It is an undeniable fact that most of Africa countries were colonized by the west whose religion was basically Christianity. But it is surprising that after their atrocities against Africans, they still claim that Jesus Message was LOVE this should be an irony

The question is; during colonial era, was Love Message of Jesus absent and reappear later

Most of them will avoid this thread like ebola...

The West colonized Africa and much of Asia. Colonialism was about controlling the economic resources of the colonised people and religion played a very minimal role in this process.

The West was more interested in trade and commerce than they were in religion. The slave trade only happened because they needed a cheap source of labour.

The truth is that the West were late comers to Slavery. Arabs had been enslaving black Africans for thousands of years before the transatlantic slave trade and even to this day in Sudan, Mauritania, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia etc black people are still kept as mainly sex slaves by wealthy Arab Muslims. They are given the name "Abd" which means Slave in Arabic.

yazach:
It is an undeniable fact that most of Africa countries were colonized by the west whose religion was basically Christianity. But it is surprising that after their atrocities against Africans, they still claim that Jesus Message was LOVE this should be an irony

The question is; during colonial era, was Love Message of Jesus absent and reappear later

Did they colonize us in the name of christ That said the colonialist were saints compared to mohamed and islamic jihadists.

It's a testimony of the character of the whites (Caucasian) that blacks have risen to the heights in all spheres of human endeavours unlike the Arab world where the black man is still known as Abd(slave),in current day Mauritania, blacks are still slaves ,let none come here and tell me some nonsense! If you want me to chronicle the atrocities of Arabs to the blackman,this thread will be in thousands,a typical example is the recent stampede in Mecca,

Annunaki:


Did they colonize us in the name of christ That said the colonialist were saints compared to mohamed and islamic jihadists.

Tell me that your blackmail against Islam and Muslims is not for Jesus

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
For some reason, I remember Things fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.

yazach:
It is an undeniable fact that most of Africa countries were colonized by the west whose religion was basically Christianity. But it is surprising that after their atrocities against Africans, they still claim that Jesus Message was LOVE this should be an irony

The question is; during colonial era, was Love Message of Jesus absent and reappear later

First, everybody in Europe identified themselves as christian in those days. And you are right to use the word "religion". Anyone can be religious.

Secondly, it happened like this;
Christian missionaries were at times under threat so they wrote back to their countries for provision of security. Or protection. Their mother countries took advantage of it by establishing posts, and later, protectorates, by the permission of African Kings and chiefs.

Third, judge people individually, and according to their fruits. There is obviously a certain expectation you have of Christians, those are the fruits.

Muafrika2:


First, everybody in Europe identified themselves as christian in those days. And you are right to use the word "religion". Anyone can be religious.

Secondly, it happened like this;
Christian missionaries were at times under threat so they wrote back to their countries for provision of security. Or protection. Their mother countries took advantage of it by establishing posts, and later, protectorates, by the permission of African Kings and chiefs.

Third, judge people individually, and according to their fruits. There is obviously a certain expectation you have of Christians, those are the fruits.

In new Zealand australia tasmania they massacred the black it was a holocaust

Not content with killing blacks they began to systematically commit genocide on aboriginals in north n south America

facheux:


In new Zealand australia tasmania they massacred the black it was a holocaust

In South America, some Spanish catholics used the fact that the locals rejected their religion to kill them and take their mineral rich land.

Just to get off topic abit. These are the people who are now claiming human rights Violations and calling on international community (which means the colonial powers) to punish some of the leaders who try to give back land rights to their people. People like (Mandela) who maintain the status quo are hailed as human rights heroes.

And that's why we should be careful with western ideals (liberties/rights, democracy and economic policies) They were designed to protect their pillaging and stolen lands and power. They were not designed for our benefit. Not for the benefit of Africans, Native Americans or any other oppressed peoples. No matter how idealistic it looks on those UN conventions.

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

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

"I give my daughter, Joyce Falkner, present wife of John Falkner, of the county of Fayette and State of Virginia, a negro girl by name of Gemima otherwise called Mima. I give her to the above Joyce together with said Mima's increase forever and for the only use of the said Joyce, to will and dispose of as to her seemeth fit, hereby revoking all other claims of right or title to the said Gemima alias Mima of her increase forever." The 1791 will of Toliver Craig, disposing of his assets (and children of his assets) in the event of his death.

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

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

"I give my daughter, Joyce Falkner, present wife of John Falkner, of the county of Fayette and State of Virginia, a negro girl by name of Gemima otherwise called Mima. I give her to the above Joyce together with said Mima's increase forever and for the only use of the said Joyce, to will and dispose of as to her seemeth fit, hereby revoking all other claims of right or title to the said Gemima alias Mima of her increase forever." The 1791 will of Toliver Craig, disposing of his assets (and children of his assets) in the event of his death.

Slavery is a fact of human existence. Even in our "liberties" as I've shown above, we are all in service. Regardless of race. It just happens the there are bond servants who happen to have more privileges,

Slavery came as a result or in the process of conquest. So you have a whole village of people you just conquered and you are faced with a choice. To enslave or to decimate them (and put them out of their misery). That is how the world has been from the beginning and will always be.

Like I said we are in an age of "civil liberty", but it's just a mantra. A lie that has been repeated so many times that we think is true. There has never been a time when men were are treated equally. And guess what, even in the age to come, when Christ shall take over, there will be an underclass. That is why it's called a Kingdom. It's got kings and it's also got servants.

yazach:


Tell me that your blackmail against Islam and Muslims is not for Jesus

I don't blackmail islam all I do is to merely expose the truth about islam that you muslims hide from the general public to deceive us.

Crazy world slave ship named Jesus dayummmm

"All servants not being Christians, imported into this colony by shipping, shall be slaves for their lives."

Source: Official Act of the Colony of Virginia, 1670. Quoted in David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1966), p. 180.

The truth cannot be suppressed or distorted by lies.

The difference between Christianity and Islam starts at the top: Muslims are told that their prophet Muhammad - a slave-owner, sexual glutton, thief and killer - is the most "beautiful pattern of conduct" and "example" for mankind to follow (Quran 33:21), as well as the "exalted standard of character" (Quran 68:4).

Christians are told to emulate Jesus - a pacifist and servant - and "walk, even as he walked" (1 John 2:6). Unlike Muhammad, who ordered military assaults against Christians, for example, Jesus told his followers not to resort to violence and to pray for one's enemies.

Jesus Christ recognized this (i.e. slavery) institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties. ... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction."

Source: Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, A Scriptural View of Slavery, Culpeper County, Virginia, 1856

facheux:
Jesus Christ recognized this (i.e. slavery) institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties. ... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction."

Source: Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, A Scriptural View of Slavery, Culpeper County, Virginia, 1856

Support it with scripture.

TruthHurts1:


Support it with scripture.

These are quotes from Christians themselves! U should ask them I sourced My info chum

Does Islam condone slavery? Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves?

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.
Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle; he had sex with his slaves; and he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (zero).
Quran

Quran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restricted to four wives, but they may also have sex with any number of slaves, following the example of their prophet.
Quran (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..." This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Quran (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, sex slavery must be very important to him. He was relatively reticent on matters of human compassion and love.

Quran (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Quran (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Quran (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..." Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Quran (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man).

Quran (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means praise be to Allah.' Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case, it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).

Hadith and Sira

Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, 'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'"

Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but they can be used to pay off the debt.

Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval.

Bukhari (34:432) - Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad's approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.

Bukhari (47.765) - A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (34:351) - Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.

Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West (where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime) are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.

Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.

Muslim 4345 - Narration of a military raid against a hapless tribe trying to reach their water hole. During the slaughter, the women and children attempt to flee, but are cut off and captured by the Muslims. This story refutes any misconception that Muhammad's sex slaves were taken by their own volition.

Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.

Bukhari (47:743) - Muhammad's own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command.

Bukhari (59:637) - "The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, 'Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?' When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, 'O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?' I said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'" Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really "wives." This is because Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.

Abu Dawud (2150) - "The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Quran 4:24) 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Quran. Not only does Allah give permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)

Abu Dawud (1814) - "...[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?" The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement.

Ibn Ishaq (734) - A slave girl is given a "violent beating" by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.

Abu Dawud 38:4458 - Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves ("those whom your right hand possesses".

Ibn Ishaq (693) - "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight).

Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled. This would not be necessary if she were widowed by battle, which is an imaginary stipulation that modern apologists sometimes pose.
Notes

Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam's supremacist doctrine.

Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Quran, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin. They limit the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are "good." This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through taking and ransoming hostages, which began under Muhammad.

A tiny verse in one of the earliest chapters, 90:13, does say that freeing a slave is good, however, this was "revealed" at a time when the Muslim community was miniscule and several of their new and potential recruits were either actual slaves or newly freed slaves. Many of these same people, and Muhammad himself, later went on to become owners and traders of slaves, both male and female, as they acquired the power to do so (there is no record of Muhammad owning slaves prior to starting Islam). The language of the Quran changed to accommodate slavery, which is why this early verse has had negligible impact on slavery in the Islamic world.

The taking of women and children as slaves, particularly during the conquests outside Arabia, belies the notion that Jihad was being waged in self-defense, since the enemy's families reside neither with the Muslims nor (generally) on the battlefield. These were innocent people captured from their homes and pressed into slavery by Muhammad's companions and successors.

Contrary to popular belief, converting to Islam does not automatically earn a slave his freedom, although freeing a believing slave is said to increase the master's heavenly reward (Muslim slaves are implied in Quran (4:92)). As far as the Islamic courts are concerned, a master may treat his slaves however he chooses without fear of punishment.

By contrast, Christianity was a major impetus in the abolishment of slavery. Abolition had to be imposed on the Islamic world by the European West.

Given that there have never been abolitionary movement within the Islamic world, it is astonishing to see contemporary Muslims write their religion into the history of abolition. It is a lie.

There was no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islam. As mentioned, Muhammad, the most revered figure in the religion, practiced and approved of slavery. Even his own pulpit was built with slave labor. Caliphs since have had harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu and African lands to serve Islam's religious equivalent of the pope in the most demeaning fashion.

One of Muhammad's closest companions was Umar, who became the 2nd caliph only two years after the prophet of Islam died. It is fair to say that he would have known Islam better than any contemporary apologist - those who say that slaves can only be captured in war and wars can only be waged in self-defense. He obviously did not agree with this.

Under Umar's authority, Arab armies in Egypt invaded Black Africa to the south and attempted to conquer the Christian Makurians who were living there peacefully. Although the Muslims were held off, the Makurians had to sign a treaty to prevent recurring invasions. The terms of the Baqt included an annual payment of 360 "high quality" African slaves. The treaty stood for 700 years with no mention of the slightest opposition from generations of Muslim clerics and scholars.

Umar himself was stabbed to death by a slave whose liberty he refused to grant. In this case, the slave was captured during the campaign against a Persia, one of many offensive wars waged by the Muslims against people who were not attacking them.

Modern day apologists trying to defend slavery under Islam generally ignore the basic fact that reducing people to property is dehumanizing. They distract from this by comparing the theoretical treatment of slaves under Sharia with the worst examples of abuse from the era of European slavery. ("Fatwa 64 from ISIS instructs slave owners to "show compassion" and "kindness" to the women they rape.)

The first problem with this is that the actual practice of Muslim slavery was often remarkably at odds with the relatively humane treatment prescribed by Sharia. For example, according to the Ghanan scholar John Azumah, nearly three times as many captured Africans died in harsh circumstances related to their transport to Muslim lands than were ever even enslaved by Europeans.

A more insurmountable problem for the Muslim apologist who insists that slavery is "different" under Islam are the many examples in which Muhammad and his companions sold captured slaves to non-Muslim traders for material goods. The welfare of the slave was obviously of no consequence.

Some contemporary apologists interpret sex slavery as a favor done to the subject - a way in which women and children are taken care of in exchange for their sexual availability to the pious Muslim male. Although morally repugnant in its own right, this is easily belied by the fact that slavery would be unnecessary if the arrangement were of benefit to the slave.

Another myth about Islamic slavery is that it was not race-based. It was. Muhammad's father-in-law, Umar, in his aforementioned role as caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves and even had all Arab slaves freed on his deathbed. This helped propel the vast Islamic campaign to capture slaves in Africa, Europe and Asia for import into the Middle East.

The greatest slave rebellion in human history took place in Basra, Iraq beginning in 869. A half-million African slaves staged a courageous uprising against their Arab-Islamic masters that lasted fifteen years before being brutally suppressed. (See Zanj Rebellion)

Literally millions of Christians were captured into slavery during the many centuries of Jihad. So pervasive were the incursions by the Turks into Eastern Europe, that the English word for slave is based on Slav.

Muslim slave raiders operated as far north as England. In 1631, a French cleric in Algiers observed the sale of nearly 300 men, women and children, taken from a peaceful English fishing village:

"It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market…Women were separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers…on one side a husband was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope that they’d ever see each other again." (from the book, White Gold, which also details the story of English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was beaten, starved and tortured into embracing Islam).

The Indian and Persian people suffered greatly as well - as did Africans. At least 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were brought out of Africa by Islamic traders - far more than the 11 million that were taken by the Europeans. However, these were only the survivors. As many as 85 million other Africans are thought to have died en route.

Most telling, perhaps, is that slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, Niger, Mauritania and a few other corners of the Muslim world - and you won't see any of those Muslim apologists (who shamelessly repeat the lie that Islam abolished slavery) doing or saying anything about it!

In fact, a fatwa was recently issued by a mainstream Islamic source reminding Muslim males of their divine right to rape female slaves and "discipline" resisters in "whatever manner he thinks is appropriate". Not one peep of protest from Islamic apologists was recorded. In 2013, the same site prominently proclaimed that "there is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because Allah says so."

In 2011, what passes for a women's rights activist in Kuwait suggested that Russian women be taken captive in battle and turned into sex slaves in order to keep Muslim husbands from committing adultery. (Other calls for turning non-Muslim women into sex slaves can be found here).

After the Islamic State kidnapped and pressed into slavery thousands of Yazidi women and children in 2014, the caliphate issued an FAQ of sorts on slavery, which included rules on sexually molesting children: "It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however, if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse." The best that "mainstream" apologists could muster in response was a letter appealing to "the reality of contemporary times", meaning that Islam has no fixed moral position on the rape of woman and children.

In 2016, a scholar at Egypt's al-Azhar, the most prestigious Islamic school in the Sunni world, stated that non-Muslim women could be captured in a time of war become "property" and can be raped "in order to humiliate them."

A 12-year-old girl taken captive by the Islamic State explained that her 'master' would pray before he raped her: "He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to Allah." Other sex slaves have been forced to pray before the rape or recite passages from the Quran during. When a Yazidi woman begged a caliphate member not to rape a little girl, he responded, "She's a slave... and having sex with her pleases God."

[size=8pt]A Quran memorization competition in 2015 offered slave girls as the top three prizes. Again, there were no voices of Muslim protest from elsewhere. As Uzy Bulut keenly observed, "A religion that encourages destructive rioting and killing over cartoons, but shows no sign of sorrow as little girls are sold and raped, does not have much to contribute to advancing civilization."[/size]

Since Muhammad was a slave owner and slavery is permitted by the Quran, the Muslim world has never apologized for this dehumanizing practice. Even Muslims in the West will often try to justify slavery under Islam, since it is a part of the Quran.

"... The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were directed to purchase their bond-men and bond-maids of the Heathen nations; except they were of the Canaanites, for these were to be destroyed. And it is declared, that the persons purchased were to be their 'bond-men forever'; and an 'inheritance for them and their children.' They were not to go out free in the year of jubilee, as the Hebrews, who had been purchased, were: the line being clearly drawn between them. ...

In the New-Testament, the Gospel History, or representation of facts, presents us a view correspondent with that which is furnished by other authentic ancient histories of the state of the world at the commencement of Christianity. The powerful Romans had succeeded, in empire, the polished Greeks; and under both empires, the countries they possessed and governed were full of slaves. Many of these with their masters, were converted to the Christian Faith, and received, together with them into the Christian Church, while it was yet under the ministry of the inspired Apostles. In things purely spiritual, they appear to have enjoyed equal privileges; but their relationship, as masters and slaves, was not dissolved. Their respective duties are strictly enjoined. The masters are not required to emancipate their slaves; but to give them the things that are just and equal, forbearing threatening; and to remember, they also have a master in Heaven. The "servants under the yoke" (bond-servants or slaves) mentioned by Paul to Timothy, as having "believing masters," are not authorized by him to demand of them emancipation, or to employ violent means to obtain it; but are directed to "account their masters worthy of all honor," and "not to despise them, because they were brethren" in religion; "but the rather to do them service, because they were faithful and beloved partakers of the Christian benefit." Similar directions are given by him in other places, and by other Apostles. And it gives great weight to the argument, that in this place, Paul follows his directions concerning servants with a charge to Timothy, as an Evangelist, to teach and exhort men to observe this doctrine.

Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church. If they had done so on a principle of accommodation, in cases where the masters remained heathen, to avoid offences and civil commotion; yet, surely, where both master and servant were Christian, as in the case before us, they would have enforced the law of Christ, and required, that the master should liberate his slave in the first instance. But, instead of this, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right, and insist on the relative duties.

In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.

... If the holding of slaves is lawful, or according to the Scriptures; then this Scriptural rule can be considered as requiring no more of the master, in respect of justice (whatever it may do in point of generosity) than what he, if a slave, could consistently, wish to be done to himself, while the relationship between master and servant should still be continued."

Source: Reverend Dr. Richard Furman, President of the Baptist State Convention, Exposition of the Views of the Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population in the United States in a Communication to the Governor of South Carolina (1838)


Before you get toooooo hasty that's a quote

ISIS sex slave survivor: 'They forced us to pray before raping us - to them we were animals'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-sex-slave-survivor-they-7096613

"We have a great lesson to teach the world with respect to the relation of races: that certain races are permanently inferior in their capacities to others, and that the African who is intrusted to our care can only reach the amount of civilization and development of which he is capable--can only contribute to the benefit of humanity in the position in which God has placed him among us (i.e. that of a slave)."

Source: Reverend James Warley Miles, God in History: A Discourse Delivered Before the Graduating Class of the College of Charleston (March 29, 1863)

Christians and their double standards!!!

When talking about the west, they divided religion from the people and claimed that they didn't do it in the name of religion. But when it came to discussing islam and Arabs they turned the table!!!

Islam had brought civilization to Africa centuries before the westerners except that the westerners were bloody noise makers and tyrants who were greedy.

I wouldn't expect anything less from a person who claims that being poor is synonymous to being ungodly!

The westerners came as missionaries, to preach religion and they used the opportunity to overtake our lives. The misery Nigeria is facing today is a direct or indirect result of their evils.

So please stop the double standards and quit talking with little or no sense at all.

"The South is no more to blame for Negro slavery than the North. Our slaves were stolen from Africa by Yankee skippers. When a slaver arrived at Boston, your pious Puritan clergyman offered public prayer of thanks that 'A gracious and overruling Providence had been pleased to bring to this land of freedom another cargo of benighted heathen to enjoy the blessings of a gospel dispensation."

Source: Baptist Minister Thomas F. Dixon, Jr, The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan (New York: Doubleday, 1905)

AFRICAN REFUGEES SAY ARAB MUSLIMS MORE RACIST THAN EUROPEANS

Under liberal dogma, the world is divided between the evil European colonialist exploiters of doom and the Oppressed masses of the Third World. In the real world, things are very different.

This is Morocco, one of the few moderate Arab countries, though not for long with the victory of an Islamist party. It's fairly tolerant by Muslim standards, which is still wildly intolerant by European standards.

"Be careful, those blacks might eat you," a Moroccan juice seller in the little border town of Fnideq warned us. They might what? "Yes, really," he replies. "They can do anything."

"Arabs hate black people. And that is not from today, it is in their blood," says Aboubakr, a young man from Senegal who is hoping eventually to cross over into Europe. He spent almost a year in Morocco's capital Rabat before coming to this forest camp near the Spanish border and his experiences there left him feeling bitter.

"Friends of mine were attacked with a knife. Bandits target us because they know we cannot go to the police, even if we are robbed and hurt. Having no papers, we will be caught instead. Blacks have no rights here."

American liberals like to compare the plight of Muslims to the segregation of black people in the United States, in fact it's Muslims who practice segregation of Africans.



Aboubakr is also insulted that Moroccans "cannot believe many of us are Muslims too". According to him, people are surprised when they see him kneeling for prayer. "They don't think a black can be Muslim."

The migrants are reluctant to believe that they might meet more racism in Europe than in Morocco. If they finally manage to cross the border "Black and white people are good together," claims Aboubakr. "In Holland, there are many blacks on the national soccer team. Moroccans are just jealous."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/148804/african-refugees-say-arab-muslims-more-racist-daniel-greenfield

How Christians Ended Slavery

Slavery was mostly eradicated from Western civilization--then called Christendom--between the fourth and the tenth century. The Greco-Roman institution of slavery gave way to serfdom. Now serfdom has its problems but at least the serf is not a "human tool" and cannot be bought and sold like property. So slavery was ended twice in Western civilization, first in the medieval era and then again in the modern era.

In the American South, Christianity proved to be the solace of the oppressed. As historian Eugene Genovese documents in Roll, Jordan, Roll, when black slaves sought to find dignity during the dark night of slavery, they didn't turn to Marcus Aurelius or David Hume; they turned to the Bible. When they sought hope and inspiration for liberation, they found it not in Voltaire or D'Holbach but in the Book of Exodus.

The anti-slavery movements led by Wilberforce in England and abolitionists in America were dominated by Christians. These believers reasoned that since we are all created equal in the eyes of God, no one has the right to rule another without consent. This is the moral basis not only of anti-slavery but also of democracy.

Jefferson was in some ways the least orthodox and the most skeptical of the founders. Yet when he condemned slavery he found himself using biblical language. In Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson warned that those who would enslave people should reflect that "the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." Jefferson famously added, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever."

But wasn't Jefferson also a man of science? Yes he was, and it was on the basis of the latest science of his day that Jefferson expressed his convictions about black inferiority. Citing the discoveries of modern science, Jefferson noted that "there are varieties in the race of man, distinguished by their powers both of body and of mind...as I see to be the case with races of other animals." Blacks, Jefferson continued, lack the powers of reason that are evident in whites and even in native Indians. While atheists today like to portray themselves as paragons of equal dignity, Jefferson's scientific and skeptical outlook contributed not to his anti-slavery sentiments but to his racism. Somehow Harris and Shermer neglect to point this out.

In the end the fact remains that the only movements that opposed slavery in principle were mobilized in the West, and they were overwhelmingly led and populated by Christians. Sadly the West had to use force to stop slavery in other cultures, such as the Muslim slave trade off the coast of Africa. In some quarters the campaign to eradicate slavery still goes on.

So who killed slavery? The Christians did, while everyone else generally stood by and watched.

Why so many uncle toms

MASS ABDUCTIONS AND RAPES OF HINDU GIRLS AND WOMEN IN PAKISTAN BY MUSLIM MEN

The raping of Hindu women and girls “has almost become a trend in Sindh province,” in south Pakistan, claims the Daily Bhaksar. Since the beginning of December, at least two Hindu girls, one aged six and the other 14, have been attacked and raped. The six-year-old victim was allegedly kidnapped and raped by Hashim Magiro, the owner of a gambling den near the girl’s home in the Umerkot district of Sindh.

Then at the end of December, in Mubarak Tarr village, Sindh, a 14-year-old Hindu girl was raped allegedly by a local leader of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP). According to Pakistan’s Express Tribune, the attacker entered the girl’s house and, while two accomplices stood guard, tortured the mother and then raped the teenage girl.

The alleged rapist is from a wealthy and influential family. The victims are both Hindu and poor. The police refused to file the necessary First Information Report (FIR) about the attack, until put under pressure by the family, which threatened to self-immolate in protest. And even the hospital initially refused to perform a medical checkup, citing the lack of an FIR as an excuse. The family of the six-year-old rape victim met a similar response by the authorities, with the two hospitals the girl was taken to failing to “treat her properly,” despite the fact that she was bleeding profusely by the time she reached the second medical facility.

The attack on the 14-year-old girl and her mother is not the first alleged incident of involvement of Pakistani officials in rapes and forced conversions of Hindu girls. Indeed, it is widely believed that officials often collude in such activity. In 2012, Mian Mithhu, a PPP member of the National Assembly was implicated in the high-profile abduction and forced conversion of Hindu teenager Rinkle Kumari. During one court hearing the Hindu teenager begged the judge: “kill me here, now, in court. But do not send me back to the Darul-Aman [Koranic school].”

Kumari acknowledged that she had never met Naveed Shah before was wedded to him, and protested against the marriage. Yet she eventually decided to live with him. Few, if any, though, really believe that she did not do so out as a result of weeks of intimidation, in which the police appeared to be complicit, and out of fear at what would happen to her if she returned to her home and to the practice of her Hindu faith. As India Today put it, the case exemplified “how political might and brute force are used to oppress Hindus in Pakistan and forcibly convert girls.”

According to AHRC, Kumari was taken to, and married at, the Dargah Aalia Qadria Bharchoondi Sharif, which has said that it “has the target to convert 2000 Hindus every year to Islam.” The Daily Bhaksar claims that, the Bharchundi Sharif Dargah (mosque), in Mirpur Mathelo, Ghotki District, Taluka Daharki and the Pir Sarhandi Dargah, in the Umerkot District, Taluka Samaro, are mainly responsible for forced conversions of Hindu girls.

The Indian Express, citing a report by the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC), claims that nearly 2,000 women from minority sects, including Hinduism, were “forcibly converted to Islam through rape, torture and kidnappings” in 2011 alone.

Amarnath Motumal, a lawyer and leader of Karachi’s Hindu community, told IRIN — a news service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs — that the targeting of Hindu girls for rape and forced conversion to Islam is a growing phenomenon, with at least 15-20 incidences in Karachi alone each month, mainly in the multi-ethnic Lyari area. Similarly, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) puts the number of rapes of Hindu girls and women at between 20 and 25. Hindu girls targeted for rape are often forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. “The method of choice to convert the girls who are abducted,” says the AHRC, “is to have them marry within the Muslim community.”

In a rare, frank article in Pakistan’s Express Tribune this month, Ayesha Asghar laments that Hindu girls and women have not only been targeted for rape, but, afterward, have been “repeatedly silenced by those in the corridors of power.” “When one speaks about the rape of Muslim women, the clergy starts questioning women’s characters and shift blame away from the rapists,” Asghar says. “When one speaks of the rape of Hindu women, none of the clergy speaks up because their racism is at play here.”

While India has become the focus of attention relating to the sexual abuse of women in recent weeks, following the gang rape of a 23-year-old medical student, Pakaistan’s Hindus are fleeing to India in droves. Pakistan’s Dawn.com claims that, because of the forced conversion of Hindu girls, as well as other discriminations and crimes — such as attacks on Hindu temples — 3,000 Hindus fled for India in 2012 — a third more than the previous year. Yet, this modern-day ethnic cleansing is virtually unknown outside of Pakistan and India, and in neither of those countries is the plight of Hindus in Pakistan treated seriously.

facheux:


These are quotes from Christians themselves! U should ask them I sourced My info chum

Some Christians practice polygamy even though Christianity frowns on the practice. So not all quotations by "Christians" are actually Christian.

TruthHurts1:


Some Christians practice polygamy even though Christianity frowns on the practice. So not all quotations by "Christians" are actually Christian.

Don't be an uncle tom