Misconceptions about Islam

[Layth]

Your religion incorporated an abhorrent immoral act into its ethics and that's fine by you.

This is surreal to me! It's hard for me to believe that someone could be that indoctrinated.

It's a natural phenomenon. It happens. Muslim security matters too.


Murder is also in of itself an immoral act (generally) but it's a necessary part of war (for the security of the nation), otherwise expect to be Shish-kebab'd.



Like murder, PoW/slavery is too generally not permitted in Islam except if it;s a result of war.

 

[Lord Flacko]

Your religion incorporated an abhorrent immoral act into its ethics and that's fine by you.

This is surreal to me! It's hard for me to believe that someone could be that indoctrinated.

Answer this then

Okay @dhegdheer @VixR @Jujuman Tell us the alternatives. You've been saying "there are more merciful ways" but what are they? You've never stated any.



And stay realistic with your alternatives

And "let them be" is not a choice

So if the men are all dead you want the victors to leave the women and children and let them rot? Would you be happy if your ancestors did that do Oromo women and children?

Or do you want to leave both the women and men be, so they can attack you again only now with more insight into you? That would only lead to more bloodshed.

 

[Lord Flacko]

Every time these same Atheists on here are losing in a arguement or know they're wrong they resort to jokes and circlejerk eachother about unrelated things. They'll also ignore what you're saying and repeated their retardness that has already been answered. They do it every time I or anybody else karbash them yet they have the audacity to call themselves the "smart ones"

You all keep proving me right even after I called you out for it

 

[The_Cosmos]

But it's necessary if it's a result of war (PoW, slavery, whatever name you want to give it). It has been happening since the dawn of man. Like I said, welcome to the real world.


Also Islam is the ONLY religion that institutionalizes the gradual emancipation of slaves. Only religion.

Bullshit! Slavery was only outlawed in the Islamic world thanks to... the West. Sure, they held slaves and treated them badly but so did Muslims ( the Zanj rebellion was a black slave rebellion in the Abbasid) but the West had abolitionist movements that contributed to the freeing of slaves. Now, how many abolitionist movements came about in the Muslim world? Barely any. How many had any impact? None! Islam institutionalised slavery hence why it only ended in the late 19th century and mid 20th century for the majority of Muslims.

The dirty white man forced Muslims to outlaw slavery, it wasn't Muslims who outlawed it. Islam failed!

Also, there were civilisations before Islam that literally abolished without any problem, I don't know, I'll give you one... Cyrus the great? He literally abolished slavery and was 10 times a more human individual than Muhammad. Why didn't he see slavery as a necessity?

Anyways, the idea that Islam came to outlaw slavery gradually is a bullshit statement which is cigreadicted by the fact that slavery only grew after the advent of Islam not the opposite.

Plus, it haram outlaw what Allah has made lawful for you. Where does it say that people like ISIS are wrong to own slaves today? They captured those people in war so Islamically it is justified, no? They even distribute them the same way the prophet did.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Answer this then


And "let them be" is not a choice

But isn't Allah omnipotent? Are you telling me that certain civilisations before Islam can outlaw slavery immediately but Allah, the one who could do anything, needed 1400 years to outlaw slavery?

Good to know Allah is limited.

 

[Layth]

Bullshit! Slavery was only outlawed in the Islamic world thanks to... the West. Sure, they held slaves and treated them badly but so did Muslims ( the Zanj rebellion was a black slave rebellion in the Abbasid) but the West had abolitionist movements that contributed to the freeing of slaves. Now, how many abolitionist movements came about in the Muslim world? Barely any. How many had any impact? None! Islam institutionalised slavery hence why it only ended in the late 19th century and mid 20th century for the majority of Muslims.

The dirty white man forced Muslims to outlaw slavery, it wasn't Muslims who outlawed it. Islam failed!

Also, there were civilisations before Islam that literally abolished without any problem, I don't know, I'll give you one... Cyrus the great? He literally abolished slavery and was 10 times a more human individual than Muhammad. Why didn't he see slavery as a necessity?

Anyways, the idea that Islam came to outlaw slavery gradually is a bullshit statement which is cigreadicted by the fact that slavery only grew after the advent of Islam not the opposite.

Plus, it haram outlaw what Allah has made lawful for you. Where does it say that people like ISIS are wrong to own slaves today? They captured those people in war so Islamically it is justified, no? They even distribute them the same way the prophet did.

A load of strawman LMAO.

Did the West abolish Prisoners of War?

It's a natural part of war. Also, when Arabs unjustly enslaved Africans, it was something that was literally against the teachings of Islam.

 

[Lord Flacko]

Bullshit! Slavery was only outlawed in the Islamic world thanks to... the West. Sure, they held slaves and treated them badly but so did Muslims ( the Zanj rebellion was a black slave rebellion in the Abbasid) but the West had abolitionist movements that contributed to the freeing of slaves. Now, how many abolitionist movements came about in the Muslim world? Barely any. How many had any impact? None! Islam institutionalised slavery hence why it only ended in the late 19th century and mid 20th century for the majority of Muslims.

The dirty white man forced Muslims to outlaw slavery, it wasn't Muslims who outlawed it. Islam failed!

Also, there were civilisations before Islam that literally abolished without any problem, I don't know, I'll give you one... Cyrus the great? He literally abolished slavery and was 10 times a more human individual than Muhammad. Why didn't he see slavery as a necessity?

Anyways, the idea that Islam came to outlaw slavery gradually is a bullshit statement which is cigreadicted by the fact that slavery only grew after the advent of Islam not the opposite.

Plus, it haram outlaw what Allah has made lawful for you. Where does it say that people like ISIS are wrong to own slaves today? They captured those people in war so Islamically it is justified, no? They even distribute them the same way the prophet did.

ISIS execute their captors who surrenderer

4:89
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

It is not permissible in Islam.

 

[The_Cosmos]

A load of strawman LMAO.

Did the West abolish Prisoners of War?

It's a natural part of war. Also, when Arabs unjustly enslaved Africans, it was something that was literally against the teachings of Islam.

I didn't strawman you. You claimed Allah came to outlaw slavery gradually, ok presuming it's illegal today? ISIS took slaves through a means of war, are they justified?

Secondly, prisoner of war does not equal slave. A POW have been treated badly before but that is thanks to the abhorrent nature of humans (the god given nature). Slavery is taking someone as your property, that is another level of abhorrent.

Thirdly, the Arabs bought the Africans from the Zanzibar slave markets and thus it is legitimate. The Prophet bought slaves too, are you going to deny that?

 

[Lord Flacko]

Bullshit! Slavery was only outlawed in the Islamic world thanks to... the West. Sure, they held slaves and treated them badly but so did Muslims ( the Zanj rebellion was a black slave rebellion in the Abbasid) but the West had abolitionist movements that contributed to the freeing of slaves. Now, how many abolitionist movements came about in the Muslim world? Barely any. How many had any impact? None! Islam institutionalised slavery hence why it only ended in the late 19th century and mid 20th century for the majority of Muslims.

The dirty white man forced Muslims to outlaw slavery, it wasn't Muslims who outlawed it. Islam failed!

Also, there were civilisations before Islam that literally abolished without any problem, I don't know, I'll give you one... Cyrus the great? He literally abolished slavery and was 10 times a more human individual than Muhammad. Why didn't he see slavery as a necessity?

Anyways, the idea that Islam came to outlaw slavery gradually is a bullshit statement which is cigreadicted by the fact that slavery only grew after the advent of Islam not the opposite.

Plus, it haram outlaw what Allah has made lawful for you. Where does it say that people like ISIS are wrong to own slaves today? They captured those people in war so Islamically it is justified, no? They even distribute them the same way the prophet did.

Cyrus the Great?

According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Astyages launched an attack against Cyrus, "king of Ansan." According to the historian Herodotus, it is known that Astyages placed Harpagus in command of the Median army to conquer Cyrus. However, Harpagus contacted Cyrus and encouraged his revolt against Media, before eventually defecting along with several of the nobility and a portion of the army. This mutiny is confirmed by the Nabonidus Chronicle. Babylonian texts suggest that the hostilities lasted for at least three years (553-550), and the final battle resulted in the capture of Ecbatana. According to the historians Herodotus and Ctesias, Cyrus spared the life of Astyages and married his daughter, Amytis. This marriage pacified several vassal including the Bactrians, Parthians, and Saka. Herodotus notes that Cyrus also subdued and incorporated Sogdia into the empire during his military campaigns of 546-539 BC.[51][52]

Is this the same Cyrus the Great? Who spared the life of his capture and married one of them, that being the daughter of the man who launched the attack? Where have I heard of this merciness where victors spare the life of their captors and sometimes marry them?




Thanks broski for helping a nigga out.

 

[Layth]

Also @The_Cosmos the idea that Cyrus the Great abolished slavery (in this context) is factually incorrect.

He emancipated those who were already slaves. That's not to say that he did not have PoW though.

 

[The_Cosmos]

ISIS execute their captors who surrenderer

4:89
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

It is not permissible in Islam.

Again, I can find verses that justify to them the killing of some prisoners as a means of endowing terror on the hears of the unbelievers. Nevertheless, you've deflected on purpose here. ISIS have the right to own slaves, Islamically, if they captured them through war. Do you agree? You've been arguing that slaves can only taking through war so defend your point.

 

[Layth]

I didn't strawman you. You claimed Allah came to outlaw slavery gradually, ok presuming it's illegal today? ISIS took slaves through a means of war, are they justified?

Secondly, prisoner of war does not equal slave. A POW have been treated badly before but that is thanks to the abhorrent nature of humans (the god given nature). Slavery is taking someone as your property, that is another level of abhorrent.

Thirdly, the Arabs bought the Africans from the Zanzibar slave markets and thus it is legitimate. The Prophet bought slaves too, are you going to deny that?

Another strawman. I didn't say Islam literally outlaws slavery; I said THE GRAUDUAL EMANCIPATION OF SLAVES (THOSE SLAVES BEING PRISONERS OF WAR) is something that's institutionalized.

 

[Lord Flacko]

But isn't Allah omnipotent? Are you telling me that certain civilisations before Islam can outlaw slavery immediately but Allah, the one who could do anything, needed 1400 years to outlaw slavery?

Good to know Allah is limited.

This is talking about prisoners of war. Pretty sure Europeans with their good heart had that figured out when they mass murdered and raped defenseless Bosniaks who had peacefully surrendered.

Answer my question. In times of war, what other alternatives are there when dealing with the captures?

 

[The_Cosmos]

Also @The_Cosmos the idea that Cyrus the Great abolished slavery (in this context) is factually incorrect.

He emancipated those who were already slaves. That's not to say that he did not have PoW though.

Again, I'm talking about taking slaves, POWs are those who have been captured but slaves are those who are owned as property. He made it illegal to own someone else as property.

 

[NoName]

Answer this then


And "let them be" is not a choice

This is a confirmation bias. You're manipulating the circumstances in a way you wish it to support slavery. There's nothing to say that letting them be would lead to them dying out. This is what I meant when I said you are relying on 'hypotheticals' earlier, but you bizarrely responded with what appears to be ascribing validity to the enslavement of Africans by Europeans (why am I not surprised?). Not to mention that for my position on the moral abhorrence of slavery to be valid I don't have to provide any alternative. There's no interdependence between the two. Now over to you to fork out a single sentence or two that may or may not be vaguely related to the discussion at hand (like the enslavement of Africans comment).

 

[The_Cosmos]

Cyrus the Great?


Is this the same Cyrus the Great? Who spared the life of his capture and married one of them, that being the daughter of the man who launched the attack? Where have I heard of this merciness where victors spare the life of their captors and sometimes marry them?




Thanks broski for helping a nigga out.

Why are you deflecting? He never owned anyone as property!! Slavery was illegal under his rule.

 

[Layth]

Again, I can find verses that justify to them the killing of some prisoners as a means of endowing terror on the hears of the unbelievers. Nevertheless, you've deflected on purpose here. ISIS have the right to own slaves, Islamically, if they captured them through war. Do you agree? You've been arguing that slaves can only taking through war so defend your point.

ISIS do not represent Islam, they are not fighting for Islam, they have nothing to do with Islam. Their actions do not concern us.

They murder other Muslims. That's haraam in Islam

 

[Lord Flacko]

Again, I can find verses that justify to them the killing of some prisoners as a means of endowing terror on the hears of the unbelievers. Nevertheless, you've deflected on purpose here. ISIS have the right to own slaves, Islamically, if they captured them through war. Do you agree? You've been arguing that slaves can only taking through war so defend your point.

ISIS execute their captors who surrenderer

4:89
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

It is not permissible in Islam.

Reread.

ISIS fight, execute and torture whomever is in their path. Even if that person is a Muslim, which most are, and has surrendered, which most have. ISIS are not the reprensentation of Muslims and go against the teachings of the Quran.

Example;

Iraqi Special Forces surrender to ISIS and gets executed

 

[Layth]

This is a confirmation bias. You're manipulating the circumstances in a way you wish it to support slavery. There's nothing to say that letting them be would lead to them dying out. This is what I meant when I said you are relying on 'hypotheticals' earlier, but you bizarrely responded with what appears to be ascribing validity to the enslavement of Africans by Europeans (why am I not surprised?). Not to mention that for my position on the moral abhorrence of slavery to be valid I don't have to provide any alternative. There's no interdependence between the two. Now over to you to fork out a single sentence or two that may or may not be vaguely related to the discussion at hand (like the enslavement of Africans comment).

Even if we say (for argument's sake) that we're not certain of the outcome that will result from emancipating them, it's better to let them live under your authority to be on the safer side, don't you think?

 

[Layth]

Also @The_Cosmos scholars have unanimously agreed that the khilafah of ISIS is invalid; thus rendering all of their actions null from an Islamic perspective. They are not fighting in the name of Islam but something else.