₦airaland Forum

In the middle belt of Nigeria, the Nupes who were earlier converts to islam engaged in jihads that were primarily aimed at taking slaves from neighboring tribes.

somalia9: somali is an ethnicity. Wars cant be started for the sake of wars, most wars were done in somalia because of ethiopians wanted to take our land.

I am actually aware of wars that took place here in Nigeria by Jihadists who took slaves

Do you have dual nationality?
I thought you were somalian.

To be honest, i do not see the difference in any form of slavery.

Allowing the taking of slaves as spoils of war was probably the main reason for embarking on the war in the first place

somalia9: i am fluent in arabic and you or someone else inserted 'slave girl' in there.....because islam forbids sexual intercouse with some one your not married tooo......

my guess is you got that from an anti islam website.....you should do better research........cause people get stoned to death every day in somalia for having sexx with someone whose not their wife...

But you dont deny that slavery is condoned in islam and many black africans were taken as slaves by arab moslems under whatever guise.

MUHAMMAD, MUSLIMS, THE QURAN, AND SLAVERY

To begin with, the Quran justifies slavery, and often mentions slaves. Here are some relevant verses:

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."


This verse clearly shows that Muslims believe that taking slaves in war was a God-given right. These slaves were considered 'booty' or the spoils of war. As the saying goes: to the victors go the spoils.


23:5 - "... except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them:..."

The passage's context here (not quoted in full) details how Muslim males are allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls. Implicit in this is that Muslim males had slave-concubines. 70:30 is basically a repeat of 23:5.

Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of Muhammad having "relations" with at least one of his slave girls. Muhammad had sexual relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave. Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty." [Taken from Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes), p151].

Ibn Sa'd also writes that Mariyah bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. He died 18 months later. Sa'd writes: "If he had lived, no maternal uncle of his would have remained in bondage", p164. This shows that there were other Coptic slaves owned by the Muslims.


The Quran also instructs Muslims NOT to force their female slaves into prostitution (24:34), and even allows Muslims to marry slaves if they so desire (4:24), and to free them at times as a penalty for crime or sin (4:92, 5:89, 58:3) and even allows slaves to buy their liberty, if they meet certain of their master's conditions (24:33). [90:10 'freeing of a bondsman' refers to Muslims ransoming other Muslims who were slaves of non-Muslims.]

While I think it's nice to allow a slave to obtain his freedom, (at his master's discretion) it is tragic that Islam allows them to be enslaved in the first place. That's like robbing a bank and giving some of the money back to the bank, and thinking you did the right thing!


The above verses show that taking slaves was ordained by Allah, and that it was permissible for Muslim males to have sex with their female slaves. It also shows that slaves were a valuable commodity to the Muslims, otherwise, Allah would not have imposed the penalty of freeing a slave to make up for a crime.

frosbel: Yeah right !!

The dressing is Arabic, the Quran is in Arabic etc etc.

In fact the ARAB slave trade was the worst ever, when millions of black men where marched across the desert, castrated and many left to die while the few who were left , were used as slaves.

The Women were raped, many taken as concubines or house maids.

Hypocrite !!!

Clean up your house first

@somalia9:

Would you please address the above?

na waa o!

somalia9: islam is not an aran religion. 87 percent of muslims are not arab. islam was never forced on somalis. arabs ran to somalia to escape persecution in their homeland. somalis accepted islam before turks, north africans, iraqis etc

You have just succeeded in answering your own question. If 87% of muslims are not arab why do you expect 100% of christians to be white?

ooman: Exactly what every one should do to you.

But you haven't!

ooman: Perhaps you didn't know that your favorite big b.ang came from the bible and that medieval scientists and Francis Bacon, father of scientific method all thought the Genesis 1 started the rush of science.

Now who are you that I should listen to you.

There is no where in the bible that ''the big banng theory'' is explained.

Medieval science? Are you kidding me? What has medieval science got to do with science?

What do modern scientists think?

Who am I?

Chum, this is a chat room; you don't have to listen to me!

Simply ignore me. I don't mind!

ooman: Go tell that to the archaeologists who are atheists themselves.

If you had presented the post as the archaeologist's, I'll go tell it to the archaeologists, but this is your post and am telling it to you:

The book of Genesis didn't lay the foundation of Science.

ooman: It matters what the evidence says not personal thoughts.

The Eblas are justified no matter how ancient they are.

But your evidences do not add up.

ooman: Sorry but only the Eblas got the cosmos right. Archaeologists never deny this, so it doesn't matter what you think.

I spose it matters what you think eh?

ooman: The Eblas got a universe with a beginning right.
There is no denying that. These people were wise, just like the ancient greeks that laid the foundation of civilization for us.

Its is about respecting the ancients and never about what you all personally think.

Every mythology starts with a beginning; so dont get hung-up on beginnings!

ooman: but it does mentioned that it has a beginning, if it does, the next reasonable thought would be it is expanding, which is proven.

The ancients are pretty wiser than we think.

It is important to keep the meaning of words very clear in things like this.

Ya see, there is a great difference between a quiet beginning and a really Big Baang!

And its not just a matter of decibels.

ooman: that the universe had a beginning. that the universe is finite in contrast to 19th century steady state cosmology that even Einstein believed until he was shown that the universe expands.

the big b.ang seeds from the bible and was postulated by a xtian.

But there is no mention of the Big bang or expanding universe in Genesis

ooman: MY OPINION:

Well, because it is archeologically proven that the Jews copied Genesis from the Eblas, I submit to you that the ancient were as wise as we are and so they could formulate a testable hypothesis some 23000 years ago.

But that is not the point here, the point is that, of all the creation accounts and religions we have, only two got it right - the Eblas who created it, and the Jews who were wise enough to adopt it.

But does this prove that any God exist and that Jesus is the savior? No. It doesnt prove that God exist anymore than the existence of Sango prove that his anger causes thunder always.

Sorry @ooman, your last two paragraphs do not add up:

You say they got it right.

What exactly did they get right?

Now I know you are a mad man. Probably frothing around the mouth.

You posted a thread yesterday claiming that the book of Genesis was a plagiarized work;

https://www.nairaland.com/1231831/genesis-great-work-plagiarism

Why dont you call the book by the name the Eblas called it?

Logicboy03: Which is very sad. The verses are there for all to see.

How can one follow a belief that condemns others for not following the belief?

Dont mind them.
They are not well people

Logicboy03: From the geniuses at reddit;


7 Reasons why Religion is a Mental Disorder
(1) Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear these friends

(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible person has magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

(3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behavior, each time expecting different results

(4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.

(5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan"

(6) Emotional abuse - ­ religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the psyche for life

(7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using harassment and violence.

Religious Lunatics

Deep Sight: There have been many attempts by physcists to negate the fundamental idea of causality on which one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is hinged. It has been proposed that contrary to our common every-day observation, things may actually emerge uncaused out of nothingness. Although this idea is at odds with that which we observe everyday, some physists have argued that the following are examples of uncaused things/ processes which occur out of nothing -

1. Virtual particles in a quantum vacuum

2. Radioactive decay

3. Proton decay

I have discussed (1) above extensively on this forum and I am certain that it has been entirely debunked. In no way do virtual particles emerge "from nothing" - for the simple reason that the quantum vacuums referred to have been proven not to be perfect vacuums and in fact contain low gaseous pressure. And as such the argument that virtual particles emerge from nothing is absolutely false and mis-footed.

Now, I have not read all that much on (2) and (3) above and I would like those who propound or advance the "something from nothing" possibility to discuss (2) and (3) and let's see if they stand to reason.

From the little I read on Radio active decay, maybe I am daft o, but I cannot see how it in anyway presupposes anything uncaused or something from nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Half-life

Over to you, my Ogas.

This is a perfect example of a post designed to inflame rather than illuminate!

Is the poster familiar with the principle's of physics?

I doubt it. Because if he were he would know that the basic laws of physics, as we know them today, will have to be replaced by new laws and our texts rewritten.

I think @poster is suffering from insomnia and is looking for company.

Something from nothing

Get a life, Man.

Ubenedictus: add this to d list: the immorality in south african university beat that seen in the united states.

Do you know the level of immorality in Nigerian Universities?

okeyxyz: Your "assumption" that there is a creator automatically validates the rest of the attributes in the following line. If there is a creator, then such creator must have a will, a personality and value-system(system of right\wrong). Therefore anybody who wishes to have a "happy/profitable" existence in this universe must do so in conformity with the value-system setup by this god. Therefore, "freedom" is not without consequence.

He didn't put this value-systems in our DNA. He chose instead to reveal it to Jews and Arabs only

Affiliated: Many religions justify God ultimately sending almost all of mankind to an eternal punishment that our most evil minds cannot even comprehend.
The basis for this justification is that God gave us freewill and we didn't choose Him.
Aside from the pettiness and jealously that statement portrays, did God really give us freewill?
Looking at it from an unbiased perspective, I was born on this earth without being given a choice. If there was freewill, I should have been able to choose if i wanted to exist or not. But once I can make that choice, then I already exist.
In essence I was not free to make that choice so religion cannot subsequently claim that humans have freewill.

We only have partial freewill from a religious point of view

@bolded: This pettiness and jealousy......

Are'nt those well known human characteristics?

Can a truly all-knowing and all-powerful be this petty?

In Nigeria, almost all famillies are relgious nut cases.

If you keep runing you will never have a decent relationship

Why not try tagging along as a nut case yourself

plaetton: Ojukwu is right and wrong.

He is right in pointing out that fear of knowledge, the fear of the unknown, the fear to even imagine is a great impediment to the acquisition of knowledge, skills and ideas that spawn progress.
He is wrong by forgetting that the white man had also been there and done that, and has rapidly advanced over last few hundred years once they were able to shed the mental yolk and enslavement to ridiculous and mentally debilitating religious myths.

Infact, the white man gained mental sovereignty and gradually shifted away from the so-called god of love and compassion(love and compassion my foot) to purse their own human passion for knowledge.

He also, perhaps, forgot that much of sub-sahara Africa were isolated from trade,scholarship, ideas and wars of conquest, due to dense,harsh and inhospitable tropical climates and diseases.

@bolded is what i believe caused Africa's backwardness.

We started interacting with the rest of the civilized world rather late

SNCOQ3: I thought "merciful, kind, hospitable,...ruthless" are expressions of our character and that character is shaped by our belief-system or "disbelief-system". e.g A bad man can become a good man, vice-versa based on a change in conviction and not a fixed gene?

Which belief system are you alluding to, religion?

We have had many of those for decades. Look where they have landed us!

musKeeto: Not necessarily....

Hey, @muskeeto!

I owe you one for that epic denoument earlier on on this thread!

SNCOQ3: Thank you belabela and Evil Brain for sharing your thoughts. Please keep it rolling.

Allow me to add this quote by the late Chukwuemeka Ojukwu (he was also a historian and a philosopher)to the mix; It will be interesting to know what you guys make of it.

Ojukwu got it wrong by assuming there was a god that cared

Even worse, he assumed that there is a white god and a black god!

So much for your historian and philosopher!

Evil Brain: The reasons why different societies develop at different rates have been well studied and don't have jackshît to do with genetics, religion or culture. Jared Diamond broke it down well in his excellent book, Guns Germs and Steel.

The short version is that the differences are due to geography, climate and the types of plants and animals available for domestication.

Follow the link for more detail.

[url] www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p2.html [/url]

What is the difference between geography and climate?

Geography and climate dictates the type of plants and animals available.

These argument is saying that prosperity depends only on your geography? This is patently wrong!

musKeeto:

Its CURTAINS I guess!

Well done, Muskeeto!

Somebody has been humbled!

You can be a creationist without being religious, cant you?

(Agnostic ?)