Yes, serving a person as a Slave is Slavery. THAT is Slavery. The notion that a person who has lost in war is now the victor’s Slave is the manner in which most Slaves, in most nations, for most of History, became a Slave in the first place. Again THAT is typical Slavery. Supporting this Institution - that of Slavery - is the most Slippery of Slopes. In typical fashion the captured Slave’s descendants usually become Slaves themselves. THIS is the main reason WHY Slavery was STILL legally practiced in Xian and Islamic nations until just very recently. Sorry I keep pushing you on this but I really want to know what you think on this particular question. Just picture this: You are part of the victors of a destroyed village. Most of the people are dead or dieing on the streets. You have captured a man. His family - his wife, his daughters, his sons; all were burned alive in a house that went up in flames during the siege of his town. His life’s work is gone. You burned the man’s family. You are the victor. He is now a broken man – on the verge of suicide. He has little to nothing left in this life and really nothing to live for. 1) Do you Free him or do you Enslave him? 2) You see your compatriots taking their Slave booty. Do you admonish them and pass a Law making Slavery illegal or do you regulate it and pass laws protecting the Slave as property of the Victor – that is, do you Institutionalize it – thereby making Slavery an Institution for all times? Sorry for the tough questions but you did wade in on this one, now you’re in the deep end! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael
I agree with you but it begs the question of what things were like pre-Islam. (or even pre-monotheism really) The Persians were very advanced – they incorporated Chinese, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Indian information into their culture. Even in Rome, half a millennia before Islam, rich merchant’ and Senator’ daughters were wearing Chinese made silk. The flow of information from one side of the World to the other was quite fluid to be sure. As you probably know, many Greek Statues of Buddha, carved by Greek Philosophers that had converted to Buddhism, adorned Temples in what used to be northern India. Many have been destroyed as Blasphemous to Allah but some are still around. Again, there was a massive flow of information through the Middle East. Greco-Buddhist art Did you know that the Ancient Egyptians made part of the Pyramids from concrete that is more environmental friendly, cheaper and just as solid as the concrete we make today! That was 7000 years ago, 5.5 millennia pre-Islam. That's cool huh!?! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Riddle Of The Great Pyramids Of Giza: Professor Finds Some Building Blocks Were Concrete The Greeks built mechanical devices of such sophistication that devices would not rival them for over 2 millennia – not until the time of the European clock makers. Antikythera Mechanism Amazing! Not to mention the great Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Chinese and Roman Philosophers, Playwrights, Sculptors, Architects and Mathematicians of the time. We could go on and on and on …… These societies were advanced and prosperous to say the least. Think of it like this: To suggest that things in the Middle East, India, North Africa, Sicily, Greece, and Spain were so much better after they were conquered by Muslims – this is to use the same argument that the Xians did to justify their genocide of the peoples of the Americas (only on a much much much smaller scale). If you think about it for a bit, I am sure that you will agree that this is not the moral high ground to take. Is it? One could suggest that the Peoples in America used to war among one another, then they were conquered and converted to monotheism by Xians, they lost their language and their culture along the way (much like the Persians to the Arabs) but hey now they are at peace and live in a prosperous America. You wouldn’t agree to that??? No way! So why suggest the same is a good thing when related to Islam? This is really a key question and a hard on to ask ones self. Why think like that? Also, note. If we were to really stop and think about it, it seems apparent to me that under the systems of monotheism (Xianinty in Europe and Islam in the Middle East) things actually slowed down a lot. The Muslims and Xians were still using Claudius Galenus’s books on medicine up until just recently (written in the 2nd century BCE). Only they were not performing medicine nearly as well as he - as many of the surgeries he performed (brain and cataract surgery in particular) would not be repeated for another 2000 years! We both agree that the Persians were a Great Civilization for millennia before they were conquered and, much like Natives in the Americas, forced to become monotheists. So with that in mind, look at many of the inventions during the time of Islam - I think you will find that most either originated from the Persian converts or come from the Spaniards. This says two things to me, 1) the Persians continued to try to make advancements under Islam, and did for sure, just at a much much much slower pace than before 2) Spain is about as far one can get and still be in the Islamic Realm, it was a mixture of ruling Muslims, merchant Jews and the locals whom were Xians. The ideal place to make advancement – basically as far away from the ruling religious class over in Damascus as possible AND a mix of peoples/ideas. Perfect really. In summary, yes we should expect some improvement along the way, as is the nature of society – but come on, relative to their Polytheistic predecessors both Xians and Muslims were stagnate to say the least. It isn’t until the Europeans removed monotheism as far away as possible from their political and mental states and returned to critical thinking that we see a massive and rapid increase in social, political and scientific development. Wouldn’t you agree? Michael PS: Sorry for the long posts….Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
First of all, war should be between soldiers not civilians. So burning the village, the man's family etc is unacceptable. If the people of the village are combatants, then as POWs, they should be treated as one would want one's own combatants to be treated by the other side. A captured soldier is a prisoner of war, either he is ransomed against POWs from the other side or kept as a prisoner so as to maintain his non-combatant status. IMO, a soldier who willingly goes to war is very different from a slave who is unwillingly forced to work without compensation or abused into sexual slavery. As for spoils of war. You are fighting an enemy soldier who is protecting a cache of weapons and food. If he dies in the altercation, do you leave the weapons and food or do you requisition them. Or you come across a cache of gold that the other side is using to finance the war against you. Who is the recipient of the weapons the food or the gold? To whom is this booty distributed. Again you have captured 5 POWs from the opposite side. The opposite side holds 20 of your men. Who ransoms the men? Which men can be ransomed against the men captured by you? What is the right thing to do in such a circumstance. Another scenario. You are a small group of people living on a land rich in natural resources. You do not believe in fighting because it is against your religion. One day a large group of people who desire these resources attack you and kill all the women and children. What should the men do? Should these men fight for survival or not? If these men from the rich land fight against and capture men from the opposite side, what should be the fate of those men?
I think you will find that Protestant Europeans and Americans did quite a swift little business selling Slaves in the American Colonies and then States. Think of the number of Africans and Pacific Island nations that were destroyed. Think of the number of Natives in the North Americans genocided by the Protestant invaders. Some estimate it in the hundreds of millions of people. Michael
I totally agree - but that is not the way it was back then. Of course everyone in the Village defended it. Men, Women, Children, the old and the lame. With that in mind I will answer as I think you would: 1) Do you Free him or do you Enslave him? Free! Free! Free! 2) You see your compatriots taking their Slave booty. Do you admonish them and pass a Law making Slavery illegal or do you regulate it and pass laws protecting the Slave as property of the Victor – that is, do you Institutionalize it – thereby making Slavery an Institution for all times? Slavery is now Illegal! See easy! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A good Warlord you probably would not make Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael Well easy for me, but I understand it can be a difficult set of questions because your intuition is to say Hell No. I am not going to own a person as a Slave! That is Sick. But then you have this verse somewhere in some Holy Book that demonstrates a “nicer” version of Slavery and shows how it can be Institutionalized. And you know, it was Institutionalized and thereby practiced for millennia by Xians and Muslims.
I suppose these beg the question: Am I defending my City or am I attacking another people – say, am I a Roman attacking the Gauls or a Muslim attacking the Persians – which is different than say being the Gaul and defending my home or the Persian manning an outpost. Anyway, Modern or ancient War? Modern: I think that the money must be reported to the high command, the arms are destroyed. Ancient: If I were a fighter and came across such booty – happy days O happy days…. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Take it and share among the men and the City - maybe win a medal or new name!! Michaelus is now Maximus Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ancient: Fight to a conclusion of the war. Modern: If the War is ongoing follow the Geneva Conventions for POWs until the conclusion of the War. Modern: again Geneva Conventions Ancient: So let me get this right, I have counter attacked and killed all but captured these last few men? Then I would requisition their lands and goods, try to work out some manner of finding new women (this is going to be hard). Their would be a Democratic meeting in the City as to what Laws will govern the Captured men - until then they will be Imprisoned. I would push for the Leaders of the raid on my City to be executed. After imprisonment those people would be freed. I would push for a Citizenship incentive program for those with good skills – the rest may simply be offered work as the Laws of my City allow, they would be allowed to simply leave - they are free after all, or if not exicuted but of no worth they may even banished from my City's territory or to the furthest reaches of it as part of their punishment. That’s what I thought of off the top of my head anyway, What do you think? Any Good? Michael
Well this is where I thought you were going to give me a new link. I read a list of the greatest Islamic scientists once and many were Persian - like >50% I think?
I used to like to read about Marius’s military campaigns against the Germanic people and in North Africa and of course Julius's campaigns in Europe. Not to mention many of Alexander’s sieges against Greek colonies were interesting. Pretty much when you’re city is under attack everyone try’s to defend it. What? Did you think people are going to be like: “Laa Dee Daa” I may be dead tomorrow but I think a nice roast sounds good for tonight, maybe I’ll invite the Cornelius’s over for a philosophical debate on the nature of zero? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course everyone defends their city!
And the historians, poets, philosophers, artists, architects? Or don't they count?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How ancient is this war?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway according to Islam:
In defending one's City? I would imagine quite similar. Why - people are inclinded to try to save their lives when threatened. Even women and children, bringing supplies, making rations, fixing broken stuff while the men try to defend them, bring water, etc.. I am 100% positive that if a flaming arrow hit a house with a woman in it and she could quickly put out the fire before anything happened she would put out the fire thereby defending her home. Wouldn't you? Surely you agree?
From what I have read of the wars of Arabia, they were fought more in the Scottish style, with groups of men (and some women) meeting in a battleground away from homes and villages and fighting it out. The rocky terrains offered advantages in unequal warfare which the villages could not. I haven't considered it carefully though and I don't have my books on Mohammed here. I am going home in a few weeks though, so I can look them up.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
