In an earlier thread, nico and others were quick to criticize "the west"'s role in acquiring and using slaves. But where is the criticism, when it comes to the Islamic world's slavery? That not only started out earlier that that of "the west" - it continues to this day! Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=4686 quote: "As the recent campaign for reparations has shown, the West is still being taken to task for the fact that it used to permit slavery.__ But in fact the West, rather than being the origin of slavery in the world, is in fact the only civilization to have created from within itself a successful movement to abolish it._ Other civilizations, like Islamic civilization, have not yet achieved this._ To this day, the principal places in the world where one can buy a slave for ready cash are Moslem countries._ " Peter - a dane (first western country to abolish slavery, in the West Indies!)
Dont you get enough of your own lies man ? Are you now trying to blame slavery on Islam ? Why dont you go public with your vomit ? Chicken ? No instead you bring in Trifkovic and his puke .....
Again, you're taking cultural practices and comparing them with Islam. Would've been better if you'd mentioned it as an Arabic practice. Slavery was indeed prominent (amonst many other less than savoury practices) pre-Islam, that's why they gave the Prophet (SAW) such a hard time. keep em coming pete.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ghassan: dude, that slave you sold me, you know the skinny latboy..well he aint doing nothing, man get me a Danish onePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Buhd I have this fat unemployed slob for sale , oops . That was not a good salesmens talk was it ? We Muslims are not just selling slaves , we rip peoples off doing it as well . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you bothered to look at the link I gave it also included Islamic slavery, so your thread is a waste of time. You claim rather naively that slavery was a ideology (lol). Just ask G.K we've debated Islamic slavery before. So to say that no one ever talk about it is well... false.
People are naturally more concerned with crimes committed by their own government against its citizens than with crimes committed by other governments against their citizens.
seems like Dj can't arugue or back up his assumtions. He just post stuff and run away. Can't you aruge DJ?? Do you not have guts to argue? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why am I not surprised? Why am I not surprised to see Robert Locke's fingerprints on the article? I'll try a more useful response later. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From racist article: For the pure-black populations of Sudan and Mauritania, independence from colonial rule marked the end of a slavery-free respite Sudan: Ethnic groups: black 52%, Arab 39%, Beja 6%, foreigners 2%, other 1% Mauritania: Ethnic groups: mixed Maur/black 40%, Maur 30%, black 30% Yes pure black, this guy is a moron if I have ever seen one.
Whoa over general-ization! Rocker, that was a attack against me you do realize. I am a catholic, what am I too be ashamed for believing in my God? For some freako Baptists do? I agree that the history of the Abrahamic faiths is holocaustal. But you forget the good things that it has done, it has brought crimes but our basic laws are all based on those ten golden commandments. How about the millions of Christians who go around the world to help the poor? Mother Teresa in Kalkutta? (I am not talking about those American missionaries), what about the poor due that Muslims pay to help their own out? You are mad at 3 billion people, vast majority of us don't bother anyone to convert. In history sure there have been rapes of peoples and empires. But that was the past. You should re-direct your anger from the past to the present injustices wrought on earth by the neo-conservative Baptist alliance.
The past is the foundation of the present. The next big war is going to start in the Middle East because two religions that are almost, almost duplicates of each other cannot peacefully coexist. Organized religion is absolutely nothing but a means of control. The human race, from the first second of its birth to this current second, is and has been extremely superstitious. If you tell people that there is an afterlife, that thunder is caused by the gods, and that you'd better do what they'd say, as instructed by their medium [you], some of them are liable to believe you. And their children are liable to believe you. As are their children. This equals power. Sorry man, but don't give me that sh*t, about religion being peaceful. Civilization is nothing but a long story of tears, bloodshed, and forgetfulness--and it is inherently intertwined with organized religion. Without augurs telling us that the birds in the sky feel it is good for war, without Priests fostering mistrust between different cultures, without Prophets conquering old cities, and without virgin lands being pillaged by Christian explorers, the world would be undoubtedly a better place. To even attempt to defend the concept of religion is futile. I'm confident that not one year has gone by on this earth, since civilization was founded a few thousand years ago, without a person or a group of people being exterminated merely because they were different. This fear of differences stems from religion.
oh please! they go to convert. helping is only incidental and comes with the price of conversion lets eyeball the saintly bitch *Though she proclaimed her devotion to the poor and downtrodden, she urged the Indians to forgive Union Carbide for the gas leak in Bhopal which had killed more than 2000 people. She visited Haiti in 1981 to accept that nation's highest award from the Duvalier family and made a glowing speech in which she said that the dictator 'Baby Doc' and his wife, Michele, not only loved the poor but were also loved by the poor! *Mother Teresa went to Albania in 1990, at that time the most oppressive of the Balkan Stalinist states, and laid a wreath on the grave of the dictator, Enver Hoxha, and embraced Hoxha's widow while remaining silent on human rights. *In 1992, Mother Teresa gave many lucrative endorsements, including a character reference to the court for Charles Keating, the biggest fraud and embezzler in the American history who stole a total $252 million from mainly small and poor depositors. Keating gave $1.25 million in cash to Mother Teresa and allowed her to use his private jet. The court had asked her to return the donation given by Keating but she never replied to the request. *Mother Teresa urged the faithful in the Republic of Ireland to vote against the referendum on the divorce issue but when asked in an interview in "The Ladies Home Journal" about Princess Diana's impending divorce, she said, "It is good thing that it is over. Nobody was happy anyhow." Thus she preached morality and obedience to the poor but forgiveness and indulgence for the princesses.
Gasbag's invectives Dear Gasbag: Your vituperation and invective are clouding your thoughts. If you could propose postulates and use logic to examine their validity you might reach conclusions that deepen your understanding of the topics you address. By evading the question posed (namely, why does slavery continue primarily in Muslim controlled territory?) you do yourself a disservice. You fail to serve your own education. The autodidact doesn't have time for abusive denunciation and foul language. You seem to have ample time for both. If you could think clearly enough to answer the question, you may have something we would all learn from. I'm willing to listen to your explanation, but I have to laugh at your quote above, it really looks like stand-up comedy.
Pollux's Question Now here we have an actual argument. Pollux, I cannot answer your question, but I am happy to see that aspect brought into the discussion. Thank you for making a clear and simple point in a few words.
Re: Pollux's Question so ahh you really wanna know? imagine the americans under the brits. then imagine the africans under the americans. the comparison (with serious love & respect to mah dog, pollux) is somewhat invalid. also, a question is not a point
Re: We already know about the liberals. What about the Abrahamists? I agree with much of what you said above, and I appreciate that your grammer and spelling are above par. Thank you for several valid points. Below is a quote that merely makes a blanket statement however. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ In stark contrast to the reasoned and civilized arguments preceding it, in that passage you slipped into name calling, and that is too bad because it does nothing to uphold the rest of your arguments and merely points out your biases in a naked way.
Re: Re: Pollux's Question is not a point. So a question is not a point. Should this forum then disallow questions? I hope not. Let's clarify your point::: Case A: America under the Brits (prior to 1776). A1: Native Americans under the Brits. A2: Formerly Brittish peoples under the Brits. Case B: Africa under the Americans (time frame as yet unspecified) B1: Africans forced into slavery and relocated to America. B2: Africans living in Africa today who have to live under Pax Americana. And your point is?
