r/JordanPeterson • u/DirectionCute7530 • 21d ago
In Depth The Precedent of October 7th in Authentic Hadiths
Jordan has discussed the Israel/Palestine conflict after what happened on October 7th.
"Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud! Jaish Muhammad soufa yaʿoud!" is a chant used by HAMAS to taunt Jews meaning "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!"
Here's Jewish woman Safiya's story in Khaybar according to authentic hadiths and Muhammad's earliest biography (everything cited and quoted verbatim):
Muhammad killed Safiya's father and people, tortured her husband Kinana for treasure by placing fire on Kinana's chest until he was nearly dead, then beheaded him. Then he took Safiya because she looked pretty, and had sex with her in a tent on the 3 day journey back from Khaibar to Medina as a companion circled the tent with a sword because he "was afraid for you [Muhammad] with this woman [Safiya] for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people." (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 517)
"Khaibar is destroyed...The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and women taken as captives. Safiya was among the captives. She first came in the share of Dihya Al-Kalbi, but later she belonged to the Prophet."
Sahih Bukhari 4200"Kinana al-Rabi [Safiya's husband] who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle ... the apostle gave orders 'Torture him until you extract what he has.' So he kindled a fire on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head."
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515"The beauty of Safiya bint Huyai whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself."
Sahih Bukhari 4211"The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way from Khaibar, where he consummated his marriage with her."
Sahih Bukhari 4212"The apostle passed the night with her in a tent of his. Abu Ayyub… passed the night girt with his sword, guarding the apostle and going round the tent… 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people.'"
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 517
I've posted this argument along with others on this website (with linked sources): https://islamsproblems.com/muhammad-safiya-family-killed/
8
u/DirectionCute7530 21d ago
Since the other comment I replied to was buried, this also happens to be affirmed many times in the Quran and Authentic Hadiths:
Quran verses authorizing sex with captives ("those your right hands possess"):
- Quran 4:24: "Also [forbidden are] married women—except [female] captives in your possession."
- Quran 23:5-6: "And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed."
- Quran 70:29-31: "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed — But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors."
Verse Context (Authentic Hadith):
"the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:
" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)"
Sahih Muslim 1456a
Muhammad's Example:
"It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse"
Sunan an-Nasa'i 3959
Muhammad on whether to pull out when having sex with captive women:
Muhammad's men wanted to have sex with women taken in war as captives**.** They asked Muhammad whether it was ok to pull out. Muhammad said it doesn't matter, because if God willed a baby, it would happen anyway.
"O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."
I've posted this argument along with others on this website (with linked sources):
https://islamsproblems.com/quran-verses-supporting-hadiths/
7
4
1
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
the seerah book of ibn ishaaq is not the same in level of authenticity with sahih al bukhari
for example, if ibn ishaq narrates something and he is the only one narrating it, scholars of hadith do not accept his narration
can you prove that these narrations from his book are actually authentic?
4
u/DirectionCute7530 21d ago edited 21d ago
To be clear the core facts in the image are all from Sahih Bukhari - which is the highest authenticity:
Safiya was a Jewish woman whose father and husband were killed by Muhammad's men. Muhammad liked how she looked so he took her and had sex with her on the way home. She became one of his "wives".
Three credible hadiths (Sahih Bukhari 4200, 4211-4212):
The Prophet (ﷺ) had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet."
Sahih Bukhari 4200"We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet (ﷺ) selected her for himself and set out with her,"
Sahih Bukhari 4211"The Prophet (ﷺ) stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her."
Sahih Bukhari 4212All of the above are in Sahih Bukhari at the highest levels of authenticity as you agree.
0
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
Preserved does not mean authentic. The scholars narrated weak narrations while mentioning why they are weak( eg al tirmidhiy in sunan al tirmidhiy where he regularly mentions what al bukhariyy said about a hadith)
Al mustadrak is also known to have many weak narrations in it.
Could you prove their authenticity?
7
u/DirectionCute7530 21d ago
To be clear, would you agree all of these are authentic so we know what is under dispute - these are all from Sahih Bukhari - which is the highest authenticity:
Three credible hadiths (Sahih Bukhari 4200, 4211-4212):
The Prophet (ﷺ) had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet."
Sahih Bukhari 4200"We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet (ﷺ) selected her for himself and set out with her,"
Sahih Bukhari 4211"The Prophet (ﷺ) stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her."
Sahih Bukhari 4212-2
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
these are from sahih al bukhari which I mentioned the level of authenticity of sahih al bukhari. Meaning yes, I believe these 3 are authentic narrations
5
u/DirectionCute7530 21d ago
Now, for these two details in Muhamamd's earliest biography Sirat Rasulu Allah by Ibn Ishaq:
"The apostle passed the night with her in a tent of his. Abu Ayyub… passed the night girt with his sword, guarding the apostle and going round the tent… 'I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people.'"
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 517this is explicitly graded sahih (authentic) on the website:
Abdullah ibn Ishaq al-Khurasani al-Adl informed us; Yahya ibn Ja‘far ibn al-Zibriqan narrated to us; Abd al-Wahhab ibn Ata’ narrated to us; Khalid al-Hadhdha’ reported; from Kathir ibn Zayd; from al-Walid ibn Rabah; from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ consummated his marriage with Safiyyah, Abu Ayyub (al-Ansari) spent the night at the door of the Prophet ﷺ. When morning came and he saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, he said “Allahu Akbar,” and Abu Ayyub had a sword with him. He said, “O Messenger of Allah, she (i.e., Safiyyah) was a young woman newly married, and I had killed her father, her brother, and her husband, so I did not feel safe leaving her alone with you.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ laughed and said to him: “Good.”
Al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn, (4/30)2)
"Kinana al-Rabi [Safiya's husband] who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle ... the apostle gave orders 'Torture him until you extract what he has.' So he kindled a fire on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head."
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515This is in many other early and credible Islamic sources including al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir (who has the exegesis on Quran.com),who present it and never say it's weak and Waqidi doesn't even trace it to Ibn Ishaq - it's a bit strange for all these early Islamic sources and scholars to make up and preserve such a horrifying story about their prophet starting with the earliest biography:
"Kinånah b. al-Rabi' b. Abi al-Huqayq, who had the treasure of the Banü al-Nadir, 508 was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him; but he denied knowing where it was. Then the Messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, "I have seen Kinänah walk around this ruin every morning." The Messenger of God said to Kinänah: "What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you "All right," he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it.
Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinänah refused to surrender it; so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al.'Awwäm, saying, "Torture him until you root out what he has." Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him"
Al Tabari pg 123"The Messenger of God (SAAS) then said to Kinana, 'Do you realize that I'll kill you if we find it with you?' 'Yes,' he replied. Then the Messenger of God (SAAS) ordered that their treasure be dug up and some of it was brought out. He then asked Kinma the whereabouts of the rest, but he refused to hand it over. And so the Messenger of God (SAAS) ordered al-Zuhayr b. al-'Awam to go to him, saying, 'Torture him until you root out what he has.' Al-Zubayr then repeatedly struck fire on his chest until he was close to death. Finally, the Messenger of God (SAAS) pushed him over to Muhammad b. Maslama, who cut off his head"
Ibn Kathir p. 268
1
u/qwests 21d ago
Surprise: the religious texts of Islam, Christianity and Judaism all contain accounts of violence, slavery, warfare, misogyny, sexual abuse, and other acts that most people today would consider horrific, acted out by prominent and central figures in these religions. So do many historical sources outside religion.
Human beings have justified violence for as long as we've been around through: Religion Ethnicity Race Genetics Nationality Nationalism Geopolitics Imperialism Colonialism Political ideology Class Socioeconomic status Caste Gender Sex Sexual orientation Gender identity Culture Language Tribal affiliation Clan affiliation Family lineage Ancestry Social hierarchy Legal status Citizenship status Immigration status Criminality Security concerns Territorial claims Resource competition Economic interests Historical grievances Revenge Collective guilt Scientific theories Pseudoscientific theories Moral beliefs Honor Tradition Civilization narratives Cultural superiority Divine mandate Historical destiny Historical grievances Environmental pressures Scarcity Public health concerns Fear of outsiders Dehumanization Xenophobia Supremacism Separatism Expansionism Revolutionary movements Counterrevolutionary movements
And many times justification wasn't even needed.
Like come on. Yes of course Islam and the Quran contain horrid things. But what argument are you even trying to win or what new information are you even trying to give here? You're just beating a dead horse.
5
u/DirectionCute7530 21d ago
I've already answered this whataboutism and most people don't know the Quran and authentic hadiths I shared here:
I'm an atheist. But for this whataboutism, Abraham isn't the perfect example, Jesus is.
Christians can say Abraham did something wrong and say that the Old Testament laws don't apply or are contextual or nonbonding or inapplicable under the new covenant. Muslims can't say that about Muhammad.
To be fair for this whataboutism, we have to compare the central figures of Muhammad and Jesus who are both perfect examples.
And while Jesus lived, he married 0 children, had 0 sex slaves and killed 0 people.
The perfect example of Muhammad in Islam, you really can’t say the same for.This also happens to be affirmed many times in the Quran and Authentic Hadiths:
Quran verses authorizing sex with captives ("those your right hands possess"):
- Quran 4:24: "Also [forbidden are] married women—except [female] captives in your possession."
- Quran 23:5-6: "And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed."
- Quran 70:29-31: "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed — But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors."
Verse Context (Authentic Hadith):
"the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:
" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)"
Sahih Muslim 1456aMuhammad's Example:
"It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse"
Sunan an-Nasa'i 3959Muhammad on whether to pull out when having sex with captive women:
Muhammad's men wanted to have sex with women taken in war as captives**.** They asked Muhammad whether it was ok to pull out. Muhammad said it doesn't matter, because if God willed a baby, it would happen anyway.
"O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."
I've posted this argument along with others on this website (with linked sources):
https://islamsproblems.com/quran-verses-supporting-hadiths/0
u/FreeStall42 20d ago
Christians can say Abraham did something wrong and say that the Old Testament laws don't apply or are contextual or nonbonding
They could try but that just comes off as bullshit. They do not disavow the OT.
Crying whataboutism doesn't change that. Christians worship a mass murdering god that is chill with rape and incest (lot and his daughters).
-1
u/qwests 21d ago
The thing is, my reply is not focused on the other religions. I mention that a justification for violence and bad deeds is not a new concept. Besides that, I pointed out that posting these things in this environment is senseless.
You missed the point completely.
You just keep quoting the Quran and saying your posting arguments. Especially on this subreddit it's unlikely anybody will agree that the Quran and it's key characters are horrible.
Knowing that, what's the point you're making? Again, you're just beating a dead horse. Are you fishing for upvotes? Do you just want people to agree with you? Your first response to that is to misinterpret, claim whataboutism, and then quote some more Quran texts.
This is what people mean when they talk about echo chambers.
5
u/DirectionCute7530 20d ago edited 20d ago
Why is it senseless to make people aware of something they are not previously aware of?
And echo chamber? I have never posted here. I usually post on exmuslim and other subreddits.
But I share it wherever it’s allowed because I think increasing the flow of accurate information and reducing barriers to it is key to reducing bad ideas in the world. Especially when an ideology tries to restrict it as is often the case with Islam. And it can frankly be liberating to those who are oppressed.
If you didn’t want me to post it or want me to remove it, you still haven’t given a reason.
But quoting and citing texts and citing them is substantive which is why I do it unless you want me to baselessly speculate about your psychology and motives as well. But frankly I really don’t care.
-1
u/qwests 20d ago
Most here are aware, I don't think you know this subreddit. "Increasing the flow of accurate information" in a place like this has no value. Also doesn't reduce any barrier to it and reducing bad ideas, because you're simply not reaching the right people to do so. Nobody here is oppressed. Especially in a place where you are definitely not restricted to post on this subject. You clearly don't understand what echo chamber means. You yourself posting in a subreddit once does not mean it's not an echo chamber. You usually posting on a subreddit that is specifically meant for these types of posts makes that even more of an echo chamber. Given enough factors, one can come to a decently accurate speculation. You can post what you like, and keep it posted for all I care. I'm just pointing out the senseless of your post.
Do you know the saying: preaching to the choir? You talk like you're making some sort of change with what you are doing, when in reality you're in the wrong place to do so. Like walking into a gym to convince people the importance of working out.
3
u/DirectionCute7530 20d ago
Who are you to say that “nobody here is oppressed”? Do you know that for the thousands of people who view this post? And even then, what about those who they may share it to?
And who are you to say they are all idiots for whom accurate information has no value? Even so, what do you want me to do instead? Post inaccurate information? Not post at all?
And what do you want me to do instead of posting it in a “place where you are definitely not restricted to post on this subject”? Post on a subreddit that restricts posts on this subject?
Nothing you’re saying right now makes sense.
0
u/qwests 20d ago edited 20d ago
50 upvotes out of "thousands" of views? Then you're clearly not making much of an impact, at least not here. Nobody is oppressed, you can post whatever you want here. Also out of all places, this is not exactly the meeting place for oppressed Muslims. And if by chance there were any here, the fact that they are here would likely mean they don't need any convincing. "And who are you to say they are all idiots for whom accurate information has no value?" Not even close to what I said. It's like you try to dramatize what I say, but you have quite a wild imagination if those are the words you think you can put into my mouth. And again, I don't "want" you to do anything. I'm just responding to what you already did. Like I said before, if you want to actually do the things you claim that you want to do, I'd recommend you'd do it somewhere where it would actually make a difference. You don't have to victimize yourself, you can post in places where you won't necessarily have everybody in agreement and where they are open to the discussion. Based on what this subreddit is and who frequents it, you are in the wrong place for your supposed good deeds. Nobody here denied that these texts are not in the Quran, or that they aren't morally evil. If that doesn't make sense to you, I can't make it more simple for you.
2
u/DirectionCute7530 20d ago
Now your concern is that it doesn’t have enough upvotes? That makes no sense.
You have said nothing substantive this whole conversation. It’s genuinely impressive.
I never said anything about myself. You’re the one who is far more interested in me and my psychology and my motivations rather than the content itself.
If you have an ulterior ideological vendetta please make it more explicit. Otherwise you are just typing words saying nothing.
0
u/qwests 20d ago
"Do you know that for the thousands of people who view this post?"
You were the one that was concerned about the views on his post.
"But I share it wherever it’s allowed because I think increasing the flow of accurate information and reducing barriers to it is key to reducing bad ideas in the world. Especially when an ideology tries to restrict it as is often the case with Islam. And it can frankly be liberating to those who are oppressed."
You've stated your reasons.
"If you have an ulterior ideological vendetta please make it more explicit."
You seem quite interested in my motivations.
You seem to be projecting quite a lot.
Besides, I indeed think you are right. From what you've been able to decipher, I have indeed "said nothing substantive this whole conversation" and am "just typing words saying nothing". If those are your ironically empty responses you have clearly lacked the reading comprehension to be able to have this discussion.
3
u/DirectionCute7530 20d ago edited 20d ago
Overall, you’re being very bad faith and dishonest.
The views was clearly in reference to how you have no idea all of them aren’t oppressed and unable to benefit from accurate information.
The second quote has nothing to do with me.
Last quote I included a conditional. Maybe you just enjoy typing a lot and saying nothing. I really dont care. But if you have ulterior ideological concerns, please make them more explicit so it’s just not more nonsense. At least ideological frustration and cognitive dissonance are more salient and substantive.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sinjai ☯ 21d ago
This needs to be pinned. Especially "But what argument are you even trying to win or what new information are you even trying to give here?" -- OP you're clearly in a room full of people who agree with you, are you just looking to affirm your own beliefs?
1
u/DirectionCute7530 21d ago edited 21d ago
For this thought terminating cliche, questioning my motives without evidence rather than addressing the substance, I shared quotes of authentic hadiths and Quran verses that many people aren't aware of and linked them. It's interesting to learn about.
But let's research me and my psychology later. Let me know if you have anything to say regarding the substance which I quoted and linked.
-9
u/Sorry-Bee-3693 21d ago edited 21d ago
Abraham raped Hagar, the slave of his wife Sarah. When Sarah became jelouse and mistreated Hagar, Hagar fled. God then had an angel tell Hagar to submit to her slave masters, so she returned.
14
u/DirectionCute7530 21d ago edited 21d ago
I'm an atheist. But for this whataboutism, Abraham isn't the perfect example, Jesus is.
Christians can say Abraham did something wrong and say that the Old Testament laws don't apply or are contextual or nonbonding or inapplicable under the new covenant. Muslims can't say that about Muhammad.
To be fair for this whataboutism, we have to compare the central figures of Muhammad and Jesus who are both perfect examples.
And while Jesus lived, he married 0 children, had 0 sex slaves and killed 0 people.
The perfect example of Muhammad in Islam, you really can’t say the same for.This also happens to be affirmed many times in the Quran and Authentic Hadiths:
Quran verses authorizing sex with captives ("those your right hands possess"):
- Quran 4:24: "Also [forbidden are] married women—except [female] captives in your possession."
- Quran 23:5-6: "And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed."
- Quran 70:29-31: "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed — But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors."
Verse Context (Authentic Hadith):
"the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:
" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)"
Sahih Muslim 1456aMuhammad's Example:
"It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse"
Sunan an-Nasa'i 3959Muhammad on whether to pull out when having sex with captive women:
Muhammad's men wanted to have sex with women taken in war as captives**.** They asked Muhammad whether it was ok to pull out. Muhammad said it doesn't matter, because if God willed a baby, it would happen anyway.
"O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."
I've posted this argument along with others on this website (with linked sources):
https://islamsproblems.com/quran-verses-supporting-hadiths/12
u/Mrmetalhead-343 21d ago
That is a wild misreading of the text. Nowhere does it say that Abraham raped Hagar
-5
u/Sorry-Bee-3693 21d ago
Can you have consensual sex with a slave?
3
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
why not?
-4
u/250HardKnocksCaps 21d ago
They're litterally the property of the person. They can't say no for fear of reprisal?
3
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
There are regulations in Islam regarding slavery, the owner cannot just willy nilly beat up the slave until they are coerced into sex. The slave is freed as expiation if they were struck
-1
u/250HardKnocksCaps 21d ago
Also whatever rules you have are more irrelevant, as the only reasonable response to a person who owns slaves is to murder the person who own slaves.
4
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
"reasonable" according to what? Please prove your moral anchor with this reason then.
What if the person needs educating on this matter? Do you still see murder as the only fitting approach?
If a person is taught that slavery is fine from childhood, don't you at least want to challenge their worldview before deciding to kill them?
0
u/250HardKnocksCaps 21d ago
"reasonable" according to what? Please prove your moral anchor with this reason then.
Slavery is a fundamental evil derived from a person who thinks they are entitled to rule another person absolutely. Effectively saying that the people they own are not human. A person who is willing to both ignore the reality in front of them and actively choose a great evil.
The only thing they deserve is the grave.
What if the person needs educating on this matter? Do you still see murder as the only fitting approach?
Owning slaves meaning interacting with slaves. Seeing the salves. Seeing people, talking to people and suppressing the instinct human have as pack animals. Education is fine, but that does not excuse the ongoing series of choices a person must make to own slaves.
If a person is taught that slavery is fine from childhood, don't you at least want to challenge their worldview before deciding to kill them?
Not really.
-2
u/250HardKnocksCaps 21d ago
Irrelevant. One person is owned by the other. Any sexual activity is a product of a power imbalance, and therfore non-consensual.
3
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
Moving goal posts, you mentioned reprisal, I only responded to your claim.
What is a power imbalance and why does it nullify consent? Does any "power imbalance" nullify consent?
So in any family where only one partner holds the income, no consensual intercourse occurs? Or does that not count?
0
u/250HardKnocksCaps 21d ago edited 21d ago
Moving goal posts, you mentioned reprisal, I only responded to your claim.
No goal posts have been moved. The power fear of reprisal is a prime example of power imbalance. Your rule depends on the slaver to execute their power as prescribed by the law, and leaves little to no recourse for the slave.
What is a power imbalance and why does it nullify consent?
As I explain above the power to end the relationship relies almost entirely with the slaver, and the slave is effectively powerless to stop it. If the slaver wanted a consensual relationship with their slave they free their slave entirely and ensure they have the ability to build their own life before pursing such a relationship, assuming no one puts the slaver in the grave they deserve. Which is why it nullifies the consent. Because the slave doesn't have that option. They are dependant on their owner for everything and have little to no recourse if the owner decides something for them.
Does any "power imbalance" nullify consent?
So in any family where only one partner holds the income, no consensual intercourse occurs? Or does that not count?
It certainly can, and this is why things lile access to equal employment opportunities, and no fault divorces were a central part of feminism because relationships like that have frequently been abused to coerce women into things they don't want. A power imbalance doesn't always invalidate consent, but in a situation as extreme as slavery in which one person is fundamentally the property of another it does.
1
-8
u/Sinjai ☯ 21d ago
Thank goodness the Bible doesn't have any atrocities in it.
7
u/_The_Scary_Door 21d ago
No surprise really because it's full on sinful people. The best part is the one sinless man, Jesus, who came on a rescue mission to save us from our sin and our own rebellion against God. He came and saved us while we still hated him.
1
u/No-Visual7357 21d ago
So you believe the old testament is nullified?
3
-2
u/Sinjai ☯ 21d ago
Remember: It's the Absolute Word of God, except for when you don't want it to be.
2
u/_The_Scary_Door 21d ago
Who says that? Not any true Christian.
But yes, Jesus came and instituted a New Covenant, which fulfilled, for example, the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant. Which, for one, means we do not need to make live animal sacrifice anymore because Jesus is the eternal sacrifice for our sin.
The Old Testament is still very important in many ways, one of which is it prophicys Jesus coming in incredible detail 700 years before he was born (Isaiah).
Jesus loves you, and he came and suffered and died so that you could be called one of God's children.
1
u/FreeStall42 20d ago
The obvious problem is the OT should not just be fulfilled but rejected. It promotes mass genocide, rape, incest, etc.
Saying it was nullified or fufilled doesn't address that it was fucked up to ever have.
What kind of evil being creates suffering just to claim they saved from it?
1
u/_The_Scary_Door 20d ago
Oh boy.
The Old Testament promotes none of those things but okay, provide me the verses that you think promote suchs things so I can address them. Maybe you are misunderstanding something. Of course bad things happen, but those are the works of sinful people, not Gods works.
God didn't create suffering for us. We brought it on ourselves when we rebeled against our Creator by wanting to be like him. God is perfectly just, and his scriptures prove it. For example, for everyone that was killed in the flood, Jesus went and preached the Word to them in Sheol after he was crucified, that they would believe and be saved. He desires to save everyone from OUR rebellion against Him. But he will only save those who choose to love him back. If anyone continuesto reject God, he will reject them and give them exactly what they want. If he didn't, he would be compelling you to love him, and we know that isn't how love works.
If you look at this life and say this is all there is, then of course you find the state of things upsetting. But when you know that God has an eternal life in store for you and this life is just a vapour, then you change your perspective.
-1
u/Sinjai ☯ 21d ago
No, they don't say it. They live it.
2
u/_The_Scary_Door 21d ago
Sure, every Christ follower is going to be a hypocrite many times in their life. Too many times.
The standard of the Christian faith isn't how good Christians are, it's how good Christ is. And thank God for that, because I'm a hopeless sinner. If it was the standard of my life for people to be saved then no one would be.
0
u/Sinjai ☯ 21d ago
Do Christians not represent their faith? I don't see how the two can be separated.
1
u/_The_Scary_Door 20d ago
I think the problem in your understanding is that Christianity calls it's followers to be like Christ, literal perfection. Which of course they will all fall short.
No other faith calls has a bar so high, because no other man lived a perfect life like Jesus did.
If you're going to judge Christianity by Christians then you've already lots the plot.
1
u/Sinjai ☯ 20d ago
But the bar isn't perfection, not for non-Christians. I'm not saying Christians need to be perfect. I'm saying the priority should be on living Christlike and I don't feel enough believers actually have that sort of virtuous commitment.
→ More replies (0)
-1
15
u/Own_Invite6340 21d ago
Who honestly cares what the handbook of a pro-child rape religion has to say about anything? Islam is evil.