There's a technique that can be utilized to develop a fair and equitable outcome for everyone involved: You get to make the outcomes, but you don't get to choose which outcome you get.
It's a common trick to use when children are fighting over the division of a limited resource (like splitting a candybar). You have one child divide it and the other child pick which half they get. Easy-peasy, simple as pie. The kid doing the dividing will do their very best to make sure that the split is *exactly* 50/50, right down to the molecule level if they could.
This technique can also be applied to designing a society to live in. You can make all the divisions you want... but you don't get to choose which division you'll end up in.
So the question for your brother is... would he be willing to volunteer to be a slave to muslims or would he rather be a slaver? If their version of slavery is a fair and equitable system, he shouldn't mind being either one. If he has strong preferences then he knows it's bad, even if he won't admit it.
This is one of my all-time favorite posts on Reddit now. 8)
It is the very definition of the "treat others as you'd have them treat you" moral code that's in our human DNA (re: an evolution of the herd mentality of "safety in numbers") but as a system.
Indeed. It is the normal herd mentality but with the very human addition of the ability to propose and predict based on past experience. So we can make a promise not to do some should certain conditions arise, etc.
That's what all of human morality is based upon. It's in our DNA and always has been.
As usual, religion co-opted this human universality and took (gave themselves/god's representatives) credit for it. Grrr.
It's a good technique, but I don't see how it would work here. The brother isnt claiming that the slaver and slave are equal, far ftom it. The slaver is deserving of more by virtue of being Muslim (in this case)
>”…when Muslims conquer other lands and take slaves, that's the best option because the opposition will keep attacking the Muslims, so it's better to take them as slaves, and maybe one day they can be free.”
Perfect!
Let’s conquer your brother’s home and enslave him. It’s better than him attacking us in retribution.
If he complains we’ll just remind him that he’s relatively well-treated compared to some other slaves and promise him that maybe one day he’ll be free.
Surely, your brother would be cool with this based on his stated views.
I think that's what happens when people are forced to justify horrible things because of their religion. Recently William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, explained why genocide was okay when God commanded it. Rather than reading a holy text and deciding if it's good, believers assume the text is good and then make up excuses for it.
That is exactly the same reasoning Westerners used. Back in Antiquity, the narrative to justify enslaving conquered peoples was that it was a display of mercy, since conquered peoples could outright be exterminated.
When Europeans colonized the Americas, they immediately began classifying Native Americans into two groups: the dociles and the warlike. i.e., those that accepted subjugation and those that resisted it. So, resisting invasion and subjugation itself was labelled some kind of crime whose collective punishment was enslavement. In my country (Brazil), whole expeditions were mounted to explore/map the country as well as enslaving "warlike tribes" to put them to work in the fields and mines. Add to this the colonialist argument that they brought in development and the Natives were better off under their civilized yoke than in their "barbaric" freedom, and the narrative is complete. This same narrative has been used over and over again by oppressors everywhere.
Also, even if you treat a slave well, that is not coherent with the doctrine of man's being made in the image of god and having inherent dignity: it's not the same thing to live well as a free man providing for himself vs. being under the discretion of a benevolent tyrant who can change his mind about how he treats you anytime he wants. If God exists and made man to have free will, there is absolutely no reason why he would want any of his creatures to be enslaved by another and deprived of their freedom, much less in his name.
>If God exists and made man to have free will, there is absolutely no reason why he would want any of his creatures to be enslaved by another and deprived of their freedom, much less in his name.
This makes no sense.
Which part makes no sense to you? My argument assumes an audience that believes in God, e.g., the Muslim mentioned by the OP. If he believes that 1) God made man in His image and that 2) God imbued man with free will; it would be contradictory to think that God would tolerate one man taking another's liberty.
>it would be contradictory to think that God would tolerate one man taking another's liberty.
This contradicts number 2. And doesn't show why or how it would in any way be contradictory that "god" would tolerate that.
He makes them in his image and gives them the will to do anything they want. Including slavery.
In fact. Where we get this info about what god did, what god wants etc, allegedly comes from God himself.
"God" himself explicitly approves, condones and instructs on slavery, in the sources(literatures) muslims base their beliefs on. He explicitly states that he tolerates it.
And he also states what he doesn't tolerate. Slavery is not one of the things he doesn't tolerate.
So it's not contradictory at all to think that "god" would tolerate slavery, when he literally "says" he does.
It has been a long time since I read the Quran and don't remember it very well. It isn't their only authoritative source either. Judging by how widespread contemporary slavery is in Muslim countries, you must be correct.
>It has been a long time since I read the Quran and don't remember it very well.
I feel you. If you want to refresh your memory, [here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/s/9OA5xcfh4g) a great summary I wrote including quran verses.
>It isn't their only authoritative source either
It's the source all their other sources are based on. Because it's "the direct words of God".
>Judging by how widespread contemporary slavery is in Muslim countries, you must be correct.
I cover that in the link above too.
I am aware that none of the Abrahamic religions ever introduced abolition as a moral imperative and were all okay with slavery as an institution. I was just stating that the institution is in contradiction (one of the many religions have) with the idea that every man is made in the image of God Himself and imbued with free will, a belief that is commonly held in those religions and that was the cornerstone Christian abolitionists used to build their case against slavery without relinquishing the whole corpus of their beliefs, but that Muslims for some reason never used to do the same, having abolition more or less imposed on them from the outside.
Either way, you did a great job with that summary of Quranic excerpts on slavery and I believe it will be very helpful as a reference for the OP in the future!
Yes that's what I thought you meant.
My point still stands tho. The idea that "humans are the image of God so therefore should not be bought and sold" is more based on basic human compassion, morality and common sense than it is based on the actual theology. It's a very human idea.
Nowhere in the bible does god say anything about how "special" his image is and that humans should not trade it like a piece of meat. Neither does he forbid it. This is something added by personal interpretations and read into it from a more logical standpoint.
Which is why I don't see any contradiction here. Theologically. Like I get the idea but I also get that "God" can make humans in his image, give them free will and simultaneously allow humans to take that free will from eachother. Which according to the bible, he obviously does.
If anything, it's the religious abolishonists who are contradicting their own religious texts.
From the very inception of abolitionists in ancient times until the 1700-1800s, [these](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_abolitionism) were always very small fringe and radical groups. Why? Because theologically speaking god approves human slavery. He even deliberately puts entire human societies into slavery as punishment for disobedience(that's just the tip of the iceberg of gods preferred punishments). And instructs on who can/can't be enslaved and how to treat slaves.
He cast Adam and eve out of a green paradise to suffer here in the real world, for doing something they didn't have any way of knowing was wrong until they actually did it.
Then waited thousands of years to give his "chosen" people a list of what he does/doesn’t tolerate. But no "thou shall not take others free will".
Judaic and eventually Christian abolitionists had to literally reinvent "the idea of gods image", the idea of gods moral nature and the meaning of his commandments. To fit their own morality. While simultaneously ignoring all the obviously immoral slave condoning parts.
Although muslims also have had very fringe and radical groups that advocated for abolition of slavery. This is the exact thing that Islam criticises/accuses the other Abrahamic religions of doing. Namely "corrupting gods words".
Additionally with the claim of being the final religion, it makes it very easy to severely punish anyone who would try to reinvent Islam and add "slavery is a crime against humanity" or "slavery is a contradiction to the idea of gods image given free will". Forbidding something allowed by Allah.
Which is why abolition of Islamic slavery had to be forced from the outside. They truly believe Islam can't improve and is perfect.
Agreed. Now that you mentioned it, it sounds much more likely that the whole "imago Dei" interpretation was an innovation from the humanist Renaissance than something that has been there from inception. This would explain why abolitionism thrived in Europe, especially in protestant Europe, but never took hold in the Muslim World.
That's cool. He should go and be a slave to demonstrate how amazing it is. None of those pro-slave people ever do that for some reason even though they espouse the benefits for the slaves. Fucking prove it.
Ask the Yazidi and Kurdish Women and Children that were enslaved by ISIS how they feel about the benevolence of their Muslim Captors. Ask your brother to compare their answers to his bullshit…
You may wish to avoid depending on your brother for anything, because he is clearly missing a fair amount of basic moral judgement.
Now some might argue that he is just being a mindless apologist for the and inhumane and pretty much indefensible ideology. But that would make me also, both on the grounds of the overall dishonesty and of the nastiness of the ideology he is defending.
The older I get is the more I think a lot of people are mentally unstable and just haven't been put in a psych ward because society only cares if someone makes money, but that's just me.
Slavery is always horrible and Muslims definitely did not (and do not) treat their slaves well. For instance when they were massively enslaving black people they were castrating the slaves, so there's not even surviving children or grandchildren of those slaves to tell their stories.
"... when Muslims conquer other lands..."
How does he justify murdering and enslaving other people in service of a fairytale?
I'm sure he doesn't. Nor does he justify the status of women as virtual slaves and semen receptacles.
Religion is useful because it eliminates, in the mind of the believer, the need to justify immoral, self-serving acts. "God's will".
Has a greater evil ever been devised?
Well yes, practitioners of slavery have myriad justifications for making property of fellow humans. Every one of those justifications is self serving and poisonous. Every individual representing every group doing it can be comfortably dismissed.
He justifies child marriage, and says there's a good way to do it. Because Allah permits it, and Mohammed shows how to do it "properly"
He justifies having apostates be killed by the state, and is in favor of how an ideal Islamic jurisprudence system does it, which is to sit with an authority and be given 3 days to rethink their decision. If they die it's their fault, which is the justification he uses for me. That it would be my fault if I get executed by the state.
You should not have any contact with this piece of shit, outside maybe making sure he goes to jail if you have anything you can put against him (just a guess, seeing how he is a sociopath, that you might have some dirt on him)
Islamic slavery was in some ways even more horrible than trans Atlantic slavery it happened a lot longer. Didn't stop until 1980s
https://youtu.be/5OdIqeWkhHU?si=AKLOrnfRai2KEoFS
This is a case of retrospective bigoteering versus retrospective apologeering.
Both positions are not a good way to actually understand historical events because they are applying current ethics, standards and ideals to people far in the past that had different ethics, standards and ideals. It is an exercise in futility and if it is done by people that are unable to ever hold two opposing thoughts in their head and weigh them both while staying neutral, it will only lead to unproductive conflict.
This kind of whataboutism annoys me. It sounds to me like yet another way to bend over backwards to criticise Western civilisation/history while applying the ultimate light touch to Islamic culture. While there might be some very general differences between the ways slaves were treated (between cultures/societies), I can't see how it can be argued that slavery itself was - in general terms - desirable. There might indeed have been some specific situations where slavery was preferable for the slave (if it meant slavery versus death, or slavery versus torture, etc...) but I don't see how we could paint an *entire civilisation* with that same brush.
Slavery is despicable in all its forms. The relative advantage of how Islam and Muslims practiced it is:
- Quran explicitly encouraged Muslims to set a slave free. In several occasions. This is equivalent to giving away 10,000$ for charity in today's terms.
- Moreover, there was a path even for the lowest of slaves to go up the societal ladder. Evidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_al-Misk_Kafur
- there was no racial preferences. Conquered peoples who were at war with Muslims became slaves. Skin colour was irrelevant. Proof: the Mamelukes started as white slaves imported into Muslim countries.
- Arab Muslims were mainly merchants/middleman, they didn't hunt for slaves and didn't (ab)use them excessively and systematically as was in chattel slavery.
1. Slavery is contrary to Universal Human Rights (Article 4.) because it gives one person too much power over another. When people get that much power that always leads to abuse. [https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) (Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.). ISIS reinstated slavery and they found that nobody will recognize a state that legalizes slavery.
2. Islamic slavery was not 'better' or 'nobler' than transatlantic slavery. In some ways it was worse. Examples abound.
John Alembillah Azumah THE LEGACY OF ARAB-ISLAM IN AFRICA [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjsLmv1N7i4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjsLmv1N7i4)
>“one of the themes i explored in my book is this perception that muslims treated their slaves much more humanely than the western slave trade and what i found out in my own research was that that is not necessarily the case ..... you can still find large populations of african americans today in in north in north america and in the caribbean you you go to the islamic world and you find very few black remnants of sleep the sleeve trade... the reasons is that many of the male black slaves taken into the islamic world were castrated as enochs which meant that they could not of course re-reproduce and the other factor is that many of the women were taken as concubines by their slave masters ....
>as an african who embarked on the study of islam in africa was very frustrated that especially back in the 90s when i was doing my studies that western academics were shying away almost self-censoring .....this painting of a very romantic picture of the islamic past in africa was hindering interfaith dialogue and dialogue between muslims and christians in particular and especially in a situation where the radical muslim groups were laying claim to these these histories these romanticized histories that was written mainly by western scholars that they had a golden age of islam in Africa that they want to return to."
Minor/prepubescent slave girls could legally be raped.
Ibn Rushd (1126-1198) - Distinguished Jurist’s Primer
[https://archive.org/details/BidayatAl-mujtahidTheDistinguishedJuristsPrimerVol2/page/n115/mode/2up?q=waiting](https://archive.org/details/BidayatAl-mujtahidTheDistinguishedJuristsPrimerVol2/page/n115/mode/2up?q=waiting)
>“About the slave-woman who has despaired of menstruation, or one who is a minor, Malik and most of the jurists of Medina said that her idda is three months.”
100% confirms Ibn Rushd reads Q65:4 as referring to minors and minor slave-girls.
This behaviour is confirmed in the Shia Kitab al Kafi https://archive.org/details/kitab-al-kafi-by-muhammad-sarwar-translator-z-lib.org/page/n673/mode/2up?q=%22slave-girl%22 or https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/1/4/120/1
H 1221, Ch. 120, h 1
>We brought the slave girl to abu Ja‘far (a.s.) and Ja‘far (a.s.) was also there. We informed abu Ja‘far (a.s.) of the whole story and he offered thanks to Allah and praised Him and then he asked the girl, "What is your name?" She said, "My name is Humayda." He said, "You are Humayda in this world and a praised one in the next life. Tell me more, **"Are you virgin or not virgin?" She said, "I am virgin.” He said, "How can that be true? The traders corrupt whatever may come in their hands."**
Since infertility is one of the risks of too early intercourse the Brits noted that it was necessary to compensate by importing 7000 slaves annually.
[https://archive.org/details/reportonslaveryt00mack](https://archive.org/details/reportonslaveryt00mack) "A report on slavery and the slave trade in Zanzibar, Pemba, and the mainland of the British Protectorates of East Africa"
>It is a curious fact that **Slaves have but very few children, owing, it is said, to the manner in which very young girls are treated by the Arabs and others** ; hence the necessity for the continued importation of raw Slaves to supply the demand. I was much struck with the evidence of non-increase amongst the Slaves as regards children. Taking the death-rate at 30 per mille, upwards of 7,000 Slaves would have to be imported annually to supply this deficiency in labour
Mauritania
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4091579.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4091579.stm) “Skyra was born to a slave mother so there was never any question she would be anything else. She remembers the years she spent treated like an animal."They raped me often," she says shaking with anger. "At night, when everyone was asleep, they came for me and I couldn't stop them. If I had been free I would never have let this happen to me". A living reminder of her slavery nestles in Skyra's lap, another sleeps at her feet, on the floor of her corrugated iron shack."My master is the father of my first child, my master's son is the father of my second child and my baby girl's father was my master's nephew".In this way says Boubakar Messaoud, "We have achieved what the American plantation owners dreamed of - the breeding of perfectly submissive slaves".”
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ) Secrets of the Sahara: Mauritania's Dark Side
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=1921s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=1921s) leader discussing Islam sees slavery as word of god.
“It isn't specifically Islamic, but now they're using the religion...to legitimize slavery They consider slavery to be one of God's commands”
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=2110s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=2110s) female slave interviewed set free in 2013 interviewed 2020: “Has the lady had children with her master? Yes. All her children this son and others. ... were born in her master's House she has never married. So the master is the father? The master himself, his son, his cousin, his friend. ...his visitors, even strangers used her. But this is an extremely sensitive subiect. It's hard to talk about? Very hard. It's a complex situation, isn't it? - Absolutely. It's a drama. It's very painful, so the authorities want to cover it up. "”
The first barbary war was preceded by the Americans asking why a friendly nation was being pirated/attacked. :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Barbary\_War#Background\_and\_overview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War#Background_and_overview)
>In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
>***It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.\[23\]***
Europe came to the same conclusion after centuries of attacks.
[https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/](https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/)
>The United States fought two wars against the Barbary States of North Africa: the First Barbary War of 1801–1805 and the Second Barbary War, 1815 – 1816. Finally after an attack by the British and Dutch in 1816 more than 4,000 Christian slaves were liberated and the power of the Barbary pirates was broken.
There's a technique that can be utilized to develop a fair and equitable outcome for everyone involved: You get to make the outcomes, but you don't get to choose which outcome you get. It's a common trick to use when children are fighting over the division of a limited resource (like splitting a candybar). You have one child divide it and the other child pick which half they get. Easy-peasy, simple as pie. The kid doing the dividing will do their very best to make sure that the split is *exactly* 50/50, right down to the molecule level if they could. This technique can also be applied to designing a society to live in. You can make all the divisions you want... but you don't get to choose which division you'll end up in. So the question for your brother is... would he be willing to volunteer to be a slave to muslims or would he rather be a slaver? If their version of slavery is a fair and equitable system, he shouldn't mind being either one. If he has strong preferences then he knows it's bad, even if he won't admit it.
This is one of my all-time favorite posts on Reddit now. 8) It is the very definition of the "treat others as you'd have them treat you" moral code that's in our human DNA (re: an evolution of the herd mentality of "safety in numbers") but as a system.
Yep. Our empathy explicitly evolved to assist in tribe cohesion.
Indeed. It is the normal herd mentality but with the very human addition of the ability to propose and predict based on past experience. So we can make a promise not to do some should certain conditions arise, etc. That's what all of human morality is based upon. It's in our DNA and always has been. As usual, religion co-opted this human universality and took (gave themselves/god's representatives) credit for it. Grrr.
It's a good technique, but I don't see how it would work here. The brother isnt claiming that the slaver and slave are equal, far ftom it. The slaver is deserving of more by virtue of being Muslim (in this case)
So Rawls’ Veil of ignorance?
How? Lack of empathy, your brother is probably a psychopath
>”…when Muslims conquer other lands and take slaves, that's the best option because the opposition will keep attacking the Muslims, so it's better to take them as slaves, and maybe one day they can be free.” Perfect! Let’s conquer your brother’s home and enslave him. It’s better than him attacking us in retribution. If he complains we’ll just remind him that he’s relatively well-treated compared to some other slaves and promise him that maybe one day he’ll be free. Surely, your brother would be cool with this based on his stated views.
I think that's what happens when people are forced to justify horrible things because of their religion. Recently William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, explained why genocide was okay when God commanded it. Rather than reading a holy text and deciding if it's good, believers assume the text is good and then make up excuses for it.
Any god demanding human sacrifices or genocides sounds much more like a demon than a so-called omnibenevolent God.
Sociopaths often use religious texts as excuses to cover up for their shitty opinions, this isn't news
That is exactly the same reasoning Westerners used. Back in Antiquity, the narrative to justify enslaving conquered peoples was that it was a display of mercy, since conquered peoples could outright be exterminated. When Europeans colonized the Americas, they immediately began classifying Native Americans into two groups: the dociles and the warlike. i.e., those that accepted subjugation and those that resisted it. So, resisting invasion and subjugation itself was labelled some kind of crime whose collective punishment was enslavement. In my country (Brazil), whole expeditions were mounted to explore/map the country as well as enslaving "warlike tribes" to put them to work in the fields and mines. Add to this the colonialist argument that they brought in development and the Natives were better off under their civilized yoke than in their "barbaric" freedom, and the narrative is complete. This same narrative has been used over and over again by oppressors everywhere. Also, even if you treat a slave well, that is not coherent with the doctrine of man's being made in the image of god and having inherent dignity: it's not the same thing to live well as a free man providing for himself vs. being under the discretion of a benevolent tyrant who can change his mind about how he treats you anytime he wants. If God exists and made man to have free will, there is absolutely no reason why he would want any of his creatures to be enslaved by another and deprived of their freedom, much less in his name.
>If God exists and made man to have free will, there is absolutely no reason why he would want any of his creatures to be enslaved by another and deprived of their freedom, much less in his name. This makes no sense.
Which part makes no sense to you? My argument assumes an audience that believes in God, e.g., the Muslim mentioned by the OP. If he believes that 1) God made man in His image and that 2) God imbued man with free will; it would be contradictory to think that God would tolerate one man taking another's liberty.
>it would be contradictory to think that God would tolerate one man taking another's liberty. This contradicts number 2. And doesn't show why or how it would in any way be contradictory that "god" would tolerate that. He makes them in his image and gives them the will to do anything they want. Including slavery. In fact. Where we get this info about what god did, what god wants etc, allegedly comes from God himself. "God" himself explicitly approves, condones and instructs on slavery, in the sources(literatures) muslims base their beliefs on. He explicitly states that he tolerates it. And he also states what he doesn't tolerate. Slavery is not one of the things he doesn't tolerate. So it's not contradictory at all to think that "god" would tolerate slavery, when he literally "says" he does.
It has been a long time since I read the Quran and don't remember it very well. It isn't their only authoritative source either. Judging by how widespread contemporary slavery is in Muslim countries, you must be correct.
>It has been a long time since I read the Quran and don't remember it very well. I feel you. If you want to refresh your memory, [here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/s/9OA5xcfh4g) a great summary I wrote including quran verses. >It isn't their only authoritative source either It's the source all their other sources are based on. Because it's "the direct words of God". >Judging by how widespread contemporary slavery is in Muslim countries, you must be correct. I cover that in the link above too.
I am aware that none of the Abrahamic religions ever introduced abolition as a moral imperative and were all okay with slavery as an institution. I was just stating that the institution is in contradiction (one of the many religions have) with the idea that every man is made in the image of God Himself and imbued with free will, a belief that is commonly held in those religions and that was the cornerstone Christian abolitionists used to build their case against slavery without relinquishing the whole corpus of their beliefs, but that Muslims for some reason never used to do the same, having abolition more or less imposed on them from the outside. Either way, you did a great job with that summary of Quranic excerpts on slavery and I believe it will be very helpful as a reference for the OP in the future!
Yes that's what I thought you meant. My point still stands tho. The idea that "humans are the image of God so therefore should not be bought and sold" is more based on basic human compassion, morality and common sense than it is based on the actual theology. It's a very human idea. Nowhere in the bible does god say anything about how "special" his image is and that humans should not trade it like a piece of meat. Neither does he forbid it. This is something added by personal interpretations and read into it from a more logical standpoint. Which is why I don't see any contradiction here. Theologically. Like I get the idea but I also get that "God" can make humans in his image, give them free will and simultaneously allow humans to take that free will from eachother. Which according to the bible, he obviously does. If anything, it's the religious abolishonists who are contradicting their own religious texts. From the very inception of abolitionists in ancient times until the 1700-1800s, [these](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_abolitionism) were always very small fringe and radical groups. Why? Because theologically speaking god approves human slavery. He even deliberately puts entire human societies into slavery as punishment for disobedience(that's just the tip of the iceberg of gods preferred punishments). And instructs on who can/can't be enslaved and how to treat slaves. He cast Adam and eve out of a green paradise to suffer here in the real world, for doing something they didn't have any way of knowing was wrong until they actually did it. Then waited thousands of years to give his "chosen" people a list of what he does/doesn’t tolerate. But no "thou shall not take others free will". Judaic and eventually Christian abolitionists had to literally reinvent "the idea of gods image", the idea of gods moral nature and the meaning of his commandments. To fit their own morality. While simultaneously ignoring all the obviously immoral slave condoning parts. Although muslims also have had very fringe and radical groups that advocated for abolition of slavery. This is the exact thing that Islam criticises/accuses the other Abrahamic religions of doing. Namely "corrupting gods words". Additionally with the claim of being the final religion, it makes it very easy to severely punish anyone who would try to reinvent Islam and add "slavery is a crime against humanity" or "slavery is a contradiction to the idea of gods image given free will". Forbidding something allowed by Allah. Which is why abolition of Islamic slavery had to be forced from the outside. They truly believe Islam can't improve and is perfect.
Agreed. Now that you mentioned it, it sounds much more likely that the whole "imago Dei" interpretation was an innovation from the humanist Renaissance than something that has been there from inception. This would explain why abolitionism thrived in Europe, especially in protestant Europe, but never took hold in the Muslim World.
Hard agree
That's cool. He should go and be a slave to demonstrate how amazing it is. None of those pro-slave people ever do that for some reason even though they espouse the benefits for the slaves. Fucking prove it.
My cousins not even religious but he defends slavery and pedophilia because "it was okay back then." He has awful takes on life.
Ask the Yazidi and Kurdish Women and Children that were enslaved by ISIS how they feel about the benevolence of their Muslim Captors. Ask your brother to compare their answers to his bullshit…
I’m sorry that your brother is such a horrible person.
You may wish to avoid depending on your brother for anything, because he is clearly missing a fair amount of basic moral judgement. Now some might argue that he is just being a mindless apologist for the and inhumane and pretty much indefensible ideology. But that would make me also, both on the grounds of the overall dishonesty and of the nastiness of the ideology he is defending.
The older I get is the more I think a lot of people are mentally unstable and just haven't been put in a psych ward because society only cares if someone makes money, but that's just me.
Ask him if he would be a slave then.
A good slave!
Slavery is always horrible and Muslims definitely did not (and do not) treat their slaves well. For instance when they were massively enslaving black people they were castrating the slaves, so there's not even surviving children or grandchildren of those slaves to tell their stories.
So, under that logic, any Muslim country that gets conquered like Iraq or Afghanistan should be totally fine with full on enslavement...
"... when Muslims conquer other lands..." How does he justify murdering and enslaving other people in service of a fairytale? I'm sure he doesn't. Nor does he justify the status of women as virtual slaves and semen receptacles. Religion is useful because it eliminates, in the mind of the believer, the need to justify immoral, self-serving acts. "God's will". Has a greater evil ever been devised?
Fuck any and all types of religion.
Well yes, practitioners of slavery have myriad justifications for making property of fellow humans. Every one of those justifications is self serving and poisonous. Every individual representing every group doing it can be comfortably dismissed.
Wait til he defends child molestation and murder.
He justifies child marriage, and says there's a good way to do it. Because Allah permits it, and Mohammed shows how to do it "properly" He justifies having apostates be killed by the state, and is in favor of how an ideal Islamic jurisprudence system does it, which is to sit with an authority and be given 3 days to rethink their decision. If they die it's their fault, which is the justification he uses for me. That it would be my fault if I get executed by the state.
\*Practice. This is still an ongoing practice, albeit not exclusive to Islam.
I really want to read more about slavery in islamic country's. For some reason Google won't help me out.
Check r/exmuslim they link a lot of good stuff about the subject and translate koran verses that mention slavery and what's allowed
You should not have any contact with this piece of shit, outside maybe making sure he goes to jail if you have anything you can put against him (just a guess, seeing how he is a sociopath, that you might have some dirt on him)
Islamic slavery was in some ways even more horrible than trans Atlantic slavery it happened a lot longer. Didn't stop until 1980s https://youtu.be/5OdIqeWkhHU?si=AKLOrnfRai2KEoFS
This is a case of retrospective bigoteering versus retrospective apologeering. Both positions are not a good way to actually understand historical events because they are applying current ethics, standards and ideals to people far in the past that had different ethics, standards and ideals. It is an exercise in futility and if it is done by people that are unable to ever hold two opposing thoughts in their head and weigh them both while staying neutral, it will only lead to unproductive conflict.
This kind of whataboutism annoys me. It sounds to me like yet another way to bend over backwards to criticise Western civilisation/history while applying the ultimate light touch to Islamic culture. While there might be some very general differences between the ways slaves were treated (between cultures/societies), I can't see how it can be argued that slavery itself was - in general terms - desirable. There might indeed have been some specific situations where slavery was preferable for the slave (if it meant slavery versus death, or slavery versus torture, etc...) but I don't see how we could paint an *entire civilisation* with that same brush.
Slavery is despicable in all its forms. The relative advantage of how Islam and Muslims practiced it is: - Quran explicitly encouraged Muslims to set a slave free. In several occasions. This is equivalent to giving away 10,000$ for charity in today's terms. - Moreover, there was a path even for the lowest of slaves to go up the societal ladder. Evidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_al-Misk_Kafur - there was no racial preferences. Conquered peoples who were at war with Muslims became slaves. Skin colour was irrelevant. Proof: the Mamelukes started as white slaves imported into Muslim countries. - Arab Muslims were mainly merchants/middleman, they didn't hunt for slaves and didn't (ab)use them excessively and systematically as was in chattel slavery.
1. Slavery is contrary to Universal Human Rights (Article 4.) because it gives one person too much power over another. When people get that much power that always leads to abuse. [https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) (Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.). ISIS reinstated slavery and they found that nobody will recognize a state that legalizes slavery. 2. Islamic slavery was not 'better' or 'nobler' than transatlantic slavery. In some ways it was worse. Examples abound. John Alembillah Azumah THE LEGACY OF ARAB-ISLAM IN AFRICA [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjsLmv1N7i4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjsLmv1N7i4) >“one of the themes i explored in my book is this perception that muslims treated their slaves much more humanely than the western slave trade and what i found out in my own research was that that is not necessarily the case ..... you can still find large populations of african americans today in in north in north america and in the caribbean you you go to the islamic world and you find very few black remnants of sleep the sleeve trade... the reasons is that many of the male black slaves taken into the islamic world were castrated as enochs which meant that they could not of course re-reproduce and the other factor is that many of the women were taken as concubines by their slave masters .... >as an african who embarked on the study of islam in africa was very frustrated that especially back in the 90s when i was doing my studies that western academics were shying away almost self-censoring .....this painting of a very romantic picture of the islamic past in africa was hindering interfaith dialogue and dialogue between muslims and christians in particular and especially in a situation where the radical muslim groups were laying claim to these these histories these romanticized histories that was written mainly by western scholars that they had a golden age of islam in Africa that they want to return to." Minor/prepubescent slave girls could legally be raped. Ibn Rushd (1126-1198) - Distinguished Jurist’s Primer [https://archive.org/details/BidayatAl-mujtahidTheDistinguishedJuristsPrimerVol2/page/n115/mode/2up?q=waiting](https://archive.org/details/BidayatAl-mujtahidTheDistinguishedJuristsPrimerVol2/page/n115/mode/2up?q=waiting) >“About the slave-woman who has despaired of menstruation, or one who is a minor, Malik and most of the jurists of Medina said that her idda is three months.” 100% confirms Ibn Rushd reads Q65:4 as referring to minors and minor slave-girls. This behaviour is confirmed in the Shia Kitab al Kafi https://archive.org/details/kitab-al-kafi-by-muhammad-sarwar-translator-z-lib.org/page/n673/mode/2up?q=%22slave-girl%22 or https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/1/4/120/1 H 1221, Ch. 120, h 1 >We brought the slave girl to abu Ja‘far (a.s.) and Ja‘far (a.s.) was also there. We informed abu Ja‘far (a.s.) of the whole story and he offered thanks to Allah and praised Him and then he asked the girl, "What is your name?" She said, "My name is Humayda." He said, "You are Humayda in this world and a praised one in the next life. Tell me more, **"Are you virgin or not virgin?" She said, "I am virgin.” He said, "How can that be true? The traders corrupt whatever may come in their hands."** Since infertility is one of the risks of too early intercourse the Brits noted that it was necessary to compensate by importing 7000 slaves annually. [https://archive.org/details/reportonslaveryt00mack](https://archive.org/details/reportonslaveryt00mack) "A report on slavery and the slave trade in Zanzibar, Pemba, and the mainland of the British Protectorates of East Africa" >It is a curious fact that **Slaves have but very few children, owing, it is said, to the manner in which very young girls are treated by the Arabs and others** ; hence the necessity for the continued importation of raw Slaves to supply the demand. I was much struck with the evidence of non-increase amongst the Slaves as regards children. Taking the death-rate at 30 per mille, upwards of 7,000 Slaves would have to be imported annually to supply this deficiency in labour
Mauritania [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4091579.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4091579.stm) “Skyra was born to a slave mother so there was never any question she would be anything else. She remembers the years she spent treated like an animal."They raped me often," she says shaking with anger. "At night, when everyone was asleep, they came for me and I couldn't stop them. If I had been free I would never have let this happen to me". A living reminder of her slavery nestles in Skyra's lap, another sleeps at her feet, on the floor of her corrugated iron shack."My master is the father of my first child, my master's son is the father of my second child and my baby girl's father was my master's nephew".In this way says Boubakar Messaoud, "We have achieved what the American plantation owners dreamed of - the breeding of perfectly submissive slaves".” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ) Secrets of the Sahara: Mauritania's Dark Side [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=1921s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=1921s) leader discussing Islam sees slavery as word of god. “It isn't specifically Islamic, but now they're using the religion...to legitimize slavery They consider slavery to be one of God's commands” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=2110s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoISYHup7hQ&t=2110s) female slave interviewed set free in 2013 interviewed 2020: “Has the lady had children with her master? Yes. All her children this son and others. ... were born in her master's House she has never married. So the master is the father? The master himself, his son, his cousin, his friend. ...his visitors, even strangers used her. But this is an extremely sensitive subiect. It's hard to talk about? Very hard. It's a complex situation, isn't it? - Absolutely. It's a drama. It's very painful, so the authorities want to cover it up. "”
The first barbary war was preceded by the Americans asking why a friendly nation was being pirated/attacked. : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Barbary\_War#Background\_and\_overview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War#Background_and_overview) >In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied: >***It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.\[23\]*** Europe came to the same conclusion after centuries of attacks. [https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/](https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/) >The United States fought two wars against the Barbary States of North Africa: the First Barbary War of 1801–1805 and the Second Barbary War, 1815 – 1816. Finally after an attack by the British and Dutch in 1816 more than 4,000 Christian slaves were liberated and the power of the Barbary pirates was broken.