Why do continue to defend an untenable position?
Man Beheads Wife in 'Honor' Killing
- Thread starter jessiej920
- Start date
Why do continue to defend an untenable position?
Bells
Staff member
Because it is well researched and documented.
In the early days of the Islamic Caliphate—during the 8th and 9th centuries—most of the slaves were Slavic Eastern Europeans (called Saqaliba), people from surrounding Mediterranean areas, Persians, Turks, peoples from the Caucasus mountain regions (such as Georgia, Armenia and Circassia) and parts of Central Asia and Scandinavia, Berbers from North Africa, and various other peoples of varied origins as well as those of Black African origins. Later, toward the 18th and 19th centuries, slaves increasingly came from East Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
It was meant in the context that Muslims also enslaved from the Slavic regions. If they freed them, they wouldn't be enslaved, would they? But they were not freed, instead they remained as slaves, and thus, "enslaved".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Although Islam is much credited for moderating the age-old institution of slavery, which was also accepted and endorsed by the other monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism, and was a well-established custom of the pre-Islamic world, it has never preached the abolition of slavery as a doctrine.
Forough Jahanbaksh, Islam, Democracy and Religious Modernism in Iran, 1953-2000, 2001
The paradox
A poignant paradox of Islamic slavery is that the humanity of the various rules and customs that led to the freeing of slaves created a demand for new slaves that could only be supplied by war, forcing people into slavery or trading slaves.
Muslim slavery continued for centuries
The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.
Forough Jahanbaksh, Islam, Democracy and Religious Modernism in Iran, 1953-2000, 2001
The paradox
A poignant paradox of Islamic slavery is that the humanity of the various rules and customs that led to the freeing of slaves created a demand for new slaves that could only be supplied by war, forcing people into slavery or trading slaves.
Muslim slavery continued for centuries
The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.
Who cares.. this is about slavery now. Get with the program !
My bad. I'm gonna have to read up on stuff that happened decades ago instead of reading about what just happened.
Ummm, do I need to wear a mask if I join in this hi-jacking??
Only the Ottoman trade. And mostly by him.
I think you missed what ice and I were discussing. He was telling me where Europeans had not considered slaves as subhuman by giving examples of Europeans enslaving their own people. But what I read about slaves in Greece and Rome did not support that assertion.
Nope, its all perfectly acceptable to join in fruitful discussions of Muslim bashing in this forum.
What position is that? Your mistranslated cut and paste efforts?
Last edited:
One of the most significant revolts among slaves in the Arab world occured in Basra, Iraq. This was after the Arabs settled in and became agriculturists and decided that manual labour was too demeaning for them. So they imported slave labour from Africa.
This was at the time of the Abbasid caliphate which was imperialistic in its nature:
Unfortunately, after this, the Zanj degenerated into slave traders themselves, becoming what they had most despised. But their rebellion set an example and by the tenth century, trading slaves was abandoned as a form of treaty and other forms of trade became the norm.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion
This was at the time of the Abbasid caliphate which was imperialistic in its nature:
Unfortunately, after this, the Zanj degenerated into slave traders themselves, becoming what they had most despised. But their rebellion set an example and by the tenth century, trading slaves was abandoned as a form of treaty and other forms of trade became the norm.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion
Yet, it is not considered demeaning to be a slave in islam?
Nope, but people will do pretty much anything to avoid manual labour. Even outsource it. While clamouring the nobility of work.
So, then the point is proven.
Also: all this nonsense of better treatment of slaves in islam amounts to sheer speculation flapped about as regional variability. You'll find as many "kind" owners of slaves, or medieval overlords (West and East) as bad. You prefer to go with your perceptions, which are coloured by your history.
Also: all this nonsense of better treatment of slaves in islam amounts to sheer speculation flapped about as regional variability. You'll find as many "kind" owners of slaves, or medieval overlords (West and East) as bad. You prefer to go with your perceptions, which are coloured by your history.
Do I claim they aren't Palestinians now?
Nationhood isn't race and you know it. Or I hope you do.
And race is nationhood? Whoopie
Not at all, its recorded history. And one has only to look at western nations vs Islamic nations to see where assimilation with slaves has been a problem. And a national wound.
Then it should be easy to find a suitably supported link.
Well, herding Jews off to gas chambers wasn't a "problem" for the Germans specifically, either. What happened to the African slaves in the ME, anyway?
Look it up, its recorded history.
They were assimilated.
Unlike the Tasmanians.
http://books.google.com/books?id=RJMeZimRwn0C&pg=PA91&dq=tasmania+straw+dogs#PPA91,M1
None of us care much what is or is not supposedly allowed in Islam. We are talking about real life Muslims.diamond said:
Exactly. So you see that this:SAM said:
is answered. And other armed groups of slaves had "begun to desire a better life" in other places, such as the gladiators in Rome, so that most slaveowners restricted their properties' access to weapons for good reason.SAM said:
Sure, given the chance. But Vikings among others traded slaves to the Mediterranean.SAM said:
Because slaves are different from prisoners.SAM said:
So what was it that you read? First it's come up.SAM said:
Apparently you have a good deal invested in a picture of the world in which Europeans have always considered all slaves to be subhuman. That's a bit odd.
In your example, you describe Muslims capturing slaves from Africa to do work which is demeaning to those Muslims. Was it also demeaning to the captured Africans? Why or why not?SAM said:
The Western world is full of descendents of assimilated slaves, with the solitary exception of the Africans enslaved for the plantation colonies in the Americas. That is indeed a national wound, but not in all the West, or even in all the Americas. It stands out as a unique circumstance, as unlike other Western slavery as it is unlike Islamic world slavery. The differences are well worth studying. But we were speaking of slavery in general.SAM said:
The Islamic world shows little sign of having assimilated its African or Caucasian slaves, btw. Looking around, it's difficult to find their descendents. Where we find green eyes and light hair, we find it where armies of Caucasians went, not where Caucasian slaves were numerous, for example.
Then unrecord it and play me some.
Into what? The ground? Tazmania has nothing to do with this.