Question

Yes, Lois, every Moslem agrees with slavery, and nearly every Moslem has a few. :-S My neighbours in the Netherlands had a few, and everyday, when I met him in the stairway he threatened me with the coming of sharia, and that I would become his slave too. But thanks for proving my point.
Both the old testament and the Quran have passages explaining how to act when you conquered. You try to get along with your occupier, follow their laws and learn about them, so when you become part of the ones in power again, you'll have more information. It's somewhere around 1% of Muslims that actually think that way, but that 1% is able to do a lot of damage. That's what we're talking about here. You keep going on like we should treat that 1% as if they are the 99% who accept pluralism and are happy to live in any country where religious freedom is practiced. I'm being generous with my numbers here, but it doesn't really matter, the important part is that whatever percentage it is, they are in positions of power, with a lot of weapons and soldiers at their disposal. If you don't believe that people like that exist, watch this.]
That's what we're talking about here. You keep going on like we should treat that 1% as if they are the 99% who accept pluralism and are happy to live in any country where religious freedom is practiced.
So we mainly agree. What I want to avoid is that we make 5% of these 1%. It seems you don't read my postings very precisely too...
If you don't believe that people like that exist, watch this.
Of course I believe that. But provoking the 99% because the 1% radicals is, again, not such a good idea. We should defend the secular state against radicals. But we should thereby not betray our secular values.
That's what we're talking about here. You keep going on like we should treat that 1% as if they are the 99% who accept pluralism and are happy to live in any country where religious freedom is practiced.
So we mainly agree. What I want to avoid is that we make 5% of these 1%. It seems you don't read my postings very precisely too...
If you don't believe that people like that exist, watch this.
Of course I believe that. But provoking the 99% because the 1% radicals is, again, not such a good idea. We should defend the secular state against radicals. But we should thereby not betray our secular values. Except, no one is doing that. Or if anyone is, then THEY are the 1% of whatever other culture you want to define. But what are you talking about? Is someone going into mosques in America and disrupting the service? Are you talking about the people who protested the mosque at ground zero? Did you notice how most of us treated them like the morons that they are? And I do read your posts. What I hear is that if I am advocating for reason, say education for girls or a separation of church and state, even in other countries, then that is somehow harassing a majority of Muslims and causing them to be angry enough to behead random people. I didn't support my President when he was going into Iraq and acting like a terrorist. I realize THAT created terrorists there. That is has nothing to do with blaspheming.
Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice. Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur'an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (0). Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam's supremacist doctrine. Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Qur'an, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin, and limits the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are "good." This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through the taking and ransoming of hostages, which began under Muhammad. The Qur'an: Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear: Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..." This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur'an (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him. Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible. Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them." Qur'an (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves..." Breeding slaves based on fitness. Qur'an (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman's worth is also distinguished from that of a man's). Qur'an (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah." Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah's will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored). From the Hadith: Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, 'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'" Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven. Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt. Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval. Bukhari (34:432) - Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad's approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus. Bukhari (47.765) - A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave). Bukhari (34:351) - Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader. Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent. Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave. Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free. Bukhari (47:743) - Muhammad's own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command. Bukhari (59:637) - "The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, 'Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?' When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, 'O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?' I said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'" Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really "wives," since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living. Abu Dawud (2150) - "The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur'an 4:24) 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur'an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14) Abu Dawud 1814 - "...[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?" The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement. Ibn Ishaq (734) - A slave girl is given a "violent beating" by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it. Abu Dawud 38:4458 - Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)". A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves ("those whom your right hand possesses"). Ibn Ishaq (693) - "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons." Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight). Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm
The most basic definition of "Christian" is Christ-like. The most basic definition of "Muslim" is one who submits (to Allah). The primary human figure/role model in Christianity is Jesus (an advocate of non-violence and one who, theologically speaking, sacrificed his own human life in order to redeem everyone else from sin. In Islam the primary human figure/role model is Muhhamed, who was, among other things, a military leader and societal governor, who provided the world with the final ultimate message from Allah. For those who claim that the violence associated with some followers of Islam, is the same thing as what we know happened in Christianity, historically, it seems to me that they are ignoring the underlying structure of the two theologies. As to slavery, it seems to me that the concept would be more palatable to someone who views themselves as someone who seeks to joyously submit to the will of the higher power. i.e., If I can submit to Allah, then my property (slaves) who are in effect, Allah's property (I am just the custodian) should submit to me. Of course most Muslims don't hold this view. I am saying that it is, however, consistent with the underlying theology, thus, no doubt, some will. Most Muslims, like most Christians, are not particularly devout. (Thank Darwin's sweet ghost.)
This thread is a great example of liberal humanist horseshit. The solution is this - don't let any Arabs into your country. And if they get in somehow, kill them. :coolsmile:
Who said anything about killing them? Lois
That's what we're talking about here. You keep going on like we should treat that 1% as if they are the 99% who accept pluralism and are happy to live in any country where religious freedom is practiced.
So we mainly agree. What I want to avoid is that we make 5% of these 1%. It seems you don't read my postings very precisely too...
If you don't believe that people like that exist, watch this.
Of course I believe that. But provoking the 99% because the 1% radicals is, again, not such a good idea. We should defend the secular state against radicals. But we should thereby not betray our secular values. Except, no one is doing that. Or if anyone is, then THEY are the 1% of whatever other culture you want to define. But what are you talking about? Is someone going into mosques in America and disrupting the service? Are you talking about the people who protested the mosque at ground zero? Did you notice how most of us treated them like the morons that they are? And I do read your posts. What I hear is that if I am advocating for reason, say education for girls or a separation of church and state, even in other countries, then that is somehow harassing a majority of Muslims and causing them to be angry enough to behead random people. I didn't support my President when he was going into Iraq and acting like a terrorist. I realize THAT created terrorists there. That is has nothing to do with blaspheming. Terrorists existed in Iraq long before the US invaded. All that did was give them another excuse to engage in terrorism. They needed no encouragement from US actions. They had everything they needed from the Q'uran, their clerics and their own natural tendencies. Lois

TimB wrote:
“Of course most Muslims don’t hold this view. I am saying that it is, however, consistent with the underlying theology, thus, no doubt, some will. Most Muslims, like most Christians, are not particularly devout. (Thank Darwin’s sweet ghost.)”
We can never know that. IMO, people who embrace the faith, no matter how loosely, accept its premises and support terrorism and sexism, whether they claim to be devout or not. IMO, every woman who wears a Muslim headscarf or other Muslim dress is supporting the worst aspects of the Q’uran. If they say they don’t hold to those aspects of the religion, as far as I’m concerned, they are lying and all non-Muslims should be suspicious of them. They don’t deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt as long as Islamic terrorism continues anywhere in the world and as long as Muslim women are controled and treated like chattel.
Lois

We can never know that. Lois
Why not? What is the point of the sciences of sociology and psychology? What we've been doing for too long is simply asking people what church they go to and if they believe in very broad principles. What we need is more detailed analysis. A good examples is Dale McGowan's survey done for his book In Faith and In Doubt. He identifies a variety of types within the standard groups we normally use, like Fundamentalist. He even defines 4 levels within Atheism. Overall, he shows that it is very rare to find someone who all the official doctrine of whatever church they attend. Wearing a burqa tells us nothing about a person. Most are doing out of survival. Many internalize the oppression or don't feel safe telling anyone what they really think, even in private.
TimB wrote: "Of course most Muslims don't hold this view. I am saying that it is, however, consistent with the underlying theology, thus, no doubt, some will. Most Muslims, like most Christians, are not particularly devout. (Thank Darwin's sweet ghost.)"
We can never know that. IMO, people who embrace the faith, no matter how loosely, accept its premises and support terrorism and sexism, whether they claim to be devout or not. IMO, every woman who wears a Muslim headscarf or other Muslim dress is supporting the worst aspects of the Q'uran. If they say they don't hold to those aspects of the religion, as far as I'm concerned, they are lying and all non-Muslims should be suspicious of them. They don't deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt as long as Islamic terrorism continues anywhere in the world and as long as Muslim women are controled and treated like chattel. Lois I don't have hard data to support my statement that "Most Muslims, like most Christians, are not particularly devout." It is simply based on many years of observation of and semi-awareness of the world I have lived in for awhile, now. (Also as a student of human behavior, behavior that doesn't quite seem to make sense (including religious behavior) has always been fascinating to me.)

What happened to blasphemy against “reason”?
The earth is 6000 years old because by adding up generations we arrive at the Genesis. And of course people lived 900 years in those days. That’s how we know for sure the earth cannot be older than 6000 years. Duhhh!
If this story was told today it “should” be a joke. But it is still being told and a good percentage of the world’s population believe it, against all logic, reason and factual knowledge. In fact all of them believe that their religion offers a path to eternal bliss in the “hereafter” filled with real virgins to please the male.
As Carlin said, "you wanna hear a good bullshit story, Holy Shit!!!
Thus any excuse that most Muslims (or any monotheistic religion) do not really follow these barbaric beliefs offers no comfort to me. It is the religious zealots who seek to impose this mythology to the letter or you DIE, who worry me.
“Death to the infidel, death to the apostate, death to everyone who does not believe as I do”!
Well, in face of such clearly expressed threat, what are we to do? Play nice???

Terrorists existed in Iraq long before the US invaded. All that did was give them another excuse to engage in terrorism. They needed no encouragement from US actions. They had everything they needed from the Q'uran, their clerics and their own natural tendencies.
Wow....