia or Iran or even Taliban Afghanistan as what it should be.

Bascially yes. For if she doesn't, he can simpy declare her behavior as "rebellious" and is thus per the surah allowed to physically punish her.

Well no, it doesn't quite work like that at all, sure we have a family structure and like a country, there can't be 2 presidents.. However, the president must go to congress (ie the family) and not only consult them, but also follow their wishes on most cases, the only time when the president (ie the husband/father) can act without their permission or override their decisions is to keep the country (the family) safe from something.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him always consulted his wives regarding decisions of the family. He was still strong and kept them safe but showed us an example of a good husband. He consulted his wives not only on issues to do with family decisions, but in his mandate as a Prophet and they gave good advice. I might also remind you that his first wife, Khadijah may God reward her infinitely was also his boss as he worked for her and her business.

Also, this 'rebellious' behavior that you're referring to is not just something like you're speaking about, it's rebelling against God, like doing something really bad that puts her place in paradise at risk. He can't beat her either, it means to separate for a period of time and as I said, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh never hit his wives, in fact when he did have this rebellion from them he separated from them..

AV: Depends on the circumstances of the crime.

If there was a man who:

- Had a wife that did everything for him and loved him very much, trying to keep him happy.

- He didn't divorce her

Yet he was so selfish and inconsiderate, caring so little about her love for him that in return he not only cheated on her which would be bad enough, but had the audacity and arrogance to do so by having sex in full view of the public thus humiliating her in addition to cheating on her when it would have been more than easy to have divorced her. If he could provide no other reason for his scandalous actions like marriage problems etc and could be declared sane by psychiatrists (which I doubt many who do such things would be found mentally fit), then yes I would support it.

Those are the actions of someone who tries to intentionally hurt another person, and not just any other person, but someone who cares deeply for him and loves him, if not then he would have gotten divorced from her or at least done his actions in private away from the view of the public. He clearly felt no compassion or empathy for his wife in ripping her heart out and publicly humiliating her by having sex with someone else in plain view of others, so why should I have compassion or empathy for him?

So you do think stoning a person to death here is justified, and that you also you have no empathy for them. Just wanted to make sure I had understood you correctly.

For I'm interested in researching to what degree slavishly adhering to the doctrine of a belief (no matter whether it is in a god or not, it could also be Objectvism) can erase empathy in humans. You offer material for study here.

I do think the stoning punishment is justified if they fulfill such criteria. I forgot to add that I'd also expect the judge to go back and look at the person's upbringing, to see if they had every chance in their lives to learn better ways than this as they not have been brought up with good values.. If this was not there then I wouldn't support such a punishment. In addition to that I also probably wouldn't support it if the person was unaware of what the consequences of their actions could be.

Also, I would be sad at the fact that a human being erred so much in their judgment that they committed such acts if they knew the possible punishments for their crimes and still did it. Fulfilling all of the above criteria, however this would not deter me from supporting the punishment of stoning in that case.

Again, check your premises. If you claim crimes are your "god's will", then your 'god' wants them to happen. For "will" suggests volition, period. "Allowing" something to happen is something entirely different than wanting something to happen.

No, God's Will in this case is simply allowing it to happen. We say it is God's will because nothing happens without God's Permission.

I guess you could compare the Islamic view of God with that of a computer programmer in the sense that in the creation of the program (the universe) He sets the rules as to how the universe should run. One of those rules is the free will of man to make their own decisions and take actions according to their own free will. Let's compare that to angels who have no free will to be able to act as they wish, they act only by the order of God and do what God wants them to do.

Mankind has the freedom to according to their own, and will be held accountable for their deeds on the day of resurrection. Thus, mankind is not prevented from doing anything.

AV: No.. Of course not.. God isn't a being that takes pleasure out of punishment.

Since there exists no evidence whatsoever of any god ever having ordered people anything, and books are written by human beings, the evidence indicates that the cruelties described in the Koran are mere sadistic revenge fantasies by human beings. Simple a that.

Bottom line: What you claim to be truth does not pass the litmus test of reality.

Again, it's useless trying to debate this with you and I have no intention of doing so. I believe in God. You don't. Since I can neither prove the existence of God other than bringing the testimony of people who were alive during the times of the Prophets, peace be upon them and who saw their miracles and you can't disprove it because there is no way to do so I suppose we'll just have to wait until the next life and see whether I was right or not.

My risk is significantly less than yours however as if I'm right then I will be rewarded, if I am wrong nothing happens. If you are right, it doesn't matter because nothing happens but if you are wrong, then you have to face the Creator and explain yourself as to why you didn't believe. Being a merciful God, He may forgive you but still. I wouldn't bet eternity on it.

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Out of curiosity, do you support the right for parents in Germany to home school their children today?

I know that you are an employee of the government school system, but since you are on a individually freedom oriented forum, I am interested in your position.

Adam

wondering about preachy persons

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Out of curiosity, do you support the right for parents in Germany to home school their children today?

I know that you are an employee of the government school system, but since you are on a individually freedom oriented forum, I am interested in your position.

Adam

wondering about preachy persons

Out of curiosity, have you ever voted in a public election? If yes, this is endorsing the idea of 'government' as well.

As for the right of parents to homeschool their children - as opposed to the US, Germany has fairly restrictive laws on that I think.

I personally have nothing against parents homeschooling their children, although I as a parent would not have done it myself.

AV: No that didn't quite answer my question. Do you think that the only way to stop people from breaking laws is to have a police state?

Frankly, I don't believe there is anything which will actually guarantee that people will stop breaking laws.

He can't beat her either, it means to separate for a period of time and as I said, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh never hit his wives, in fact when he did have this rebellion from them he separated from them..

Regardless of what the legend of Muhammad says, beating it IS listed in the surah, not just "admonishing" and denying sexual intercourse.

In short, it gives one gender the power of control over the other.

AV: Yes I have gone through it, but I know the differences between a proper 'Islamic State' and what I saw in Syria. You apparently, do not.

One doesn't always have to have "been there" oneself to form a picture in one's mind how things can look like given certain circumstances. Going to the Amnesty International site gave me a fairly good idea of the problems in Syria.

Can you name one single "proper islamic state"?

AV

My risk is significantly less than yours however as if I'm right then I will be rewarded, if I am wrong nothing happens.

Hmm, but what if the Catholics are right and yours was the wrong belief?

There is no security for you, no matter how much you desire it.

Didn't Mel Gibson (I think it was he who said that, I'm paraphrasing) say that although his wife is the 'far better human being than he', it will be she who will end up in hell because she is no Catholic but he is.

Crazy, isn't it, Adonis? Just another blind believer of many.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Xray

[Libertarian Muslim]

Frankly, I don't believe there is anything which will actually guarantee that people will stop breaking laws.

So do you then believe that there should be no punishments for crimes? (I don't believe that you believe this)

If not, then you rely on people using their good conduct and character to not commit crimes and instead make the right decisions?

Regardless of what the legend of Muhammad says, beating it IS listed in the surah, not just "admonishing" and denying sexual intercourse.

In short, it gives one gender the power of control over the other.

No, beating isn't listed and I don't care what the translation says. We don't just look at something and try and interpret its meaning word for word, that is silly to do. Because of the complexities of Qur'anic Arabic we instead look at the word and then compare it with the context and seerah and other evidences we have to try and ascertain its meaning.

One doesn't always have to have "been there" oneself to form a picture in one's mind how things can look like given certain circumstances. Going to the Amnesty International site gave me a fairly good idea of the problems in Syria.

Yes, but you lack the knowledge that you could gain from actually being there and rely on someone elses words. I'm not saying the reports are useless but it's better to see it also.

Can you name one single "proper islamic state"?

There is no Islamic State around today but I'd say the closest state to it is the USA. Although it was far closer to it when it followed the ideas of Jefferson etc.

Hmm, but what if the Catholics are right and yours was the wrong belief?

There is no security for you, no matter how much you desire it.

Didn't Mel Gibson (I think it was he who said that, I'm paraphrasing) say that although his wife is the 'far better human being than he', it will be she who will end up in hell because she is no Catholic but he is.

Crazy, isn't it, Adonis? Just another blind believer of many.

If the Catholics are right then it's no problem. I don't believe that God lacks mercy that He would hold us accountable for not finding the right path if we sincerely tried our best to find it and please him. I always reevaluate my beliefs against new information I find and have done so since I was 12 years old and will continue to do so until I die and thus far have found that Islam appears to be the correct path.

I would much prefer that wager than to be in your position. Either way, my risk is still significantly less than yours.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

I have never missed any election. Now getting to your language mirroring remark:

Out of curiosity, have you ever voted in a public election? If yes, this is endorsing the idea of 'government' as well.

As for the right of parents to homeschool their children - as opposed to the US, Germany has fairly restrictive laws on that I think.

I personally have nothing against parents homeschooling their children, although I as a parent would not have done it myself

Apparently, being in education and being a German citizen, I am surprised that you did not know that the Nazi's, in 1938, outlawed home schooling under the German state edict

that the children belong to the state.

Are you fully aware of what is going on today in Germany regarding home schooling?

Finally, do you support the statement that the individual child is the property of the German state today, in terms of German law?

I can accept a yes or a no, but not a maybe Ms. Xray.

Adam

[Xray]

No, beating isn't listed and I don't care what the translation says. We don't just look at something and try and interpret its meaning word for word, that is silly to do. Because of the complexities of Qur'anic Arabic we instead look at the word and then compare it with the context and seerah and other evidences we have to try and ascertain its meaning.

It is obvious that you are feeling uncomfortable with this word of the surah, hence your attempts to downplay it.

You would rather not want it to be there, but since you (fearful of a "god") can't permit yourself to disagree with any part of your "holy" book, you see no other way out than denying what is written there. ("I don't care what the translation says").

I have also noticed in you a lack of empathy with the victims of those abominable stonings, and believe that slavishly adhering to a belief can actually erase feelings empathy and compassion in humans.

It seems to be but quite commonplace with "true believers". For "God's will" is all. What that all turns out to be is personal "interpretation".

In one case, it may be "divine duty" to serve the poor in the black hole of Calcutta, whereas, for another, "divine duty" is to slay all infidels as well as the progeny of the infidels.

Religious tolerance is a contradiction. Many may say the words, but the feelings underneath belie the claim.

For a "true believer" believes he/she represents the "universal divine good". All non-believers are regarded as "evil."

It is the "moral duty" of the "divine good" to stamp out the "evil". There is no empathy with, or sympathy for "evil".

A "faithful servant" cannot empathize or sympathize with "evil" without being a contaminated, psychological part of the "evil" to be destroyed.

Believers see themselves as means to "divine purpose." Those which challenge the believer on his belief are considered as opposed to "divine purpose", so they must be destroyed.

Of course, underlying it all is the illusion of objective value, of objective morality. This "justifies" the slaughter of men, women and children.

The Objectivist Leonard Peikoff illustrates this mentality quite clearly.

AV: I would much prefer that wager than to be in your position. Either way, my risk is still significantly less than yours.

Why are you so full of fear, Adonis?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

Since I can neither prove the existence of God other than bringing the testimony of people who were alive during the times of the Prophets, peace be upon them and who saw their miracles and you can't disprove it because there is no way to do so I suppose we'll just have to wait until the next life and see whether I was right or not.

My risk is significantly less than yours however as if I'm right then I will be rewarded, if I am wrong nothing happens. If you are right, it doesn't matter because nothing happens but if you are wrong, then you have to face the Creator and explain yourself as to why you didn't believe. Being a merciful God, He may forgive you but still. I wouldn't bet eternity on it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Selene]

Since I can neither prove the existence of God other than bringing the testimony of people who were alive during the times of the Prophets, peace be upon them and who saw their miracles and you can't disprove it because there is no way to do so I suppose we'll just have to wait until the next life and see whether I was right or not.

My risk is significantly less than yours however as if I'm right then I will be rewarded, if I am wrong nothing happens. If you are right, it doesn't matter because nothing happens but if you are wrong, then you have to face the Creator and explain yourself as to why you didn't believe. Being a merciful God, He may forgive you but still. I wouldn't bet eternity on it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Thank you 9th:

I was wracking my brain for the name of the wager example.

Yep - Ms. Xray not only repulsed by physical and mental exercise, she can't even be trusted to make the right call on an obvious wager!

Pitiful. I cannot wait for her answer on home schooling in Germany.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

I would much prefer that wager than to be in your position. Either way, my risk is still significantly less than yours.

But my risk is greater. In betting the way you do, you will sit on your self righteous butt while your crazy Jihadi Brothers steal airplanes and crash them into tall buildings. I might be on one of those planes or be working in one of those buildings. You are a passive accomplice to bloody deeds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

But my risk is greater. In betting the way you do, you will sit on your self righteous butt while your crazy Jihadi Brothers steal airplanes and crash them into tall buildings. I might be on one of those planes or be working in one of those buildings. You are a passive accomplice to bloody deeds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, I have never been the type of person to sit on the fence. I wouldn't waste my time here if I was. I am actually trying to create change and get the proper interpretation of Islam spread throughout the Muslim world so that such extremism gets stamped out. I wouldn't even Unfortunately however, my meager efforts can only do so much compared to the billions of dollars that the extremists have at their disposal thanks to Wahhabi oil money all supported by the Western Governments.

I think the Muslim world has a responsibility to deal with these extremists, but when the West supports the dictator and extreme governments with money and military technology. It makes it quite difficult. Simply speaking out in some of these countries can have not only you imprisoned, tortured and maybe murdered, but also your whole family and even your tribe in some cases.

Once we are able to get a better example of Islam spreading around the areas where these extremists are working like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc and it gains support (which I have no doubt it will). I'd gladly raise an army and fight against the extremist remnants that wish to create turmoil in the lands and I'd give my life for it because I don't like my religion being used and abused by these hate filled monsters that wish to use it as an excuse to terrorize innocent people.

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." (Qur'an 5:32)

Edited January 20, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Selene]

Excellent:

That agenda I can work with.

Adam