Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread

[S.A.M.]

His was the most favorable description of slavery under the Islamic empires that I could find with a quick Google.

The physical realities - for example that the children of slaves were freed separately from their parents, with their own documents of liberation - do not support your assertion, and neither do any of the sources I can find easily. .

Lets see some of those sources.

 

[iceaura]

Lets see some of those sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=children+slavery+Islam&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&a...=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Islam+slavery&btnG=Search&meta=

Except of course that the Sultan led his men into battle and there are no mass graves of coloured people like those under Manhattan made up entirely of coloured people. Also note that by sharia, only Muslims were required to do military service. Non Muslims were exempt from it.

SAM, non-Muslim children were captured in raids planned for that purpose, and specifically enslaved into the military.

You posted that yourself. That was your example of superior treatment of slaves under Muslim regimes.

We have stipulated that New World plantation slavery was a unique and notable evil. That does not change the nature of slavery under Islamic regimes.

btw: The fact that Prince Bandar is son of a slave is a bizarre thing to post as evidence of Islamic enlightenment. The whole prince fucking the slave girl and the son rising to high status scene hasn't been seen in Western parts for quite a while now.

It does suggest an explanation for how Bandar came to his unusual acclimation to US society, though. Nobody in the US cared in the least whether his mother was a slave.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM, non-Muslim children were captured in raids planned for that purpose, and specifically enslaved into the military.

You posted that yourself. That was your example of superior treatment of slaves under Muslim regimes.

I posted that the Ottomans used POWs as soldiers. That they started a system where they used the children of POWs or child POWs as slaves. Other people did and still do, merely killed them.

btw: The fact that Prince Bandar is son of a slave is a bizarre thing to post as evidence of Islamic enlightenment. The whole prince fucking the slave girl and the son rising to high status scene hasn't been seen in Western parts for quite a while now.

Quite, and it wasn't seen in Saudi Arabia for several generations until the Saud family was propped by the British and the kingdom was established.

It does suggest an explanation for how Bandar came to his unusual acclimation to US society, though. Nobody in the US cared in the least whether his mother was a slave.

He wasn't appointed by the Americans.

 

[Baron Max]

Lets face it, the Euro is worth more than US dollars...

Relative to what, Bells?

Now's the time to buy Baron.

...LOL! Interesting, Bells, ....one buys low and sells high to make a profit. By your very first sentence, you said the dollar is worth less than the Euro ....which would mean one should buy US dollars! You don't buy things when they're already high! ...LOL!

See? You and SAM just don't understand world currency markets.

Baron Max

 

[iceaura]

That they started a system where they used the children of POWs or child POWs as slaves.

"Child POWs" - just so.

Tens of thousands of them, from generations of raids on the neighbors.

To do the dirty work, such as soldiering in far places, that the princelings of empire found displeasing.

That's if they converted to Islam. Apparently the alternative to conversion was such that the phenomenon of refusal has earned no mention at all in the common sources.

But let's have no more assertions of the children of slaves being free by default under Islam, non-Muslims being exempt from military service, and so forth. The Islamic empires were slave-making, slave-owning, slave-trading empires; they were dependent on slaves to an unusual degree, obtained them from far places by purchase and war.

Quite, and it wasn't seen in Saudi Arabia for several generations until the Saud family was propped by the British and the kingdom was established.

Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Rashid

# Mohammed bin Abdullah (محمد بن عبدالله, Mohammad bin ‘Abdullah) (1869–97) A confrontation outside Ha'il with his nephew, the young Amir Bandar, ended with Mohammed killing Bandar. Mohammed then continued his journey to Ha'il and announced himself as the new amir. In order to prevent the possibility of revenge, Mohammed gave orders for the execution of all of Bandar's brothers (the sons of Talal), Bandar's cousins (the children of Talal's sister), and their slaves and servants. Only one of Talal's sons, Naif, survived. In spite of the inauspicious beginning, his rule turned out to be the longest in the history of the Rashidi dynasty. His rule became "a period of stability, expansion and prosperity" (ref.: p.61, Al Rasheed). His expansion reached Al Jauf and Palmyra to the north, and Teima and Kheibar to the west. In 1891, after a rebellion, Abd al-Rahman bin Faysal bin Turki Al Saud left Riyadh. The Saud family, including the ten year old Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, went into exile in Kuwait.
# Abdul Aziz bin Mithab (عبدالعزيز بن متعب, ‘Abdul‘azeez bin Mut‘eb) (1897–1906). A son of Mitab, the third amir, he was adopted by his uncle Mohammed, the fifth amir, and brought up to be his heir. After Mohammed died of natural causes, Abdul Aziz succeeded him unopposed. However Rashidi rule was insecure as their Ottoman allies were unpopular and weakening. In 1904 the young Ibn Saud, the future founder of Saudi Arabia, returned from exile with a small force and retook Riyadh. Abdul Aziz died in the battle of Rawdat Muhanna with Ibn Saud in 1906.
# Mithab bin Abdul Aziz (متعب بن عبدالعزيز, Mut‘eb bin ‘Abdul‘azeez) (1906–07). Succeeded his father as amir. However, he was not able to win support of the whole family, and within a year he was killed by Sultan bin Hamud.
# Sultan bin Hamud (سلطان بن حمود, Sulṭan bin Ḥamud) (1907–08). A grandson of Obeid (the brother of the first amir), he was criticized because he ignored the ahd (covenant) between his grandfather and the first amir. He was unsuccessful in fighting Ibn Saud, and was killed by his own brothers.
# Saud bin Hamud (سعود بن حمود, Sa'ud bin Ḥamud) (1908–10). Another grandson of Obeid. Was killed by the maternal relatives of Saud bin Abdul Aziz, the 10th amir.
Saud bin Abdul Aziz
# Saud bin Abdul Aziz (سعود بن عبدالعزيز, Sa'ud bin ‘Abdul‘azeez) (1910–20). A boy of 10 when he was made amir, his maternal relatives of the Al Sabhan family ruled as regents on his behalf until he came of age, based on the constitution of Emara. In 1920 he was assassinated by his cousin, Abdullah bin Talal (a brother of the 12th amir). Two of his widows remarried: Norah bin Hamoud Al Sabhan became Ibn Saud's eight wife, and Fahda bint Asi Al Shuraim of the Abde section of the Shammar tribe became Ibn Saud's ninth wife and the mother of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

 

[S.A.M.]

"Child POWs" - just so.

Tens of thousands of them, from generations of raids on the neighbors.

To do the dirty work, such as soldiering in far places, that the princelings of empire found displeasing.

That's if they converted to Islam. Apparently the alternative to conversion was such that the phenomenon of refusal has earned no mention at all in the common sources.

Now you're reaching. The empire was expansionist, yes. And I gave an example of the alternative above in the Frankish troops.

edit:

It was in a different thread:

These principles were also honoured during the Crusades, as exemplified by sultans such as Saladin and al-Kamil. For example, after al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:[10]

"Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_Islam

But let's have no more assertions of the children of slaves being free by default under Islam, non-Muslims being exempt from military service, and so forth. The Islamic empires were slave-making, slave-owning, slave-trading empires; they were dependent on slaves to an unusual degree, obtained them from far places by purchase and war.

More generalisations, which assume that all servants and employees of a kingdom are forced into service. What were the choices available at the time for most people who desired to do well? Certainly not the basic principle outlined in Islamic jurisprudence as al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya [the basic principle is liberty]

Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Rashid

Look it up. The Sauds under the influence of Abdul Wahab, destroyed much of Mecca Medina and other historical sites. Since the al Rashids cooperated with the Ottomans, the Ottomans helped them out by crushing the al Sauds, as best as they could

In 1802 an army of 12,000 Wahhabi warriors attacked the Shi'a in the city of Karbala, slaying 4,000 of the city's inhabtants and smashing Shi'a holy sites. In 1803 they attacked Mecca and, aware of the slaughter in Kabala, the Meccans opened their town to Saud rule. Against images, there they smashed opulent graves, and they forbade smoking. After taking power in Medina they smashed grave-sites again, including the tomb of the Prophet Mohammed. In 1813 the Ottoman sultan expeditions against Wahhabism. The defeated head of the Saud family was taken in a cage to Istanbul and beheaded.

Enter the British.
Mohammed bin Abdullah was the son of Abdul Aziz'z youngest brother.

 

[StrawDog]

Well, StrawDog, now you know how it feels to be Muslim. Not very pretty how posters treat you when you stand up for normal, everyday Muslims is it.

Anyway G-d bless you brother. You have my praise.

Shalom my friend.

 

[Cellar_Door]

If I read 'The West' one more time...

 

[(Q)]

Those taken as prisoners, were POWs, not slaves, were actually given, according to the dictates of Islam, several methods, of their own choosing, whereby they could earn their freedom. One of these was joining the elite guards of the Islamic world and exercising tremendous power in the Middle East. Furthermore, this concept was not race-based in the Middle East, as it was in America.

Join Islam or die? Or, become a slave? That's a threat, not an option.

 

[StrawDog]

two wrongs make a right?

No. But injustice can be traced back to a starting point. Very simply, the Arabs did not invite, nor accept, a foreign interloper.

Of course they don't, that why they are going to give us back all the trillions of dollars they take for oil, all the technology, all those skyscrapers, all the foreign investment, all those liberal Western laws like leting women vote, tolerating different apparel and other religions, etc, oooh I can see Qutar or Bahrain doing that!

Trade is free. You can choose where you purchase commodities. Are they supposed to DONATE their oil to the West?

 

[S.A.M.]

If I read 'The West' one more time...

And not only that, but the British gave arms and money to both the Sauds and after they had routed out the Rashids, to their competitors, the Hashims. ie they armed both sides!

Ibn Saud finally consolidated control over the Nejd in 1912 with the help of an organized and well-trained army. During World War I, the British government attempted to cultivate favor with Ibn Saud, but generally favored his rival Sherif Hussein ibn Ali, leader of Hejaz, whom the Sauds were almost constantly at war with. Despite this, the British entered into a treaty in December of 1915 making the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. In exchange, Ibn Saud pledged to again make war against Ibn Rashid, who was an ally of the Ottomans.

Ibn Saud did not, however, immediately make war against Ibn Rashid, despite a steady supply of weapons and cash (£5,000 Sterling per month) supplied by the British. He argued with the British that the payment he received was insufficient to adequately wage war against an enemy as powerful as Ibn Rashid. In 1920, however, the House of Saud finally marched again against the Rashidi, extinguishing their dominion in 1922. The defeat of the Rashidis doubled the territory of the House of Saud, and British subsidies continued until 1924.

In 1925 the Sauds defeated Husayn in battle.

In 1927, following the defeat of Husayn, the British government recognized the power of the Saud family, led by Ibn Saud, over much of what is today Saudi Arabia. At this time he changed his own title from Sultan of Nejd to King of Hejaz and Nejd.

From 1927 to 1932, Ibn Saud continued to consolidate power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In 1932, having conquered most of the Peninsula, Saud renamed the area from the lands of Nejd and Hejaz to Saudi Arabia. He then proclaimed himself King of Saudi Arabia, with the support of the British government.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/AlSaud.html

 

[leopold]

If I read 'The West' one more time...

gets old after about 53,000 posts doesn't it?

 

[StrawDog]

Oh the internet posters oppress you, the horror!

Its like pissing into the wind around here. Perhaps, when the average American realizes there are other continents and cultures beyond their borders, we could have more substantial debate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not as old as it gets hearing about how the Muslims should apologise for the Sauds.

The office of the Sharifate of Mecca dates back to the late Abbasid era. Since 1201, the Sharifate was held by a member of the Hawashim clan, not to be confused with the larger clan of Banu Hashim to which all Sharifs claim descent. Descendants of this family continued to hold the position until the Twentieth Century on behalf of various Muslim powers including the Ayyubids and the Mamelukes. In 1517, the Sharif acknowledged the supremacy of the Ottoman Caliph, but maintained a great degree of local autonomy. During the Ottoman era, the Sharifate expanded its authority northwards to include Medina, and southwards to the frontiers of 'Asir, and regularly raided Nejd.

The Sharifate came to an end shortly after the reign of Hussein bin Ali, who rebelled against the Ottoman rule during the Arab Revolt of 1916. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and its subsequent dissolution in 1923, Hussein declared himself Caliph. The British granted control over the newly formed states of Iraq and Transjordan to his sons Faisal and Abdullah. In 1924, however, in the face of increasing attacks by Ibn Saud, Hussein abdicated his secular titles to his eldest son, Ali bin Hussein, who was to become the last Grand Sharif. At the end of 1924, the Ibn Saud conquered the Hejaz and expelled the Hashemites. The House of Saud has since exercised[1] stewardship over the holy cities and the Hajj.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_of_Mecca

 

[StrawDog]

But you're not standing up for "normal, everyday Muslims", you're trying to defend Muslim killers and suicide bombers and Muslims who kill other Muslims!!



Praise?? For defending radical Muslim murderers and suicide bombers??!!!

Baron Max

Above in a nutshell, describes your UTTER lack of understanding of this issue. Let me state it ONE more time Forrest.

1. The VAST majority of Muslims are peaceful and WANT peace. Extremism rears its head in EVERY society.
You seem to forget that Americans slay Americans at schools on a random and REGULAR basis.
2. There are VALID and legitimate reasons for Muslim resistance. Listen to them and learn. (its possible)
3. Praise, (humbly noted) for attempting to portray the opposing point of view, against the INCREDIBLE tide of IGNORANCE visible on this forum.
4. And importantly, given the FACT that you most likely live in relative comfort, and you are well fed and watered, in the cotton wool world of Hollywood/USA make believe, you can not possibly have any REAL understanding or EMPATHY for the plight of the average Muslim trapped in the constant onslaught of imperialist warfare.

 

[StrawDog]

I guess thats why so many crave to be in America. You really have to come up with more relevant arguments. So far I see why the Arab mindset is in the recycle bin. But it is amusing conversing with you. Fortunately I have a life, so I can't be here to answer every come back all the time, like some.

Who?

A life without a functioning mind must be dull.

 

[Bells]

Relative to what, Bells?



...LOL! Interesting, Bells, ....one buys low and sells high to make a profit. By your very first sentence, you said the dollar is worth less than the Euro ....which would mean one should buy US dollars! You don't buy things when they're already high! ...LOL!

See? You and SAM just don't understand world currency markets.

Baron Max

*Sigh*

/Gobsmacked at the stupidity

The Euro is down at the moment... as in cheaper to buy than usual. Hence that is why I said "now is the time to buy". The Euro is much cheaper to buy now than it was before. Even with it being down, it is still stronger than the USD and worth more than the USD.

Do. You. Understand. Now?

 

[John99]

and who doesnt know that?

 

[Baron Max]

1. The VAST majority of Muslims are peaceful and WANT peace.

Perhaps. And yet you're here defending many/most of the acts of willful violence against fellow Muslims BY Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. It must mean that you're not one of the Muslims that wants peace, huh?

2. There are VALID and legitimate reasons for Muslim resistance.

Agreed. But the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq are not resisting the US/UN forces ....if they're busy blowing up innocent women and children in a public marketplaces! They've even taken the fight into Pakistan! How is that possibly called "resistance"???

..., you can not possibly have any REAL understanding or EMPATHY for the plight of the average Muslim trapped in the constant onslaught of imperialist warfare.

The constant warfare is instigated by the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they were to stop killing other Muslims, the US/UN would leave. The US/UN are NOT occupation forces ...everyone knows that except the militant Muslims who prefer to fight and kill other Muslims anyway. In fact, the Afghan Muslims have been killing other Aghan Muslims for thousands of years! They must like it!!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

And not only that, but the British gave arms and money to both the Sauds and after they had routed out the Rashids, to their competitors, the Hashims. ie they armed both sides!

So now, in the 21st century, the Muslims are trying to exact revenge for something that was done to some Muslims in the early 1900s??

Is that all Muslims know ....taking revenge, blood feuds? Jihads against descendants of people who might have wronged them hundreds of years ago?

Baron Max