freediver wrote on Jan 27
th, 2020 at 9:08pm:
Because there were a lot of them. Obviously I am not including the military ones, as I have explained several times already.
You have explained nothing FD. All you have done in this thread is deliberately obfuscate the word 'intervention', such that even now we have no idea what you mean by this concept of western intervention *to* end muslim slavery. Especially so since you are now categorically ruling out any military intervention.
And the best you can come up with to substantiate this is a vague and unsourced claim in wikipedia about "continuing pressure" from Europe that "overcame" (whatever that means) muslims and their slaving.
The reason for this evasiveness is not hard to understand of course. The moment you start to elaborate in any detail about the nature of western intervention, we quickly get neck deep in the murky waters of colonialism and empire - in which strategic control and resource exploitation were the main considerations.
You also can't spend 5 minutes exploring the decline of Islamic slavery without running into the arguments pointing out the role played by internal forces - laws and edicts made by the Ottoman Caliph - and yes, Islamic abolitionist movements. The fact that your own evidence goes on to elaborate on all those things says all there needs to be said about your habit of cherrypicking articles and oversimplifying complex topics into mindless memes.
Quote:Do you know the name of any Islamic abolitionist movements?
No. And yet, the very same article that you present as gospel truth in its claim about European pressure "overcoming" muslim slavery, states that they were there and they helped end slavery.
So I'm afraid you're not going to get far in the credibility stakes by attempting to rubbish this claim. Not until you also rubbish all other claims in the article.
Quote:Do you disagree with the statement Gandalf? Or are you still having a bet each way while falling back on your own ignorance of the issue?
Its impossible for any objective person to agree or disagree with it - because it is so vague that it is neither here nor there. What "pressure" exactly? What activity did this involve? What does it mean by "overcome"? Not even you can explain it. On top of that there isn't even any source for the claim. So yes, of course I "fall back on my own ignorance" - because neither you or the article gives us anything to form an informed opinion on the matter. Sure, I could go and do my own independent research on the topic, but thats not the point. The point is, it is your claim which you are attempting to substantiate to us, and the one piece of evidence you provide is entirely inadequate.