Muslims... Come Join this thread!

Often, there on the internet you will find information that is not true. Often, it is the wishfull thinking of the one who wrote it. True and accredited universities will not accept reference or citation from the internet sources for your term paper or your master's thesis. Wikipedia is cool and convenient but much of its information is not verified. The internet sources in America are often right wing and Christian Evangelical church sources, not true academic sources. The internet is also full of Israeli biased sources, intended to defame Muslims. Then you have one group of Muslims who do not like another group of Muslims and consequently defame the other. So, the academic true and verified sources are required in a true university. In the case of Biblical Archeology you have Christian researchers wanting to fit everything they find on the ground into religious wishfull thinking, and with total disregard for other people's religion. The ISIS terrorists recently destroyed archeological sites in Syria and Iraq, because their view on religion did not allow them to accept that of another people. In America you have Christians who think the universe and all life began 5600 years ago when their God created it. The museum in downtown Baghdad contains artifacts that are older than 5600 years.Lake Turkana contains human evidence that is hundreds of thousands of years old. Caves in northern Iraq contain evidence of humans who were engaged in a pastoral life 40000 years ago. Lake Van and The Caucus Mountains have similar history, all beyond 5600 years.

 

Even more true of claims made on internet forums. Especially when not backed up by at least some checkable reference.

 

Oxford has a library full of books that say good things about Muslims. You should go there and read-up a little.

 

Or we could read straight from the core texts of Islam about how Muhammad, the ideal man, the source of Islamic Law, had slaves.

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/95/17

I came and behold, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is `Umar bin Al- Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me.

From Sahih al-Bukhari, the most trusted Hadith in Islam.

 

I will not argue that Mohammad had slaves. That was over 1400 years ago. The Arabs had slaves from China, India, Europe, and from Africa. They also had strict rules on the treatment of slaves, who were often taken during war. These rules also described how slaves should be freed in the Muslim world. And eventually, slaves were freed long before they were freed in many western countries. In some cases, former slaves became leaders in Muslim city-states. That means before 1688AD. In the USA a negro was kept in a cage with monkeys in a zoo well into the 1900s, in New York out of all places. What I said earlier was that there are no places in the Middle East with known or famous slave markets, as there were in America.

 

You seem to be making a kind of "we did it too and worse so they really didn't do anything wrong" kind of argument, which isn't really an argument for anything. It's nice that an infinitesimal fraction of slaves could actually be obscenely lucky enough to escape slavery and make a proper life for themselves. It's nice that you can't think of any "famous" middle eastern slave markets. Islam also has rules for how one should wipe after a bowel movement, and what body hair one should shave. I don't see your point here.

Muhammad had slaves, including sex slaves. Muhammad said muslims can take slaves, including sex slaves. Muhammad is the role model for all muslims, the perfect model human being, the final messenger of God.

Slavery is absolutely halal in Islam. The ideal relationship between muslims and Allah is that of a slave to their master. Slavery is a foundational element of Islam, both literal and spiritual. Slavery still happens today in the Arab world, just one example is Bangladeshi "migrant workers" being abused in Dubai. Another is that Islamic State has slaves, including sex slaves, and has the backing of their religion for this endeavor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMh-vlQwrmU

Muhammad himself was racist and didn't like Ethiopians, calling them "raisin heads" and telling his followers not to kill animals with a nail, because that is the Ethiopians' weapon.

Etc, etc, ad nauseum. It's 2016. How grown men can stand up for Islam as a moderate or enlightened ideology is flabbergasting.

 

Presumably though only until 600 AD as you claimed before that Muslim slavery was abolished at that date.

 

Are there actually some muslims in this thread or what? Anyway:

I find this summary of your post curious. Islam should be regarded as the dubious thing it is because the prophet Mohammed was racist and condoned sex slaves... but on the other hand we should take in account that it is 2016. How many islamic followers are busy and interested with sex slaves in 2016 and the past centuries? Is the illegal sex industry largely a muslim industry? Are the majority of muslims you know actively trying to get sex slaves with the use of their holy book?
Is racism against black people a key point in islam? Or is it just as much a part of their society like it was (is) in ours (by some kind of misplaced superiority complex based on industrial, economic and perhaps even societal 'successes' ).

It gets easier to understand if you are not just focussed on the extremist parts and project it on islamic followers as a whole, but instead look at the full picture. Then you can easily see how it has actually been for the most part (and yes relatively) a moderate religion. It helps by taking in account that many aspects in islamic culture we regard as dubious and backwards now where once more normal in our cultures and societies as well. Except our societies went through some amazing and rigid changes in relatively short time. Now we look down on the rest of the world and other societies that did not went through those changes as if they're all retarded for still being there, and of course for not embracing our enlightened progressive way of life and seeing the world. After all western society has set such a good example. Fanaticism is a bitch, doesn't end with religion.

 

Islamic state is an extremist organisation doing extremist things. To portray it seriously as if what they're doing is normal in islam in 2016 for the average sunni muslim is pretty ridicilous and to use your own fav word in such situations: disgusting.

Have you actually exchanged opinions on IS with muslims in your surroundings? I did (well not in your surroundings but mine) and they all are clear in stating they are perverting and abusing the religion, and not as some sort of excuse or hypocritical way to make their religion look better than it is...! No, they sincerly mean it and abhor the ignorance of certain western people where it comes to IS and islam. I find it pretty unsettling too to see supposedly intelligent people mix such things up

 

You sound like a serious hater of Muslims. Your information must come from an ass like Robert Spencer, or Nickoula Nickoula, or maybe Bridgeet Gabriel. I don't know everything that Muslims did 1400 years ago. There is no legal slavery today anywhere in the Islamic world. In contrast to all you say. George Washington-The Founder of The United States OF America-owned slaves and had sex with them. Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves and had sex with them. Judah Benjimin was secretary of war for the Confederacy and was all for slavery.

 

Western culture and religion was really no better than Islam in past centuries. However, I don't think that ignoring the facts of history or claiming that the history of Muslim slavery is all a conspiracy to discredit Islam is a very good approach. (not that I think you're personally doing that)

In modern times, various aspects of western culture have led to a lot more destruction and other negative consequences than anything Muslims have done. 2 world wars being a prime example.(including some quite brutal slavery practised by the Nazis) So I'm not saying that Islam is the only or even the worse problem. I just think that we need to be aware of the facts. I only brought up this whole business of slavery under Islam because a claim was made that they didn't have the practice. It's just as bad to falsify history in a positive as in a negative way.

 

In that citation by the other fellow...concerning the slave at the top of the stairs...I went back and read it. The statement could very well mean Mohammad owned a slave. It could also mean...in the usage of the Arabic language of the area and the time...that the guard was a worshiper of Mohammad...or it could mean that the guard was a negro. As I explained the Arabic word Abd or Abeed in plural could have several meanings. American haters of Muslims always cherry pick pieces to defame all Muslims. Republican party haters of Muslims do this a bunch. Hannity and Cunningham do it every time they get on the radio.

 

Hi ASMO! You said it better than I could have.

 

I agree (obviously). I would just argue consideration for the fact that islamic societies were partaking in slavery as well is not solely to be blamed on their religion, just like the dutch weren't primarily dealing with black or indonesian slaves because their religion told them it is ok (although some (ab)used their religion here too of course to make the practice and motivation look sound...).

 

At certain times in history, slavery has been widely practised all over the world. I don't blame Islam for it. I'm not familiar enough with the Koran to be able to say if it supports slavery or not. The Christian Bible seems to in some places, but again, the thing existed long before Islam or Christianity came along.
Before the US Civil War, abolitionists and pro-slavery camps both turned to scripture to justify their positions. In Britain, Christianity played a role in abolition.

I'd say the roots of slavery are more to do with economics and social organization than religion.

 

I was thinking about that supposed slave at the top of the stairs. Maybe he had been bought from someone who had taken him in war. Maybe he liked being with Mohammad and liked being the leader's guard. Today, politicians and musicians all have body guards. Mick Jagger at one time employed Jesse Ventura as a body guard. Ventura eventually became the governor of Minnesota.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXBgqa-xQwY

I find it incredible when supposedly intelligent people think that your average muslim is any kind of a reputable source of information on Islam. Islam is far, far more arcane and convoluted than Christianity, and I hope you are travelled enough to know that most people who call themselves christians have never even read a significant portion of the bible. In fact the social group with the highest chance of having read the texts of religions are atheists, strange. I'm only interested in the opinion of one muslim on Islam; the prophet Muhammad.

I am not involved in Muslimology, the study of what average muslims say about Islam. I'm interested in the study of Islam. Objective, academic study.

If this was a thread about the evils of Nazism, you would be the guy accusing me of being Germanophobic and racist against the Franks. I'm talking about an ideology, not people. I am friends with muslims, I employ muslims. I find christianity to be abhorent as well but I am awash in a sea of "christians" where I live and it really doesn't affect my day to day life. Again you're doing this "well look at what AMERICA does, how can you criticize Islam?!" argument, which isn't an argument at all. It's exactly as though I were here in a thread about the dangers of Cancer as a disease, and your contribution was to say "How can you expend any effort into learning about and combating cancer, when leprosy causes your skin to rot?!" You're simply bringing a second, tangentially related topic into the discussion. If you want a discussion about leprosy or slavery in america, then start a new thread. In this one, we are discussing the well established fact that slavery was widely practiced in the Islamic world, by Islam's holiest man, and if there is any kind of recession of this activity in the muslim world, it is because of the pressures of liberal values upon Islam; it is happening despite Islam, not because of it.

"Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!""

Sahih Bukhari 6161

Here, why don't you try to radically reinterpret this one, from the other most cherished Hadith in all of Islam:

Hadith: Sahih Muslim - The Book of Musaqa - Chapter 23

On the Permissibility of selling animals for animals of the same kind and of different quality

"There came a slave and pledg- ed allegiance to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)"

http://sunnah.com/muslim/22/152

Notice that I am using muslim sources. Notice that I am not saying a single thing about muslims as a people; I am talking about Islam, the ideology. Let's discuss Islam. Islam creates muslims, not the other way around. There is only one muslim who has the authority to create Islam, and his name was The Prophet Muhammad.

 

You are really projecting things on me and my motivation for countering your onesided view on islam. It's like you talked about this before with pc people (or something) and are now sure I'm coming from the same thing. It is really obvious, but because it is about me I am certain how wrong you are. It gets kind of tiring to get into how what I say gets refuted simply for being pc and your example of me accusing you of being a germanophobe if it was about nazis and not islam/muslims is ridicilous. It tells more about you than me. That I talked about western culture and their amazing societal developments was ment to put things in perspective, but that seems to went over your head. I'll expand on it if I have the feeling I have a convo partner that really listens (reads)

Anyway, about how you answer with a vid (mr writer ): it seems to me like you are parry-ing what I said about the difference between islam the religion and isis the terrorist organisation. Just because IS is (ab)using some exact koran verses does not make what they do mainstream or normal muslim practices. They are perverting islam. Now you can refute what any normal muslim (islamic follower) says about islam in favor of what you see with IS and how you (seem to want to) believe that is typical islam these days, but it is not. It looks like typical islam because there are more than one of such organisations claiming to act on their religion when fighting for control and power. It is a real easy thing to say your nasty practices are done in the name of good, it's common practise with certain groups in certain parts of the world and they won't stop with it anytime soon. Does it mean then islam is at fault for all of what these people are doing? Or is it really the people with their dubious motives?

Are you aware that your issues with islam are because of how the people act(ed) upon it? If no person acted nasty and dubious in the name of islam would you be busy with how evil it is? So how can we leave the muslims themselves out of it when studying islam? Because it don't suit people like you when you are focussing on the people doing nasty things that others come pointing out that most islamic followers are not like that. That it is worth a second thought to find out why these organisations come to be and what everybody's motive is for being a part of it. Sure, islam plays a role in that. But to leave it at that is stupid and wrong. No not for any pc reason (to beat you at that one ). Simply because it is far from the complete answer and truth.

Islam creates muslims and muslims have created islam. Look at the shi-ites, look at sufism. Did islam create them? Come on man. At least try to keep an open mind. You just want to convict the religion as a whole (I suspect if we would solely discuss the dubious aspects we would agree a lot more) and it is clearly affecting your study of it.

 

How can one "use exact Quran verses" to "pervert Islam"? If you follow the Quran, you are a muslim. Muhammad says that until your heart finds no resistance from any one of his teachings, you have no Faith. To be a muslim is to follow Muhammad 100% of the time, in 100% of cases. If someone ignores half the Quran because of "reasons" they are not a muslim and I am not interested in their opinions on Islam. They might as well be a "christian" who wears a gold crucifix and shoots porn videos.

I take my information from the source, from the core texts of Islam. I am not interested in the muslimological apologetics that you are playing with.

If something bad is a common practice in a part of the world, and a local religion tells people they have to do it, then yeah, that local religion plays a large role in that bad thing happening. Jihad, crucifixion, rape, kidnapping, forced marriage, beheading, etc, etc, etc.

I am not interested in slandering muslims; the vast majority don't know even half there is to know about their own religion, we know this for a FACT from objective psychological studies. You are not going to the horses mouth when you ask a muslim about Islam, you are going to someone who is statistically unlikely to know much about Islam.

 

I know a Muslim hater when I see one. Mr. Writer has devoted himself to badmouthing an entire people and their religion, because he has read mistranslations...translations by right wing Yanks who hate Muslims. And Mr. Writer assumes that we who comment on this thread are DEFENDING Slavery in Islam. Well, Mr. Writer, maybe Mohammad was buying slaves so he could free them. If a slave had converted to Islam after being purchased by Mohammad, he would have been given his freedom immediately. That fact is also in the Koran. Again, you want to blame today's Muslims for what had taken place-or maybe had not taken place as you understand it-1400 years ago. Mohammad was the founder of islam and George was the founder of America. The fact that you employ people says that you are a Republican. And I know well that Republicans are racist bigots who hate Muslims. I live in Indiana, a hate state that is run by a hate filled pro-business Republican governor.