The Human Equality of Christianity

Is there human equality in the Bible in both the Old and the New Testaments?

Christians claim that the Bible respects human rights, and recognizes all humans as good creation of the Almighty GOD. This is a false belief because humans are not equal in the Bible.

Here again, notice the fallability of Osama's argument, he makes a conclusion before he even begans to examine the argument.

A brief look at the Old Testament:

Let us look at Exodus 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." This verse from the Bible is very straight forward. If you kill an innocent human being, then you must die.

Let us look at both Exodus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 5:17 "You shall not murder." Both verses have the same exact quote, and they both order not to kill normal human beings.

Let us look at Deuteronomy 27:25 "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person. Then all the people shall say, 'Amen!'" This verse and the above verses so far are talking about normal human beings. They equalize between normal human beings.

Yes we don't disagree at all.

Now let us look at Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Notice how the Bible doesn't recognize the slave male or female as a normal human being. If the master beats his servant to death, then the master will not get the death punishment or penalty. He will only be punished, but not to death. This punishment mighty be even a light one such as a single light whip since the punishment was not determined.

In the OT the Bible required that the servant obey his owner, however what Osama fells to tell you is that Muhammad allowed slavery for the sole purpose of free sex and prostitution, along with other matters:

Muslim 32 The Prophet said: "When the slave runs away from his master, his prayer is not accepted"; he is an infidel.

Osama comments:

One thing, the reference to where they got the quote from is not complete! This is bogus and unacceptable in the professional world of dialogues. Notice here also that they inserted the words "he is an infidel" to look like part of the quote. Our beloved Prophet said "Your slaves are your brothers", and also said "if you beat your slave, then you will go to hell". To see the references to the Sayings of our Prophet peace be upon him, visit http://www.answering-christianity.com/human.htm.

Response:

Actually this isn't the case at all since the quote clearly finishes with the slave mentioning that he is an infidel. The Hadith translators added this in, we didn't. Also the idea of Muhammad saying not to beat your slave isn't anything new since the Bible already discusses this in Leviticus. We wonder how come Osama is quick to overlook this in the Bible? As for Osama's comments "This is bogus and unacceptable in the professional world of dialogues. Notice here also that they inserted the words "he is an infidel" to look like part of the quote. " Lets expose him for all to see in dealing with Pornography in the Bible. Does he add words to the text? Yes:

Let us look at Song of Songs 3:10 "Its posts he made of silver, its base of gold. Its seat was upholstered with purple, its interior lovingly inlaid by the daughters of Jerusalem [to sleep with all of them]." What kind of a religion is Christianity that preaches such sexual values that teaches young men to spend all of their time and effort to try to impress all of the girls in their town so they can end in bed with them?

Look again dear reader, at the words “to sleep with all of them”. How can Osama talk about Pornography when the words like these aren’t even present in any bible on earth! He added them purposely to make the reader think that Solomon was talking about sleeping with all the women of Jerusalem. Now did Osama leave out parts which "is bogus and unacceptable in the professional world of dialogues. " Yes:

11 Come out, you daughters of Zion, and look at King Solomon wearing the crown, the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding, the day his heart rejoiced.

We see that Solomon’s posts of his carriage was LOOKED upon by the daughters of Jerusalem and then the scriptures tell us he is wearing his crown ON HIS WEDDING DAY! Solomon was going to meet his wife, something Osama didn’t want us to know. WHAT DID HE DO THAT WAS UNPROFESSIONAL? HE LEFT THIS OUT!!! THIS SAME TACTIC IS USED ALL OVER HIS PORNOGRAPHY PAGE!! LOL!!!

 Hadith Malik 361:1216 When the master or husband of a slave-girl dies, her iddah (period of waiting to remarry) is two months and five days.

 Hadith Malik 362:1221 Ibn Fahd said: "I have some slave girls who are better than my wives, but I do not desire that they should all become pregnant. Shall I do azl (withdrawal) with them?" Hajjaj said: "They are your fields of cultivation. If you wish to irrigate them then do so, if not keep them dry."

Here Muhammad tells us that if a slave runs away from his master, he is an infidel!! And Allah won't accept his prayers!! What if his master is beating him, just like the Bible says? Based on Muhammad's merits he wouldn't even have his prayers answered by God!!! Wow!

Those references are not of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him, nor they are reliable Muslim references. What ever Mr. Hajjaj said is good for him, but he certainly doesn't in anyway represent our Prophet peace be upon him.

The "Answering Islam" team said that it was a teaching of our Prophet. How can you be that pathetic and dare to assume that your reader is stupid?!

Response:

Osama must think that his audience is stupid. For one thing, Muhammad's companions used sayings that they heard him say. That is why the Hadith collectors added them into the Hadith of Islam. The Hadith composes of sayings of the prophets whether through him personally or through his companions.

The idea of "slavery for sex or prostitution" is nothing but a big lie created by the haters of Islam, and it contradicts what the Noble Quran teaches:

Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)," In this Noble Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom if there is good in the Slave, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life. We also see in this Noble Verse that slaves are not to be forced into prostitution in anyway.

Notice that a slave can request his freedom. This is found thousands of years before the Quran in Leviticus.
He claims that a slave can't be forced into prostitution.
Notice that the verse doesn't say that at all:

But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.

Notice that slave isn't mention as not being forced into prostitution. Osama intentionally lied to add this to the text. Slaves were allowed to ask for freedom and nothing more. Read the definition of Maid:

1 : an unmarried girl or woman especially when young : VIRGIN 2 a : MAIDSERVANT b : a woman or girl EMPLOYED to do domestic work. Merriam Webster Dictionary

A slave doesn't fall under this category since a slave isn't employeed or payed to work. Also a slave taken captive and was married isn't a maid, since this person isn't a virgin. Look at the definition of employed:

employed- to provide with a job that pays wages or a salary (ibid)

A slave isn't paid to work for his master. However in the Bible a servant is.

MORE LIES BY OSAMA

Let us look at Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

When I looked up the word "concubine" in www.dictionary.com, I found:

1- Law. A woman who cohabits with a man.
2- In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status. (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=concubine)

And when I looked up the word "cohabits", I found:

1- To live together as spouses.
2- To live together in a sexual relationship when not legally married. (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=cohabits)

So in the Bible, the FATHER HAS THE RIGHT TO SELL HIS DAUGHTER TO BE FORCED TO SLEEP WITH OTHER MEN according to Exodus 21:7-8, and if she tries to be redeemed (to be set free), then her punishment is to be STUCK WITH HER MASTER!

Response:

For one thing the lack of "hooked on phonics" has really hurt Osama's argument. He claims the bible mentions that the daughter has the right to force his daughter into a concubine. Read what the verse actually says:

And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master SO THAT HE DOESN'T DESIGNATE HER AS A CONCUBINE but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

This guy is unbelievable, he says the exact opposite of what the verse says and then proceeds to present us with useless babble dealing with concubines. But what did the verse say? SO THAT HE DOESN'T DESIGNATE HER AS A CONCUBINE. No need to elaborate more on this issue.

Unlike Islam slavery in the Bible was voluntary, we let Glenn Miller address this part from his great scholarly article:

Garnsey identifies many of these elements in his understanding of what he terms 'chattel slavery' [HI:ISAA:1]:
"A slave was property. The slaveowner's rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as well as the labor of the slave. The slave was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the process of capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of kinship through marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of slavery."
With this framework in mind, let's consider how the Mosaic Law structured 'Hebrew slavery'...
 
 
  • The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its purpose, and structure.

    •  

     

    Hebrew 'slavery' occurs in a very specific socio-economic-religious context, and only actually makes sense (in its structure) in that context. To state this context simply:

    Servanthood in the Bible (NOT Slavery, which is based on a New world thinking) was designed to help the poor, and allow them to by food at cost while paying no interest! You can't find a single verse in the Quran nor Hadith which tells you that slavery in Arabia was established to help the poor become stable financially. All you see is the fact that Muhammad used them to have sex, sex and more sex! Muhammad used his slaves to buy women of his choice to cohabit with. 

    Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, #2991:  

    Anas said:

    Muhammad was so captivated by this woman's beauty that he gave up seven slaves for her! This serves to debunk the Muslim myth that Islam came to set slaves free, whereas Christianity drove men into slavery. What in the world is he doing with many slaves anyway if his purpose was to end slavery? Simple to buy more women for sex. 

    Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, #2992:  

    Anas said:

    And, 

    The Hadith shows how Muhammad was so fascinated with women until he couldn't even control himself as shown above. His purpose for releasing slaves was to have more and more sex to satisfy his libido!

    Osama Comments:

    Let us look at Leviticus 25:39 "If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave." This verse seems to despise the slaves by ordering people to be merciful on others from the same tribe and not to treat them bad and not to make them work as slaves. It is quite obvious that his verse doesn't believe in human equality.

    Actually Osama doesn't know diddly squat about the reason for this verse, so we allow Glenn Miller and his scholarly sources explain this for us:

    OT: There is a very fundamental difference here. The 'slavery' of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!:

    "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
    39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)
    Indeed, as we shall note below, the proceeds of the transaction went to the servant only--each 'sold himself' to someone.

     Notice that the sole motive for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than an elitest-motive.

    [Even chattel slavery, however, often produced this benefit. So Glancy [HI:ISAA:5]:

    "This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies...were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade and badly paid...It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into slavery to escape poverty and debt, or even to take up posts of responsibility in the domestic sphere."
    But this was not the POINT of such slavery, whereas in the OT context, this benefit is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION for even allowing a watered-down, temporary, semi-servanthood.] (http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html)

    So Does Osama think that helping the poor is against equality now? If we use his bogus logic, this is what we would have to conclude!! So Islam is against helping the poor! Wow!!

    Which has more value, a slave or an animal? Let us look at Exodus 23:12 "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed." We can obviously see from this verse that the slave and the animal have the same value. A human slave in the Bible is an animal and not a human being. This verse puts the animals and the slave in the same category. It doesn't separate them.

    MAYBE WE SHOULD TELL OSAMA THAT THE WORD "AND" IS USED TO SEPERATE EACH SUBJECT! How can he claim that something isn't seperated and he doesn't even know the basic use of the conjunction "AND"? Notice how the term "slave" is differentiated and is mentioned long after the phrase "and your donkey may rest", this ends the talk of the donkey and then "and the" begins to talk about the human being. Such hilarious antics astounds us.

    Consider the following from the book of Exodus:

    Let us look at Exodus 21:28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible."

    Let us also look at Exodus 21:29 "If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death."

    Let us look at Exodus 21:31 "This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter."

    Now, let us look at this verse Exodus 21:32 "If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned. (but not to death)"

    Notice how in Exodus 21:28, if a bull gores a normal human being, then it must be put to death. Also, notice that Exodus 21:29 punishes the owner for not stopping the bull's habit by stoning him to death when his bull kills a normal human being.

    Notice however, that in Exodus 21:32, if a bull gores a slave male or female to death, then the bull will only be stoned but not to death. Unlike in Exodus 21:28, the bull will survive.

    I think we can conclude from the above that according to the Bible, even an animal has more value in it than a human slave.

    Actually Osama again displays his ignorance about slavery in the Bible so we will educate him with this:

  • As a 'managed, but not owned' human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered 'disposable, non-human goods'. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally accountable for how they were treated.
    • (http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html)

    In stark contrast to what Osama boguslly claims, the ox or bull owner could be put to death if he didn't make the payment to the dead servants family. The payment of 30 shekels equaled to about 60-120 thousand dollars in Modern Israeli money!!! That is about 18-36 thousand dollars U.S.!!! That is a heck of alot of money!! How can Osama claim that a animal has more rights than a slave when the slave costs so much money!! If the owner didn't have it, he was a good as dead. Of course we see nothing like this in Islam do we? No.

    Does the Bible order its followers to inherit the slaves and their children?

    Let us look at Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

    What kind of a human value does the Bible give to slaves? If slaves and their children must be inherited and passed down to newer generations as slaves, then how in the world will they ever gain their freedom?? Does the Bible believe in Freedom? Does the Bible believe in liberating human beings from slavery? Apparently it does not !!!.

    For one thing the word for slave isn't present in the Hebrew text of the Bible, the NIV translated the word for servant in Hebrew as slave. Read a Jewish translation of these same verses:

    And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession. And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour. JPS Leviticus 25:44-46

    Notice that the word for slave in the NIV doesn't mean slave in the Jewish translation, it means servant or bondman. Look at Jerimiah 2:14, the word slave and servant is used in the same verse. The word for servant is `ebed while slave is Bayith. Bayith isn't even present in none of Osama's verses!! His whole argument is based upon the NIV translation of the Bible!!! So did Jesus speak English? I think not!!

    What about the New Testament?

    Unfortunately, there is no equality between human beings in Christianity! Christians like to think that the Bible honors all human beings and loves all human beings, but the reality proves otherwise.

    Let us look at Galatians 4:28-31 "Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." This verse from the New Testament despises children who are born from slave mothers. This verse doesn't recognize children born from slave mothers as normal sons because they are not allowed to inherit. This verse doesn't recognize slaves as equal to normal human beings. This verse agrees fully 100% with slavery and enslaving people.

    Osama also shows his ignorance of history dealing with Galations. Read this:

    "Piracy within the sphere of Roman influence, finally, must be acknowledged as a major means of generating new slaves. At the beginning of Rome's central period the pirates of Citicia were already notorious for the scale on which they conducted kidnap- ping and trafficking activities: the island of Delos, where they dumped their victims because they knew Roman merchants were waiting there to receive them, is said to have turned over tens of thousands of slaves daily in the early second century Bc. What the pirates' activities involved, however, is graphically illustrated by a piece of evidence from late antiquity, one of the newly discovered letters of Augustine, which shows among other things that at the turn of the fifth century AD piracy was still a scourge in the Mediterranean. Augustine spoke in his letter (Epistulae 10*) of the formidable presence along the coasts of North Africa, and especially at Hippo Regius, of itinerant slavedealers (mangones), Galatians in particular, who were buying up as slaves freeborn people captured by independent marauders who made it their business to undertake forays from the coast into remote rural villages in order to hunt down and kidnap as many victims as possible. In one village, the rumour went, they had carried off all the women and children of the community after murdering all the men. Some local people, Augustine continued, were conniving with the invaders: there was a woman who had a clandestine business specialising in young girls from the interior; there was a man (a Christian at that) who had sold his wife into slavery because he preferred to have the cash; and there were indigent parents selling their children because they needed the cash. Augustine said that it was the practice of the Christian community to use its funds to redeem as many of the kidnapped victims as possible, and in one recent episode 120 'slaves' whom the Galatians were boarding, or were preparing to board, onto their ships had been saved. But the trade itself was so lucrative that there were advocates on hand who wanted to try to recover the reclaimed victims for the slavedealers, so their safety was in real jeopardy. It was a desperate situation, and one that must have been far from uncommon throughout the whole of the central period." [HI:SASAR:37f] (http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html)

    Since Osama claims that Christians promoted slavery then he must explain to us why Christians spend their hard earned money to buy slaves and immediately set them free. Infact once people converted to Christianity they got rid of their slaves!!

    6. But we do know that there were widespread manumissions among Christian converts, esp. those of wealth. We have data about some actual manumissions in the pre-Constantine era, that indicates that the principles of the NT indeed created more and more manumissions among Christians. Phillip Schaff summaries this data [History of the Christian Church, s.v. "Christian Life in Contrast with Pagan Corruption: The Church and Slavery" in Volume II]:

    "The principles of Christianity naturally prompt Christian slave-holders to actual manumission. The number of slave-holders before Constantine was very limited among Christians, who were mostly poor. Yet we read in the Acts of the martyrdom of the Roman bishop Alexander, that a Roman prefect, Hermas, converted by that bishop, in the reign of Trajan, received baptism at an Easter festival with his wife and children and twelve hundred and fifty slaves, and on this occasion gave all his slaves their freedom and munificent gifts besides. So in the martyrology of St. Sebastian, it is related that a wealth Roman prefect, Chromatius, under Diocletian, on embracing Christianity, emancipated fourteen hundred slaves, after having them baptized with himself, because their sonship with God put an end to their servitude to man. Several epitaphs in the catacombs mention the fact of manumission. In the beginning of the fourth century St. Cantius, Cantianus, and Cantiannilla, of an old Roman family, set all their slaves, seventy-three in number, at liberty, after they had received baptism. St. Melania emancipated eight thousand slaves; St. Ovidius, five thousand; Hermes, a prefect in the reign of Trajan, twelve hundred and fifty....These legendary traditions may indeed be doubted as to the exact facts in the case, and probably are greatly exaggerated; but they are nevertheless conclusive as the exponents of the spirit which animated the church at that time concerning the duty of Christian masters." (ibid)

         Let us look at Philemon 15-19 "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back not to mention that you owe me your very self." This verse is another proof that the Bible (1) Looks as slaves as sub humans or animals as was shown in Exodus 23:12 and Leviticus 25:46, (2) A slave is a despised person that he will never ever be recognized as a normal human being unless he becomes a Christian. If the slave refuses to become a Christian, then he will never gain his freedom, and he will never be even looked at as a human being; he must always be treated as an animal by the Christians.

    Let us look at 1 Corinthians 7 "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave." In this verse, Paul was asking the person "Were you a slave?" meaning Were you something bad and not normal?

    Also "...if you can gain your freedom, do so... (1 Corinthians 7)" which means that the New Testament will not help anyone nor will call any Christian to fight for the rights of any slave to be freed. The slave will simply have to either live as a slave and die as a slave, or fight for his freedom against Christians.

    Let us look at 1 Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

    Since we have already disproven Osama's English translation only slave argument let us present the true meanings of these verses:

    We do find statements that 'move' the church away from general slave-system orientation:

    1.Paul explicitly denounces slave-trading, which would have restricted the supply of slaves to Christian households [1 Tim 1.9-10]
    2.Paul tells free people to NOT become slaves [1 Cor 7.23]
    3.Paul tells slaves to become free, if they can [1 Cor 7.21]
    4.Paul encourages Philemon to 'free' Onesimus in that epistle [verse 21] (ibid)

    Paul talked against slavery which is clearly seen from these examples. I encourage all to read Glen Millers article's on slavery. He is an expert on Old and New Testament issues such as this one. Even in 1 Timothy 6:1 the word for mistranslated for slave is Doulos which is used in the Greek Bible for servant and never to mean slave. Infact Osama is intentionally lying and misrepresenting what the NIV mistranslates as slave. He assumes first that since slavery in the 1400's was harsh, that so-called Bible slavery was the same way.

    Let us look at 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

    Let us look at Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

    Lets see if this actually mean slaves, read:

    It should be apparent from this detail that these two systems are hardly comparable, and one could wonder along with Usry and Keener if we should even call these by the same name[TH:DBF:37] :

    "The slaveholders [of the New World period] severely misrepresented Paul. First, Paul was addressing nonracial Roman household slavery, a situation quite different from the slavery practiced in the Americas. Household slaves had greater opportunities for freedom, status and economic mobility than did the vast majority of free peasants in Paul's day; one wonders whether the same term should apply to both U.S. slavery and Roman household slavery."

    [The Roman term was actually servus, from which we get "servant", and many bible translations used this word rather than "slave" for the relevant translation. The English word "slave" comes from the middle Latin "Slav"; the connection being that during the eastward expansion of the Germans in the Middle Ages the Slav populations were enslaved or destroyed, something much closer to the horror of New World slavery.](Ibid)

    Exactly how can we use the word slave which is from the Middle ages denoting white slavic populations for Yellow skinned Jewish people, or Dark African people? Maybe Osama can answer this for us.

    The history of the Church allowing and promoting Slavery:

    This section was sent to me by brother Muhammad; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

    From: http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/slavery.htm

    ...It was this Church that initially ordered the slavery of Africans - the Africans who were enslaved were Muslims!

    In 1457, the Council of Cardinals met in Holland where they sanctioned, as a righteous and progressive idea, the enslavement of Africans for the purpose of their conversion to Christianity and exploitation in the labor market as chattel property. This satanic scheme speedily gained the sanctimonious blessing of the Pharaoh (Pope) and became a standard policy of the Catholic Church, and later of the Protestant churches, enduring for three centuries: thus the ghastly traffic in human misery was anointed with the oil of pontifical righteousness in Jesus' name.

    A bull of Pharaoh Nicholas 5th instructed his followers to `attack, subject, and reduce to perpetual slavery the Saracens, Pagans and other enemies of Christ, southward from Cape Bojador and including all the coast of Guinea'.

    In fact, most of the Africans who were caught up in the Atlantic slave trade came from West Africa, an area roughly from Senegal River in the north to the Congo River in the South.

    But why were West Africans specifically targeted ? Because they were Muslim.

    Osama for some reason tries to convince us that the reason for abduction of slaves in Africa is due to the fact that they were Muslim. It's funny how Arabs try to tell me (African American) how our history is supposed to be. Well lets give you a true historical account of slavery:

    It is true that there is a lot of anti-black racism in Britain, and sadly some churches and misguided Christians have at times allowed other people's anti-Black and anti-poor attitudes to mould them. The Bible, though, tells us to love the poor, the stranger, the foreigner and the defenceless. After all, the Lord Jesus Christ was Himself a child refugee in Africa (Matthew 1-2).

    To equate Biblical Christianity with anti-Black racism is absurd. We must remember that Moses, the prophet, married an African, and God was angry at the racism of Moses' own sister Miriam. In fact, God punished her with leprosy for seven days (see Numbers 12). The God of the Bible hates racism.

    Yet what puzzles me is how Black people in Britain are jumping so easily into what I believe is a real racist religion: Islam.

    *A Disturbing Question Concerning the Muslim QUR'AN

    Take for instance the Muslim holy book the Qur'an, which says:

    The question which I ask as a black man is why is white equated with goodness and black equated with evil? (see Yusuf Ali, footnote 432)

    *A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim HISTORY

    As an African I am also very puzzled at the lack of balanced historical research by Muslims concerning the African people.

    In North Africa we know that the whole Saharan region of Morocco, Libya, Algeria and Egypt to the Sudan and Ethiopia used to be Christian, before Islam came and destroyed the local churches. Why do we not hear about it in Muslim literature?

    And consider this: Africa produced great thinkers like Augustine of Hippo (Algeria), Clement and Athanasius of Egypt, and Tertullian of Carthage (Tunis), while Ethiopia had the first African church totally independent of Europe (Acts 8). In fact, I find it most interesting that an African church was planted first before there was ever a church in Britain, Canada, the USA or Spain, or any other European state. So why do we not hear of this African church, and why do we not continue to see any remnants of it today?

    Perhaps we need to go to the Qur'an again to find the clue. Consider this verse in Sura Tauba, 9:5:

    It fits the pattern of Islam which fights against all those who choose to follow their own beliefs, an idea we find well expressed in Sura Imran, 3:28:

    The history of the Sudan is a case in point. Before the Muslim invasion of 1275 A.D. by the Islamic Mamluks of Egypt, the Sudan had three mini-Christian states called:

    NOBATIA in the north, the capital of Qustul,
    MAKURIA, the capital of old Dongola, and
    ALODIA or ALWA, the capital of Soba.

    These three Christian countries, from 300 A.D. to 1500 A.D. had their own written language, great centers of learning, international commerce with Egypt, Ethiopia and other Middle East states, and sent out missionaries to other African states (see K. Milhalowski,Faras, vol.2, Poland, 1965 for extensive archaeological and historical documentation on these states).

    Even the Arab, ibn Selim al-Assuani, was impressed when he saw Soba, describing it as having, ...fine buildings, roomy houses, churches, and the land is more fruitful than Makuria...[and it has] much meat, and good horses.

    But all this was destroyed by Muslim invaders in 1275 A.D., not European colonialists! The same type of massive destruction happened all over Africa, yet we never hear anyone holding the Muslims responsible! Why? Arab Muslim racism is just as obnoxious as that of the Europeans, so why is it allowed to continue?

    For it is continuing. In the 1990's Sudan in north-east Africa has been suffering a Muslim jihad-war, whereby thousands of Christians and unbelievers have died, many by crucifixion, or have suffered by having their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off. Is it only coincidental that we find in the Qur'an, Sura 5 (the Table Spread) verse 33, the sanction for this very practice?

    While this is going on, Muslim states have never once told off the Islamic government of Khartoum. Why the silence? Yet there has always been a lot of noise about the apartheid of the old South Africa. Why the double standard?

    *A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim SLAVERY

    That then brings me to the question of slavery. Muslims say it is only a Christian phenomenon. Yet while the British Empire was abolishing slavery under pressure from British Christians like David Livingstone and William Wilberforce, Arab Muslims were enslaving Africans (i.e. following the promise by Allah concerning the (captives) that your right hand possesses from Sura Nisaa, 4:3). Have you not read about the islands of Zanzibar and Pembe in East Africa, during the nineteenth century? Or have you not questioned why Muslim countries have never been involved in the movement for the abolition of slavery?

    Let me set the record straight. While Europeans were involved with the slave trade for a few hundred years, the existence of the traffic of African slaves had been well established one-thousand years before.

    The Muslim position which places the entire blame for the invention and practice of black slavery at the door of Christian Europe, is simply not historically tenable. Both the Grecian and Roman societies were slave states, yet most of their slaves were Caucasian. In fact, the word slave meant a person who was of Slavic origin. Robert Hughes, in his essay on The Fraying of America in the February 3, 1992 issue of Time magazine corrects this false impression when he says:

    "The African slave trade as such, the black traffic, was an Arab invention, developed by traders with the enthusiastic collaboration of black African ones, institutionalized with the most unrelenting brutality, centuries before the white man appeared on the African continent, and continuing long after the slave market in North America was finally crushed... Nothing in the writings of the Prophet [Muhammad] forbids slavery, which is why it became such an Arab-dominated business. And the slave traffic could not have existed without the wholehearted cooperation of African tribal states, built on the supply of captives generated by their relentless wars. The image promulgated by pop-history fictions like Roots - of white slavers bursting with cutlass and musket into the settled lives of peaceful African villages - is very far from the historical truth. A marketing system had been in place for centuries, and its supply was controlled by Africans. Nor did it simply vanish with Abolition. Slave markets, supplying the Arab Emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the 1950's; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in Mauritania and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger."

    The argument by some Muslims that slavery was God's way of converting Africans to Islam, is much the same argument suggested by certain misguided Christians in the 19th century who said that, bringing Africans to America gave them the opportunity to hear the Gospel; an argument which holds no credibility in the Bible, and dishonours the character of God.

    Unfortunately Islam still hasn't learned, as today the slavery of foreign nationals still exists in the heartland of Islam: Saudi Arabia. (UN Report on Slavery, 1994)

    *A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim CULTURE

    Muslims claim that the Christian West wishes to control Africa. Yet why is it that we Africans must not like the Coca Cola culture of the West, but we are obliged to start wearing seventh century Arab dress once Islam is taken on? What's wrong with my good African cultural dress? And why is it that Black African Muslims are obliged to pray facing a Saudi Arabian city: Mecca? Who is dominating who? Why not face the local town (i.e. Nairobi or Lusaka, etc.)? I thought God was everywhere, and that prayer should be directed to Him who lives in heaven above the earth. Remember, Jesus, the Truth once said I am from above, you are from beneath.

    Furthermore, why are we required to read God's word and speak to Him only in Arabic? Does God only speak Arabic? Is He not capable of understanding my African language? Thank God that the Holy Bible is now in over 2,000 known languages around the world. Because I know my God is able to speak every language. It's not a problem for Him.

    *Conclusion

    This letter has been written out of love--love for the truth, even when it hurts. The Bible tells us that we African people have a tremendous African heritage, which at times in our history has been hijacked. Yet God is our creator and He believes in us. After all, He chose Adam and Eve to be the African people's first parents.

    God has also used Africa for other purposes, such as allowing Egypt to be a refuge for the Jews at the time of Joseph (Genesis 39-50). And when God (Jesus) became incarnate as a man, He took refuge in Egypt, Africa, during part of His childhood. Ethiopia, another African state, has possessed the Bible in her own language for many centuries, even before Islam began.

    In the future place of Heaven we are told many nations are there, including African ones (Revelation 21:24). The Bible, furthermore, tells us that we (all nations) are set free in the blood of Jesus, who died on the cross and was raised from the dead.

    Unlike the God of the Qur'an, Jesus never ordered any Christians to kill for Him or to take (the captives) that your right hand possesses. Everyone was given the choice to choose Him or reject Him. Throughout the Bible we find God saving all that call upon His name (the name of Jesus). This included the Ethiopian of Jeremiah 38-40 and the Ethiopian in Acts 8, and it includes me and you today.

    Now that I have asked my questions, you too ask yours. Who indeed has helped me as an African the most: Islam or Christianity? You need to choose wisely, because your life depends on it.

    Brother Banda

    So we must ask Muslims this question, what exactly was Islam defending when they crossed into Africa destroying the churches inslaving Christians and turning their temples into Mosques? Osama always gives us the after Islamic affect of slavery but we must wonder why didn't he elaborate on any of Islam's intrusion into Africa. Since I myself is a black man, this makes me hate Islam more and more. Christianity never came into Africa enslaving people, all Osama can do is present us with Middle Age practices who actually bought slaves from the so-called Muslim African states for wine!! Get that, and I thought wine was of Satan. So far these Muslims didn't think so.

    Livingstone's early, well-publicized attacks on slavery focused almost wholly on the Atlantic, European trade. This was to be expected, as this was the kind of slavery best known to the British. But as the explorer continued to run into slave caravans, he noted they weren't going west at all, but east.

    By 1861 he also noticed the Portuguese traders he encountered were becoming outnumbered by Arabs. Arabs had been taking African slaves since the time of Christ but not on a large scale for the nineteenth century. While as many as one-third of the slaves sent through Mozambique went to the French plantations, the remainder were now being sent to Turkey, Iraq, Arabia, and Persia. Most sold for $100 (ten times the buying price), but attractive young girls, sold as concubines to harems, regularly fetched as much as $500.

    Livingstone recognized the African Catch-22: the only thing that could stop African slavery was "legitimate commerce," which required extensive exploration and the zealous westernizing of the natives. However, the deeper into Africa Livingstone explored and civilized, the more access he gave the slave traders. Then, as the slave trade increased, both exploring and converting Africa became more difficult.

    "The slave trade must be suppressed as the first great step to any mission," he wrote. "That baffles every effort."(The Evil that Baffled Reformers African slavery thwarted every effort to eradicate it. by Ted Olsen, Christian History, Fall 1997)

    Notice how slave trade was conducted after Christ by Arabs!!! The people whom the Quran claims to have produced Muhammad!!! Even Muhammad was a racists himself.

    Muhammad the Racist against Black people!!

    Black skin and Creation:

    "Abu Darda reported that the HOLY PROPHET SAID: Allah created Adam when he created him (sic). Then He stroke (sic) his right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were seeds, and He stroke (sic) HIS LEFT SHOULDER and took out a BLACK RACE as if they were coals. Then He said to those who were in his right side: Towards paradise and I don't care. He said to those who were ON HIS LEFT SHOULDER: Towards Hell and I don't care. - Ahmad" (Mishkat ul-Masabih, translated by Karim, v. iii, p. 117)

    Osama comments:

    The above doesn't in anyway suggest that black people are destined for hell, nor they come from the trustful Sayings of our beloved Prophet in "Sahih Bukhari", "Sahih Muslim" and "Sunan Abu Dawud" volumes! The quotes don't at all come from reliable Islamic resources. I'd like to see this quote existing in any of the volumes that I mentioned. Anyone can come up with a book and make up a lie against our Prophet peace be upon him.

    Response:

    For one thing Osama fells to tell us that the Mishkat is also a reliable account of the sayings of Muhammad.

    From the host of Tradition-collectors, Muslim scholars have singled out six of some 1 465 collections as being the "correct books" (Sihahu's-Sittah):

    1.al-Bukhari 256 A.H. (After the Hegira, i.e. A.D. 622)
    2.Muslim 261 A.H.
    3.at-Tirmize 279 A.H.
    4.Abu-Da'ud 275 A.H.
    5.Abu-Abdi'r-Rahman 303 A.H.
    6.Abu Abdi'llah Muhammad 273 A.H.

    In addition must be mentioned the Mishkat (or "Mishkat-ul-Masabih").

    "being a collection of most authentic sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad selected from the most reliable collections of Hadis literature" by al-Baghawi.

    Not only is the Miskat mentioned as the collection of authentic says from each of the most correct books or Hadiths of Islam we see that:

    Hadith prophecies about Islam

    It should be made clear that these prophecies form a wonderful system, and studded with the jewels of subtle knowledge, fine points and hidden matters, they have been conveyed in an eloquent scheme and orderly arrangement of the highest degree, to the great glory of which man cannot make an approach. For instance, those prophecies are given first which refer to the period of the rise of Islam. {Note 2)

    Translator's Note 2: The reference is to the overthrow of the Sasanid (Persian) and the Byzantine (Roman) empires by Muslim conquest; Chosroes and Caesar being, respectively, titles of the heads of these empires. The hadith report referred to may be found in Mishkat al-Masabih , Book of Fitan, chapter II, section I. (http://www.muslim.org/books/testi-hq/ch1.htm#r2)

    All correct Hadiths are represented in the Mishkat therefore Osama has no case. As for Ibn Ishaq, this is the earliest biography of Muhammad, is the true biography and it predates the Hadith by 125 years. You couldn't learn about Muhammad's true life with Ibn Ishaq. There we see that Osama's lie about these books being incorrect is based on his inability to answer our page.

    This is absolutely unbelievable!!! So Black people in Allah's left shoulder is worthy only of hell!!! We see no mention of this on Muslim websites!! We wonder why? This hadith seems racist in its report of creation. All Muslims know that the right hand is the hand for eating and greeting. The left is for `other' matters. The right shoulder of Adam saw the white folks emerge. The black folks came from his left. The white race is called `seeds'. Seeds grow and produce. The black race is compared to coals which are used to produce heat by burning. This is shown about those going to heaven and hell where they will either flourish or burn. It is difficult to resist the impression that Allah appears to be a racist. Notice that in Islam left handed people are considered weird and strange. Look what you must do with your left hand in Islam:

    Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 155:

    Narrated Abu Qatada:

    Allah's Apostle said, "Whenever anyone of you drinks water, he should not breathe in the drinking utensil, and whenever anyone of you goes to a lavatory, HE SHOULD NEITHER TOUCH HIS PENIS NOR CLEAN HIS PRIVATE PARTS WITH HIS RIGHT HAND."

    And,

    Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 156:

    Narrated Abu Qatada:

    The Prophet said, "Whenever anyone of you makes water he should not hold his penis or clean his private parts with his right hand. (And while drinking) one should not breathe in the drinking utensil ."

    This clearly shows us that to touch your penis in Islam you must use your left hand!! But wait, Muhammad said that Black people were created on the left side, where your left hand exists. This means according to Islam black people are only good for cleaning your penis and private parts with!! Unbelievable!!

    FROM IBN ISHAQ'S "SIRAT RASULALLAH", translated as, "THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD" by A. Guillaume, page 243.

    "I have heard that it was of him that the apostle said, "Whoever wants to see Satan let him take a look at Nabtal b. al-Harith!" He was a study black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks. He used to come and talk to the apostle and listen to him and then carry what he had said to the hypocrites. It was he who said: "Muhammad is all ears: if anyone tells him anything he believes it." God sent down concerning him: "And of them are those who annoy the prophet and say he is all ears, Say: God ears for you. He believes in God and trusts the believers and is a mercy for those of you who believe; and those who annoy the apostle of God for them there is a painful punishment." (Sura 9:61)

    Out of all the people, Muhammad picked out a peculiar looking black man and said that Satan looked like him! Muhammad said that Satan looks like a Negro! Certainly there were unusual looking Arab men in the area, but Muhammad picked out a black man as the image of Satan. Why? Because he was a racist!!

    In his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers", Dr. 'Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says (pp. 51,52),

    "Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other - it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner."

    The text is plain that all prisoners of war must either be killed or become slaves. The ancient scholars are in full agreement over this issue, such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn Hisham, Malik etc. Ibn Timiyya says (Vol. 32, p. 89),

    "The root of the beginning of slavery is prisoners of war; the bounties have become lawful to the nation of Muhammad."

    Then (Vol. 31, p. 380), he indicates clearly and without shame,

    "Slavery is justified because of the war itself; however, it is not permissible to enslave a free Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity.

    I would like here to quote Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya who is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam. In his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), he says,

    "Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out.

    A Slave Is Not Entitled To Property Or Money

    Ibn Hazm says in Vol. 6, Part 9,

    "The slave is not permitted to write a will when he dies, nor can he bequeath (anything) because his entire possessions belong to his master."

    In part I, p. 180 of his book, "The Ordinances of the Qur'an", the Shafi'i also says,

    "The Qur'anic verse; `Marry of the women who seem good to you, two or three or four are meant for the freeman only and not for the slaves because he says in it that the one who acts fairly is the person who owns money and slaves do not own money."'

    He also indicates in Part II, p. 21, "The owned one does not have money." Besides, according to the Islamic law, all Muslims receive portions of war bounty except slaves and women. Malik Ibn Anas says (Vol. 2, Part 3, pp. 33,34),

    "Slaves and women do not have any portion in the bounty."

    This is true even if they have been fighting with the rest of the Muslims. In Part III of the "Prophetic Biography" (p. 386), Ibn Kathir says,

    "The slave does not get anything from the bounty whether the bounty is money or women."

    The Testimony Of The Slave Is Not Admissible

    In Vol. 35, p. 409 Ibn Timiyya remarks,

    "The Shafi'i, Malik, and Abu Hanifa, who are the legists of Islam, assert that the testimony of the slave is not acceptable."

    If we also turn the pages of the "Ordinances of the Qur'an" by the Shafi'i (part II, p. 142), he determines,

    "The witnesses must be from among our freeman, not from our slaves, but from freeman who belong to our religion! "

    The testimony of a Jew or a Christian is not acceptable, as we have mentioned before, even if justice would be hindered for lack of their witness. This is not important. In his "Sahih" (Part III, p. 223), Al-Bukhari remarks,

    How racist can you get. Unlike in the Christian world, Slaves of Islam couldn't even own property or even liberate themselves. This should be enough to suffice on this issue. There is no slavery in Christianity. The word Slave isn't present in the Bible it only comes from translations especially the English ones. We see that Islam is the true religion of slavery. Note, Osama's link also continues dealing with women. We will easily answer this in another article. I wanted to focus on the slavery part only. We see that Osama knows absolutely nothing about the Bible nor History. I am Black and there is no way possible that Osama can even explain anything about slavery to me. The only thing he seen of slavery was probably on the movie roots!! This doesn't make him an expert. It just makes his papers more hilarious each day. God Bless. Osama's link was http://www.answering-christianity.com/slaves.htm

    Appendix

    Here Osama Abdallah claims to have responded to my rebuttal to his slave argument, however when one looks at his reponse we see that he responded only to a certain part of the paper. Notice that he couldn't answer the part on Muhammad's usage of black slaves, Muhammad and Allah's racism, the point on why the slaves were still traded by Arab nations, and the point as to why Muslims intruded into Africa. Lets look at his comments.

    When I looked up the word "bondmen" in www.dictionary.com, I found it to mean:

    1- A male bondservant. (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=bondmen).

    And when I looked up the word "bondservant", I found it to mean: 1- A person obligated to service without wages. 2- A slave or serf.

    (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=bondservant)

    So, how is it possible for the NIV Bible to be in error when they used the word "slave"?

    Ironically, the clown who wrote this from their team is Quennel Gale, an African American Christian. He is obviously pretending to be naive in the English language to cover up for the slavery-promoting Bible.

    Do you know what the word "naive" mean Quennel? (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=naive)

    If you look at Osama's argument, notice that it says Naive from THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The Bible wasn't revealed in English. Also notice that he uses a English dictionary to try and explain away his inability to answer dealing with slaves. the dictionary he uses is based on the English usage slave and bondman. Lets bring up some points that Mr. Osama overlooked dealing with how the Hebrew word bondman means. Notice that his definition mentions a person who works without wages. Lets expose that right now:

    Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you -- for yourself, your manservant and maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, (Lev 25.6)

    Notice above that the bondman and woman was hired by the Hebrews to work, just like a normal person in today's culture. This doesn't fit Osama's Westernized Definition of slavery or bondman. Notice that he so nicely overlooked this part also:

  • In the case of a servant's voluntary choice for lifetime service, the local courts were required to witness the transaction ("But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. " Ex 21.5)
  • That the servant still had full agent status in servitude is obvious from the fact that the servant could "buy himself back" from the master (i.e. "redeem" himself):
    • An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. (Lev 25.49)

    All so-called slaves were in this servanthood because they chose too. They could leave their master anytime they felt like it. And they could by land, and have their own servants. This isn't the definition of Osama's bondmand since it says that the person must work without any wage etc. Still we see no such practice in Islam. Slaves couldn't own property (see section above). Yet we see Osama complain because the Bible allows people to rent themselves to others to feed their families, along with given them equal rights? Such Hypocracy.

    1. New Articles Back to New Section.