Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: Soccer on October 19, 2020, 04:09:51 PM

Title: Slavery never allowed in Quran and Malakat Aymanihim refers to marriage + muta.
Post by: Soccer on October 19, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
I will argue the following:

Ibrahim never had a slave called Hagar per Quran (1).
Slavery was never allowed in Quran (2).
Marriage + Muta is what is meant by Malakat aymanihim and so with most "or" it refers to Muta although in some places it's referring to marriage(3).
War prisoners are to be released by ransom or generosity during war and all released when war terminates (without ransom) per Quran (4)
Muta is not a form of marriage (that means the Sigha in Al-Kafi we have - the one hadith - is wrong) but halal relationship allowed in certain conditions (5)
Muta is not allowed for all men and women in all situations, rather on investigation, Quran shows the conditions for it (6)

If someone wants to have one on one debate that is fine. I can do a formal debate.  If not, I will just try to prove it and anyone can say anything back.
Title: Re: Slavery never allowed in Quran and Malakat Aymanihim refers to marriage + muta.
Post by: Soccer on November 27, 2020, 01:23:01 PM

The Quran corrects and denies much of the Torah as held by Jews and Christians, just as it verifies much of it.  Most Muslims don't read them to know what Quran is verifying and what is correcting.

Lut (a) for example, is disgraced and is not held in high regard by Jews.  The Torah indeed has mixed verses about him, some showing him in the best light and some showing him in the worst.  It is a contradiction but the Jews won't acknowledge it, and to synthesize will make a very detailed ambiguous philosophy of what it meant that he was righteous yet evil, and how he was saved and yet did what he did with his daughters ,etc.

The Quran however is clear Lut (a) is of the Messengers, one of the chosen, part of the Ahlulbayt (a) of Ibrahim (a), and leader of guidance who is is pure and exalted above the worlds.

Another character that is praised and condemned is Ismail (a).  There are verses that if read in themselves, you would not begin to fathom why Jews don't see him exalted and chosen, and don't see the clear Prophecies of Mohammad (s) in the flow with respect to him.

The reason is because despite those verses praising him, there are verses that condemn him, but if was born of Sarah (a) and covenant was made with him,  there would be no room for this.

In my view, Hagar is a fiction character introduced to show why Ismail (a) is condemned despite the covenant of God with him and God's promise with him and his offspring.

To prove this, I can say for sure, if the jealousy story was the real reason for Ismail (a) being settled near the Kaba, then it would have to be mentioned.  If Hajar is a slave and their is jealousy element, it has to explained in Quran, and in fact, we see she is absent in Quran, not mentioned anywhere.

The hadiths, okay, but they verify practically every fabrication of Jews in some way or another, right, even their unjust laws of killing people who leave the religion made it through.

But Quran itself not only doesn't verify this story, it provides a whole different explanation of Ismail (a) and why he was settled where he was settled.

The reason if you reflect over Quran, why this story was conducted is as follows:

(1) Distort the clear Prophecy and flow of "the who God will send" with respect to Ismail (a) and the covenant, thus trying to blind people to Mohammad (s) in the Torah.

(2) Make the Jews seem like a special people born of Isaac (a) and Jacob (a) and that has chosen them specifically for this reason.

To be special to be born of Jacob (a) or Isaac (a), you have to character attack Ismail (a). But it doesn't make sense if Sarah (a) is the mother, what's the big deal, so the whole story made up, that Ismail (a) was born of a slave, Sarah (a) was jealous, thus Ismail (a) was banished with Hajar (a), and instead of a clear Prophecy of Mohammad (a) you get this different philosophy of not the offspring of Sarah (a),  sort of thing.

To be continued.....