Posted on 02/02/2005 7:47:16 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
I absolutely agree and have written about this before here.
Saudi Arabia... proud Islamic religious freakdom and custodian of Islams holiest sites, where they import slaves "maids" from places like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines and take away their passports, their rights and their dignity.... where their "employers" are able to beat them, molest them, and rape them with impunity, and where the "mistress" of the house is unable/unwilling to act as she is a meare "woman", and her only course of action after seeing her husband screw the "maid" is to take out her frustrations on the innocent slave and give her beatings to go with her husbands rape.
Saudi, a proud nation where if your maid tries to run away because of your treatment, you can simply accuse her of "theft" and she conveniently ends up at "chop chop square" after Friday prayers.
Though they claim the officially abolished it in 1962, it still goes on, and some of their imams are protesting the ban and crying out that "slavery is part of islam."
The (dissident) Saudi Information Agency reports that a prominent Saudi religious authority recently called for slavery to be re-legalized in the kingdom. Ali Al-Ahmed reports on the views of Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, the author of a religious textbook (At-Tawhid, "Monotheism") widely used to teach Saudi high school students as well as their counterparts abroad studying in Saudi schools (including those in the West)."Slavery is a part of Islam," he announced in a recent lecture. "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." He argued against the idea that slavery had ever been abolished, insulting those who espouse this view as "ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel."
Al-Fawzan is no maverick. He is:
A member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body; A member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research; Imam of the Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh; and Professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, the main Wahhabi center of learning.
You can read the article in full here, including the touching part at the end where this fine representative of Islam threatened a critic of his with beheading.
Of course, historically, slavery is part of Islam, going all the way back to the pedophile Muhammed himself who set a fine example for his followers to emulate by capturing civilians in the wars he waged and keeping them as slaves.
ping
Also, note that it was the RCC that finally did accept Galileo and in fact promoted his work after finally accepting that Aristotle was wrong
This is not very accurate history. The Catholic Church (it's universities anyway) invented the scientific method. The church had no real beef at all with science that strayed from Aristotle. After all, it was Galileo that insisted that orbits were round (since that was a perfect form, as defined by Aristotle). Galileo attacked Kepler unmercifully for postulating that orbits were elipses, a proposition that found immediate audiance in Catholic universities. Galileo had a long running fued with Jesuit astronomers who determined that comets traveled on eliptical orbits - Galileo rejected the existance of comets as physical objects (he argued that they were some sort of trick of light) rather than accept orbits that were not round.
The real argument between Galileo and the Church was rooted in a largely personel dispute between Galileo and the Pope which happened to occur at the time of the Reformation. It had little to do with science.
This is so disgusting. It just amazes me that practices such as legal rape and slavery by barbaric cultures are tolerated by the civilized world.
It is truly sad.
1 Corinthians 9:5 (NIV):Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas
Peter was married.
Tertullian and Origen write that he suffered crucifixion. Origen says: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer". Probably at Nero's Gardens on the Vatican, according to Tacitus, the site of the Neronian persecution.
There is a non-canonical (i.e., untrustworthy, like the NYT) "Acts of Peter" that describes an incident where Roman women withdrew from their husbands after hearing Peter preach. Likely Servant of the 9, having trouble in bright lights, misinterpreted that apocryphal book.
**In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Coulter Wars Continued: A Muslim-Christian Dialogue, Chemist_Geek wrote:
"What's the matter, can't handle the truth?
Although, I admit, it's Deuteronomy 13:6-10, not Leviticus.
"If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers,
"Of all the nations round about, that are near or afar off, from one end of the earth to the other,
"Consent not to him, hear him not, neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him,
"But thou shalt presently put him to death. Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people.
"With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage:"
Yes, you are right; I was giving the simplified version as I understood it.
But there was a certain defense of Aristotle as though he were some kind of pagan prophet among some of the early scholastics, at least as I recall from this end of so many years ago reading it.
Thansk for the correction.
You better be careful FD, he might hunt you down like a chicken and...
Well, you know what they do when they declare you "halal."
He states it because if one cared to misrepresent Christianity or Judaism with long ignored texts like some do Islam one could have similar results.
And dont forget that does not change the moral quality of the persons who did do those things way back then.
If Samuel were alive today would he still slaughter Agag and the royal family, including women and children, of the Amalekites or not?
Does that make Samuel evil?
Gods truth does not change and to attack someone for what the prophets themselves did is to set oneself against God, no?
Rest, what kind of rest? I said it once.
Get a grip people!
You are thinking of the defense of Arisotle's approach to reason and logic raised by Thomas Aquinas, who believed that, despite the fact that he was a pagan, much of what Aristotle taught was consistent with Natural Law and therefore of value to Christians in understanding the world and human nature
Excellent attempt, FD. I said essentially the same thing in post # 53 to CG. He did not deign to respond.
I suspect an attempt to draw us out into a flame war. Let's not fall into a baited trap.
What "extension"?! Have you read the New Testament? Where is the stonning recommended there?
To be precise the Muslims took it from the conquered Byzantine Christians (Greeks, Arabs and others). As Christian population declined first economicaly and then numerically, the Muslim civilization did too.
Samuel's "slaughter" might be more figurative than literal today, such as a hostile takeover, or exile. There have been cases of entire families killed - the Romanovs (Tsar) in Russia, by the Soviets - but we do not slaughter defeated enemies anymore.
Slaughtering entire Royal/Ruling families was accepted then because it was "normal procedure" then, it reduced the need to keep watching one's back, at least from that direction.
The point of the matter is that Judaism grew out of the bloodthirsty stage;
Christianity did for a while , but has had relapses at times, generally against fellow Christians (Protestant v. Catholic, Orthodox v. Roman, etc).
Islam has always had the Draconian punishments in the Islamic lands ruled by Sharia law: floggings, stonings, beheadings and amputations, and the like. That is the difference.
"Gods truth does not change and to attack someone for what the prophets themselves did is to set oneself against God, no?
No, it is not, because there is no moral equivalency between the two.
The Biblical occurrences were thousands of years ago, and are NO more. The Islamist occurrences of punishment under Sharia law are TODAY, and that, the cruel and unusual punishments as described above, is NOT acceptable in civilized society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.