Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> The slavery - rape and pillage complex http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332 Message started by freediver on Mar 4th, 2012 at 2:28pm |
Title: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 4th, 2012 at 2:28pm NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:27am:
It is no accident that Islam only permits the taking of slaves through conquest, because conquest is a cornerstone of Islam. Contrary to Abu's insistence that Islam helped reduce slavery, the practice was still common among Muslims long after they had been on the losing end of every battle they could remember. It was only foreign interference that finally ended the practice. To understand slavery (and in particular sex slavery) in Islam, it must be put in the context of Muhammed's rape and pillage days. The strategy behind it is unthinkable today. Where the west has the 'military-industrial' complex, Islam has the slavery - rape and pillage complex. Consider the implications for Muhammed's empire (and the utter hypocrisy of any Muslim who complains about Israel today): Quote:
Under Islam, you can also take the posessions (not that slaves have any need for them, as their every need is taken care of for them under Islam's 'slaves with dignity' policy). This leaves Muslims free to take the land as their own as well as the livestock, the houses etc without pesky locals getting upset about it. If the conquered locals behave they might be allowed to hang around and help till the soil, otherwise it's off to the other side of the empire to serve returning soldiers. Quote:
The defeated farmer and his wife are not shipped off together. The farmer goes one way, while the wife (and any unlucky daughters) get raped by Muslims. They grow to love their new masters through Islam. The children of these glorious unions may not be shunned, but have to be brought up as good Muslims to complete the cycle. This is also part of Islam's 'slaves with dignity' policy. Quote:
Consider the plight of a young Islamic man. He lives in a society where men can have up to four wives. He has no chance of getting a wife himself before he is an old man. His father is not going to buy him one, as he spends his money supporting the two he already has and saving up for a third. There is of course nothing wrong with this situation - according to Abu most men do not deserve a wife. Unless of course they go off and slaughter more pagans. Then he has a chance at not only a wife, but some serious property also. And if he gets killed, what is the loss? The army just sends a slave or two back to his father to help support the old man and his harem. Quote:
Abu likes to tell us about the slave who became the master. If you thought the young Islamic man had it bad, consider the farmer from example 2. As Abu pointed out, as part of the 'slaves with dignity' policy, he has a choice of free military training. This is not so he can rescue his wife and daughters from the Muslims raping them. This is so he can go and kill some other pagans and take their wife or daughter, house, sheep and anything else they own. Of course, it is his free chocie and not everyone chooses that. After all, someone has to stay behind and clean the toilets for the old man and his harem. This is also part of Islam's 'slaves with dignity' policy. It all works very well, until you start losing the wars. Then it all falls in a heap and Muslims become their own worst enemy. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by NorthOfNorth on Mar 4th, 2012 at 3:11pm
With the rapid rise of Arab fortunes, once united under Islam, and their astonishing and enduring success during the first few centuries, it's not hard to understand Arab association with that success and it's pre-ordination by a deity.
Christianity arrogated to itself the same claim. Today it's democracy that claims Christianity's former role - though devoid of a deity and not a religion, despite American Christian fundamentalism. The crucial difference being that democracy's 'dogma' is written in pencil on paper, not chiseled into stone. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 4th, 2012 at 3:31pm
It's not quite that simple. Democracy by itself means very little and it cannot even function properly without several other core values.
Consider also the contribution of capitalism and economic freedom, of freedom of the press and freedom of speach, of freedom of religion, of the women's rights movement, of education and the value placed on purely academic pursuits such as the pure sciences, etc. And don't forget the abolition of slavery and rape as tools of war and the displacement of conquered people. There would be a lot more grief in the world today if recent wars had been fought on Islamic standards. There would be no concept of 'nation building' as a way to prevent the same war happening again. Instead we would be completely dismantling the nation and shipping off the people as slaves and taking everything of value. It kind of puts 'no war for oil' into perspective. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by falah on Mar 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 3:11pm:
Liberal Democracy deifies the human being; giving human beings the supposed right to legislate what God Almighty alone has the real right to legislate. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by NorthOfNorth on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:19pm falah wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm:
To use a metaphor to describe the esteem in which secular democrats hold the human being (I.e. deifying) is not the same as believing in a deity or its right to 'leglislate'. No sane secular democrat would argue that democratic legislation was anything other than the work of humans. Slavery does not enhance the moral worth of its perpetrator and it's permissability via religious dogma is a cynical act of convenience (religio-legislation if you must) by its author(s) and potential or actual perpetrator(s) that has the likes of yourself and others scrambling to ameliorate its implications by rhetorically sugar coating the bitter pill - as, unlike democratic legislation, you are unable to extricate religious dogmatic outrages like the tolerance of slavery from the text. Religious dogma remains fixed and over time even more immutable than any decree proclaimed by non-democratic (I.e. autocratic) rule. In short You cannot answer the question, 'why slavery at all?' without deferring to 'immutable' text... Which is the core reason why religious dogma is potentially pernicious and contemptible. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:26pm
Deifying the right to legislate is not the same as deifying the legislators. If some religious idiot declared that only Gods may plant flowers, this does not mean that any sane person who plants flowers considers themself to be God. Muslims themselves have no problem interpetting God's word and figuring out what God would want in new situations. They just pretend it is God's will and not their own.
|
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by NorthOfNorth on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:32pm freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:26pm:
And even if the author(s) wrote as if they were 'deifying' the legislators (e.g. the American founding fathers), they would be referring to the esteem with which such legislators were held and not to actual deification. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by NorthOfNorth on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:51pm
If it's agreed that slavery is gravely wrong, then its promotion of any kind (either actual or oblique) must be condemned and any reference to its promotion (either actual or oblique) should be expunged from all governing texts and replaced with the language of vehement and unequivocal condemnation.
|
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by falah on Mar 4th, 2012 at 7:03pm freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:26pm:
If God tells a life for a life, and some government says "life in jail for murder", then that government has challenged the right of God to legislate. That government presumes itself to in fact be greater than God. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 4th, 2012 at 7:50pm
So you would be challenging God if you tried to punish Muslims for raping slaves?
|
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by falah on Mar 4th, 2012 at 8:02pm freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 7:50pm:
Freediver, I have mentioned before that rape is a punishable offence in Islam. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Soren on Mar 4th, 2012 at 8:14pm
As with almost everything else of consequence, 'rape' has a different meaning in Islam than in the rest of human understanding. There is no translation betweeen Islam and the rest of us since the values signified in Islam are not our values.
Rape in marriage is inconcievable for a Muslim. Put another way, no sex in a Muslim marriage can be rape. Islam is a different planet.i |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Soren on Mar 4th, 2012 at 8:38pm falah wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
God tells? Where? Did God write the Koran down? Did God write the interpretations of the Koran? You sound like as if you thought Mohammed and God were interchangable. Tut tut, little man. Worshipping an Arab? Allah will frown. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 4th, 2012 at 8:45pm falah wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 8:02pm:
Except of course when Islam pretends it is not rape. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 4th, 2012 at 9:25pm
Falah, in the wiki I wrote that rape is permissible in Islam in every situation where sex is permitted. Where sex is not permitted, rape and consensual sex are given the same punishment.
Is that correct? |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by NorthOfNorth on Mar 4th, 2012 at 10:45pm falah wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
And that is our point of departure and the reason you should not attempt to rationalise the necessarily irrational. You cannot know what god 'legislates' (ordains), even if one accepts that there is a god, except by what was written by humans and claimed by those humans to be divine. That's all you can ever have... Obviously... Unknowing. Your attempts to answer the question 'why slavery at all' or your attempt to sugar-coat religious textual absurdities and outrages, of course, are doomed to failure... You cannot alter the text and you are generally forbidden from cherry picking its worthwhile edicts while discarding its absurd, malicious and pernicious ones. That's the inherent weakness of Islamic (and other religious) texts and a reason why they should and must be, in the grand scheme of things, roundly rejected as contemptible. Christianity (at least in its incarnation as the Catholic Church) has recognised this and can and does alter the dogma - as it did after the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, as Vatican II did and, recently, as it did with the doctrine of Limbo (to name 3 examples - and not counting the posthumous rehabilitation of Galileo). Islam has not reached that level of maturity and I doubt very much whether it ever will... Not least in part due to its clerically amorphous and unenlightened nature... |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by abu_rashid on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:07am NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 10:45pm:
So if you don't agree with it, then it must be absurd and malicious? In other words you refuse to accept your Creator, unless he conforms to your whims and desires. I'm sure you can see why we'd consider this a ridiculous position to take. NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 10:45pm:
Christianity has been textually corrupted since very early on. NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 10:45pm:
Islam has not reached this depth of depravity you mean. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by NorthOfNorth on Mar 5th, 2012 at 7:36am abu_rashid wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:07am:
Not at all. My disagreement is not necessarily my premise for a text's absurdity and malice. Your defence of the fundamentally indefensible (in this thread's case, slavery), is not far removed from that of a used car salesman's challenge in the selling of a chicken-coup-on-wheels to an unworldly teenager... All apologists for slavery of any kind are burdened with the same challenge and the misguided notion that there is good slavery and bad slavery. My argument, and that of enlightened texts on the subject, is based on the premise that the term 'good slavery' is oxymoronic. Those who have taken the high road of protestation against any form of slavery do so by challenging the givens of the day and not just in a religious context. Charles Dickens saw the exploitation of the English under-classes in the 19th century as a form of slavery and put his immense talent to work railing against it (one of the reasons, no doubt, Dickens is still so popular in India). Gandhi saw the shadow of slavery’s evils in the caste system, Mandela in apartheid, King in the denial of civil rights. The attitude towards slavery of any kind has undeniably changed over a millennia or so (the acceptance of which having existed in the Athens of Plato’s and Socrates day as much as that of Mohammed's Mecca) and that rightful and morally proper change is now iterated in constitutions and legislation worldwide, even if, sadly, it is sometimes ignored (not just in extant Islamic attitudes but, say, in 1st world attitudes towards Chinese workers). This change cannot be reflected in Islamic (and other religious) texts, as they are, by those yoked to them, considered immutable - that immutability being now and forever Islam’s fundamental weakness and flaw. Your creator's characterisation is that which largely conformed to your religion's founders' whims and desires with its claims of 'divine' origin, which you (and all before you) can only take on their word... Nothing more. PS - The first person plural pronoun should be used advisedly... |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2012 at 12:35pm Quote:
No Abu. It is absurd and malicious because it is absurd and malicious. Can you concieve the possibility of someone recognising absurdity and malice without an old book to point it out to them? |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Baronvonrort on Mar 5th, 2012 at 12:45pm freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 2:28pm:
There is no verse in the Quran that prohibits a muslim from taking a non combatant as a slave The women and children of the Banu Qurayza took no part in any conflict yet they were captured and sold into slavery. Cyrus the Great fom Persia abolshed slavery around 530BC,slavery returned to Persia after the Islamic conquest of Persia. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Yadda on Mar 5th, 2012 at 12:46pm freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:26pm:
FD, Very well put. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Yadda on Mar 5th, 2012 at 12:49pm
falah said....
Quote:
freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 7:50pm:
LOL Touche' !! |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:15pm Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 12:45pm:
Interesting. So Islam actually helped reverse the trend towards eradicating slavery in the middle east? |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by falah on Mar 5th, 2012 at 8:30pm freediver wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:15pm:
That is rubbish, slavery was rampant in the Middle East before the time of Prophet Muhammed,( may God's peace & blessing be upon him). People were commonly kidnapped and made into slaves across the Middle East. Islam actually regulated this, and prohibited slavery resulting from kidnappings, as well as poverty-induced and indebted slavery that had existed before. Many of Prophet Muhammed's companions were former slaves of pagan Arabs (including a former Christian who had been kidnapped by the pagans). Before Islam, it was customary for warring nations to make the conquered people slaves. It has been recorded that the Romans took British slaves back to Rome in cages after the conquest by Julius Caesar. It was common for pagan Arabs to rape the womenfolk of the losing side on the battlefield. This practice was abolished by Islam. Even though God Almighty permitted the Muslims to take captives from war, Prophet Muhammed and later rulers of the Islamic state would often spare the vanquished from slavery. The Muslims also made treaties with those Christians who did not fight the Muslims and these treaties were respected, and great Christian cities like Damascus and Jerusalem joined the Islamic state in this manner. The Muslims spent much of their money freeing slaves. A companion of prophet Muhammed, Abu Bakr paid for many slaves to be freed: Quote:
|
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by falah on Mar 5th, 2012 at 9:27pm Yadda wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 12:49pm:
Do you think that Prophet Abraham did wrong when the Bible tells us he fathered a child with his concubine? Do you think that he "raped" his concubine? |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2012 at 9:53pm Quote:
Are you trying to contradict what Baron said about Persia - that Islam brought slavery back after it was abolished there? If so you are not doing a very good job. Quote:
So Muslims treat them with dignity by dragging them off the battlefield first? Wow, what a great leap forward. Quote:
We can not know anything about what Abraham did all those years ago. What bothers us is not the history. I don't really care how many people Muhammed and his mates raped. What bothers us is what you want to bring into law in the future. |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Baronvonrort on Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:22pm falah wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 8:30pm:
Yes we see that Cyrus the Great outlawed slavery around 530 BC, the religion the Persians followed did not permit slavery. So how many slaves did Mohammad own before he created Islam when he was married to that rich cougar called Khadija?What none?zip?zilch? I counted 25 male slaves and around 6 female slaves that were owned by Mohammad,a white man who owned black slaves. Mohammad was a slave trader, which prophet ordered the women and children from the Banu Qurayza to be sold into slavery after all the men with pubic hair had their heads chopped off? |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Yadda on Mar 6th, 2012 at 2:18pm falah wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 8:30pm:
Just more moslem faerie tales. Just more moslem 'revision' of moslem history, so as to portray moslems as, 'just like us'. Well, they [moslems] are NOT like us. Moslems are inveterate lairs and deceivers. Moslems commonly lie to non-moslems as a means to achieve their nefarious objectives. “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war +++ The truth about; 'The Muslims spent much of their money freeing slaves.' e.g. Google; arab corsairs, raid english coast, slaves Hey falah, Why did the moslems need to raid the coast of England ? Did the moslems want to buy some fresh veg., from the locals ? /sarc off Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#Scope_of_the_trade But those Barbary pirates were not REAL moslems. Coz REAL moslems always choose to set slaves free. /sarc off |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by falah on Mar 7th, 2012 at 11:55am
Yadda are you stupid? The term "pirate", do you understand what it means?
It mean a criminal who works outside of government or legitimate norms. Pirates are just criminals There were plenty of British pirates, would we assume that all British people therefore share the values of pirates? |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by Baronvonrort on Mar 7th, 2012 at 12:13pm falah wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 11:55am:
Are you saying the Pirates in Somalia are criminals Falah? Does Al Shabab control Somalia? |
Title: Re: The slavery - rape and pillage complex Post by falah on Mar 7th, 2012 at 5:14pm Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 12:13pm:
Depends. Some say that they were only defending Somali waters from invading Chinese fisherman. But there have been many cases which are simply criminal. Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 12:13pm:
No. Although the Shabab control the largest portion of Somalia out of any group, most of the coastline of the country is not under Shabab control. Most of the pirate attacks originate in the areas governed by Western-backed Puntland and Somaliland governments: |
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |