My sense of fair play has been piqued enough.
lets call this the alternative islam thread.
Since they won't give straight answers and I reckon I know a bit about islam, I'll give it a whirl !!!!!!!!!!!!

(lestat and Abu - pm me when I get something badly wrong)


Start the questions !!!

Can you list all the situtations under which a Muslim may acquire a slave?

is this for real?

Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam.

http://www.twf.org/Library/Slavery.html



Also :-

"It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.

There are many other hadiths which define Islam's true attitude in this regard. The Prophet said: 'Your slaves are your brethren; therefore whoever has a brother who depends upon him must feed and clothe him in the way he feeds and clothes himself; and should not impose upon him tasks which exceed his capacity; should you ask them to do such things, then you are obliged to help them.' The Sharia takes this injunction, among many others, into account when defining the responsibilities and duties of slaveholders.

There is another teaching which enjoins respect for the human dignity of slaves: 'Let none of you say, "This man, or this woman, is my slave". He must rather say: "This is my man, and this my woman."' Putting into relief the provisional character of social ties and the authority exercised by slaveowners over their slaves, the Prophet said: 'It is true that God has made you their masters, but, had He so wished, He could equally well have made you their slaves.'

To manumit a slave has always been regarded as one of the most meritorious of all acts, and many passages of the Qur'an recommend or even require it, particularly as a means of expiation for serious faults. Traditional legislation lays down the methods of voluntary liberation of slaves by their masters (itq), and there were very many Muslims who observed these, especially at the end of their lives, so as not to die and appear before God without having given full freedom to the human beings placed in their power during their earthly lives. "

http://www.twf.org/Library/Slavery.html

Thanks sprint. I'd asked about the children of slaves before but got no response. This would get a bit messy with concubines, as you could end up with your own child as your slave.

Obviously if everyone in the world was a muslim there would be no slaves (theoretically at least), but in practice that still leaves plenty of scope.

What about Dhimmis who disobey the rules for Dhimmis? Can't they become slaves? I suspect that the word war is used very loosely in order to create a false impression about limits on acquiring slaves - sort of like when those British clerics say they don't support the murder of innocents, then turn around and say only Muslims are innnocent.

aaahhhh, I don't think so.

"Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non­Muslim as a wife)."

Course, some things may be worse than being a slave !!!

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html


It may be good to get a PM from lestat or Abu for that one.

What if they don't want to PM you Sprintcyclist?  Are they allowed to respond on this thread?

You posted this sprint:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2

The transgression by the dhimmis of some of these obligations, abolished their protection, and threaten them with death or slavery.

F/D - that quote is in keeping with this one "...Dhimmis, on pain of death..."

Seems ok to me so far. I am not sure on the slavery part. Those sites have different answers.



mantra - they can do whatever they want.
I got sick of the deflections and asking other questions back.

They could not sell whisky to the irish, let alone teach anyone about a belief.

Well it's the slavery part I'm interested in. If it is another mechanism to acquire slaves, it creates a perverse economic incentive to actively enforce a perverse law. They even get to play the good guys, by giving the recalcitrant Dhimmi a 'choice' between slavery and death.

Under the islam law, better to be an obedient dhimmi then.


(I am beginnning to see why deflection and asking other questions back is a tactic used)

At least you will get a straight answer here - AND no threat .

Oh isn't this nice..a thread where all the Islamophobes can gather and swap fantasies and lies. Like flies attracted to poo.

Carry on...don't let me get in the way of your bigotry.

(FD...I've already told you, we no longer consider you worthy of discussion...give up asking question, your charade has been exposed. I've finally realised...if you don't feed a troll, he will starve)

lestat - this was started because we dont get any answers from Abu or you.
Only deflections or abuse.

Feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

Speek for yourself Les. It doesn't bother me if you stop responding to me. I just wish you'd stop responding to me to tell me about it.

So lestat - how have my answers gone so far ??

Sprint - I thought your first reply was pretty good. I'm surprised FD didn't ask you for a hypothetical " What made you become a Muslim" question. ;D

locutius - thanks.
hahha, that'ld be a touighie to answer.
No, i am only here answering stuff on behalf of muslims, not a one.

they seem to not want to give styraight answers, I got so frustrated thought someone should !!

In defence of muslims... Hmm.
I answered the question " Why the Koran is not from Allah..." with this:


Quote:

The Koran is a turgid, repetitive parody of old and new testament writing. It is always defended with reference to these two other books, never on its own merit. Despite its often repeated beauty and unsurpassed grandeur, criticism of it carries the death penalty. And criticisms like this are deleted from the forum, as were my earlier comments today.

It got  deleted and i'll be benched if I post it again there.

Which part is beyond ordinary debateing parameters?

yes, in defense of muslims .  :-)

No, it is not beyond ordinary debating parameters.
But who you say it to makes the difference.

Some muslims are VERY religious.
They pray 5* a day every day plus extras. Their prayers take HOURS
They go on ramadan - ie fasting for a month.
They travel to mecca as much as they can.

There is no gap between their belief and themselves.
They are their belief, every day every step.

Any criticism against the koran or mohammad is NOT just a criticism against a book or a historic person.
It is a slap bang right in their face personal attack.

Why do the ordinary debating parameters NOT apply to Muslims in a pluralist society like Australia?

Why is there sharia law on certain section of even this forum?

because muslims do not accept ordinary debating parameters.
Criticism cuts right through them.

I don't feel that that is sharia law, though for "right" muslims, that may be what their goal is.

So, cant have sharia as a goal and accept ordinary debating

If muslims do not accept the ordinary parameters of a pluralist society like Asutralia, why does a pluralist society accept them?
Why don't pluralist socieeties tell people at the airport - "Your faith , whatever it is, will have no special privileges, so don't ask for them". Why ddo pluralist socieeties tolerate thee locally-born who demands privileges along such lines?

Why is mulism intolerance tolerated?  No Buddhist or Taoist or Danish Lutheran would bat an eyelidn if he weree told not to ask for religious privileges or special dispensation. Are we scared by the threats and exampls of violence i the name of Islam?

Would we still tolarete its demands if it did not threaten violence?


So maany question that are the answers themselves by merely being posed.

that's only the "strict" muslims.

a pluralist society accepts everyone. That is its strength, and weakness.


it would be hard to be intolerant to intolerance.
yes, many people are scared to say boo to a muslim, other apologetics will "defend muslims rights."


violence is only if infidels resist - entirely up to us :-)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:48pm:

that's only the "strict" muslims.

The only ones we always hear from and about


Quote:

a pluralist society accepts everyone. That is its strength, and weakness.

It is not about rejecting people. I am not against peoplee finding solace and  a way to care for their souls. It is about not affordding special privileges to the violent.


Quote:

it would be hard to be intolerant to intolerance.

How hard? Have you tried? have we tried? It's about not accepting the privileged paradigm.


Quote:

yes, many people are scared to say boo to a muslim, other apologetics will "defend muslims rights."

It's is not boo that should be said to any intolerant group exploiting the tolerance for minorities for intolerant ends. (Suggest an old Saxion exporession - two words, second word 'orf'. First correct ansswer receives a prize.)



Quote:

violence is only if infidels resist - entirely up to us :-)

Yes, I know - " I repeatedly hit his closed fist with my nose, your honour, in an attempt to humiliate and ridicule him. I then proceeded to bleed on him. I am sorry, I apologise."