ISIS' reasons for enslaving women

[jacky54]

Do you condemn the emperor Constantine, the man who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, because he owned slaves and no doubt, in your words, raped them?

Pathetic diversion as usual, Constantine did not found any religion, Mohamad did, owned slaves and raped them, although they must have had to wait while he got through raping his 9 year old bride. This is the perfect man that billions follow today and try to emulate, nobody is doing that with Constantine who only (possibly) converted on his death bed. Jesus did not own slaves, preached forgiveness, turning the other cheek and was non violent. Mohamad was a slave owner, rapist, thief, warlord and hate preacher that is having serious re percussions in the world today. Forget pointing the finger elsewhere, forget your moderate apologies, the real problem is the Prophet, his life and his book. This is the only reason ISIS are taking women slaves.

Edited October 14, 2014 by jacky54

[Scott]

Numerous posts and replies removed. The topic is about the ISIS reasons for enslaving women.

[arjunadawn]

(Embedded quotes removed to comply with forum software)

If you say that you are a scholar who has studied Islam, then I will take your word for it.

Although when trumpeting your own qualifications, it's probably best to refrain from phrases like "An idiot can stay in college and finally get a degree" to demean others as others could turn that back on you and use it to describe you!

However, you cannot deny that the majority of Muslim scholars these days say that slavery has no place in the modern world. Or do you dismiss their words as 'poppycock?'

Neither can you deny that slavery is illegal in all Muslim countries.

Nor that slavery exists in non Muslim countries; as the list from the Global Slavery Index shows, of the top ten offending countries, only two are Muslim ones!

Islamophobia is a legitimate word; defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

The OED gives as legitimate derivatives, Islamaphobe (noun) and Islamaphobic (adjective).

From the University of California, Berkley Center for Race and Gender

The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework.

So it's not a new word; it's been in use for nearly 25 years.

Do you deny the legitimacy of similar words, such as xenophobia, homophobia and Judeophobia?

Do you use the same argument against people who use those words as you do against people who use the word Islamaphobia?

If someone uses, for example, the word Judeophobe, as one particular member has done many times in various topics, do you listen to the Judeophobe or dismiss the speaker?

Edit:

I should add, before being accused otherwise, that I am not in anyway excusing or apologising for the evil of slavery; whoever is guilty of it.

In response to your post I only noted that education is really kinda meaningless; anyone can have it. A degree of education is actually not required to study the source documents of ISIS and fundementally grasp the mandates (Indeed, a muslim scholar only schooled in islam would have far less global context in which to frame the information). You see, the koran is not loaded with parables and innuendo, dual meanings, and such- it is explicit! The Koran is to be intrepreted in a very real sense; the mystical questing and applying earthly descriptive injunctions to conquer self and the flesh are present a great deal in other faiths, variously later with Sufi, but less in primary documents where it is a descrition for life (The various concepts of jihad's subtler meanings came later). All a man or woman needs to read and grasp the deepest meanings of koranic literature is self evident gut sensability. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/teachingnonviolentatonement/2014/10/islam-and-the-motherload-of-bad-ideas-the-bill-maher-sam-harris-and-ben-affleck-debate/)

7by7, I cannot have anything turned on me in conversation or debate because I freely admit when I am wrong, or a better argument scatters my thoughts. My point remains- an idiot can get a degree if they stay in school. When the bar is set so high that we are told by a poster we have no real authority to intrepet islamic documents because we are not muslim scholars, you invite the response, credentials, and comments that even a fool can read and intrepret source documents.

I do dismiss as "poppycock" the utterly baseless notion that the majority of muslim scholars affirm any such thing as a repudiation of slavery. Indeed, the fractured nature of modern islam is so great only a fool would assert the "the majority of muslim scholars" argree on anything. The devolution of Islam to the lowest common demoninators since the absence of a caliph rightfully has clown imams issuing fatwas with as much standing as any scholar you'd cite. This is the nature of our current morass. This statement is as baseless as the CNN byline- there is no islamic majority rejecting its own shar'ia. Understand this: in order for slavery to be rejected by islam the entire foundation of civil life would have to be retooled in shar'ia, and the station of non believers versus believers be totally re written because these assigned roles, duties, and subjugations, are positively divinely ordained. It is absolute falsity to reinforce the fiction that islam rejects its own divinely inspired civil structure as 7th century desert antics.

I dont "use arguments" against people; words are not tools to beat others, malign, or otherwise stifle or ridicule. I take each man, each thought, each act as independently standing or falling on its own merit, such as your posts, where there are often very sensible things said. I dont need to be right in the eyes of you or others, though I prefer the sense I have shared information with others regarding this issue because it is so vitally important.

If someone said "Judeophobe," or "homophobe" it would elicit the same response from me (words like xenophobe are not really part of the political capital used to silence opponents of special interests so there is no traction here). It makes no difference to me if the OED has "Islamophobe" present and meaning what you said (I wont even look it up, there is no reason to. Its value is in its deportment and its deportment is used as a baton to club others in failed debate), this just evidences the lingusitic cannibalism present in all languages- this is how language evolves, or not. It is thru these observations in linguistics we can rebuild mother tongues from descended languages; but Islamophobe, being the current political vernacular for an Islam hater, is a tool of the intellectually bankrupt. This word, like a few examples you have included, reflect the failing of modern education.

Lastly, there no reason for you to ever defend your position on slavery, not to me and many others. Because you object to me or various posts it does not follow that you support what ISIS does; we get that. Your posts are different than mine, but it is likely we share many of the same vital values.

[7by7]

Jacky54, I wont respond to your usual accusations thrown out when you are asked a question you can't or, to be more accurate, don't want to answer.

.....the real problem is the Prophet, his life and his book. This is the only reason ISIS are taking women slaves.

It is the excuse used by IS; but as shown before, mainstream Islam today is anti slavery.

Do you accept what is said by the majority of Muslims when they say that slavery has no place in the modern world?

Even radicals like Khilafah.com. I've already quoted the introduction to their article on the subject ; it concludes

In modern warfare, women and children no longer accompany the army to increase its numbers and encourage its men to fight, so there does not remain even one situation in which enslaving occurs. Therefore, Islam has abolished slavery and there are no situations where slavery would return in a future Khilafah.
(My emphasis)

This from them, on the World Cup in Qatar and the exploitation of workers building the stadiums there, is relevant and interesting, too: Slavery and Soccer - Qatar's heresy

......The $100 billion infrastructure project is set to be the costliest world cup ever as a new rail system, an entire new suburb adjoining its capital Doha, luxury hotels with transport links and nine state-of-the-art, air-conditioned stadiums are forecasted to be constructed. Such lavish spending stands in stark contrast to the working conditions of its labour force, much of which is imported from very poor countries and which make up about 90% of its residents. Many of us would not be surprised by these findings as similar stories leak out of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait......

......Therefore, one cannot help but feel contempt for the government of Qatar. Despite its vast oil wealth, she shows very little interest in playing a sincere role in the Muslim World; instead those in the royal family are rushing to fulfill their pockets and satisfy their egos by championing the opportunity in hosting the World Cup.

So, as can be seen, even radical Muslim groups are adamant in their condemnation of slavery and the exploitation of low paid workers; saying that it has no place in the modern world; they even call it heresy!

[jacky54]

where are the links to Muslims condemning the CAUSE of ISIS enslaving? merely condemning people carrying out Allahs commands is meaningless, they need to be condemning why they do it. Come on where are Muslims condemning the passages in the Koran and haddith that justify slavery and Jihad?

[A1Str8]

There's no reason to enslave another human being. Whoever does so is a misguided little boy who needs a good ass whooping to realize what's up. By the way the fact remains that a woman is not any less than a man so i am still waiting for the day when they stop being pathetic.

[7by7]

Arjunadawn, there is much in your previous with which I agree; but I do disagree about the various 'phobe' words. English is a living language and constantly changing; otherwise we'd all be talking like Chaucer, or even in the language of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles!

These 'phobe' words may have been invented; but there are many precedents. For example Shakespeare in his plays and sonnets used words he invented; words which are now in common usage. Compromise, impartial and zany being just three of the 1700 plus words he invented and brought into the English language.

Not to mention the countless words borrowed from foreign languages.

But I digress, so back to the point. I would like, if I may, to comment further on the following:

When the bar is set so high that we are told by a poster we have no real authority to intrepet islamic documents because we are not muslim scholars, you invite the response, credentials, and comments that even a fool can read and intrepret source documents.

With respect: I did not say that. A poster said I had no authority to comment on the Koran because I had not read all of it. I merely responded by asking the poster concerned if he had studied the Koran as much as the scholars whom I quoted, and have quoted since.

It is my view, supported I believe by overwhelming evidence, that these scholars represent the thinking of modern Muslims far more than that of IS and those who agree with them.

Lastly, there no reason for you to ever defend your position on slavery, not to me and many others. Because you object to me or various posts it does not follow that you support what ISIS does; we get that. Your posts are different than mine, but it is likely we share many of the same vital values.

Thank you for that; unfortunately, as clearly shown by their posts attacking me and others, it is not a view shared by a certain group of posters; who drag out the word 'apologist' or similar whenever presented with an argument they have no answer for.

[7by7]

where are the links to Muslims condemning the CAUSE of ISIS enslaving? merely condemning people carrying out Allahs commands is meaningless, they need to be condemning why they do it. Come on where are Muslims condemning the passages in the Koran and haddith that justify slavery and Jihad?

The answer is in the many links already supplied; read them.

[jacky54]

All Muslims are slaves to the Koran and the Prophet, if they want to leave they can be sentenced to death, what kind of freedom of religion is that?

[Thorgal]

All Muslims are slaves to the Koran and the Prophet, if they want to leave they can be sentenced to death, what kind of freedom of religion is that?

Slavery has nothing to do with religion.

All ancient and even modern civilization had slaves.

Slavery in this topic is used to demonize Islam as a religion. Be sure, the term of war prisoner will not be used...

It's not a practice in modern Islam.

Does CNN have clean records with anti-Islam propaganda ?

Please, do not provide a Gholem answer...

Edited October 14, 2014 by Thorgal

[arjunadawn]

Arjunadawn, there is much in your previous with which I agree; but I do disagree about the various 'phobe' words. English is a living language and constantly changing; otherwise we'd all be talking like Chaucer, or even in the language of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles!

These 'phobe' words may have been invented; but there are many precedents. For example Shakespeare in his plays and sonnets used words he invented; words which are now in common usage. Compromise, impartial and zany being just three of the 1700 plus words he invented and brought into the English language.

When the bar is set so high that we are told by a poster we have no real authority to intrepet islamic documents because we are not muslim scholars, you invite the response, credentials, and comments that even a fool can read and intrepret source documents.

With respect: I did not say that. A poster said I had no authority to comment on the Koran because I had not read all of it. I merely responded by asking the poster concerned if he had studied the Koran as much as the scholars whom I quoted, and have quoted since.

It is my view, supported I believe by overwhelming evidence, that these scholars represent the thinking of modern Muslims far more than that of IS and those who agree with them.

Thank you for that; unfortunately, as clearly shown by their posts attacking me and others, it is not a view shared by a certain group of posters; who drag out the word 'apologist' or similar whenever presented with an argument they have no answer for.

I am aware there are hateful-like posts, and some directed to you; I read them. However, "I am not those men." There have been a few times when I said something stupid about a member that was simply based on my taking his bait, and losing the high ground.

7by7, I see hatred and the related step children of such emotions as vile; such emotions, such interior emotions are the furthest one can get from being human. I see them as the most blind, most narrow and dare I say evil-like elements of being human. To be born, in this vast expanse of matter and time, today, in a life where one is aware and can delcare "I am, I love, I see," how could one hate? I do not hate any. Therefore, the simple fact is "Islamophobe" utterly fails to describe me, and I am left with no choice but to see the word itself as falling short of what the purpose of langauge is. There must be many, many like me who see the underlying islamic ideology anathema to all civilization holds dear- in its pristine 7th century form, not the unorthodox "moderate" form so many westerners have been exposed to.

How about this: I am simply a man like you and others who, once having processed the data related to the issue "ISIS' reasons for enslaving women" conclude that the underlying ideology is near universally shared. I simply reach a very different conclusion. I presume many travel the same path as I do, and make their point free of the emotion of hate. In my case, it is real palpable fear for the West because the West cannot even define the threat.

When you and others note such persons as al narhanni [sic] and applaud his organization seeking to make universal more modern elements of islam, you miss a grave underlying issue. When you look at this example, which was cited by Khalifiah, you see, more or less, the same organizational structure and aims of the Muslim Brotherhood. Okay, that does not mean they are necessarily bad, though the MB is. However, you must come to understand how taqiyya works, and how these muslim leaders speak with two voices- always. I have had so many arabic friends point this out to me. So often something is said to the west for consumption, and to locals as another audience. The progress in the effort requires the west to accept them and their legitimacy, indeed life, requires arabic audience to accept them. Islam has no provisions for modernizing. Modernizing is free will. Free will is antithetical to Islam because it places man in the role of questioning Al lah; "insha allah."

When they say they oppose slavery it is because they do oppose slavery; they are not lying. When they say they support freedom for women, they mean this. They mean both and more but they mean it within the context laid out in shar'iah. Slavery would be a mess of a situation in which man would willy nilly enslave, capture, rape, etc., whereas the shar'ia intelligently and dispassionately sets the standards under which slavery is executed; the same with women's rights. In this manner great progress has been made in the west by such organizations who's singular goal is the "destruction of the wicked house of the west (MB paraphrase)."

What I am describing to you pretty much says that we can believe none of them; isnt this absurd? Doesnt my position speak of a grand conspiracy so vast as to make other threats pale? Yes. However, why would it be required for us to believe any of them- the "moderates" conducting lawfare in the west or the jihadis conducting warfare everywhere else? Why dont we just watch what they do. These are not new organizations. What do they do? Promote? Stop listening to anything that is said and watch what is done. In this entire debacle of escalating, creeping shar'ia, comments have never made one single point to lessening the march. Why now, with radical islam engulfing the world in flames, would some think words would now help? Muslims will never condemn the prohpet and that is what is required to repudiate what the west opposes.

Islam mandates the unrelenting prusuit of global shar'ia- this is what Islam is. Why this is so difficult to grasp is because the West keeps assigning fairly benign titles to islam such as "religion," "cultural," and other words that miss the mark. It has belief yes, but it is rich with militant ideology that is not spiritual at all; it is political, social, judicial, and military. There is no divorce here and any who attempt to modernize islam reject the prophet, the Perfect Man, who is to be emulated always.

[Loptr]

speechless

and I'm breathing the same air as these people

This planet needs sanitised

The Wahabists are trying, give them a little time...

[arjunadawn]

All Muslims are slaves to the Koran and the Prophet, if they want to leave they can be sentenced to death, what kind of freedom of religion is that?

Actually, I see the point you are trying to make but I want to mention something about the very phrase "Slave" to Al lah. It is actually a common perspective for the faithful to define themselves as slaves of Allah. I would not extrapolate this into any greater meaning but the slavery imagery is rich throughout the entire ideology and practice. The use of "slave" is likely only a confession of love and possession, but curious.

[KunMatt]

where are the links to Muslims condemning the CAUSE of ISIS enslaving? merely condemning people carrying out Allahs commands is meaningless, they need to be condemning why they do it. Come on where are Muslims condemning the passages in the Koran and haddith that justify slavery and Jihad?

The answer is in the many links already supplied; read them.

1 link, there is 1 link in this whole thread provided where Muslim scholars address the IS using passages from the Koran. It forwards to this https://zaidpub.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/letter-to-isis-caliph.pdf

Is this the "vast majority of moderate Muslims who oppose the radicals" that you claim? 1 letter which apparently sums up the feelings of 80% of all the Muslims in the world? So 1 letter speaks for about 1 billion people who are otherwise silent on all of the barbaric atrocities that have been done in the name of their beloved religion for the last few decades.

Why is it that the voice of the (apparently only) 20% of Muslims who are radical is so much louder, frequent and far spread than the vast majority who should oppose and fight against their religion being tarnished and dragged through the mud as badly as it has been in the last decade? Do you think it's because they could be sympathetic to the radical's cause and want the same end game? Where are all of these moderate Muslims on social media taking issue with the radicals who supposedly don't represent their religion?

What is happening now in the IS with the justified slavery, rapes and murders is just an small insight into the mind of these brainwashed idiots, the exact same people who want to implement Shariah law in the UK.

When are you going to wake up and admit that there will be no harmonious end to a rapidly spreading Islam which is currently invading Europe and increasing exponentially? There has to be a resistance against what is currently happening or else our civilised way of life is seriously in danger. I have kids and I will move to the UK soon, I am worried about what kind of country the UK is going to be in 20 years because of politically correct ponces were too soft to do anything about it and speak up before it was too late. The population of Muslims per country and the effects on it as mapped out quoted in a previous post from the book "Wake Up, America!" is correct and if you've been to various Islamic countries you will know it to be totally true.

What is happening in the IS is not born from a regional culture because there are Muslims who were born and raised in the UK and the US who have gone to participate in the exact same horrific atrocities that Muslims from every country and culture are all doing.

The old adage "not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim" is apt.

[jacky54]

All Muslims are slaves to the Koran and the Prophet, if they want to leave they can be sentenced to death, what kind of freedom of religion is that?

Slavery has nothing to do with religion.

Islam means submission and you cannot leave, sounds rather like slavery to me, if only the spiritual kind

[KunMatt]

All Muslims are slaves to the Koran and the Prophet, if they want to leave they can be sentenced to death, what kind of freedom of religion is that?

Slavery has nothing to do with religion.

Islam means submission and you cannot leave, sounds rather like slavery to me, if only the spiritual kind

Yep, like for most "crimes" under Shariah law the punishment for apostasy is death, even if you weren't a Muslim in the first place but your father was, if you say you are not a Muslim then that's a death sentence too.

[Steely Dan]

Jacky54, I wont respond to your usual accusations thrown out when you are asked a question you can't or, to be more accurate, don't want to answer.

.....the real problem is the Prophet, his life and his book. This is the only reason ISIS are taking women slaves.

It is the excuse used by IS; but as shown before, mainstream Islam today is anti slavery.

Do you accept what is said by the majority of Muslims when they say that slavery has no place in the modern world?

Even radicals like Khilafah.com. I've already quoted the introduction to their article on the subject ; it concludes

In modern warfare, women and children no longer accompany the army to increase its numbers and encourage its men to fight, so there does not remain even one situation in which enslaving occurs. Therefore, Islam has abolished slavery and there are no situations where slavery would return in a future Khilafah.

(My emphasis)

This from them, on the World Cup in Qatar and the exploitation of workers building the stadiums there, is relevant and interesting, too: Slavery and Soccer - Qatar's heresy

......The $100 billion infrastructure project is set to be the costliest world cup ever as a new rail system, an entire new suburb adjoining its capital Doha, luxury hotels with transport links and nine state-of-the-art, air-conditioned stadiums are forecasted to be constructed. Such lavish spending stands in stark contrast to the working conditions of its labour force, much of which is imported from very poor countries and which make up about 90% of its residents. Many of us would not be surprised by these findings as similar stories leak out of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait......

......Therefore, one cannot help but feel contempt for the government of Qatar. Despite its vast oil wealth, she shows very little interest in playing a sincere role in the Muslim World; instead those in the royal family are rushing to fulfill their pockets and satisfy their egos by championing the opportunity in hosting the World Cup.

So, as can be seen, even radical Muslim groups are adamant in their condemnation of slavery and the exploitation of low paid workers; saying that it has no place in the modern world; they even call it heresy. !

Interesting that you bring up Qatar as I was about to, they are also the world's number one sponsor of terrorism, including the likes of ISIS. Anyway I wonder whether the quotes from scripture mentioned in your article could be used against ISIS in the same way as used against Qatar. I guess the answer would fall with which verses if any are abrogated by others in the case of them being contradictory. Indeed by way of a tie breaker does a Caliph have the authority to make his own ruling on which verses to apply. If you note I am setting aside for the moment the question of what the majority might think, but I am highlighting how there is no recognized supreme authority in Islam that has stopped ISIS adopting their own position on slavery, should another Caliph step up to the plate then perhaps this would change, after the inevitable bloody schism where rival camps of Muslims fight it out.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Steely Dan

[chuckd]

All Muslims are slaves to the Koran and the Prophet, if they want to leave they can be sentenced to death, what kind of freedom of religion is that?

Slavery has nothing to do with religion.

All ancient and even modern civilization had slaves.

Slavery in this topic is used to demonize Islam as a religion. Be sure, the term of war prisoner will not be used...

It's not a practice in modern Islam.

Does CNN have clean records with anti-Islam propaganda ?

Please, do not provide a Gholem answer...

"Slavery has nothing to do with religion."

and...

"It's not a practice in modern Islam."

Huh?

This article out yesterday indicates otherwise to virtually everything in your post..

It will be interesting to watch this one get spun around.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ISIS: Sexual Enslavement of Yazidi Women Helps Muslims Avoid Sin

October 13, 2014 - 4:23 AM

By Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria says that shari’a law allows the enslavement of women from Iraq’s Yazidi minority because they are pagans, a religious class deemed even worse than “apostates” like Christians and Jews who may be given the convert-or-die option.

An article in the latest edition of the terrorist group’s propaganda publication, Dabiq, also attempts to justify its widespread enslavement of Yazidi women by saying it was needed to prevent Muslim men from being tempted into sinful sexual conduct.

Keeping a slave woman is “the shari’a alternative to marriage,” and when slavery is not available, then “a man who cannot afford marriage to a free woman finds himself surrounded by temptation towards sin,” it says.

Further, a Muslim man who employs a maid at home may be tempted to have sex with her, “whereas if she were his concubine, this relationship would be legal.”

Read more here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/isis-sexual-enslavement-yazidi-women-helps-muslims-avoid-sin

[Johpa]

....This extremism was stimulated by Western countries.

There was no sign of Islamic extremism before that war between Sunni, Shia and Christians.

Not true. Islamic conservatism, it is not extremist, has been the guiding force in Saudi Arabia for several centuries, ever since Muhammad Ibn Saud aligned with Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab towards the end of the 18th century. The stimulation from Western countries began only after the oil money flowing into the Saud clan after WWII was used to promote this fundamentalist version of Islam globally.

[simple1]

All Muslims are slaves to the Koran and the Prophet, if they want to leave they can be sentenced to death, what kind of freedom of religion is that?

Slavery has nothing to do with religion.

All ancient and even modern civilization had slaves.

Slavery in this topic is used to demonize Islam as a religion. Be sure, the term of war prisoner will not be used...

It's not a practice in modern Islam.

Does CNN have clean records with anti-Islam propaganda ?

Please, do not provide a Gholem answer...

"Slavery has nothing to do with religion."

and...

"It's not a practice in modern Islam."

Huh?

This article out yesterday indicates otherwise to virtually everything in your post..

It will be interesting to watch this one get spun around.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ISIS: Sexual Enslavement of Yazidi Women Helps Muslims Avoid Sin

October 13, 2014 - 4:23 AM

By Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria says that shari’a law allows the enslavement of women from Iraq’s Yazidi minority because they are pagans, a religious class deemed even worse than “apostates” like Christians and Jews who may be given the convert-or-die option.

An article in the latest edition of the terrorist group’s propaganda publication, Dabiq, also attempts to justify its widespread enslavement of Yazidi women by saying it was needed to prevent Muslim men from being tempted into sinful sexual conduct.

Keeping a slave woman is “the shari’a alternative to marriage,” and when slavery is not available, then “a man who cannot afford marriage to a free woman finds himself surrounded by temptation towards sin,” it says.

Further, a Muslim man who employs a maid at home may be tempted to have sex with her, “whereas if she were his concubine, this relationship would be legal.”

Read more here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/isis-sexual-enslavement-yazidi-women-helps-muslims-avoid-sin

As has been highlighted in this topic slavery has been banned in Islamic majority countries and was an outcome of the Islamic slavery abolitionist movement in the 20th century; kind of contradicts the repeated claims that all Muslims will never move forward from 7th century Islamic jurisdiction. Individuals, in this case Islamic State, choose to break/ignore these laws & is a terrible indication of human nature, as happens in other non Islamic countries.

Islamic State has been repeatedly condemned by Islamic religious and political leaders for their edicts and actions, at the same time ultra conservatives have supported their ideology. A reasonable analysis by Alastair Crooke (generally considered to be well informed) of IS & salafist ideology at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

Another interesting article by Alastair Crooke, "ISIS: A Cognitive, Systemic Failure" at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-a-cognitive-systemic_b_5977484.html

[Thorgal]

....This extremism was stimulated by Western countries.

There was no sign of Islamic extremism before that war between Sunni, Shia and Christians.

Not true. Islamic conservatism, it is not extremist, has been the guiding force in Saudi Arabia for several centuries, ever since Muhammad Ibn Saud aligned with Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab towards the end of the 18th century. The stimulation from Western countries began only after the oil money flowing into the Saud clan after WWII was used to promote this fundamentalist version of Islam globally.

My original post was talking about origin of Islamic extremism in the 70's in Iraq.

Believe me, there was no religious violence before the Iraq/Iran war.

You removed a few sentences to put it out of the context somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Play it according to the forum rules.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Thorgal

[KunMatt]

....This extremism was stimulated by Western countries.

There was no sign of Islamic extremism before that war between Sunni, Shia and Christians.

Not true. Islamic conservatism, it is not extremist, has been the guiding force in Saudi Arabia for several centuries, ever since Muhammad Ibn Saud aligned with Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab towards the end of the 18th century. The stimulation from Western countries began only after the oil money flowing into the Saud clan after WWII was used to promote this fundamentalist version of Islam globally.

My original post was talking about origin of Islamic extremism in the 70's in Iraq.

Believe me, there was no religious violence before the Iraq/Iran war.

You removed a few sentences to put it out of the context somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Play it according to the forum rules.

Please show me some proof of how peaceful and harmonious all the tribes were between themselves in the region of Iraq and it's surrounding areas before the UK cut it all up into the countries that it is right now.

[H1w4yR1da]

ISIS Just Made a Promise to Enslave Your Daughters as Allowed by the Qur’an

http://madworldnews.com/isis-enslave-daughters/

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted."

[Thorgal]

....This extremism was stimulated by Western countries.

There was no sign of Islamic extremism before that war between Sunni, Shia and Christians.

Not true. Islamic conservatism, it is not extremist, has been the guiding force in Saudi Arabia for several centuries, ever since Muhammad Ibn Saud aligned with Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab towards the end of the 18th century. The stimulation from Western countries began only after the oil money flowing into the Saud clan after WWII was used to promote this fundamentalist version of Islam globally.

My original post was talking about origin of Islamic extremism in the 70's in Iraq.

Believe me, there was no religious violence before the Iraq/Iran war.

You removed a few sentences to put it out of the context somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Play it according to the forum rules.

Please show me some proof of how peaceful and harmonious all the tribes were between themselves in the region of Iraq and it's surrounding areas before the UK cut it all up into the countries that it is right now.

Do not reply if not serious...

If you didn't live with them as an atheist you will never understand the facts.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/sectarian-myth-of-iraq

Edited October 15, 2014 by Thorgal

[KunMatt]

ISIS Just Made a Promise to Enslave Your Daughters as Allowed by the Qur’an

http://madworldnews.com/isis-enslave-daughters/

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted."

And we can thank all of the apologists and liberals who kept bleating on how peaceful Islam as while a genocide was happening under it's ideology for letting this happening instead of stopping the spread of these Nazis.

[Scott]

Once again, this particular thread is about ISIS reasons for enslaving women. Stick to that topic.

[KunMatt]

....This extremism was stimulated by Western countries.

There was no sign of Islamic extremism before that war between Sunni, Shia and Christians.

Not true. Islamic conservatism, it is not extremist, has been the guiding force in Saudi Arabia for several centuries, ever since Muhammad Ibn Saud aligned with Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab towards the end of the 18th century. The stimulation from Western countries began only after the oil money flowing into the Saud clan after WWII was used to promote this fundamentalist version of Islam globally.

My original post was talking about origin of Islamic extremism in the 70's in Iraq.

Believe me, there was no religious violence before the Iraq/Iran war.

You removed a few sentences to put it out of the context somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Play it according to the forum rules.

Please show me some proof of how peaceful and harmonious all the tribes were between themselves in the region of Iraq and it's surrounding areas before the UK cut it all up into the countries that it is right now.

Do not reply if not serious...

If you didn't live with them as an atheist you will never understand the facts.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/sectarian-myth-of-iraq

That article doesn't say anything about what was happening between the tribes over the last few centuries and just because there is no record written down by these tribes doesn't mean that there is no history!

It just shows that your consistency of being polar incorrect on everything you have posted in this thread comes from your complete ignorance. I mean literally everything you have posted in here has been wrong so I wonder what your reason for trying to defend the terrorists is?

[H1w4yR1da]

As has been highlighted in this topic slavery has been banned in Islamic majority countries

And prostitution is banned in Thailand.

[canuckamuck]

The westerners that are the most fervent defenders of Islam are also the kind of people that lead the defense of all minority groups. These people defend the rights of woman, gays, alternate religions, among other issues. This is to their credit, they are well meaning and considerate people.

The conundrum is it they do not see that the greatest current and historical threat to the groups they defend, is alive and multiplying across the planet. A very real threat which is destroying the rights and freedoms of people in a global insurgency. Just think of how many rights have been compromised in our own societies since 9/11. NSA anyone? That is nothing.

These well meaning people are caught in a logic loop that has given such a priority to tolerance, rights, and individual expression. That they have no choice but defend the rights of even those who wish to burn it all down.

They cannot get past the mantra "not all Muslims support terrorism". Everything grinds to a halt at that statement. The libertarian mind cannot breach this deeply held conviction. And therefore cannot comprehend any steps towards resolution.

There has to be a way to demonstrate that the evil factions of Islam are so terrifying and so pervasive that the moderates cannot defeat it. They are hostages and slaves already. Self preservation trumps idealism. It makes no difference how peaceful and what good global citizens they majority of Muslims are. They will not poke their heads up in sufficient numbers to gain momentum. Furthermore their belief system is rooted in fundamental intolerance, they cannot in good faith reject the words of the prophet. And although most of them have learned to function in a global community. The Jihadists have built upon the literal translations of this message of violence and divine entitlement, and created a cult of death. And they will not tolerate any resistance. They will kill you with extreme prejudice. ISIS is vivid demonstration that evil is a thing, and it does take control, and it does comes to kill, steal, and destroy.

If Islam is a body, then ISIS is Ebola, and this body is not only in serious danger, all the other bodies face the same threat. With a disease you can isolate the victim. With jihadists we need a new solution. And we really need the defenders of humanity to wake the hell up and get on board. We don't have to tolerate everything. We don't have to tolerate the intolerant. You think conservatives are your enemy. Give your head shake before it gets chopped off - live on video.

Edited October 15, 2014 by canuckamuck

[JockPieandBeans]

Because the good book says so.

Islamic State’s audacity and effrontery toward women knows no bounds. In an article that appeared Sunday in Dabiq, the group’s English-language online publication, Islamic State militants crossed a last possible boundary of decency by citing the Quran as authority for the barbarism they have been practicing against women. Equally disturbing, Arab leaders and the ulama, the clerical leaders of Islam, have been silent in the face of this effrontery.

In the article, ISIS brags of its right to enslave, marry, sell, and buy the girls and women who fall under its control in conquered territories. They are the “spoils of war,” the group asserts. No apology for barbarity toward women, no hiding of atrocity, is necessary; the Quran allows it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/14/isis-says-the-quran-allows-enslaving-women-will-clerical-leaders-respond/

Edited October 15, 2014 by JockPieandBeans