Slavery, difference today and veering from Quran
-
In another post (found in this topichttp//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607118.msg360734#msg360734) someone stated this "We may ask why God has not forbidden/abolished slavery altogether, but in my opinion the answer is simple. Slavery was a major aspect of the socio-economic situation at the time. It would have been impossible to outright abolish slavery because the entire socio-economic system depended on it."
I admit I do ask 'why wasn't it forbidden' even though I can see the 'practical' reasons why it wasn't.
For me this raises questions - how many muslims today think that it's slavery is ok in certain situations? My guess is that not many would agree that it is alright.
If I'm right, that most muslims wouldn't agree with slavery today, then doesn't this suggest that what was written in the Quran then is different to how most of us believe and practice today?
If so, then is that a clear precedent for modernisation and not sticking entirely to what was suggested in the Quran when it was written down?
Excellent question you raise here.
I tend to agree the modernisation is a drift from the original message. This is what quran says about those who receive the love of God
http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Metamorphosis-of-the-Notion-of-Love_of_God_and_of_Neighbor_files/image002.gif
God loves those who go so far as to kill in His way (formula signifying for His cause) (614).
Only one category of men is loved by God; those willing to kill for His cause. Modern interpretations have tried to change the understanding from killing to fighting to change the meaning of the verse. But let's not forget the word used for fighting in Quran is jahada (from which we derive jihad, wrestle). Thus, the original meaning is "kill in His way". In the same fashion Abraham was prepared to kill his son.
The Quran has many verses that are literally warlike. Traditionalists explain this away by saying those violent verses are of Meccan origin and the peaceful ones being non-meccan. But is this really the truth? Or did they just make this artificial division up when they got tired of fighting for Gods cause?
The same is true for the Bible containing an equal amount of warlike verses that have been explained away to to make them appear more peaceful. But the original message is authorizing the believers to uproot the evil in this world
Or with Jesus' words
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" - Matthew 1034
This is one of the reasons I'm not trying to make friends on this forum. Making friends here would be totally counterproductive.
Meanwhile the current pope is calling for intra-religious dialogue. Dialogue on what? The original text does not allow a muslim to befriend a trinitarian christian. In contrary, according to the original Quranic message a trinitarian christian should be considered lucky to still have his head on his shoulders while talking to a believer. By quranic standards one can still be a believer and at the same time killing rejecters and polytheists, enslaving their children etc.
Peace or should I say to arms Men! voodoo
-
You are completely wrong, qaatala is not to kill but to fight snd jahada is to exert onself. If you go around changing thing swhich are so elementary you will get whateve ryou want out of the Qur'an, but you will certianoy be3 making fun of it and using it for evil.
Salaam
-
Qatal does not even have to imply fighting as in physical but the word means to master/defeat someone and it can be verbally as well..
Be well
Emanuel -
You are completely wrong, qaatala is not to kill but to fight snd jahada is to exert onself. If you go around changing thing swhich are so elementary you will get whateve ryou want out of the Qur'an, but you will certianoy be3 making fun of it and using it for evil.
Salaam
qtl in the entire semitic and phoenician language tree means "kill"
I'm not making these things up you know. But I can understand many people are shocked by this understanding, proving the OP's point.
-
Closer look in Ancient Arabic lexicons on Qatal
1 , inf. n. , (assumed tropical He knew the thing; he was, or became, acquainted with it
(Msb , (Bd in 4156, and TA,) and , (K,) and , (Bd, ubi supra,) he knew it
(Bd, K, TA) completely, (TA,) or thoroughly, very well, or superlatively well; as also . (Bd.) See
in art. . 2 see a verse cited in art. , conj.- 3 He fought, or combated, him; contended with him in fight or conflict or battle.
In my world, Qatal means to argue/contend or seek to master someone in a conflict, and it does not have to be settled with violence but a lecture will do the trick. When you win over someone in an argument, you subdue them and they will yield unless they stubbornly cling unto what they say which is wrong.
The word does not imply whether a person dies or not from the conflict. It has to be clarified. But the word does imply that you make a person weaker that is opposing you and you neutralize him or her.
But yet, when you do Qatal someone you make them know your message.
Be well
Emanuel -
Qatal does not even have to imply fighting as in physical but the word means to master/defeat someone and it can be verbally as well..
Be well
EmanuelKilling someone with words? What do you think Quran is talking about? A rap battle?
-
Closer look in Ancient Arabic lexicons on Qatal
1 , inf. n. , (assumed tropical) He knew the thing; he was, or became, acquainted with it
(Msb) , (Bd in 4156, and TA,) and , (K,) and , (Bd, ubi supra,) he knew it
(Bd, K, TA) completely, (TA,) or thoroughly, very well, or superlatively well; as also . (Bd.) See
in art. . 2 see a verse cited in art. , conj.- 3 He fought, or combated, him; contended with him in fight or conflict or battle.
In my world, Qatal means to argue/contend or seek to master someone in a conflict, and it does not have to be settled with violence but a lecture will do the trick. When you win over someone in an argument, you subdue them and they will yield unless they stubbornly cling unto what they say which is wrong.
The word does not imply whether a person dies or not from the conflict. It has to be clarified. But the word does imply that you make a person weaker that is opposing you and you neutralize him or her.
But yet, when you do Qatal someone you make them know your message.
Be well
EmanuelObviously you are quoting a lexicon that is concealing qtl's established meaning.
-
Only one category of men is loved by God; those willing to kill for His cause. Modern interpretations have tried to change the understanding from killing to fighting to change the meaning of the verse. But let's not forget the word used for fighting in Quran is jahada (from which we derive jihad, wrestle). Thus, the original meaning is "kill in His way". In the same fashion Abraham was prepared to kill his son.
?Haw can uou make up lies like that. You invent of all pieces a meaning for a word, and then go on to say this? What made you come up with such a lie?
Of course God loves many people and the Qur'an says so. ?How canyou invent that God only loves those who fight (not kill you have to learn grammar snd not come up with such stupendous nonsense) for His cause?
Iam not going to look up for you all the people God loves in the Qur'an, but it is very easy just go to
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Hbb
and see for yourself.
Salaam
-
Obviously you are quoting a lexicon that is concealing qtl's established meaning.
You are concealing and you are posing as if you knew anything about grammar and morphology and you don't have any idea and you substitute our own fancy for the lack of knowledge.
Salaam
-
Please avoid sarcasm, runninglikezebras,
I told you, the word means that you defeat/master someone and thus convey your message to them. If you manage to persuade someone about something important, for example, something about the true account of Faith, then you have Qatal'ed them.
Obviously you are quoting a lexicon that is concealing qtl's established meaning.
In fact this lexicon gather definitions from several ancient lexicons. So you have to remove like 4-5 lexicons that are all approximately 900-1100 years old.
Qatal has been the object of corruption because people liked to use it to rally for war for Quran about 1400 years ago and the face of this language was corrupted.
Be well
Emanuel -
I have checked all those verses coming to my conclusion God Who Does Not Love Those Who Do Not Sacrifice All to Him
Ultimately proven by willing to kill in His cause.
-
Please avoid sarcasm, runninglikezebras,
I told you, the word means that you defeat/master someone and thus convey your message to them. If you manage to persuade someone about something important, for example, something about the true account of Faith, then you have Qatal'ed them.
In fact this lexicon gather definitions from several ancient lexicons. So you have to remove like 4-5 lexicons that are all approximately 900-1100 years old.
Qatal has been the object of corruption because people liked to use it to rally for war for Quran about 1400 years ago and the face of this language was corrupted.
Be well
EmanuelYou are aware most Arab lexicons are deliberately supporting the traditional hadith based understanding? You can see this in how arab lexicons explain the word for "cover" as "head veil". How do you explain in Aramaic, Phoenician and Hebrew qtl only ever meant Kill/Slaughter/Murder? If in Arab this were to be different that would be very surprising. Even more surprising when you realize Quran uses a different word for fighting.
In the semitic languages qtl is very explicit. It is the result of actively taking someones life.
-
And, an Arabic word does only convey one fundamental meaning, and the lexicons also say kill, but you cannot both fight and kill a person. The word must mean the either way.
The point is that the word means subdue/defeat/master a person, always. And it can be used to say that you lecture someone into understanding a point, i.e. combating them verbally.
I have checked all those verses coming to my conclusion God Who Does Not Love Those Who Do Not Sacrifice All to Him
Ultimately proven by willing to kill in His cause.
Kill is against the 'Ten Commandments'.
You are aware most Arab lexicons are deliberately supporting the traditional hadith based understanding? You can see this in how arab lexicons explain the word for "cover" as "veil". How do you explain in Aramaic, Phoenician and Hebrew qtl only ever meant Kill/Slaughter/Murder? If in Arab this were to be different that would be very surprising. Even more surprising when you realize Quran uses a different word for fighting.
Well, these lexicons hardly support the "hadithist" view of Quran. An entirely different Quran emerges when one uses these lexicons.
And I know the morphological meaning of Qatal and is shares much resemblance with the word Qul which means to say or convey something to someone. Same goes for Q - t - l, it also means you convey something of substance to someone.
Additionally, you should not be so sure that the Bible and the Aramaic/Hebrew in there is properly interpreted.
Be well
Emanuel -
And, an Arabic word does only convey one fundamental meaning, and the lexicons also say kill, but you cannot both fight and kill a person. The word must mean the either way.
The point is that the word means subdue/defeat/master a person, always. And it can be used to say that you lecture someone into understanding a point, i.e. combating them verbally.
Kill is against the 'Ten Commandments'.
Well, these lexicons hardly support the "hadithist" view of Quran. An entirely different Quran emerges when one uses these lexicons.
And I know the morphological meaning of Qatal and is shares much resemblance with the word Qul which means to say or convey something to someone. Same goes for Q - t - l, it also means you convey something of substance to someone.
Be well
EmanuelKill is against the commandments? Then why did Musa get away with murder? Why was Abraham instructed to kill his son? There are obviously legitimate ways of killing both in bible and in Quran. If authorized, in the cause of God.
Your understanding of qtl is a fairy tale. I suggest you look up the root word in a wider selection of lexicons. Because the one you are using right now is worthless. I don't know any professor in semitic language that would translate qtl as something different from explicit murder.
Check any aramaic lexicon, any phoenician one and tell me what you read.
-
runninglikezebras, ignoring your intentions, your posts are causing my genuine questions and answers people have been kind to give, to be hidden amongst unrelated arguments.
For those who've posted to try and help me, thank you so much. It's late here so I'm very sorry I to have to wait until tomorrow to reply to them.
-
You are concealing and you are posing as if you knew anything about grammar and morphology and you don't have any idea and you substitute our own fancy for the lack of knowledge.
Salaam
I know you are shocked by the etymological true meaning of qtl huruf. Trust me, I understand you would be. I would be disappointed if you weren't.
-
runninglikezebras, ignoring your intentions, your posts are causing my genuine questions and answers people have been kind to give, to be hidden amongst unrelated arguments.
For those who've posted to try and help me, thank you so much. It's late here so I'm very sorry I to have to wait until tomorrow to reply to them.
Well excuse me very much for expressing myself. What I posted was relevant to the OP however. Both the topic of "killing" and "slavery" have been modernized into something that is rather ignored and softened down than read as it was originally stated. If you can't see how that's relevant than you either are seriously lacking sleep or it is something else preventing you from a having a functional brain.
-
Kill is against the commandments? Then why did Musa get away with murder?
He never murdered a person. It is an inaccurate account of the real story. There was a conspiracy against him and he had to flee.
Why was Abraham instructed to kill his son?
It was deception.
There are obviously legitimate ways of killing both in bible and in Quran. If authorized, in the cause of God.
Very seldom in that case, only to preserve life. It is nothing you should speak of legitimizing. You should always feel bad over killing a person if you would really have to.
Your understanding of qtl is a fairy tale. I suggest you look up the root word in a wider selection of lexicons. Because the one you are using right now is worthless. I don't know any professor in semitic language that would translate qtl as something different from explicit murder.
You have to search deeper for Qatal in Semitic history for there were people who corrupted both Aramaic and Arabic a long time ago.
Qatal does not suit with kill/slay linguistically in Quran. Quran is a more truthful than your professors or Semitic lexicons.
Check any aramaic lexicon, any phoenician one and tell me what you read.
Yet the word implies the defeat of someone, not killing. It is always easy to exaggerate the meaning of a word.
The violent nature of the Bible can be explained by that the word that constantly is used to "KILL KILL KILL" means to defeat or convince people about the message of God.
Here is from an Aramaic lexicon 'Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E.'
Qatal
Ammonite He gave, he built.
Moabite He ruled
Hebrew He knewYou have to face that you do not look carefully enough. If you simply find something you are completely fixated with it. Do you really think that there is so much killing in Quran?
I once again tell thee, Qatal means to master/subdue but also be able so spread information about something... and the Qul word is highly related as a root word.
And Quran and the Semitic languages were corrupted by the spread of the hedonistic religion Islam.
Be well
Emanuel -
He never murdered a person. It is an inaccurate account of the real story. There was a conspiracy against him and he had to flee.
It was deception.
Very seldom in that case, only to preserve life. It is nothing you should speak of legitimizing. You should always feel bad over killing a person if you would really have to.
You have to search deeper for Qatal in Semitic history for there were people who corrupted both Aramaic and Arabic a long time ago.
Qatal does not suit with kill/slay linguistically in Quran. Quran is a more truthful than your professors or Semitic lexicons.
Yet the word implies the defeat of someone, not killing. It is always easy to exaggerate the meaning of a word.
The violent nature of the Bible can be explained by that the word that constantly is used to "KILL KILL KILL" means to defeat or convince people about the message of God.
Here is from an Aramaic lexicon 'Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E.'
Qatal
Ammonite He gave, he built.
Moabite He ruled
Hebrew He knewYou have to face that you do not look carefully enough. If you simply find something you are completely fixated with it. Do you really think that there is so much killing in Quran?
I once again tell thee, Qatal means to master/subdue but also be able so spread information about something... and the Qul word is highly related as a root word.
And Quran and the Semitic languages were corrupted by the spread of the hedonistic religion Islam.
Be well
EmanuelAgain, you come up with exotic translations that to my knowledge are not supported by any etymology.
http//biblehub.com/hebrew/6991.htm
But then again, you talk with pigeons don't you?
-
Runninglikezebras,
It is supported by the Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine 1000-586 BCE. Well, I learned it is pointless to discuss with you from before and it was meaningless to get involved here. You have the information at hand from me. I am not the kind of person who gets deluded by what the majority of people say but I form my own opinion and perform my own research.
And you indulge in petty sarcasm in your war against people. Very lowly of you.
You should concentrate on what you should be doing instead.