Slavery, difference today and veering from Quran
-
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.
-
You are cherrypicking a dialect that should prove the general known meaning of the aramaic qtl is entirely wrong?
Those to me are obvious signs of bias or total madness. If you weren't biased or mad you'd look sincerely at the qtl aramaic root that never meant anything but to kill/slaughter/murder.
Even the usage in the qumran scrolls is always that of to kill.
Using your methods one could prove qtl actually means ketchup.
https//sites.google.com/site/kitkirja/catala---katala---qatala
When I'm speaking about root words Mof, I'm talking about the root words, not the vowelizations.
-
peace Rana,
You may wish to first begin with defining what you mean by "slave", and what is the Quranic term you are referring to.
You may be surprised at how helpful that is. See this excellent past discussion
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600888.0 -
Good thread Wakas.
I have been doing some research recently on the Judeo-Nazarenes. To me the Judeo-Nazarenes were those people who left behind the Qumran scrolls. In the past they have been often wrongly identified as the Essenes as historically described by Josephus and Philo.
Checking these descriptions by Josephus and Philo and comparing them to the actual content of the Qumran scrolls, this will quickly tell you they couldn't possibly be the same group.
All of this seems off-topic, but here's the kicker one of the major discrepancies between them is the attitude towards slavery. While Josephus and Philo describe the Essenes as opposed to owning private property, and even more so slaves, the qumran scrolls reveal the community (which I identify as Judeo-Nazarene) did have slaves and practice was established in the community so much it required specific rules
The Damascus Document (12, 14) presupposes that there is not only private property, but ownership of slaves as well ?He shall not sell them his manservant or maidservant? (Damascus Document 12.10). A group whose members own slaves is very different from the group of Essenes described by Josephus and Philo, who reject slavery on principle.
Other discrepancies involve the attitude towards animal sacrifice, divorce and ideas on militarism (in contrast to pacifism).
I think you know where I'm getting at instructions for war, slavery, divorce, military rules and animal sacrifice all tick the checkboxes when we look at Quran.
-
You may wish to first begin with defining what you mean by "slave", and what is the Quranic term you are referring to.
You may be surprised at how helpful that is. See this excellent past discussion
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600888.0Thanks Wakas, it was a good thread.
I noticed you pointed out that it wouldn't make sense to free a slave where they had willingly made an agreement to serve (which could be for a number of reasons) so from that I can see it is important to be clear on what I mean by using the term slavery. Rightly or wrongly I wouldn't consider a deal made by one person who owes another to work off that debt slavery unless certain rights were being taken from that person alongside. For example if the person is held captive in anyway, unable to communicate freely, unable to choose for themselves who they socialise with, what the eat, how they keep their money, I guess those things would be examples.
But then today there are many agreements, military would be a good example I guess, where many rights are taken from people when they 'sign up' but they are usually aware of those things and thereby agree to the them.
A.W. thanks for you post and I am sadly aware of slavery's continued existence so I'm with you on that wholeheartedly.
You wrote "Bear in mind though that certain jobs, such as servants at a household is also understood to be slavery. That doesnt mean that all of those households are horrible to their slaves. Often these unfortunate people dont have the means to be independent. So, freeing them can also be understood to give them the means to become independent."
I don't feel that someone who is a servant should be considered a slave unless they are being treated as such, in which case I would consider that wrong. I hope I'm understanding you correctly, but isn't to say that they may not have the means to be independent suggesting that they are being treated as slaves, as opposed to workers with lives and rights? The should be working in someone's home as a servant with pay and the right to family, friends, choices and so on.
Man of Faith Thanks for your input. "Yes, slavery has always been wrong. Many people are also confused by the ancient kind of employment that involved several years of servitude but where the servant was let free for a compensation. Ancient world contract."
I admit I don't know much about any ancient world contracts but what you describes sounds fine to me, unless there is 'servitude' that is somehow forced and where basic rights are taken away from the person. I guess that is where my issue begins.
runningwithzebras I apologise for my overly blunt comments to you, you do indeed have a right to express yourself, and I appreciate you trying to help. While I note you believe that the threads discussions are entirely related, for me, perhaps because I don't claim to be proficient in the study of Quran, nor do I really enjoy getting bogged down in it, it has ended up too complex (for me).
Frankly when this happens, as it seems to often do on here, it makes wonder - I mean, how in gods name is Quran supposed to be advice for all time if we have to expend this much effort to understand anything - and even then, as evidenced here, nobody can agree on anything!
Please understand from the above that I'm stating how these situations make me 'feel', not trying to prove anything regarding Quran.
