Misconceptions about Islam

[The_Cosmos]

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

Loooool answer my question.

Is it fine for ISIS to own slaves as a means of capturing them as POW? That's what they do.

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

Again, you're deflecting from my point.

You asked what were the alternatives to taking them as slaves, I answered that Allah is omnipotent and thus he should have a more humane way.

Again, I spoke about the Islamic sanction on when to own slaves ISIS has met them. Are they allowed to take the POW as slaves?

And you accused us of deflecting.

 

[Lord Flacko]

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

Deflecting? This whole thread has been about prisoners of war, and how to treat the female ones. All the atheists have said that keeping the females is wrong, having consenual sex with them is wrong and marrying them is wrong. Pretty sure you agreed with them as you liked their posts. Then you come and talk about this Cyrus the Great, who you say was such a progressive man that he outlawed slavery, yet one second of Googling showed me he captured prisoners of war, didn't execute them and married one of the female ones. All of which is permissible in Islam and which you lot have been arguing against.

You brought up Cyrus the Great.

According to Herodotus, Cyrus the Great spared Croesus's (somebody he captured in war) life and kept him as an advisor,

Now where have I heard of this too?

Unlike slaves in Muslim societies who were treated well, contributors to the economy, held authoritative positions,. [/QUOTE]

Thanks for bringing him up btw, just proving me and @Layth 's points even further

 

[Layth]

Loooool answer my question.

Is it fine for ISIS to own slaves as a means of capturing them as POW? That's what they do.



Again, you're deflecting from my point.

You asked what were the alternatives to taking them as slaves, I answered that Allah is omnipotent and thus he should have a more humane way.

Again, I spoke about the Islamic sanction on when to own slaves ISIS has met them. Are they allowed to take the POW as slaves?

And you accused us of deflecting.

From our perspective, it's as "fine" for them as it is for USA to do the same. Neither of their actions are in the name of Islam. Don't you understand?

 

[Lord Flacko]

Loooool answer my question.

Is it fine for ISIS to own slaves as a means of capturing them as POW? That's what they do.



Again, you're deflecting from my point.

You asked what were the alternatives to taking them as slaves, I answered that Allah is omnipotent and thus he should have a more humane way.

Again, I spoke about the Islamic sanction on when to own slaves ISIS has met them. Are they allowed to take the POW as slaves?

And you accused us of deflecting.

Well yeah, thats why you're supposed to treat prisoners of war well. Thats the most humane way and the one laid out in the Quran. You're the ones arguing theres a more merciful (and realistic) way but wont state any.

Are you confused or something?

 

[NoName]

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?

Not by enslaving them, certainly.

But to come here and rule out options as if they couldn't possibly be an option is being disingenuous. @Discontinous posed his question in a hypothetical scenario where all the circumstances amounted to supporting his argument (by ruling out valid options). That's confirmation bias.

 

[The_Cosmos]

From our perspective, it's as "fine" for them as it is for USA to do the same. Neither of their actions are in the name of Islam. Don't you understand?

So... you're refusing to answer the question.

I'm not concerned with whether or not they're Islamic, I'm simply asking about a specific action. The fact that you're deflecting is evidence you've been put out of your comfort zone.

Deflecting? This whole thread has been about prisoners of war, and how to treat the female ones. All the atheists have said that keeping the females is wrong, having consenual sex with them is wrong and marrying them is wrong. Pretty sure you agreed with them as you liked their posts. Then you come and talk about this Cyrus the Great, who you say was such a progressive man that he outlawed slavery, yet one second of Googling showed me he captured prisoners of war, didn't execute them and married one of the female ones. All of which is permissible in Islam and which you lot have been arguing against.

You brought up Cyrus the Great.


Now where have I heard of this too?

You are by far the most dishonest person ever!!

Owning someone as property and holding them as prisoners of war is different. We all agree that you can't release captured enemy combatants but the argument was about NOT enslaving them. Cyrus the great didn't enslave them.

Conflating two things that are different to make your point is beyond intellectually dishonest.

 

[Layth]

Not by enslaving them, certainly.

But to come here and say rule out options as if they couldn't possibly be an option is being disingenuous. @Discontinous posed his question in a hypothetical scenario where all the circumstances amounted to supporting his argument.

I agree with his stance actually.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Well yeah, thats why you're supposed to treat prisoners of war well. Thats the most humane way and the one laid out in the Quran. You're the ones arguing theres a more merciful (and realistic) way but wont state any.

Are you confused or something?

Yes, we have a more merciful and human legislation. Have you every heard of the Geneva convention on the rules of war??? Humans invented that so they can do precisely what you claim is the most humane thing.

Plus, Allah being the most omnipotent shouldn't constrict himself to the era of the prophet, he could have demanded Muslims to end slavery and everything would've been fine. Allah can do anything, right?

 

[NoName]

I agree with his stance actually.

You are of course free to do that. But neither of you have put up a reasonable defence.

 

[Layth]

So... you're refusing to answer the question.

I'm not concerned with whether or not they're Islamic, I'm simply asking about a specific action. The fact that you're deflecting is evidence you've been put out of your comfort zone.

ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID?

It's like asking me "do you think it's moral for USA to murder Muslims during a war?" WELL IT'S A FUCKING WAR, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

It's inevitable. I don't believe in ISIS's cause though; similar to the way I don't believe in the cause of most non-Muslim nations.

Their actions simply don't concern me. Why they're doing is a natural part of war but I don't think the manner in which they do it is Islamic at all nor are their motives Islamic.

 

[Lord Flacko]

So... you're refusing to answer the question.

I'm not concerned with whether or not they're Islamic, I'm simply asking about a specific action. The fact that you're deflecting is evidence you've been put out of your comfort zone.



You are by far the most dishonest person ever!!

Owning someone as property and holding them as prisoners of war is different. We all agree that you can't release captured enemy combatants but the argument was about NOT enslaving them. Cyrus the great didn't enslave them.

Conflating two things that are different to make your point is beyond intellectually dishonest.

So they did this basically

The Oromo captives also mostly consisted of young children and women, both of whom were taken into the families of their abductors; men were usually killed during the raids. Oromo boys and girls were adopted by their Somali patrons as their own children. Prized for their beauty and viewed as legitimate sexual partners, many Oromo women became either wives or concubines of their Somali captors, while others became domestic servants.[2][19] In some cases, entire Oromo clans were assimilated on a client basis into the Somali clan system.[2]

Prisoners of war are basically enslaved people. For most if not all of history there has been no difference. Cyrus the Great captured people, kept them as prisoners of war aka people whom his right hand possess, married one of the female and had one of them as a close advisor. That exactly what we've been saying is permissible in Islam during this whole fucking thread. Did you not get the memo?


Wallahi its fucking perfect that you brought up Cyrus the Great because you've now put your cognitive dissonance on display.

 

[Layth]

You are by far the most dishonest person ever!!

Owning someone as property and holding them as prisoners of war is different. We all agree that you can't release captured enemy combatants but the argument was about NOT enslaving them. Cyrus the great didn't enslave them.

Conflating two things that are different to make your point is beyond intellectually dishonest.

So which one is better? Have you read about how communists treated their Prisoners of War in camps?

You're assuming the status of a "prisoner" (as in those put in camps) > "slave". Which is simply not true. A servant in Islam is certainly treated better than a "prisoner of war" in the context that you're alluding to.

 

[The_Cosmos]

ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID?

It's like asking me "do you think it's moral for USA to murder Muslims during a war?" WELL IT'S A FUCKING WAR, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

It's inevitable. I don't believe in ISIS's cause though; similar to the way I don't believe in the cause of most non-Muslim nations.

Their actions simply don't concern me. Why they're doing is a natural part of war but I don't think the manner in which they do it is Islamic at all nor are their motives Islamic.

Looool You're asking me if I'm being stupid???



You said slavery is only justified as a means of capturing your enemy through war (women and children are not enemy combatants but the prophet enslaved them anyways). When I asked you about ISIS taking their captives as slaves, you refuse to answer that question instead deflecting. I'm only asking about that specific action, it Islamic?

Do I think it's immoral for America to kill Muslims in war?? f*ck YEAH I DO!! We have the international rules of engagement and killing innocents is illegal.

 

[Lord Flacko]

Looool You're asking me if I'm being stupid???



You said slavery is only justified as a means of capturing your enemy through war (women and children are not enemy combatants but the prophet enslaved them anyways). When I asked you about ISIS taking their captives as slaves, you refuse to answer that question instead deflecting. I'm only asking about that specific action, it Islamic?

Do I think it's immoral for America to kill Muslims in war?? f*ck YEAH I DO!! We have the international rules of engagement and killing innocents is illegal.

I already answered your post about ISIS and slavery. Why then ask him when he agreed with me?

 

[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


@The_Cosmos in case you got a small case of amnesia

 

[Layth]

Looool You're asking me if I'm being stupid???



You said slavery is only justified as a means of capturing your enemy through war (women and children are not enemy combatants but the prophet enslaved them anyways). When I asked you about ISIS taking their captives as slaves, you refuse to answer that question instead deflecting. I'm only asking about that specific action, it Islamic?

Do I think it's immoral for America to kill Muslims in war?? f*ck YEAH I DO!! We have the international rules of engagement and killing innocents is illegal.

La xawla wa la quwata illa billah.

Look. I clearly said those actions in of themselves are a necessary part of war (either taking prisoners of war or murdering opponents).

Laakin I don't believe in ISIS's cause, I don't know why you're picking them specifically. And no, murdering Muslims is not Islamic.

 

[The_Cosmos]

So which one is better? Have you read about how communists treated their Prisoners of War in camps?

You're assuming the status of a "prisoner" (as in those put in camps) > "slave". Which is simply not true. A servant in Islam is certainly treated better than a "prisoner of war" in the context that you're alluding to.

We have a messengers send by an omnipotent God and you're comparing him to what godless communists did. This is pathetic...

You're just admitting that Allah couldn't find a way to end slavery without doing it in the context of the Prophet. He does not have the power to do anything clearly.

Again, a slave by definition is an owned property a prisoner is NOT.

If you're not going to being intellectually honest then you're just fucking about.

So they did this basically

Prisoners of war are basically enslaved people. For most if not all of history there has been no difference. Cyrus the Great captured people, kept them as prisoners of war aka people whom his right hand possess, married one of the female and had one of them as a close advisor. That exactly what we've been saying is permissible in Islam during this whole fucking thread. Did you not get the memo?


Wallahi its fucking perfect that you brought up Cyrus the Great because you've now put your cognitive dissonance on display.

Loooooooool so you're judging Islam by the actions of Muslims??

The Prophet took women and children as slaves and shared it out with his companions. This is from the Banu Qurayza incident. The women and children were not his enemies, they didn't attack him. You're story is contradicted by the prophet's own actions.

And for the last time, prisoners of war are NOT enslaved people. The only reason why you're pushing this narrative it's so that you can try and conflate things. A slave is someone else's property and a POW is an enemy combatant.

Having POW is not the problem, enslaving them IS. The Geneva convention tells us how we should treat them.

Cyrus had POWs but NOT slaves. He outlawed slavery.

 

[Lord Flacko]

We have a messengers send by an omnipotent God and you're comparing him to what godless communists did. This is pathetic...

You're just admitting that Allah couldn't find a way to end slavery without doing it in the context of the Prophet. He does not have the power to do anything clearly.

Again, a slave by definition is an owned property a prisoner is NOT.

If you're not going to being intellectually honest then you're just fucking about.



Loooooooool so you're judging Islam by the actions of Muslims??

The Prophet took women and children as slaves and shared it out with his companions. This is from the Banu Qurayza incident. The women and children were not his enemies, they didn't attack him. You're story is contradicted by the prophet's own actions.

And for the last time, prisoners of war are NOT enslaved people. The only reason why you're pushing this narrative it's so that you can try and conflate things. A slave is someone else's property and a POW is an enemy combatant.

Having POW is not the problem, enslaving them IS. The Geneva convention tells us how we should treat them.

Cyrus had POWs but NOT slaves. He outlawed slavery.

So Cyrus did this

The Oromo captives also mostly consisted of young children and women, both of whom were taken into the families of their abductors; men were usually killed during the raids. Oromo boys and girls were adopted by their Somali patrons as their own children. Prized for their beauty and viewed as legitimate sexual partners, many Oromo women became either wives or concubines of their Somali captors, while others became domestic servants.[2][19] In some cases, entire Oromo clans were assimilated on a client basis into the Somali clan system.[2]

Neither captured Oromo children nor women were ever required to do plantation work, and they typically worked side-by-side with the Somali pastoralists. After an Oromo concubine gave birth to her Somali patron's child, she and the child were emancipated and the Oromo concubine acquired equal status to her abductor's other Somali wives. According to the Somali Studies pioneer Enrico Cerulli, in terms of diya (blood money) payments in the Somali customary law (Xeer), the life of an Oromo worker was also equal in value to that of an ordinary ethnic Somali.[19]

By Muslim Somalis who followed the teachings of the Quran. I think we actually agree, but our words were lost in confusion. I'm being serious.

Anyways is there any more to add then?

 

[The_Cosmos]

I already answered your post about ISIS and slavery. Why then ask him when he agreed with me?

No you didn't!! You kept talking about how ISIS executed some of its captives and that has nothing to do with my point. You lot claim Islam only allows slavery throws times of war, ISIS has taken its captives as slaves. Is this justified? It is literally a simple answer that you refused to address directly. I don't care what else they might have done, answer this specific point.

La xawla wa la quwata illa billah.

Look. I clearly said those actions in of themselves are a necessary part of war (either taking prisoners of war or murdering opponents).

Laakin I don't believe in ISIS's cause, I don't know why you're picking them specifically. And no, murdering Muslims is not Islamic.

You don't have to believe in their cause to know that a lot of its actions are based on what the prophet did. The Prophet had slaves, they took slaves.

You lot are beyond dishonest.

 

[Layth]

We have a messengers send by an omnipotent God and you're comparing him to what godless communists did. This is pathetic...

You're just admitting that Allah couldn't find a way to end slavery without doing it in the context of the Prophet. He does not have the power to do anything clearly.

Again, a slave by definition is an owned property a prisoner is NOT.

If you're not going to being intellectually honest then you're just fucking about.

@Discontinous he's definitely trolling. You are honestly going round in circles, we've addressed all this. There are 3 options; the opponents of the Muslims can be either:

1) Murdered (which is what happens during a war)
2) Taken as prisoners of war
3) Emancipated en masse (which is a silly thing to do for obvious reasons).

Hence why I was saying it's a necessary part of war to either murder or take prisoners of war from among your opponents . I've also mentioned that the gradual emancipation of slaves is something that's actually institutionalized, which no other religion has done.

You don't have to believe in their cause to know that a lot of its actions are based on what the prophet did. The Prophet had slaves, they took slaves.

You lot are beyond dishonest.

Even non-Muslims take prisoners of war. Is their actions according to the teachings of the Prophet (SAW)?



Like I said, it's a necessary part of war.