iron Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Hi Stefan if you are reading this I just saw your new video, and I commend you for taking your time to research and make a video on the topic. However as I stated in another thread, Islam does not endorse slavery! Just because a bunch of Arabs or Africans particpate in the slave trade, don't associate them with Islam. Do you know what Islam says about slavery? Read this one simple line from the quran: http://quran.com/90/13 *** Secondly I highly recommend to you to read about Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire. You made no mention of him in the video, yet it is widly known Cyrus was one of the first rulers to abolish slavery-- and it was around 500 BC not 1800 AD. Please make sure you check your facts in regards to Slavery and the east. Also I suggest to take some time to study more the history of the east without the bias.
dsayers Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I actually just got done listening to that one a couple hours ago, so it's still fresh in my mind. Here's the link for those of you into having a frame of reference. Stef never said anything about Islam. It is true that he spoke of Muslims, which does imply that Islam had something to do with the practice. However, it's a distinction without a difference. Religions are held up as if they're moral ideals. For this reason, if Islam doesn't condone the practice, it would be worse that they engaged in the practice while holding religious beliefs to the contrary.
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Stefan was speaking of Islam several hundred years ago. Muslims today do not endorse slavery the way they did back then. To be fair, he was not targeting Islam, he very intentionally pointed out that slavery was endorsed by (almost) all cultures, religions and races at that time. Islam was, correct me if I am wrong on this, the dominant moral authority at the time, and, could have, at any time, stated that slavery was a moral abomination before god, and ended it in the Islamic world. It did not.
LovePrevails Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Idris, how would your parents have disciplined you if you refused to go to the Mosque as a child? What would your parents have done if you had decided you did not want to be a Muslim? What would you do if you had a child and your child said they did not believe in Islam and wanted to be an atheist?
Malovane Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 The Quran doesn't have many passages on slavery, though Mohammed does endorse sex with slaves as "lawful and good", amongst some other gems. The Hadiths are a bit more complete, and full of rules on dealing with slaves, like: Unbelievers could be made slaves if taken in war. Raping slaves is good, though "coitus interruptus" with them was not. Slaves cannot marry, unless arranged by the master. and much more.. by all means, read it yourselves. This was all codified into Sharia law, along with reams of new rules. As a result, it became a massive and monstrous institution, particularly by the Ottomans, which at times had armies made out of eunuchs (horrifying when you think a very small percentage survived the process) and vast harems. Stefan was quite correct in his assessment of slavery in the Middle East, and I'm a bit surprised he didn't go into *why* it was worse in the East than the West a little more than he did, since it hits on some core principles.
iron Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 The Quran doesn't have many passages on slavery, though Mohammed does endorse sex with slaves as "lawful and good", amongst some other gems. The Hadiths are a bit more complete, and full of rules on dealing with slaves, like: Unbelievers could be made slaves if taken in war. Raping slaves is good, though "coitus interruptus" with them was not. Slaves cannot marry, unless arranged by the master. and much more.. by all means, read it yourselves. This was all codified into Sharia law, along with reams of new rules. As a result, it became a massive and monstrous institution, particularly by the Ottomans, which at times had armies made out of eunuchs (horrifying when you think a very small percentage survived the process) and vast harems. Stefan was quite correct in his assessment of slavery in the Middle East, and I'm a bit surprised he didn't go into *why* it was worse in the East than the West a little more than he did, since it hits on some core principles. there are many hadiths out there (many of which were written 100s of years after the Prophet-sawas lived), but what they say does not trump the teachings of the Quran when Islam came (ie. as the Quran was being revealed) you not only had encouragments to free slaves in order to negate sins but also negotiating and setting up contracts with your slaves, so they can free themselves after a certain amount of time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukataba Now as for those corrupt arabs, africans, turks/ottomons who abused/mistreated their slaves.... whatever they did, their actions does not represent Islam. It is a logical fallacy if you think otherwise.
dayna j. Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 "The emancipation of a mukatab occurs only when he has paid to the master the agreed amount in full.[1] The contract may be revoked when the slave defaults on one of the payments." ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukataba So, Islam does not categorically reject slavery at all, but rather suggests implementing a system wherein slaveowners can enrich themselves even further by extorting payments from slaves in exchange for their freedom. How unbelievably DISGUSTING that you would come here and attempt to use this fact to persuade people that Islam rejects slavery, when it clearly does not. This is apologia of the worst kind.
Josh F Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 It would appear that it wasn't a fallacy, why can't you now adjust your argument that many Muslims did own slaves?
Jorell Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I don't mean to presume / suggest this applies to the OP, but I couldn't help but feel a familiar sensation while reading it that I've had within a few years of having left my religion and begin to accept atheism; and that was an almost innate sense of defensiveness for my 'alma mater' religion, always fighting an urge to defend it's 'outright formal policy [beliefs]' with the actual social sentiments during day to day congregation among participants.Almost like a ten year old and getting upset with your sibling. The moment one of your friends jumps on the bandwagon and knocks your sibling, then comes the strange familial mantra "Hey! I can't make fun of them - you cant!"I remember being in Church and during the main service I would hear about the acceptance, unconditional love, forgiveness and compassion that God had for me... then fifteen minutes later I could meet in a private interview with my ecclesiastical leader and be told that I am literally unworthy to participate in certain functions until I had 'sufficiently repented' for various sins. These mixed messages were constantly construed in a way that ultimately you would have a very negative impact (no news here - dozens of FDR videos articulate this magnificently), garnished with very positive words and feelings (re: the words "I love you" engraved on the boot that kicks you in the groin). When I would find myself defending the words [supposed intention of the religious construct], I would often wrestle with myself to realize the hard reality of what I was defending.I don't know if that's what motivated the OP, or if it really was intended as a matter of correction - but if you are by chance dealing with those kinds of emotional conflicts with a religion, it would be worth delving into.
Recommended Posts