universallyvoidbird - Tumblr blog

universallyvoidbird · 2 years ago

Note

By the way another thing:

What about Philemon? Isn't that Paul's clearest condemnation of slavery?

So in the book of Philemon, Paul is writing a letter Philemon and brings up his slave, Onesimus, who Paul appears to be acquainted with. Paul appears to ask Philemon to welcome back Onesimus not as a slave, but as a brother:

15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever. 16 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 fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.

So the important thing to note here, is that Paul is very specifically referring to Onesimus. He never implies that this is a universal request for all slaves to be freed. Just because he asked for his slave friend not to be a slave anymore doesn't mean that this somehow invalidates everything the bible says about slavery.

In conclusion, the bible explicitly allows slavery. The old testament law allowed the Israelites to purchase slaves from other nations, own them as a property that they could pass onto their children, and they could even beat them as long as they didn't die. The new testament never clearly establishes that slavery is now immoral and no longer allowed, although Paul does appear to be much friendlier toward slavery and even condemns slave trading, however he falls short of condemning owning people as property as immoral and never claims that God no longer allows it lmao.

>While Leviticus 25:44 seems like it might contradict this notion, nowhere does the Torah state that this is forced or chattel slavery, like the kind of slavery that the Israelites endured in Egypt

Native Hebrew speaker weighing in here! It kinda does. Here's the relevant quotes (using King James):

Leviticus 25:39

>וְכִֽי־ יָמ֥וּךְ אָחִ֛יךָ עִמָּ֖ךְ וְנִמְכַּר־ לָ֑ךְ לֹא־ תַעֲבֹ֥ד בֹּ֖ו עֲבֹ֥דַת עָֽבֶד׃

> And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:

The quote here says that if one of your 'brothers' (אָחִ֛יךָ) is poor and is sold (וְנִמְכַּר) to you, you should not make him work (תַעֲבֹ֥ד בֹּ֖ו) the work of a slave (עֲבֹ֥דַת עָֽבֶד). Note here that this does not say that the person is the one selling himself to you; it very specifically says your brother "is sold" to you. Also note the specific word used: "**עָֽבֶד**". This word unambiguously means slave. It's the same word used to describe Israelite slavey in Egypt.

Leviticus 25:40

>כְּשָׂכִ֥יר כְּתֹושָׁ֖ב יִהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֑ךְ עַד־ שְׁנַ֥ת הַיֹּבֵ֖ל יַעֲבֹ֥ד עִמָּֽךְ׃

>*But* as an hired servant, *and* as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, *and* shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:

So the command so far is that if your brother is poor, you should *not* make him a slave. Instead, you should make him something different: a "שָׂכִ֥יר". This word means "one who is hired", like an employee, and we still use it to mean employee in Hebrew today. So very clear: there are two separate categories here, "עָֽבֶד" or slave which is not OK to do to your brother, and "שָׂכִ֥יר" or hired man which is. (Indentured servitude would be more like "שָׂכִ֥יר".)

Leviticus 25:41

>וְיָצָא֙ מֵֽעִמָּ֔ךְ ה֖וּא וּבָנָ֣יו עִמֹּ֑ו וְשָׁב֙ אֶל־ מִשְׁפַּחְתֹּ֔ו וְאֶל־ אֲחֻזַּ֥ת אֲבֹתָ֖יו יָשֽׁוּב׃

>And *then* shall he depart from thee, *both* he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.

More instructions on how to treat a "שָׂכִ֥יר" or hired man.

Leviticus 25:42

>כִּֽי־ עֲבָדַ֣י הֵ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־ הֹו��ֵ֥אתִי אֹתָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם לֹ֥א יִמָּכְר֖וּ מִמְכֶּ֥רֶת עָֽבֶד׃

>For they *are* my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.

And here is the justification. Why can't you make your brothers your slaves? Is it because slavery is wrong? No: it's because they are already slaves to god - "עֲבָדַ֣י" is a conjugated form which means "my slaves". In modern times we translate this word as 'servants' in the context of servitude to god, because most people see the word 'slave' with a negative connotation. But the word here does not mean servant, it means slave.

Leviticus 25:43

>לֹא־ תִרְדֶּ֥ה בֹ֖ו בְּפָ֑רֶךְ וְיָרֵ֖אתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶֽיךָ׃

>Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.

This translation is pretty wonky, and obscures the meaning. "Rigour" is not a direct translation of "פָ֑רֶךְ". The words, ״עבודת פרך״, while they can be transliterated into 'work with rigor', really mean extremely hard labor. The words here are a reference to another instance of the same phrase: Exodus, where it is used many times. Here's an example:

Exodus 1:14

>וַיְמָרְר֨וּ אֶת־ חַיֵּיהֶ֜ם בַּעֲבֹדָ֣ה קָשָׁ֗ה בְּחֹ֙מֶר֙ וּבִלְבֵנִ֔ים וּבְכָל־ עֲבֹדָ֖ה בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה אֵ֚ת כָּל־ עֲבֹ֣דָתָ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־ עָבְד֥וּ בָהֶ֖ם בְּפָֽרֶךְ׃

>And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, *was* with rigour.

Basically, this means extremely hard labor, and is often seen to be cruel when imposed upon slaves. This is precisely the type of slavery the Israelites suffered in Egypt (and uses the same words to describe it.)

Back to Leviticus 25:44:

>וְעַבְדְּךָ֥ וַאֲמָתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִהְיוּ־ לָ֑ךְ מֵאֵ֣ת הַגֹּויִ֗ם אֲשֶׁר֙ סְבִיבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם מֵהֶ֥ם תִּקְנ֖וּ עֶ֥בֶד וְאָמָֽה׃

>Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, *shall be* of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Once again, the translation here as "bondmen" is just modern interpretation. The word used here is "**וְעַבְדְּךָ֥**". Remember the word from earlier "**עָֽבֶד**"? This is the same word, just conjugated differently. It means "and (**וְ**) slaves (**עַבְדְּ**) of you all (**ךָ֥**). The other word, "וַאֲמָתְךָ֖", is the same thing, but means 'female slave'. So the command is clear: unlike your brothers, who must not be made slaves (**עָֽבֶד**) and made to do hard labor (״עבודת פרך״) as the Israelites did in Egypt, others *can* be made slaves (**עָֽבֶד**).

Leviticus 25:45

>וְ֠גַם מִבְּנֵ֨י הַתֹּושָׁבִ֜ים הַגָּרִ֤ים עִמָּכֶם֙ מֵהֶ֣ם תִּקְנ֔וּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִמָּכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֹולִ֖ידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶ֑ם וְהָי֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה׃

>Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that *are* with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Here's a further clarification: you don't just have to get these slaves from anywhere, you can buy slaves from strangers (that is, non-Israelites) that live among you. These slaves will be your property – **NOT** your hired men ("שָׂכִ֥יר").

Leviticus 25:46

>וְהִתְנַחֲלְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֜ם לִבְנֵיכֶ֤ם אַחֲרֵיכֶם֙ לָרֶ֣שֶׁת אֲחֻזָּ֔ה לְעֹלָ֖ם בָּהֶ֣ם תַּעֲבֹ֑דוּ וּבְאַ֨חֵיכֶ֤ם בְּנֵֽי־ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אִ֣ישׁ בְּאָחִ֔יו לֹא־ תִרְדֶּ֥ה בֹ֖ו בְּפָֽרֶךְ׃ ס

>And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit *them for* a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Once again, a clear distinction here: these slaves you take from among non-Israelites are your property forever; their children shall be your childrens' slaves forever. They're not repaying some debt or doing something voluntary, they're born into slavery. But – as the second half of this says again – you should *not* do this against Israelites, nor should you force them to do hard labor (״עבודת פרך״).

So what's the full picture here? It's clear what this section says. Slavery – forced, cruel, slavery of the type done to the Israelites – is prohibited specifically against Israelites because they were your Gods special people. It's specifically permitted to be done to people of other nations. It's OK to keep them as slaves (not servants, hirelings, bondsmen, or whatever – **slaves**). It's OK to force them to do hard labor like the Israelites were forced to do. It's OK to keep them forever, to own them as property, to make their children your slaves, and to keep their bloodline as your family's inheritance forever. It's also specifically OK to buy them (which makes it clear that Exodus 21:16 is more about kidnapping then about slavery). From context, it is clear this is not "voluntary" slavery - if it was, then we might as well say the bible only prohibits "voluntary" murder, and that involuntary murder is never explicitly disallowed.

Liberal muslims on TikTok trying to convince us that Islam is the most feminist safest religion for women where any girl can be a business owner and have her own life while every male muslim believes women are inferior, despite praying will be destined for hell for being female, made to only make children and stay inside a house while those males justify child marriage, abuse and sex slavery is so ironic to see. And it’s harder even to see so many Christians fall for this.

I had watch a brief clip of some guy asking people what they feel when they heard the name of Jesus and the Islam prophet and so many people were emotional for the muslim on. This all feels like a spell to me being castedon the public

Muslims who grown up & live in the West have no room to talk about "feminist Islam" when the countries mistreating women the most are all Muslim. It's no coincidence.

We all know that Western culture is the only thing that keep Muslim men on check. I will never trust them when it comes to talk about female rights or whatever.

It's funny to see Muslims trying to debunk the Aisha being married at 6 saying "oh but the age calculation system was different!!!" when Aisha age was not debated like that in Islam UNTIL Westerners started inquiring them about it (I guess it didn't occur to Muslims that child marriage was a problem until then....) that's why they started resorted to flimsy excuses to not expose themselves as a pedophile enabling cult Soooo they pull out those coping excuses, saying that Aisha was actually twice older than the age described in their book.....which is stupid because you don't see them argue over other Islamic characters age, saying they are twice their described age. Like, WHY Aisha is the only character whose age is with a Islamic age calculation...but others characters' age isn't? 🤔 The math ain't mathing lol

And yeah I think people now are just scared to speak ill of Islam/Mohamed because of terrorism and Muslim overall aggressiveness whenever you dare criticize them. Look at them harassing apostates, and it's worse for ex Muslim converting to Christianism. Say what you want about Christianism, but ex Christians aren't out there changing identity because their family/community would literally KILL THEM for leaving Christianity. I do feel emotional when I hear the name of Mohamed too, but that's because I think of the countless victims his demonic cult did.

33 notes · View notes

universallyvoidbird · 2 years ago

Note

Okay maybe if you didn't block me I wouldn't have to resort to this but kk.

1. Usual Christian tactic of throwing the OT under the bus. Nonetheless these acts were condoned by God.

2. Yes the bible has rules for enslaving fellow Israelites and capturing non-Israelites in battle. I thought that was common knowledge.

3. What's your obsession with Muslims stepping into Western countries? We aren't gargling on your "values" honey. If you have any.

4. How did it rebuke my lie? What do you think they did to those girls? Gave them a warm welcome? You said in your previous posts how they'd "take care" of them, God literally commanded armies to kill CHILDREN and now he's suddenly worried about the welfare of young girls?? And girls specifically. Wowww

5. Exodus talks about beating your slave, you just can't beat them to death. That's not too much to process honey.

6. The word used in Luke is "duolos" which means slave.

7. Paul still condoned slavery. I wouldn't say he was HORRIBLE to slaves but he still advised them to be subservient to their masters and made little effort to go against slavery.

8. No the verse talks about SLAVES. Can you provide me proof that this verse specifically talks about leaders or something? It doesn't matter to me that Paul called himself a slave to Chirst or that the bible said "there is no slave". So what? The bible also says "there is no male or female" yet women are still subjugated LMAO. But yet again the bible is a steaming pile of contradictions and absurd trash soooo ...

9. Yeah you are a Christian, so I would assume you wouldn't read the Quran therefore how can you argue against it? Can you site me proof that taqiyyah is lying about your religion to make it more presentable to non-Muslims? You're sinking faster than the titanic Hon.

10. Yes I do have proof of Aisha being 19, I suggest you read this:

A literal non-Muslim scholar Joshua Little has spoken about this fabrication.

11. Still Mary isn't that big of a deal in the bible that Christians make her out to be. Ruth's entire story is centered around her love-life. Rehab was a great and prominent woman in the bible but still, their roles are downplayed by all the men in it. I looked up 20 of the most amazing women in the bible and half of them were just known as mothers while more attention was focused on their sons. Like Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah (forever known as the woman Jacob didn't love) etc. Also wowww genealogy is talking about sons n fathers how surprising.

12. Because we Muslims feel like WE have to bc you guys have twisted our religion to fit your agenda, all of what's happening in Muslim countries is fairly recent and largely due to war and corrupt governments. It has nothing to do with OUR religion. Islam by far recognizes women and allows them to be active members of societies contributing to much more than just the "domestic sphere" thank you very much.

13. I love how they didn't site a source abt the "small minority Muslim scholars who say the Quran doesn't allow wife beatings" like hello - Ibn Hajr, Ibn Abbas etc.??? Are these suddenly minor scholars? Also they didn't refute the claim abt the verse having a different meaning either they just chose to conveniently ignore it and say OHH WELL ITS NOT THE MAJORITY OPINION SO THEREFORE WRONG!!!

Let's refute the hadiths now:

1. Struck" is a bad translation here. The word used is 'lahaza' , which could be translated as "Push" and at most "slap with an open palm" but not a hard, violent slap (and note translating it as "slap" is weaker and less probable). A correct translation would be:

- He pushed me (lahadani) in the chest (fi sadri) with a push (lahdatan)which made me sore (awja'atni).

It is very interesting to note that "pushing" of the Prophet does indeed convey meaning - usually to drive away evil influence and thought.

- Amir ibn Raba and Sahl ibn Hunayf went out to bathe. Amir took off his woolen robe. He [Sahl] narrates: "I looked at him and I cast the evil eye on him. He went down into the water then I heard a noise coming from him. I called out to him three times but there was no answer. I went to call the Messenger of Allah who came on foot and waded his way in the water. Then he slapped/pushed his chest with his hand, saying: "O Allah! drive away from him its heat and its coolness and its harm." Then he rose up and said: "If one of you sees something that pleases him in his brother - whether in his person or property - let him invoke blessing for him, for the evil eye is a reality." *(Tafsir ibn Kathir)*

Similarly, in a narration it states:

- Ubbay said: There occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected, he slapped/pushed me on the chest. I broke into a sweat and felt as if I were looking at Allah in fear. *(Sahih Muslim)*

*JibreelK comments*:

There is another incident when a man of Quraish was trying to kill the prophet while he was making tawaf around the kaba. He kept getting closer and closer to him, and the prophet was receiving revelation of his intentions. The prophet kept asking him about his intention while this person was denying it but persisted in his goal and would try again. When he got really close to him, the prophet hit him on his chest and all the doubts and disbelief left his heart and he became a believer.

The above examples and poofs go to show that the prophet did not hit Aysha as abuse or as wife beating as the Orientalists claim, he pushed her as to remove any ill doubts or suspicion out of her heart of HIM NOT BEING FAIR TO HER (which is proven by the question he asks her in the hadith). He did the same to some companions and to many others he would put his hand on their heart, and pray for them, push their chest, and other proximity methods in order to remove the doubts or ill thoughts from their heart.

Next hadith:

2. Same bad translation. Yes, Abu Bakr was mad at his daughter, but it says that he pushed her. Abu Bakr was his companion and like all men he made mistakes, so idk what was the point of you bringing this up. I just wanted to clarify that he did not hit her but he was upset with her.

3. Third hadith has a bad isnad, it's matn I.e contents are also questionable therefore it is not authentic. It also goes against other hadiths. Why do you think the scholars issued fatwas on how Muslim women could divorce their husbands if they dont provide enough for them? Lol.

Muslims who grown up & live in the West have no room to talk about "feminist Islam" when the countries mistreating women the most are all Muslim. It's no coincidence.

We all know that Western culture is the only thing that keep Muslim men on check. I will never trust them when it comes to talk about female rights or whatever.

33 notes · View notes