• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"[W:132]

Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

It's mentioned on some right wing sites, and is a misrepresentation> the plaques are being relocated, because of the controversy with the lee plaque, and they moved the both, because they were installed together, and they wanted to keep them together.

Yeah, this is what I expected. Right-wingers are allergic to getting their facts straight. It's hilarious that they bitch about left-wingers being outraged and being overly PC. These people are frequently triggered at complete fabrications because they love being outraged 24/7.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Nice of you to leave out the bolded part (included to show the full import of Paul's letter).

The term "slave" is not the same thing that we think of. It's a wiling choice to be a slave for a set period of time, usually due to a substantial financial hardship (taxes were the big one). It wasn't forcibly owning another person for their entire life, it was someone offering usually 1-7 years of their life in exchange for an immediate cash payment.

LOL, incredible spin. And I thought Fox had taken it as far as it would go.

If you pay someone for their labor, it's no longer called "slavery".

Roman slavery was life-long slavery. Israelite slavery was life-long slavery. The only people who had to let their slaves go were Israelites who had other Israelites as slaves. If you were a non-Israelite and owned by an Israelite, which were most of the Israelite slaves, you were out of luck. You were there for life.

These don't sound like people who were "not unwilling":

As most slaves in the Roman world were white and could easily blend into the population if they escaped, it was normal for the masters to discourage slaves from running away by putting a tattoo reading "Stop me! I am a runaway!" or "tax paid" if the slaves were owned by the Roman state on the foreheads of their slaves.[63] For this reason, slaves usually wore headbands to cover up their disfiguring tattoos and at the Temple of Asclepius, the Greek god of healing, in Ephesus, archeologists have found thousands of tablets from escaped slaves asking Asclepius to make their tattoos on their foreheads disappear.[64]...

... in Roman times the persona gradually became "synonymous with the true nature of the individual" but "the slave was excluded from it. servus non habet personam ('a slave has no persona'). He has no personality. He does not own his body; he has no ancestors, no name, no cognomen, no goods of his own."[72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Treatment_and_legal_status
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Sure, slavery continued, but the question raised earlier in this thread was comparing Muhammed's owning of slaves to whether Jesus advocate for slavery. I'm just pointing out the differences in the stories that have been passed down over the centuries. Slavery is still a problem today in some parts of the world.

What's it matter what either character did, the way those religions have manifest in reality were never opposed to slavery. Oppression in every form go well with religions where the adherents demand no standard of conduct. The foundational sentiment of manifest destiny lives on today in religion. If god didn't want us to murder, rape and enslave, certainly He's powerful enough to stop us.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

The NT term translates into "servant" so your point is actually moot.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Wow. Some servant! Some employment conditions! Are employed servants considered the money or property of their employers today, to do with as they please?

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

So is it acceptable in the modern world to beat your "servant" so severely that it only disables him or her for two days? And if someone beats their "servant" so severely that they lose an eye or their teeth are knocked out, is it acceptable punishment that the employer just has to let the servant go?

Where are we modern people getting our idea that this is not an acceptable way to treat a servant, a slave, or any other human being for that matter? Where does it say in the Bible?

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell, 1861

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina, 1861
 
Last edited:
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

It started with the Confederate monuments. Now there are demands that Washington and Jefferson monuments and memorials be taken down. In fact just this week the church that George Washington attended for over 2 decades announced they would be removing a plaque to Washington because some people didn't feel safe in the church. Are you kidding me? Well President Trump asked "where does it stop" That's a good question. Where do we stop? The prophet Muhammad was a slave trader, he owned slaves. In fact he owned sex slaves and encouraged his followers to do the same. So the question is as we slide down this slippery slope of erasing anything that offends anyone from history. Do we demand that mosques be torn down since the prophet of Islam was a slave owner? My answer, of course not. We must only remove monuments to evil white people like our first president George Washington.
Iirc, the towns where the monuments were made a decision to take them down.
Towns that did not decide to take down monuments left them up.
The church with the Washington plaque decided to take it down.
If mosque goers decide to take down their mosques, by all means let them.

:shrug:


Waiter, there's a tempest in this teacup.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

The people referred to in the passages quoted as "Slaves" weren't unwilling slaves.

According to the Bible, a man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female "servant" who is engaged to be married to another man would have to sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female "servant" would be whipped, even though she was the one who was raped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged. Male "employers" could rape such "servants" with impunity.

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a maid, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

That's one heck of an employment contract for someone to willingly enter into to pay off some debts!
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Iirc, the towns where the monuments were made a decision to take them down.
Towns that did not decide to take down monuments left them up.
The church with the Washington plaque decided to take it down.
If mosque goers decide to take down their mosques, by all means let them.

:shrug:


Waiter, there's a tempest in this teacup.
Some of the people that are demanding monuments be removed dont even live in the cities where those monuments existed. Tell me why would anyone attending a historic church feel unsafe because there is a plaque honoring the father of our country?
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Some of the people that are demanding monuments be removed dont even live in the cities where those monuments existed. Tell me why would anyone attending a historic church feel unsafe because there is a plaque honoring the father of our country?
The places where the monuments were removed, they were removed because of what the people in those places decided.
The fact that people outside of those places also made decisions (of various sorts) is irrelevant.

Idc why the folks at that church want to remove the plaque.
It ain't my church.
It has all but zero effect on me.

They can put up a plaque to Nickelback for all I care.


Why do you think it's wrong for parishioners to make decisions about their church?
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

As usual? How the hell would you know what I usually say? You don't even know who the hell I am. Must have me confused with someone else.

Hate to burst your bubble, but everyone has seen your ilk before, and your posting is straight out of their playbook. You aren't fooling anyone.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"



Makes sense. We cant have the acknowledgement and acceptance of slave owners in this country. That would be offensive.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Wow. Some servant! Some employment conditions! Are employed servants considered the money or property of their employers today, to do with as they please?



So is it acceptable in the modern world to beat your "servant" so severely that it only disables him or her for two days? And if someone beats their "servant" so severely that they lose an eye or their teeth are knocked out, is it acceptable punishment that the employer just has to let the servant go?

Where are we modern people getting our idea that this is not an acceptable way to treat a servant, a slave, or any other human being for that matter? Where does it say in the Bible?

What makes it sad is that is actually limiting cruelty to the slave verses the surrounding cultures. It shows on just how brutal that time period was.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

It started with the Confederate monuments. Now there are demands that Washington and Jefferson monuments and memorials be taken down. In fact just this week the church that George Washington attended for over 2 decades announced they would be removing a plaque to Washington because some people didn't feel safe in the church. Are you kidding me? Well President Trump asked "where does it stop" That's a good question. Where do we stop? The prophet Muhammad was a slave trader, he owned slaves. In fact he owned sex slaves and encouraged his followers to do the same. So the question is as we slide down this slippery slope of erasing anything that offends anyone from history. Do we demand that mosques be torn down since the prophet of Islam was a slave owner? My answer, of course not. We must only remove monuments to evil white people like our first president George Washington.

How do you go from a statue removed but not a church to a mosque needing to be removed as an analogy to a statue. Makes no sense is an understatement...
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

The Left will give slave owners a pass as long as their name was Muhammad because it's politically correct to do so. Only the memories and legacies of white men must be destroyed.

This sounds stupid because it is...
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

What's it matter what either character did, the way those religions have manifest in reality were never opposed to slavery. Oppression in every form go well with religions where the adherents demand no standard of conduct. The foundational sentiment of manifest destiny lives on today in religion. If god didn't want us to murder, rape and enslave, certainly He's powerful enough to stop us.

It only matters in the details, and that's what I was arguing. Obviously, if there was a God, He/She could end all manner of suffering -- and, of course -- any decent God would, which leaves us with, well.... But, we can still argue the fine points of the story, just as we would argue what happened in a Harry Potter tale.

Anyway, that's what I was doing.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Wow. Some servant! Some employment conditions! Are employed servants considered the money or property of their employers today, to do with as they please?



So is it acceptable in the modern world to beat your "servant" so severely that it only disables him or her for two days? And if someone beats their "servant" so severely that they lose an eye or their teeth are knocked out, is it acceptable punishment that the employer just has to let the servant go?

Where are we modern people getting our idea that this is not an acceptable way to treat a servant, a slave, or any other human being for that matter? Where does it say in the Bible?

I think you may have missed the crux of our discussion. I can show you places in the Old Testament that will make your toes curl -- but -- we were talking specifically about the New Testament and how Christianity (whose founder is the mythical Jesus) does not contain the same terminology (about slaves) as does the OT. Your passages come from the OT.

You don't have to convince me that the Bible contains atrocities -- I'm an atheist, after all -- but, years ago (many years) I studied divinity so I have some basis of the actual documents. I discuss them today as I do the Greek myths.

One poster here made an incorrect assertion and I corrected it -- that's all. I demand accuracy both of myself and of others. It's what scholars do.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

How do you go from a statue removed but not a church to a mosque needing to be removed as an analogy to a statue. Makes no sense is an understatement...

Follow along, it's actually very simple. People are demanding that monuments, statues, and memorials honoring historical figures that owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy be removed. The prophet Muhammad was a slave owner that brutalized and murdered those who chose not to worship him. He and his men captured, enslaved and had sex with his slaves. Should we remove mosques or even ban Islam because the warrior prophet Muhammad owned slaves? It's apples and apples my friend.
 
Last edited:
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle, he had sex with his slaves, and he instructed his men to do the same. Yet there are people (liberals) demanding the removal of monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Franklin. Why aren't those same people not concerned with the brutal murderer Muhammad who also owned slaves? 1.8 billion people worship this slave owner.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle, he had sex with his slaves, and he instructed his men to do the same. Yet there are people (liberals) demanding the removal of monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Franklin. Why aren't those same people not concerned with the brutal murderer Muhammad who also owned slaves? 1.8 billion people worship this slave owner.

That's a good question. Anyone brave enough to answer intelligently? What IS the difference, and WHY is the concern not the same?
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

That's a good question. Anyone brave enough to answer intelligently? What IS the difference, and WHY is the concern not the same?

Have you tried asking one of those people?
I'm sure there's at least one out there if you know how to Googlegud.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

The people referred to in the passages quoted as "Slaves" weren't unwilling slaves.

how do you know that?
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

It's probable that Obama's African fore-fathers, being Muslim, profited from the slave trade. Oh well ..... Where ya got Muslims ... you'll have slave trade. Right now in America and ROW, women and children being captured and enslaved.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

It started with the Confederate monuments. Now there are demands that Washington and Jefferson monuments and memorials be taken down. In fact just this week the church that George Washington attended for over 2 decades announced they would be removing a plaque to Washington because some people didn't feel safe in the church. Are you kidding me? Well President Trump asked "where does it stop" That's a good question. Where do we stop? The prophet Muhammad was a slave trader, he owned slaves. In fact he owned sex slaves and encouraged his followers to do the same. So the question is as we slide down this slippery slope of erasing anything that offends anyone from history. Do we demand that mosques be torn down since the prophet of Islam was a slave owner? My answer, of course not. We must only remove monuments to evil white people like our first president George Washington.

It must be sad bro, just so sad to live with such anger and hatred in your heart.

Might i suggest getting a hobbie and just chill out.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Follow along, it's actually very simple. People are demanding that monuments, statues, and memorials honoring historical figures that owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy be removed. The prophet Muhammad was a slave owner that brutalized and murdered those who chose not to worship him. He and his men captured, enslaved and had sex with his slaves. Should we remove mosques or even ban Islam because the warrior prophet Muhammad owned slaves? It's apples and apples my friend.


We're seeing the final result of decades of liberal/"progressive" indoctrination. Goal of the haters of "sovereign" USA is simply to cause the downfall - elimination of "sovereign" USA.

NWOrder One World Government coming next .... after "sovereign" nations are as "Gone With The Wind" as the antebellum south.
 
Re: Muhammad slave owner "Tear down the Mosques"

Yeah, this is what I expected. Right-wingers are allergic to getting their facts straight. It's hilarious that they bitch about left-wingers being outraged and being overly PC. These people are frequently triggered at complete fabrications because they love being outraged 24/7.

Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Parks Over Ties To Slavery « CBS Chicago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.2fe39afbe3eb

So, Do We Pull Down George Washington's Statue? - Hartford Courant

https://charlierose.com/videos/30882

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-an...gton-jefferson-and-lee-all-need-to-come-down/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vc4MOQ0nCaXV8WgRAnylA2UdgLFwMhhI--RwkBvS1Ok/edit?ts=599a566b

http://www.newsweek.com/theodore-roosevelt-statue-graffiti-nyc-museum-693590

These are justa few initiatives and commentaries regarding the drive and zeal to target Washington, Jefferson, and many others. You might eb hard pressed to label those sources 'right wing'.
 
Back
Top Bottom