freediver
Gold Member
Online
www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 47466
At my desk.
|
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 15 th, 2019 at 8:33am: freediver wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 9:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 8:48pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 8:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 8:44pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 8:42pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 8:10pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 6:37pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 9:18am: freediver wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 9:11am: One more time for the dimwitted. You said this: Quote:Their religion - which was never mentioned - is completely irrelevant Are you now backpedaling on this claim? Not at all. Here it is again: Their religion - which was never mentioned - is completely irrelevant. So, any idea why the word 'Muslims' appears in the thread title? I'm still curious. So how can you insist their religion was irrelevant at the same time as acknowledging that religion sometimes does have something to do with slavery? Do you know something in particular about this case on which you can exclude the role of religion? Are they religious, FD? I didn't see that in the article. How do you know that religion is irrelevant? Is the mere mention of Islam all it takes for you to lose the ability to hold a coherent thought? Why are you mentioning Islam? I'm curious. I am asking whether Islam is the cause of your loss of spine. I don't see you turning into a blubbering imbecile for any other religion. Why are you asking about Islam? I'm curious. The thread is about slavery. Like I said, you seem to be blaming the mention of Muslims in the thread title for you turning into a blubbering imbecile. Is that why you insisted religion is irrelevant? Because someone mentioned Islam? Why did someone mention Islam? Why don't you ask them instead of me Greg, and speak for yourself instead of slithering away every time. greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 9:01am: freediver wrote on Jul 14 th, 2019 at 8:55am: Quote:Religion usually has nothing to do with slavery. Wow. Only 3 pages of Greg's moronic tapdancing to get a straight answer. That might be a record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery The sharīʿah (divine law) regarded as legal slaves only those non-Muslims who were imprisoned or bought beyond the borders of Islamic rule, or the sons and daughters of slaves already in captivity.[4] In later classical Islamic law, the topic of slavery is covered at great length.
The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa, and Southeast Africa. Muslim traders exported as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa.[12] In the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[5] For example, Saudi Arabia and Yemen only abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman followed suit in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007.[13] However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the predominantly Islamic countries of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.Are you saying you know that these people were not Muslims, or do you include Islam when you say that religion usually has nothing to do with slavery? Do you know what the word "usually" means, FD? I'm curious. Religion usually has nothing to do with slavery. Sometimes it does, on rare occasions. However, it usually has nothing to do with slavery. Moreover, there is no mention of the alleged perpetrators' religion in the article. So, it makes one wonder why you keep mentioning Islam, and why the word 'Muslims' appears in the thread title. Any clues as to why? Greg is your logic here inspired by Islam? How do you get from religion "usually" has nothing to do with slavery to telling everyone that religion is irrelevant in this particular case? Are you lying, or just confused?
|