[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.