The qur'an

[croak]

Well that case is not before us, and I can not imagine how it would come up, so why go there? I mean, generally speaking, killing babies is wrong, but if I wrack my brain I suppose I could come up with a bizarre hypothetical in which it was morally justified.

We imprison murderers these days. Imagine a society without prisons. What choices do they have?

In the sense of your personal moral values.

Those are in a constant state of flux. It would depend on the situation.

O.K., slavery is usually immoral. Now if you have slavery you would otherwise consider immoral, and the only variable is the religion of the slave, does that have any effect on your evaluation of whether a particular enslavement is right or wrong?

Immoral for me would remain immoral no matter the slave's religion, race, or any other definining factor.

As for the possible moral situations, let's say a Muslim tried to kill another Muslim. I would rather see the former enslaved than murdered, and would much rather see him repent and reform himself. Would that be legal according to Islamic law, to enslave a Muslim accused of attempted murder? No clue, but since this is according to my views, that doesn't matter.

I think we've made some headway. I hope so, at least.

 

[Autodidact]

We imprison murderers these days. Imagine a society without prisons. What choices do they have?[/qutoe] Not to mention the Packer's chances in the Super Bowl Sunday.

Those are in a constant state of flux. It would depend on the situation.

A situation of capturing a civilian woman in war, for example.

Immoral for me would remain immoral no matter the slave's religion, race, or any other definining factor.

So it sounds like you disagree with the Islamic approach, which differentiates based on religion.

 

[croak]

Not to mention the Packer's chances in the Super Bowl Sunday.

I wouldn't know, I don't keep up with football. I'm assuming slim, but what does that have to do with what I said?

A situation of capturing a civilian woman in war, for example.

A civilian? I would disagree.

So it sounds like you disagree with the Islamic approach, which differentiates based on religion.

I explained what I made of that concept.

 

[Autodidact]

I wouldn't know, I don't keep up with football. I'm assuming slim, but what does that have to do with what I said? As much as what you said has to do with the subject at hand.

A civilian? I would disagree.

You think the women that Muslims captured as sex-slaves were all soldiers?!? You have some evidence for that?

I explained what I made of that concept.

Yes. You believe that it is wrong.

Slavery is wrong.
The religion of the slave does not make it right.
Therefore the Islamic approach, that the religion of the slave does make it right, is incorrect.

 

[Autodidact]

Is it ever right for a man to own a female sex-slave? Is there any circumstance under which this is a moral act?

 

[A-ManESL]

Autodidact, Islam is neutral on slavery. It is moot on it. It does not prohibit it, it does not validate it. Its central message is "Be righteous and turn towards God." How and what is defined as righteous is in respect to the prevalent society and culture. Is it now clear?

 

[kai]

Autodidact, Islam is neutral on slavery. It is moot on it. It does not prohibit it, it does not validate it. Its central message is "Be righteous and turn towards God." How and what is defined as righteous is in respect to the prevalent society and culture. Is it now clear?

so Islam is neutral on one of the biggest blights on humanity? It tells you what to wear, what to eat , how many times a day you have to pray,and how to wash, but relies on you to do the right thing about slaves.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact, Islam is neutral on slavery. It is moot on it. It does not prohibit it, it does not validate it. Its central message is "Be righteous and turn towards God." How and what is defined as righteous is in respect to the prevalent society and culture. Is it now clear?

No, in fact it gets less clear by the minute. Righteousness is defined not by God, not by the qur'an, but by each culture?

Actually, Islam regulates slavery quite a lot, doesn't it? It tells who you can enslave, how you can get slaves, and a lot about how to treat them. What it does not do is to tell Muslims not to do so.

Apparently, the Muslim God cares a lot more about pigs than about people. It's extremely important what direction you face when you pray, but not at all important if you choose to capture a woman and use her sexually for her entire life. In fact, if you like, you can capture a little girl and sexually abuse her for her entire life, as long as she's not Muslim.

So, as I say, the qur'an represents a primitive, even barbaric, approach to morality, that of an ancient tribal taboo system. In these systems, which predominate in nomadic societies, morality focuses on not eating or wearing certain things, and not having certain kinds of sex, on treating other members of the tribe fairly or kindly, and conquering, decimating and enslaving members of other tribes. This was the culture of 7th century Arabia, which is encapsulated in the qur'an.

btw, this is the same morality embodied in the Tanakh.

It would benefit everyone, including Muslims, to grow beyond that primitive level of morality.

 

[A-ManESL]

so Islam is neutral on one of the biggest blights on humanity?

Firstly what you consider a blight is not neccessarily a blight according to everyone. Secondly the biggest mistake is that a person does not recognize that what is really real and what is only apparently real. Slavery etc exist only are blights in the temporal sense, and to think that its hardships are really real and are damaging the purpose of existence is incorrect.

The problem is that you are starting from the viewpoint of what is really relevant based on individualism. Individualism is really background scenery in Islam (and in my view in all religions ) for it holds that this individualism has no real permanence. Hence it is not really relevant. The main thing is to turn towards God.

Regards

 

[A-ManESL]

No, in fact it gets less clear by the minute. Righteousness is defined not by God, not by the qur'an, but by each culture?

Actually, Islam regulates slavery quite a lot, doesn't it? It tells who you can enslave, how you can get slaves, and a lot about how to treat them. What it does not do is to tell Muslims not to do so.

Apparently, the Muslim God cares a lot more about pigs than about people. It's extremely important what direction you face when you pray, but not at all important if you choose to capture a woman and use her sexually for her entire life. In fact, if you like, you can capture a little girl and sexually abuse her for her entire life, as long as she's not Muslim.

So, as I say, the qur'an represents a primitive, even barbaric, approach to morality, that of an ancient tribal taboo system. In these systems, which predominate in nomadic societies, morality focuses on not eating or wearing certain things, and not having certain kinds of sex, on treating other members of the tribe fairly or kindly, and conquering, decimating and enslaving members of other tribes. This was the culture of 7th century Arabia, which is encapsulated in the qur'an.

btw, this is the same morality embodied in the Tanakh.

It would benefit everyone, including Muslims, to grow beyond that primitive level of morality.

Most of what you say is formed by an immature understanding of Islam. Firstly you need to understand the basics of Islam if you want to talk about it. I suggest you read some good book on Islam first. I think your confusion (if you really mean it when you say you are confused) will get resolved then.

 

[kai]

Firstly what you consider a blight is not neccessarily a blight according to everyone. Secondly the biggest mistake is that a person does not recognize that what is really real and what is only apparently real. Slavery etc exist only are blights in the temporal sense, and to think that its hardships are really real and are damaging the purpose of existence is incorrect.

The problem is that you are starting from the viewpoint of what is really relevant based on individualism. Individualism is really background scenery in Islam (and in my view in all religions ) for it holds that this individualism has no real permanence. Hence it is not really relevant. The main thing is to turn towards God.

Regards

forgive me , but that went right over my head.

 

[YmirGF]

Firstly what you consider a blight is not neccessarily a blight according to everyone.

So, one man's blight is another man's fast track to paradise?

Secondly the biggest mistake is that a person does not recognize that what is really real and what is only apparently real. Slavery etc exist only are blights in the temporal sense, and to think that its hardships are really real and are damaging the purpose of existence is incorrect.

So... slavery is good for the soul?

The problem is that you are starting from the viewpoint of what is really relevant based on individualism. Individualism is really background scenery in Islam (and in my view in all religions ) for it holds that this individualism has no real permanence. Hence it is not really relevant. The main thing is to turn towards God.

Frankly speaking, I cannot think of a clearer reason to resist Islam (or any other kindred ideology) with every fiber of ones being.

 

[kai]

You know i cant help but think when considering the eastern slave trade, Islam by recognizing and codifying slavery, seems to have entrenched and expand slavery in the region. Its a mistake!

 

[YmirGF]

Its a mistake!

Apparently, Allah knows best, kai.

 

[A-ManESL]

So, one man's blight is another man's fast track to paradise?

Of course not. The two are unrelated. Thats what I have been saying for some time. Is saying "being neutral" confusing?

So... slavery is good for the soul?

Again is saying "Being neutral" confusing?

Frankly speaking, I cannot think of a clearer reason to resist Islam (or any other kindred ideology) with every fiber of ones being.

What reason?

 

[YmirGF]

Of course not. The two are unrelated. Thats what I have been saying for some time. Is saying "being neutral" confusing?


Again is saying "Being neutral" confusing?


What reason?

Your attempted disconnect from my fairly accurate points is very telling and instructive.

That said, it is somewhat informative that the "noble" Qur'an speaks of slavery in many places and yet you claim that its references are neutral. That it neither encourages or discourages the practice of slavery.

Muhammad himself kept slaves. Muhammad is, in theory, the perfect human being. Therefore it follows that slavery is addressed in a favorable light as your prophet himself took part in it.

It also follows that if Muhammad had not thought slavery was quite acceptable he certainly had the power to abolish it completely. Given that this is the case, your amusing suggestion that the Qur'an is neutral on the subject is simply deceptive. Time and time again we are reminded that Muhammad is the best of the best. The perfect example, etc. In this way, BECAUSE Muhammad kept slaves and did not move to abolish the practice the Qur'an is supporting slavery. It is NOT neutral.

 

[Autodidact]

Firstly what you consider a blight is not neccessarily a blight according to everyone. Secondly the biggest mistake is that a person does not recognize that what is really real and what is only apparently real. Slavery etc exist only are blights in the temporal sense, and to think that its hardships are really real and are damaging the purpose of existence is incorrect.

The problem is that you are starting from the viewpoint of what is really relevant based on individualism. Individualism is really background scenery in Islam (and in my view in all religions ) for it holds that this individualism has no real permanence. Hence it is not really relevant. The main thing is to turn towards God.

Regards

So in case anyone here was wondering whether Islam is a positive force for improving the world, or a negative one that leaves it mired in slavery and barbarism, you've made it clear to all of us that it is the latter. Once again you've shown us all why Islam must be combatted, resisted and defeated, if human beings are ever to live in freedom.

I have a feeling that if you were a slave, you would consider it a blight.

 

[Autodidact]

Most of what you say is formed by an immature understanding of Islam. Firstly you need to understand the basics of Islam if you want to talk about it. I suggest you read some good book on Islam first. I think your confusion (if you really mean it when you say you are confused) will get resolved then.

I'm not confused by Islam. I'm pretty clear on that. I'm greatly confused by you and your position. Could you make it clear? Thanks. For example, is slavery right or wrong, to you?

 

[Autodidact]

Of course not. The two are unrelated. Thats what I have been saying for some time. Is saying "being neutral" confusing?


Again is saying "Being neutral" confusing?


What reason?

With Islam, we get the world's largest slave trade. We get innocent human beings being captured and sold to men they've never met in order to live their entire "temporal" lives in sexual slavery to their conquerors.

With secular laws, this is illegal. If the perpetrators are caught, they are punished.

Does that make it more clear?

Or do you think it's a good thing to capture women and enslave them for men's sexual gratification and use?

 

[Autodidact]

Of course not. The two are unrelated. Thats what I have been saying for some time. Is saying "being neutral" confusing?


Again is saying "Being neutral" confusing?


What reason?

Islam is neutral on the question of whether one human being should own another as a piece of property. Every secular nation prohibits it, pursuant to Enlightenment values of equality and freedom. Therefore secular values are better than Islamic values.

Unless, like A-Man, you think slavery is o.k.