I am saying that just saying people should not own slaves at a time when slave ownership was as common and an essential part of society won't likely do anything.
Remember, the qur'an is God's final and only direction to all of humanity, not just a (putatively) slightly improved penal code for 7th century Arabia. If that's all it is, it's interesting, and I suppose actual historical research could tell us whether it offered any improvement or not. But obviously, for a book that's supposed to contain God's will for all of humanity, it sucks.
Prohibiting drugs hasn't done much. I would say the way to cut down drug use is to not socially ostricize those who use drugs, to help them get away from using drugs, and to encourage a drug-free life.
That's not the point, is it? This thread isn't about the best way to get rid of slavery, although I think outlawing it certainly helps, and authorizing it, as the qur'an and prophet do, hurt. The point is that the qur'an does not provide good moral guidance for humanity. Because slavery is wrong.
I feel actions speak louder than words. But if it comforts you to say that slavery should be outlawed, rather than taking steps to make that call useless, by all means, go ahead.
So your position is that slavery should be legal? Is that honestly what you're trying to argue? That a book that makes slavery legal is more moral and correct than laws that prohibit it?
The prophet made an example of freeing slaves. Is that bad?
No, owning slaves to free is. Do you agree or disagree?
Muslims are not allowed to capture free Muslims and turn them into slaves.
And this encapsulates what is wrong with Islamic morality. Like all of the ancient, tribal, Abrahamic religions, it embodies a primitive, nomadic morality of loyalty to the tribe, while actually commanding its members to treat people outside the tribe horribly.
And I know of no verse or chapter in the Qur'an that states people cannot make up their own laws. Do you?
So you don't advocate Muslims following Sharia law?
Except these 'infidels' did not attack and are not attacking Muslims to begin with. Therefore, it is illegal in Islam. So no, it is not Islamic.
In that case, the entire history of Islam, including the life of the prophet, is un-Islamic. The history of Islam has been an uninterrupted succession of unprovoked wars of conquest.
So basically you're saying all history is inherently propoganda?
No, all of history is not written by the victors. What I'm saying is, Muslims have a motive to lie about the people they conquered. I'm sure if we asked them, or looked at some neutral research, we would get a very different picture.
Obviously. Yet it was a fact of the time. Sometimes, you have to deal with facts rather than dreams.
So God is powerless?
When Muslims pick-and-choose from the Qur'an, sure, they could end up with those ideas.
You mean when they follow exactly what the qur'an tells them to do, verbatim?
The best political ideology would be useless if you didn't strive to spread the idea and get people to agree. You won't get into government if you don't at least appeal somewhat to the people's wants and needs. It's the same with religion. Then, once you have a stable community, things can change.
How can things change, if the book we base our culture on retains the ancient, evil morality?
Islam didn't spread slavery; it already existed
Islam spread slavery from one end of the world to the other. Muslims operated the biggest slave trade in history, for 14 centuries. It's not over yet.
Millions were already enslaved.
Not nearly as many as came under the yoke of Muslims.
Also, I was talking about spreading Islam in the context of Muslims being threatened. Once they start going on wars of conquest, that's different. Islam is not being threatened at that stage.
So Islam conqured 1/3 of the known world by accident?
People would enslave others, with or without Islam. Urging people to free slaves and saying what a blessing it is will persuade some. It might have had a paradoxical effect, I admit.
So God is an idiot?
Islam taught that slaves were human beings, whatever their colour. Fair enough?
Nothing innovative there. Both Judaism and Christianity taught that. Judaism established many rules that limited slavery and gave rights to slaves. In the Jewish system, all Hebrew slaves get their freedom after 7 years. The Muslims system for the most part adopts the Hebrew system, with fewer rights for slaves. No great improvement or innovation there.
You make it sound like people, just because they are Muslims, must be crazy. At least that's the impression I'm getting.
People who adopt an ancient, incoherent, incomprehensible, barbaric mish-mosh of plagiarism and superstition as the basis of their morality are bound to act in crazy ways. And we observe that many Muslims do behave in quite crazy ways, such as going completely berserk because they don't like some cartoons.
, 
