White-faced refugees from Islam

[..]

Flashermac said:

Umm ... about 60 seconds of Googling worth:

Ya, but I want him to support his own argument. No help from the peanut gallery LOL!

 

Cheers,

SD

[paul101]

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/slavery.htm

 

There was an in depth radio documentary three weeks ago on radio 4 looking at the slavery problem in Niger. They visited sale markets and interviewed run away slaves. Of course everyone knows the BBC is predudiced against the slave owners who claim it's part of their culture :: You can say well what about all the christians involved in the slave trade in the west indies and america (and involved in the abolition), The point is here that they were acting against their own religion, whereas I would say Islamic owners can always claim they are acting within the remit of their own religion, and can use the example of it's founder to justify it in the same way that polygamy can be justified.

 

opps wrong link:

http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/antislavery/award/nigerbackground2004.htm

[Flashermac]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000601.php

 

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7007&eng=y

 

 

 

[..]

Thank you. I agree it is bad and should be stopped. But I fail to see it as a religious issue. Just a human rights issue. Example, one does not see Muslims in the West nor in Indo or Malaysia or even Thailand holding slaves, so that kills your "it's the Muslim's fault" theory.

 

SD

[Flashermac]

suadum said:

 

Of course Jesus did not own slaves. He was a bum who wandered around and did tasks for money, similar to your average 1970s hippie trail backpacker.

 

SD

 

 

"Jesus was NOT poor. In fact He owned at least one house, and maybe more. (Mark 2:1) That house was in Capernaum. There are some other scriptures which are not clear about this but it is a possibility that Jesus owned more than one house.

 

"He was not a vagrant but traveled to different cities preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, as He had been commanded to do by the Father. Some use the scripture in Mat. 8:19-20 to show that Jesus was homeless."

 

"Jesus was NOT DIRTY, any more than anyone else would get dirty doing a hard day's work, since He was a working carpenter. In fact, He was probably pretty well off financially because He kept ALL the precepts of God perfectly, and one of those teaches proper financial stewardship.

 

"More than that, a carpenter in that day had to do a multiplicity of jobs within the frame work of "carpentry" including stonemasonry, metal work (such as wrought iron) and any other type of construction affiliated with building. Carpentry in that day was more like a Contractor of our day.

 

"He was not BEDRAGGLED and ragged, but wore quality clothing. Even King Herod seemed to recognize this when Jesus was brought before Him by the Sanhedrin, and Herod put on Him one of Herod's own fabulous robes (Luke 23:11), which was so expensive that the soldiers cast lots for it at Jesus' crucifixion. (Mat. 27:35)"

 

http://www.7times.org/newsletter/anotherjesus.shtml

 

(Other, less loony sites say the same thing, but I can't find them within the 60 seconds allowed.)

[paul101]

 

 

Interesting links, two give the same estimate of 11-14 million slaves taken from sub sharan africa to the middle east. I wonder how they estimate these numbers, I think less than the western slave trade but very significant numbers that seem to have had little exposure in the past in the western media.

[Flashermac]

I had a friend who always quoted a book about the Middle East and nearby area that argued the whole insanity of the region was cultural and not simply to be blamed on Islam. The Arab Christians could be a rather bloody lot at times too! Wish I could remember the name of the book. (India was included, where the Hindus and Sikhs are just as good at violence as the Muslims ...)

 

Reminds me of a Pakistani-American friend years ago who told me that he didn't really consider the Albanians, Malaysians or Indonesians as "real Muslims". Seems they weren't fanatical enough. Wonder if he has changed his mind now after the Bali and Jakarta bombings.

 

p.s. Now I'll quit kibbitzing and let you and Paul have at it with pugil sticks again.

[paul101]

 

Slavery is not the 'muslims fault' any more than it was the christians. I merely point out that today what post people would agree as slavery is most widespread in islamic african countries and that this practice is not preached against in the koran, so therefore Islam could be seen as supporting the practice. Suras advising against raping slaves or giving permission for them to get married has never been of much use in arguing against the practice.

[Chlp]

BelgianBoy said:

WHAT ??? shove all under the carpet then ?

Thats easy, no ? We are on track here......

 

Just blame the muslims for being inhuman when the christians did the same, worse and way more......

Ok, how about WWII then ? How about the BS "god save America and lets invade a few countries" ?

It's the context. I was responding to

ALHOLK said:

It still does not contradict my claim that all terrorists are not muslims. Christian fanatics are just as bad and at least as violent.

We're talking about the contemporary political situation.

 

I'm sure 5-6 centuries ago I would be fleeing the Catholic bishops trying to burn me at the stake and arguing that Christians are violent fanatics. And you'd be arguing with me, saying no, no, no, there are much worse atrocities committed by the pagan Romans and Vandals and Visigots in the 1st and 2nd century.

 

At the time of the crusades, the Muslims were trying to conquer Europe, reaching as far as Vienna. They entrenched themselves in parts of Balkans and Spain; they were taking slaves and forcibly converting the local populations to Islam.

 

Let me repeat--I don't have an issue with that. That is ancient history. Just like the issue of slavery. Did Muslims start it? Perhaps. If Christians joined in (and even put it in the constitution) they were no better. So if you want to do historical studies that's fine.

 

What I am talking about is here and now. We live in an age when the Western civilization has learned to respect human rights and to solve (or live with) their differences in a non-violent way. And then we have Islamic countries which are the source of all military conflics we have today and who are actively spewing out ideology that produces terrorists who go around killing random civilians, all in the name of Islam.

 

I just don't understand why people get off on non-sequiturs about how bad Christians were 500 years ago.

[Chlp]

suadum said:

Some Americans (given your comments, I place you amongst them) reject this dictum, promoting the idea that the government should endorse the religious values of certain members of the community which in effect excludes others.

I think this may be the key of our difference.

 

Government, at least to some degree, reflects and endorses the values of the people. Using abortion as an example again, if the majority of population considers abortion to be a murder of a human being, a democratic government will reflect it (in its legislature and otherwise). If the majority considers it a human right, again, it will be reflected.

 

In both cases, it's the political process working as it should, rather than government endorsing religious values or atheistic values.

 

I do not see a trend in the last 15 years for the US gov't to endorse religion or any specifically religious values. Oh, wait a minute, 15 years covers the two terms of Clinton administration .. are you saying .. no that couldn't be .. and now Hillary wants to 8 more years .. we know that Clinton is a deeply religious man, he said so himself many times, oh my god, I missed it completely, but I can connect the dots now... ::