Posted by Malakh on December 31, 1997 at 20:03:55:
In Reply to: Re: Has Allah Removed the Curse of Babylon posted by Mohamed Ghounem on December 31, 1997 at 17:13:47:
Ive been lurking here for a while now and the main question I have had is exactly what is exemplified by
your response to me. That is, wouldnt it have been simpler for you to just say "the word black here is
better translated as mans sinful nature" rather than going off on a diatribe against the bible. It is clear to me
that Job 30:30 is referring to a disease of the skin (such as the black plague) as opposed to the Koran, which isnt really
clear on what it is referring to. I think that Yusufali's translation best exemplifies what you are trying to say -
that is, Yusufali has inserted (in the gloom of) to show that black is more a condition of the soul (though
why say 'face'?) rather than the actual look of the skin.
Mohamed said:
>Let us see brother Malakh What does Jesus (in the New Testament) say about owning slaves?
Whoa...hold on a minute there....Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy are OT .
Lets go thru each of the OT verses first:
Lev 22:11 is a statemement of Responsibility - for those under the priests roof - the priests were the ones
that were allowed to eat of the meat that was sacrificed and all in his household were allowed that sustenance
as well.
Exodus 12:44 is a statement of Laws on the Observance of the Passover - See Exodus 12:43.
New Testament
Luke7:3-10 is a statement of Faith, not a statement condoning slavery.
John 18:10 Simon Peter's misdirected display of loyalty to Jesus - in the very NEXT verse, Jesus admonishes
Simon Peter
Revelation 13:16 - Prophetic Vision of the magnitude of the power that the second beast will have at that time....
as well as how satan will mimic God and His ways. This vision is for ALL of mankind - its not condoning
slavery, it is saying that no matter what your station in life, you WILL be affected.
I could go on for hours about Revs but I'll spare you! Suffice to say that I request that you read Rev 13:10
for the Revelation of keeping slaves.
I think we both agree that there are many many that profess to be followers of their faith when in fact they
are NOT. Slavery was not declared illegal in Saudi Arabia, the main guardian of Islamic purity, until 1965.
Nor was slavery declared illegal in Muslim Sudan until 1991. But at least it has been declared illegal now -
however, shocking statistics and research show that slavery may STILL be in practice:
Most recently, THE ECONOMIST (9/21/1996) published a piece entitled "The Flourishing Business of
Slavery". I quote:
...The American embassy [in Sudan] acknowledges as "credible" reports that [Christian] Dinka and
Nuba children from southern Sudan are being sold on into Libya ....
London based Christian Solidarity International ... has ransomed 20 Sudanese slaves.
The going rate for a woman is 5 cows.
The Sudanese government flatly denies that slavery exists there. Is it lying? Evidence from human rights
organizations, exiles, traders and former slaves is overwhelming. Louis Farrakhan...occasional guest of
the Libyan and Sudanese governments, has rebuffed assertions of slavery in Sudan as Zionist claptrap.
In March of 1996, he challenged journalists to go to Sudan and find it. Two reporters from the BALTIMORE
SUN did just that, and published their findings in June 1996, sparking a lively
debate among black Americans about how they -- and black Muslims in particular -- should respond
to the plight of enslaved black Africans.
>Slavory was a fact in those days, but to call Islam 'anti-Black' is crude and racist.
I agree - I WAS a little harsh on that account - can you please give me information on how you
came to the conclusion that black in Al-Imran 3:106 is a condition of ones soul rather than the
color of ones skin? I see Yusufali added words (those in parentheses) but how legitimate is
this translation from arabic to english? Notice Pickthall and Shakir do not do the same thing.