idesigner1 wrote:Advent of Christianity didn't change condition of slaves . Bible OT or NT was not slave emancipation document.Slavery in Christianity almost continued till 17 and 18 century.
Same way conversion to Islam didn't uplift low castes from stigma attached to them. In India Muslim society has almost parallel castes.They intermarry within their own group. Untouchable castes were not absorbed by Islam . They stayed untouchable even after conversion. Only touch taboos became tolerable. Islam absorbed some artisan castes as they were useful in building new Islamic Sultanate.
Those advantages included, A Muslim man having his own private harem, with 4 women ready to satisfy their "husband's" insatiable appetite for daily sex.However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage
The difference between Christianity and Islam on the topic of slavery is this: Christian texts report instances of slavery as a matter of fact, as it was commonplace at the time it was written. It does not sanction it nor forbid it. In fact, if you read around the succession of popes on Wiki, they have provided helpfully a paragraph for almost all of them on their views on slavery, you find a wide variety of views on that subject. It was only much later when this issue was decided, and not without influence from secular people such as Wilberforce.
In Islam, by contrast, this issue is not one of historical fact or even one for debate. It is a matter of divine law. Slavery including sex slavery are allowed, and denying this would turn a Muslim into an enemy of Islam.
As to the old chestnut of Islam emancipating the "untouchables" in India, I agree that this is not true. The caste system in India sits deep in the souls of people, and does not simply evaporate with the arrival of Islam. In reality, Islam also has castes of its own, with the Arab male at the top and Hindu female at the bottom. However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage. It is also true that the Moghuls were not that keen on making just too many converts to Islam, as the jiziah was important to them...
manfred wrote:However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage. It is also true that the Moghuls were not that keen on making just too many converts to Islam, as the jiziah was important to them...
Kintu mein Pratishodh jaise heen bhavnaa ko aashirvaad nahin de sakta.
Pratishodh kee yeh agni hain
In the Eastern religions , you have the concept of karma to inculcate contentment,in Christianity and Judaism ,you have God saying 'I created the rich and the poor' to enforce contentment and in Islam verses such as those coming directly from God's prophet enforce contentment.
pr126 wrote:In any case, it was still a forced conversion. There was a choice of remaining the oppressed (and killed) or becoming the oppressor.
We know that polytheist only had two choices. Convert or die.
The third choice was only given to people of the book, Jews or Christians. Quran 9:29
Nosuperstition wrote:In the Eastern religions , you have the concept of karma to inculcate contentment,in Christianity and Judaism ,you have God saying 'I created the rich and the poor' to enforce contentment and in Islam verses such as those coming directly from God's prophet enforce contentment.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15101&p=198077&hilit=opiate#p198077
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5468&p=193140&hilit=riches+Haiti#p193140
So once the conquest of the whole world is accomplished,the future total zombies can be selectively told about whichever words that best suit the hereditary interests of the then dominant castes.
manfred wrote:idesigner1 wrote:Advent of Christianity didn't change condition of slaves . Bible OT or NT was not slave emancipation document.Slavery in Christianity almost continued till 17 and 18 century.
Same way conversion to Islam didn't uplift low castes from stigma attached to them. In India Muslim society has almost parallel castes.They intermarry within their own group. Untouchable castes were not absorbed by Islam . They stayed untouchable even after conversion. Only touch taboos became tolerable. Islam absorbed some artisan castes as they were useful in building new Islamic Sultanate.
The difference between Christianity and Islam on the topic of slavery is this: Christian texts report instances of slavery as a matter of fact, as it was commonplace at the time it was written. It does not sanction it nor forbid it. In fact, if you read around the succession of popes on Wiki, they have provided helpfully a paragraph for almost all of them on their views on slavery, you find a wide variety of views on that subject. It was only much later when this issue was decided, and not without influence from secular people such as Wilberforce.
In Islam, by contrast, this issue is not one of historical fact or even one for debate. It is a matter of divine law. Slavery including sex slavery are allowed, and denying this would turn a Muslim into an enemy of Islam.
As to the old chestnut of Islam emancipating the "untouchables" in India, I agree that this is not true. The caste system in India sits deep in the souls of people, and does not simply evaporate with the arrival of Islam. In reality, Islam also has castes of its own, with the Arab male at the top and Hindu female at the bottom. However, it is true that people under the Moghuls mostly converted to gain some advantage. It is also true that the Moghuls were not that keen on making just too many converts to Islam, as the jiziah was important to them...
glitch wrote:Nosuperstition wrote:In the Eastern religions , you have the concept of karma to inculcate contentment,in Christianity and Judaism ,you have God saying 'I created the rich and the poor' to enforce contentment and in Islam verses such as those coming directly from God's prophet enforce contentment.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15101&p=198077&hilit=opiate#p198077
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5468&p=193140&hilit=riches+Haiti#p193140
So once the conquest of the whole world is accomplished,the future total zombies can be selectively told about whichever words that best suit the hereditary interests of the then dominant castes.
Okay, you ass, show me that quote saying God created Rich and Poor to enforce contentment. That's a bald face damn lie. so please put your money where your damn mouth is and show me where it says that. It isn't in Judiasm or in Christianity in the old and new testement, but i'm calling you out right here you outright putrid lying piece of trash.
Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.proverbs/22-2
The Lord is the Maker of them all - Both the states are in the order of God's providence and both are equally important in his sight.
the Lord is the Maker of them all: not only as men, but as rich men and poor men; God gives riches to whom he pleases, and poverty to whom he pleases; riches and poverty are according to the order of divine Providence; and he can and does change scenes at his pleasure; wherefore the rich should consider themselves as dependent on him, and not despise and crush the poor; and the poor should be content with their state, as being allotted to them by the]H
manfred wrote:Christianity does not teach castes, so you can stop playing silly bible scrabble again.
NOTHING at all in the simple proverb speaks of "providence" or divinely ordered castes. It speaks of EQUALITY of man.
glitch wrote:You said that God created people rich and poor to provide contentment. At no point does that proverb say, God created people to be rich and poor to provice contentlem, it says that God created all, and it desnt say he chose some would be rich and some would be poor--nor that contentment has anthing at all to do with it.
Nice Try.
Return to Islam vs. Other Religions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests