[waps]

Not the middle eastern countries. This is part of their legal system, which is called "islam", or "sharia" (translation: the right way for a muslim).

Slavery (if you define it as forced labour without compensation), in case anyone doesn't know, is part of every religion. It is even part of Christianity, but Canon law specifies that it is a Christian's duty to, firstly, never own slaves themselves (with serious punishments for violations), secondly, to work to exterminate slavery around them (e.g. purchasing slaves then freeing them).

Little known fact, that second law is what lead to the introduction of hindu numerals in the west (Venetian merchants would purchase slaves, then free them after one voyage, in Venice. On of these joined a monastery, and taught the other monks (many things, mostly historical data, actually), on of whom wrote the Codex Vigilianus, which lead to the pope starting to use the numbers, which lead to ...)

Islam encourages freeing slaves, but only in one circumstance : after they have completed a successful military campaign, to celebrate (and it's perfectly OK, to re-capture the freed slaves and force them to fight again later. In fact the prophet did this). Note that islam is also unique in that it actually says that it's OK for owners to just kill slaves (whereas in other law systems there has to be a reason. Like, say you can kill slaves for running away. Islam and specifically the second Caliphate is the only state in history that has a documented history of killing slaves for fun).

So I'm wondering what the attitude is on this. If you seriously defend this point, you're effectively against every religion except Western-brand atheism (ie. not the -much more successful- socialist version of atheism), and Christianity.

Let me just leave you with a quote from Winston Churchill "A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. " (Mohammedanism is the historical name for Islam)

And do not take this as dissing islam, in fact pretty much every religion has slavery (in the sense of zero-compensation forced labour). "The west" is unique in opposing slavery and is still the only driving force behind the extermination of slavery, half-heartedly sort-of kind-of joined by India (the difference is that the west actually imposes trade sanctions against slavery-using states for using slavery whereas India refuses to do that. Within India, they're doing a good job fighting slavery though).

As the article illustrates, the western fight against slavery has actually lost terrain in the last 2 decades. Mostly because islam-based law systems are pushing for re-introduction of slavery (in Saharan Africa, Sudan, Mali, the worst can be found. But it also happens in the Middle East and Asia). Today the situation is that Islam is regressing, and slavery is one of the consequences of that.

Frankly I hope that a few states experience a few slave revolts. If Saudi Arabia were to be destroyed by it's (large majority) of almost-slaves, for example, that would do a LOT to eliminate slavery. Of course, like Holland before it, America is mostly on the side of the slavers in the name of stability.

[jbooth]

My usual take on these things is it's more about money and what you can get away with locally than the character of the religions themselves.

Lots of very christian Americans had very christian outlooks on slavery being legal in the 1850s, and on unequal rights being the way of things (noah and ham) up until the 1960s. If I were looking for a religion that didn't have a history of justifying slavery, I'd point to maybe buddhism and taoism, maybe. Certainly none of the abrahamic religions (old testament) or hinduism.

[levosmetalo]

Well, there are different flavours of crhistianity as well as different flavours of islam. While christian Americans did indeed support slavery, the eastern (Orthodox) christianity was never involved in such behaviour. I'm pretty sure that not all islamic countries were openly supporting slavery, it's just the desert ones.

That being said, I agree that it's more middle east phenomenon that islam phenomenon.

The other poster also mentioned women rights as a part of islamic slavery. How is that different than, for example, Switzerland, where women got a right to vote only after black americans got it? And it's not like extremist christians treat their women in any way better, except they mostly allow only one woman per man.

[konstruktor]

Women not being allowed to vote is actually an inherent flaw of democracy: Those who are allowed to vote decide who else may vote. All democratic countries make this kind of decision for many groups. Voting age, if and when immigrants may vote, whether to let people convicted of a felony or prisoners vote: all of these are cases of the voters deciding on who else will share their privilege. Switzerland was just slightly different because referendums are binding and were not overturned by the supreme courts, and the discriminated group was more visible/obvious.

[levosmetalo]

So you want to say that just because it's called democracy, the voters have the right to deprive the other of basic human rights? The same way as in ancient Greek/Athens democracy where we had both free elections by popular vote and slaves.

[konstruktor]

I was, obviously, saying the very opposite, i.e. that what you are describing is an inherent flaw of democracy, and that some discrimination is just more obvious for cultural reasons. Usually, institutions like the supreme court save the day in the worst cases, but when this control fails, like with the popular votes in Switzerland on Voting rights for women, democracies can be quite barbaric.

[jbooth]

Not to nitpick, but the byzantine empire, seat of orthodox christianity for its first 1000 years, condoned slavery:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674036116

[mike_esspe]

Orthodox church supported serfdom, monasteries owned peasants.

[kamaal]

>>This is part of their legal system, which is called "islam", or "sharia"

This has nothing to do with Islam. This is all about money and a few rich idiots abusing their power.

Bulk of the practices you associate with any religion, are not that of a religion but that of the local civilization at that point of time.

Your post resembles the attitude of the western masses today, which is to hold the perception created by media and politicians as a fact. Islam is followed by more than 1/3rd of the world today, no one wakes up with knives searching for slaves to kill. These people are ordinary people just like any other people in the west who go out and make a living, in the hopes of a good life for themselves and their family.

And they have their local culture which dominates bulk of their lifestyle.

Secondly you quote Winston Churchill, This is heights of hypocrisy. The man has made extreme racial remarks. For eg from : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

>>I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

Basically he is saying, anything that what the so called self proclaimed 'stronger' or 'higher-grade' race does is right.

This is the exact same attitude these rich guys in Qatar show today. Something tells me they are both just the same. Regardless of the religion.

People like these should think about their own morals before talking about somebody else's.

[smsm42]

>>> People like these should think about their own morals before talking about somebody else's.

People like Winston Churchill can't think anything because they, like Winston Churchill, have been dead for decades. And in all civilized countries slavery has long been illegal. So if in one country - namely Qatar - institution of slavery still exists, Churchill quote from the thirties is not actually a good way to prevent somebody from talking about the morals of Qatar slaveholders.

[kamaal]

>>People like Winston Churchill can't think anything because they, like Winston Churchill, have been dead for decades.

They could think when they were alive. To talk about freedom and morals, when your own country has set up colonies all round the globe and committing atrocities is hypocrisy.

[smsm42]

US and Europe have some black pages in their histories, that is true. Not that they are unique in that - we all know about slaves being brought into the US, but I encourage you to look up who was selling those slaves and where the centers of the slave trade were located and how much of power in Africa and Middle East depended on selling the slaves - but with all that, the past can not be denied. However, for US and Europe is is the past and slavery has been long recognized as immoral, unacceptable and evil. In Qatar, the slavery exists today. It is not hypocritical at all to call Qatar out today and tell them that in 21th century we don't do these things. Even if people did it some time ago. We grew past that, and it's time for Qatar to do the same.

[simonh]

Which country are you from, by the way?

[don_draper]

A few people at the top are greedy and exploiting these laborers or slaves. But it appears religion and culture and being used to justify it in the general population.

[waps]

I don't understand. What exactly are you saying is not true : 1) islam is a system of laws

2) those laws include slavery

3) people who are fighting to introduce those laws to society are reintroducing legal slavery

4) the muslim world is the major hotbet of slavery

Copious evidence for all claims is easy to come by. Start with : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery And if you want to hear it from an imam: http://www.islam-qa.com/en/94840 (note that many of the "advantages" slaves had are the exact same as they had in the Roman Empire. An owner, for example, would generally treat his own educated slaves better than fellow free men)

If you want to be completely horrified by this site, just read the category http://www.islam-qa.com/en/cat/362

Some examples, and the TLDR

"Islam and slavery" (TLDR: taking slaves is allowed "in war" and buying them and kidnapping them. There are lots of rules about slaves)

"Intercourse with female prisoners of war." (TLDR: allowed for men)

"What is the ruling on intimacy with slave women?" (TLDR: allowed for men)

"Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)" (TLDR: true, provided certain conditions are met. Also: A muslim man fucking a non-muslim woman is perfectly OK if not done in an islamic country, because any muslim is at war with everyone outside of muslim countries) (note how he squirms to avoid saying what the ruling is on muslims living in non-muslim nations. Why ? Because that's punishable by death, except for soldiers and -maybe- ambassadors. Where do you live ?) ...

Your "evidence" that this is not true, is, as I read it :

a) 1/3rd of the world follows islam (in reality, it's probably between 1/5th and 1/6th)

b) "no-one wakes with knives searching for slaves to kill" (that's not allowed, btw, you have to buy them first)

c) Winston Churchill is a hypocrit with often similar socialist eugenic standpoints as the people he fought -> not a surprise to anyone who knows a smitten of history. Nobody denies he was a keen observer and a very effective leader either.

[flumbaps]

Islam isn't a system of laws, it's a religion. Like all organised religions, what's written in its holy books is of far less practical importance than what is preached by its leaders. Adherents don't read and figure out for themselves, they follow what they are told the books say. Like most religious leaders, the Islamic holy men tend to preach what is convenient to them. The fact that the religion is Islam isn't of particular note. It wasn't so long ago that American Christian leaders preached that God condoned slavery. You might explain this by talking about different branches of Christianity, and likewise there are different interpretations of Islam too. But really, I think that unless a religion actively encourages a practical pursuit of self-enlightenment (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, spiritual Yoga), then it is nothing more than a system of control. Ultimately the important thing is how corrupt the leaders are.

Think of it this way, if there were no courts and no defence lawyers and no-one ever bothered to read the legal statutes for themselves, then would the actual text of the law mean anything? Or wouldn't it rather be that, in application, the law would tend serve the interests of the police?

[rayiner]

> Islam isn't a system of laws, it's a religion.

That's a very secular western view of religion. The distinction between law and religion is one seems important to people familiar with Christianity, because that religion has historically existed alongside a state with a separate system of laws (either English common law or some derivative of Roman civil law). It's a distinction that makes a lot less sense in Islam, which has historically not existed alongside a separate state, but has been an integral foundation for the state.

[_delirium]

I wouldn't say that Christianity has "historically" been particularly well factored from a separate system of laws, unless you mean to start history with the Enlightenment. The seat of power in Constantinople for centuries was a shifting alliance of Emperors and Patriarchs, and the law that was enforced was not really separated into secular and church law, but more like negotiated spheres of influence of each leader's representatives. The same goes for most of Western Europe's history, which involves a very long shadow cast by the Pope, and an extensive role for the Catholic Church in comprehensively ordering society and the operation of courts—in many places and eras there was essentially no distinction between canon law and civil law. This is because, exactly as you say, religion has traditionally been considered an integral foundation for the state in Christian countries.

[Mikeb85]

Islam absolutely contains a set of laws. For the Muslim, you cannot have the religion without the law. Even in countries where Islam is the minority, disputes between Muslims are settled by a community Islamic court...

[flumbaps]

Please read again. I have not denied that Islam contains a set of laws. I said that Islam is not exactly equal to a set of laws. Which is correct.

I've also stated that, in practical terms, it is the behaviour and beliefs of the religious leaders that matter more that the laws themselves. The community Islamic courts you cite are a perfect example of this. You seem to expect them to behave according to some monolithic interpretation of Sharia law. Whereas, in reality, these courts are run by the Islamic community and are presided over by local religious leaders who make decisions (and interpret the laws) according to their own beliefs, informed by their own prejudices and self interests.

If you have any doubt that this is true, then simply consider that there are moderate Muslims in the world, and there are Muslims that believe God wants them to commit murder. Do you think it is a coincidence that those who see the West as the devil come from countries where the West has severely harmed in the past through selfish and corrupt interference? Do you think it is by chance that within the West and within countries allied with the West, we find more moderate viewpoints?

Religious rhetoric aligns itself with realpolitik. It is naive to see it in any other terms.

[waps]

1) many muslims disagree that there is a difference between islam and sharia. The word itself disagrees with your assessment. Besides, ever met a muslim that didn't care what halal was ? Ever wondered what "halal" refers to. These people that call themselves muslim use the sources I referred to as guidance on what is halal, they do not decide for themselves.

2) slavery, incuding kidnapping people, even children into slavery is halal. So is raping them. Yes there's limits to exactly who, when and where, but frankly that doesn't matter to the morality of that. Halal = morally reprehensible.

3) Even seemingly stupid parts of the islamic faith, like halal food (practiced by the vast majority of muslims), you're going to find discriminatory/racist at best (religious discrimination in employment, to start with). Even that part is morally reprehensible.

4) I disagree strongly with your assessment that "those who see the West as the devil come from countries where the West has severely harmed in the past through selfish and corrupt interference". Aside from the fact that that statement reads like a conspiracy theory, those hotbeds you refer to are Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan. In a different way Egypt has been a hotbed. You might be able to build a weak case America has harmed Somalia, but the others have massively benefited from America's influence and help.

I propose instead that those who see the west as the devil come from societies (or at least families) that take islam very seriously and let it guide their life. The stronger the place of islam in their lives, the more hate for everyone they have (not just for America, in case you truly are that naive. Israel, Holland (because there is a whore at every intersection, one Egyptian explained to me not very long ago), France (something about a Jewish school that you just can't repeat, and the "fact" that they support ex-muslims in Lebanon), Ethiopia, Kenia, ...).

> Religious rhetoric aligns itself with realpolitik. It is naive to see it in any other terms.

Everything, including your rhetoric, aligns itself with realpolitik. That's the definition of realpolitik. Your statement is true, but it contains no information, other than what's in the dictionary. Barbie dolls align themselves with realpolitik too, and it is equally naive to see things otherwise.

[marrs]

This is true, but besides the point. Laws on how to treat slaves are redundant in a country where slavery is illegal. And there is nothing in Islam to say that keeping slaves is compulsory or even desirable.

[Mikeb85]

People operate under the law all the time. I know of plenty of places where polygamy is practiced, despite being illegal in those countries...

[seivan]

It's a political power.

[waps]

"Islam isn't a system of laws"

Really ? Have you ever -even once- asked a muslim this ? Seriously ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

[marrs]

Islam isn't a system of laws. Sharia is not Islam. I'm pretty amazed that I've just read this thread, to be honest.

[flumbaps]

Sharia is the laws OF Islam. Sharia is not equal to Islam. Set A contains set B. Set A is not equal to set B. You might as well say that Christianity is the ten commandments, Judaism is the halakhah and Atheism is the American Atheists’ conference code of conduct.

[kamaal]

The problem in Qatar is vastly the exploitation of poor, by the rich. Which is hardly any different than situations in certain parts of China, India, North Korea and where not?

I'm pretty darn sure you don't talk about religion of people who commit suicides in those Foxconn factories.

I don't know what agenda you hold in continually dragging Islam into all this.

[sampk]

We don't talk about their religion because their religion doesn't encourage slavery, obviously.

[polymatter]

No religion doesn't have something that Western society doesn't have moral difficulty with. Christianity has a load of crap about stoning people, homophobia and subjugation of women for a start. Also includes God sanctioned rape and murder of non-Christians. Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy is full of that crap.

[cmdkeen]

Except Christianity broadly doesn't believe in the Bible being the literal word of God and thus all of those rules applying now - and no country accepts it as their view of Christianity. Biblical infallibility is a modern, revivalist concept. Even during the good old days of the Mediaeval Church no-one stoned adulterers.

No Christian country has laws stoning people on the basis of "it's in the Bible". However it is the law in many Muslim countries.

That's the problem. Christianity is a religion that has had philosophy and interpretation bedded in from the off. US revivalists may ignore that rich history but it is a minority. Islam lost that argument many centuries ago, before which it led the world in scientific discovery and culture, now only a few, oppressed, sects think that way.

[brazzy]

> Islam and specifically the second Caliphate is the only state in history that has a documented history of killing slaves for fun).

Ancient Rome would like to disagree.

> Slavery (if you define it as forced labour without compensation), in case anyone doesn't know, is part of every religion.

Buddhism would like to disagree, probably many more. I'm sure there was forced labor of some kind pretty much everywhere, but that doesn't make it part of the religion, and I'd also say that that it's a too-broad definition. Slavery IMO implies more than just forced labor without compensation: it implies that people are considered property.

[waps]

Ancient Rome did not disagree. If you're referring to the circus, you might want to look up what the deal was gladiators got (and what it meant for their families), if they fought in the arena.

As for Buddha, he had to say a lot on several subjects : 1) the untouchables, effectively slaves (he only found it unjust that people were born into a caste, not that the untouchables existed or were forced to labour without compensation) 2) the fact that the Buddha forbade runaway slaves to join any Buddhist order, is but one of many indications that the Buddha accepted slavery as normal and moral. 3) This is not to say that the Buddha did not advance the state of morality, by saying that a Buddhist is allowed to trade in human beings, but that it would be better not to (he did say, however, that it was allowed, and that interference with it was not allowed). The Buddha did outlaw quite a few things, so I find the argument that he was somehow unaware of this distinction extremely unconvincing.

All Buddhist states I know of, historically, used slavery. Buddhists monasteries used slave labour throughout history, until the English banished it. In fact one of the emperors of China famously put forth an edict, stripping all Buddhist monasteries in his domain of their slaves. It mentions that this affected over 150000 individuals.

This is not abnormal or strange, by the way. All societies around them used slavery, and so did Buddhists.

[azth]

I have no idea from where you got your claims.

> Islam encourages freeing slaves, but only in one circumstance : after they have completed a successful military campaign, to celebrate

> Note that islam is also unique in that it actually says that it's OK for owners to just kill slaves

Absolutely false on both accounts. Please provide your sources.

[saljam]

Way to go on creating an completely irrelevant religious flamewar. As others have said, Islam has nothing to do with this.

This, as others have pointed out, is a case of rich-exploits-poor. Unsurprisingly, with the full support of the law. Exit visa laws, for example, aren't exclusive to the Middle East. (Actually, of the Middle East, only Qatar and Saudi Arabia have it.) The Soviet Union had them, Uzbekistan still has them, even Nepal has them. And for a short while, both Germany and Italy had similar laws.

[abup]

I am from Nepal. Where did you get that information from? Nepal does not have exit visas the way Qatar has them. The one mentioned in Wikipedia article applies only when one (a Nepalese citizen) goes back to Nepal to get his H1 visa stamped.

[saljam]

You are correct, I overlooked that detail. You can cross Nepal from that list, and my point still stands though.

[the_rosentotter]

Ugh, that was at once an impressive and disgusting array of not just wrong but ill-willed information, basically from start to finish.

You don't deserve a full rebuttal, but just in case anyone should be in doubt.

For just one example, Islamic law practically guarantees the eventual freeing of slaves. It is probably the most highlighted charitable act described in shariah. Missing a day of fasting must be atoned for by freeing a slave.

But as said, everything you said is wrong and the spirit you said it in is despicable. Fuck you, honestly.

[codebolt]

Freeing a slave for missing a day of fasting? If that's the most charitable act in Sharia then you pretty much proved his point. And regardless of how people practice Islam, its texts are full of crap that I'll never have any respect for. Fuck Islam.

[the_rosentotter]

This was in response to:

>> Islam encourages freeing slaves, but only in one circumstance : after they have completed a successful military campaign

> Missing a day of fasting must be atoned for by freeing a slave.

As an example. Among a hundred other ways in which slaves are set free. Your post was ignorance and lies.

[codebolt]

Islam is ignorance and lies. Any doctrine which labels me a lesser man and says that I will burn in hell can go fuck itself. That's not me being ignorant, that's me standing up for myself.

[wavefunction]

This is not part of Islam, since you don't find it going on in Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Islamic Africa, or the West where muslims live as well. This is instead confined to the Gulf states.

I'm really very curious about where you're pulling all this stuff from.

[contingencies]

I agree it's not part of Islam.

However, effective slavery of foreign workers does go on in those places, often with local or national government conspiracy. Malaysia is a prime example.

In the previous article, the family interviewed in Nepal lost one son to construction slavery in Qatar and one to the same in Malaysia.

Furthermore, Sharia law has been waved around in the western media as the height of evil (like the word Islam or the neologism Islamist), but like most religious ideologies Islamic law does historically have many good intentions behind it and there are many strong examples of excellent, safe, learned and tolerant societies that drew from this tradition (some periods of Iran I guess, definitely Yuan China after the Mongols who were great integrators and sponsors of language, philosophy and the culinary arts (包子原来是土耳其的！), Islamic Spain, etc.). Officially, Qatar 'abolished' Sharia courts in 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar#Law

My theory for the correlation of shitty law and many Islamic countries is simply that education is lacking, or some unelected self-serving bigot or a cartel thereof are in effective control, extracting all the wealth for themselves. In modern times, in many of these cases the ruling parties' route to power can be clearly traced to have sprung from the west's actions at the end of colonialism, or even later. Usually England or France in those times, but later in the 20th century blame seems to shift primarily the US with its one-eyed diplomatic stance and obsession with oil money and global economic/military dominance, with economic hitmen, the undermining of the UN, numerous examples of sponsoring evil regimes or undermining democratically elected ones, so and so forth.

[swalkergibson]

This is absolutely accurate. Ultimately, it is all about wealth and power and securing the steady stream of oil to power the "American Way."

[waps]

So it's not part of islam because sharia has been abolished ? Heh. Maybe you should tell a few muslims.

[ekianjo]

> Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia

I dont think these countries are applying SHaria as a rule of Law. But please prove me wrong if this is the case.

[azth]

I'm very curious about where s/he's pulling all that from too. First time I ever hear that killing slaves is OK in Islam! Or that freeing slaves is only allowed after they served in a military campaign.

[waps]

"Evidence from slaves is rarely viable in a court of law. As slaves are regarded as inferior in Islamic law, death at the hands of a free man does not require that the latter be killed in retaliation.[81] The killer must pay the slave's master compensation equivalent to the slave's value, as opposed to blood-money. At the same time, slaves themselves possess a lessened responsibility for their actions, and receive half the penalty required upon a free man. For example: where a free man would be subject to a hundred lashes due to pre-marital relations, a slave would be subject to only fifty. Slaves are allowed to marry only with the owner's consent. Jurists differ over how many wives a slave may possess, with the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools allowing them two, and the Maliki school allowing four. Slaves are not permitted to possess or inherit property, or conduct independent business, and may conduct financial dealings only as a representative of the master. Offices of authority are generally not permitted for slaves, though a slave may act as the leader (Imam) in the congregational prayers, and he may also act as a subordinate officer in the governmental department of revenue.[10][82] Masters may sell, bequeath, give away, pledge, hire out or compel them to earn money.[47]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery (following the links you'll find the following quotes)

"The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, by virtue of description or actuality. A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman." Jalalan (p. 24)

"The Shafi'i and Malik prohibit the killing of a freeman if he slays his slave or other men's slaves. This is because 'Ali Ibn Abi-Talib mentioned that a man had killed his slave and Muhammad scourged him only; he did not kill him. It was related on the authority of Muhammad that he said a Muslim should not be killed for a non-Muslim, nor a freeman for a slave; also because Abu Bakr and 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab did not kill a freeman for a slave. (This was said) in the presence of all Muhammad's companions, and no one disapproved or objected to it." The Commentary of al-Baydawi (p. 36)

"A man is not to be killed for his slave nor the freeman for a slave." "A believer is not to be killed for a non-believer, nor a man for his son, or a man for his slave or for a woman." Ahkam al-Qur'an (p. 275)

Need I go on ?

As to how slavery is justified: When the Saudi national Homaidan Al-Turki was imprisoned for holding a woman as a slave in Colorado, he complained that “the state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution.”

In other words, the point that complaining about forced slavery is racist against muslims is in fact on the legal record as a defense against getting convicted for practicing slavery in the US.

[azth]

You are citing an Orientalist, not a real Islamic source.

I don't know if you can read Arabic: ذهب أبو حنيفة وشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية، وهو رواية عن أحمد، إلى أن الحر يقتل بالعبد؛ لعموم قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: «المؤمنون تتكافأ دماؤهم، ويسعى بذمتهم أدناهم» وهذا القول هو الصواب.

And from another source:

: القول الراجح أنه يقتل به؛ لقوله تعالى: وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ [المائدة:45]، وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم إلا بإحدى ثلاثة: النفس بالنفس) وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (المؤمنون تتكافأ دماؤهم ويسعى بذمتهم أدناهم) وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (لا فضل لعربي على عجمي إلا بالتقوى) وقول الله تعالى: إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ [الحجرات:13] فهذه العمومات تدل على أن الحر يقتل بالعبد كما أن العبد يقتل بالحر، وليس هناك نصوص صحيحة تدل على أن الحر لا يقتل بالعبد.

Both of which mention that a free man can be killed for a slave.

Furthermore, I don't know why you are raising the issue of slavery. It is not related to the thread topic. The workers in the Gulf countries are not slaves in the actual sense of the word - it has very particular connotations.

That being said, I agree that the way those countries treat the laborers is inhumane, disgusting, and anti-Islamic, and should be abolished.

[marrs]

Spoken like a true Islamic Extremist. Find the teachings that support your argument and then use them to brand everyone who disagrees with you as not being a true believer.

It's a peculiar mind that can ignore the fundamental values of morality and kindness, and go straight for the edge cases that justify your warped sense of righteousness.

[azth]

Indeed! Even according to Wikipedia which waps was citing: "The Qur'an and Hadith, the primary Islamic texts, make it a praiseworthy act for masters to set their slaves free." goes against his/her claims. Furthermore, most, if not all, of those claims for the status of slaves were cited from Orientalist Levy's book. The bias is very evident.

[waps]

No it doesn't. It has in fact nothing to do with that claim. If islam regulates slavery, it's obviously making it legal and pushing it.

Compare it with this, suppose some republican came to power and decided to legalize drilling through nature reserves but makes a big public statement discouraging it. What is that person doing ? Pushing it, or discouraging it ?

There is only one, and blatantly obvious answer : islam is pushing slavery. In theory, as you confirm yourself with your statement showing that islam regulates slavery. In practice, because of what is happening in Saharan Africa, Yemen, Kuwait, etc.

[waps]

> It's a peculiar mind that can ignore the fundamental values of morality and kindness, and go straight for the edge cases that justify your warped sense of righteousness.

Truly sorry, you see I've studied too much history to believe anything remotely like "fundamental values of morality and kindness" exists. There are no values independent from ideology. Besides, you should get out more. Find a way to talk to one of those niqab'ed women, ask them what their values on the equality between men and women and then tell me how fundamental those values are.

There is no such thing as an inbuilt human morality. You wouldn't believe what some societies did, or even what they considered kind. You know how they say a "Spartan" upbringing these days ? Here's what it used to mean : Spartans are famous for considering the following a kindness : when a (male) kid turns 7, lock up his mother, and leave the kid with a small spear in the woods, where wolves are sure to find him. If he came back without a dead wolf, do it again until the kid is dead, or a wolf is. They considered this a kindness, both to the kid and to his mother, and also to the state. Tell me, how does this fit with your fundamental values of morality and kindness ?

Or read a few Greek plays. Pay attention to who fucks who, and how many people end up poisoned/stabbed/otherwise dead as a result. I don't care how free you think sexuality should be, I guarantee you will not find that behaviour moral or acceptable. Yet the Greek heroes are as bad as the losers, and they are certainly depicted as extremely moral. That they (sometimes) raped their own mother, sisters or daughters does not affect the story's judgement on their morals at all. And let's just stay away from the morality of the Greek gods, because while they are depicted as the definition of moral, you will massively disagree with their petty, cruel and mass-killing squabbles. Moral, in ancient Greece, it seems to me, is whatever behaviour gives you military victory.

If fundamental values don't exist, your argument falls apart, since it means you can only judge behaviour from the perspective of a religion or (maybe) ideology. That means that you yourself judge from an ideology (and frankly, you judge from the perspective of Christian values), and that your definition of an extremist is also relative.

For example, one who doesn't believe in fundamental values, might take offence at you judging a person based on "fundamental" (ie. your own) values. Which is of course exactly what you accuse extremists of.

[skrebbel]

> So I'm wondering what the attitude is on this. If you seriously defend this point, you're effectively against every religion except Western-brand atheism (ie. not the -much more successful- socialist version of atheism), and Christianity.

That's just ridiculous, and you know it. You're basically saying "every believer interprets his religion the way I say they do".

[saryant]

If anyone is interested in exploring America's historic views of Islam (or Mohammedanism) I highly recommend the book "Power, Faith and Fantasy: America and the Middle East, 1776 to the Present."

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-Fantasy-America-Present/dp...

[Tzunamitom]

If you're looking for a religion to blame, start with capitalism. Islam has nothing to do with this.

While you're at it you can start by looking at how unrepresentative of the Muslim world (if you an even use that term) the Gulf countries are - India and Indonesia are both home to many times more Muslims than the Gulf but yet you continue to judge the adherents of a religion by the actions of a few small countries made significant by their oil and gas reserves.

[lake99]

> Islam has nothing to do with it

@waps has already posted a link to [1]

> start with capitalism

Do you think it is "capitalism" when employers are not honouring contracts that they created, and their employees signed? After you have learnt what capitalism means, you'll see that the article is rich with examples of violations of capitalism.

I don't know about Indonesia, but India is, not by any stretch of imagination, representative of the Muslim world. [2] I don't know why you bring up India as an example of things going right in the Muslim world.

[1] http://www.islam-qa.com/en/94840

[2] http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=811484

[Tzunamitom]

Dear Sir,

I would love to debate with you. If I did I would point out studies that show the historical necessities of state intervention into laissez-faire capitalism to prevent abuse of asymmetrical relationships, I would point to monopolistic behaviour, and the tendency of an unrestrained capitalistic system to undermine the workings of its own free market. I would draw upon my own experiences of living in the Gulf, visiting labour camps, talking to migrant workers (mostly themselves also Muslim), and perhaps gently suggest that your armchair judgment of over 1.5 billion people (25% of the world's population) based on a couple of hastily googled sites from a fringe cleric and a single reported court case is not necessarily accurate or fair. I might ask you to compare the number of Muslims in the Gulf with the number of Muslims in India and Indonesia, and then tell you happy anecdotes of my many visits to these countries and the wonderful people I met. I might explain the difference between doctrinal theory and practical exigencies, and faulty interpretations based on fear and greed spread by power hungry clerics (I'd pause of course to muse at the irony drawn from the parallels with capitalism), and then discuss similar dichotomies evident in the practice of Christianity in the West. I'd conclude with the realisation that the problems inherent in the treatment of migrant workers are myriad and complex, and cannot be distiller into a simple judgment against any belief system.

I'd love to do all these things, but sadly I am a longtime believer in the maxim that "If you argue with a fool, then there are two fools arguing", so sadly I must decline.

[lake99]

You seem to enjoy making the effort to write all this rhetorical crap! With bits like "historical necessities of state intervention into laissez-faire capitalism to prevent abuse of asymmetrical relationships", I hope you don't claim credit for independent thinking.

[bayesianhorse]

While this thinking can certainly be found in historic islam, it doesn't seem to be that prevalent in muslim countries...

[smutticus]

You sir are an ignorant racist.

[guard-of-terra]

There is no "muslim race". You could call him a culturist :)

[snambi]

Wow... didn't know middle eastern countries (Islamic) legalize slavery. Can they catch someone in their country or outside of their country and make them a slave?

[chaostheory]

Not sure if you missed it based on your post, but camus was being sarcastic