Sex slaves sold by Islamic State, the younger the better

[dave_boo]

I think that it is common among Islamists to desire that the SOUTHERN part of Thailand that has Muslim legacy to become ruled by Muslims again. That's kind of obvious, isn't it?

But if Islam isn't a supremacist ideology that teaches all non-Muslims should be fought against they should be cool with living under idolaters' rule or working peacefully to change it shouldn't they?

[ABCer]

I think that it is common among Islamists to desire that the SOUTHERN part of Thailand that has Muslim legacy to become ruled by Muslims again. That's kind of obvious, isn't it?

Not obvious at all.....I'd be surprised if many Islamists are even aware of what's happening here. The Southern insurgents are separatists, not Islamists.

Now, you are really stepping over the red line!

Nobody cares whether they are called Separatists, Jihadists or Islamists. This is semantics.

The fact is they are Terrorists, Murderers and Cowards to boot!.

They have killed nearly 7,000 Thais including women, children, teachers and Policemen indiscriminately!

And Thai Army is not adequately protecting Thai people there. These are undeniable facts. They should be dealt with like in Burma.

BTW, their 'Separatist' intentions are driven by their religion! And guess what, - it is the same good old Islam!

[bartender100]

Trump will sort them out when he becomes President

[Lissos]

The bible is literal, if a Christian does not follow the bible word for word a bad Christian? Same for muslims.

Yes, they are disobedient Christians, and by not following word for word they imply that revealed scripture and instruction from 'beyond' is flawed.

Does it say anywhere - "feel free to tweak contents, as centuries pass" ?

What else could they be, but part timers?

The same goes for those who 'opt out' of the aspects of Islam which are archaic and aggressive and totally uncompromising. It is certainly better for us, the Kuffar, but these folks leave part of the cake on the plate.

Great, but some are hungry and 'will' devour the rest.

It was a cake made by Allah. Leaving one half on the plate can't deflect that the very same cook made the whole cake to be consumed as 'one'. Each part of the cake consists of the very same ingredients and was baked in the same oven. At no point is there a choice of - "Pick from this cake only that which quenches your immediate thirst / hunger or your natural tendencies".

Our nations understandably wish to big up those who disobey the war part of what Islam is, because Islam doctrine is War 'and' Peace, both, explicitly.

Peace for Muslims and Kuffar who submit to Islamic 'rule', and War for Kuffar who obstruct, mock, challenge the momentum towards political domination on earth, by Islam. All presented in Muhammad's own life story, along with vetted and accepted Hadith, and the word of Allah in the Qu'ran.

Muhammad spent over a decade overtly ranting against the political and religious status quo in Mecca, and simultaneously played the victim whenever these people lost patience with him. We see this very same mindset today.

Infact, the way this story is spun is that the existing tribes in trying to preserve their politics, culture and chosen worship (however naff) were somehow 'outrageous' and that resistance was unacceptable as a future.

Once he moved to a new camp, the Jihad exploded. That is what Muslims are to do, to confront so called 'ignorance' continually and continually apply pressure on it, not to lay back among Kuffar politics and culture quietly.

Islam was supposed to be a thorn in everyone else's side.

Cherry pickers are much easier for us Kuffar to get along with.

We love cherry pickers.

[ABCer]

Islamic state's approach will be - "It was good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for us". What I mean by that is (and this is neither slander nor Islamophobia. It is fact based history, relevant to discussion of this trend) that slave ownership, buying, selling and exchange were as normal as camel riding in the prophet's own lifetime. With whom did he travel to Bosra with in his mid 20s? A slave boy, supplied by Khadijah. Slavery runs through the entire story of the Prophet, his dealings, his family, his post revelation ayings and guidance and crucially he never put an end to it, nor to Jihad.

Modifications were made, clearer instructions (manual) were made on treatment (good treatment, or inflicting your wrath for transgressions) and differing treatment depending on the circumstances of slaves coming into your possession (as booty from conquest in war, not great prospects), but crucially he never put an end to it and followers are instructed to emulate his life example, are they not. Nor did Allah via Jibreel, instruct an end to the taking, owning, trading of slaves, so I guess not all human beings are deemed equal in the eyes of Allah, never mind his chosen messenger. Allah clarifies this. To me, the core point is that while he condemned 'unjust' maltreatment of slaves, 'just' maltreatment of slaves is clearly permitted.

Islamic State has an idol in historical example, and this is a problem.

You are misunderstanding and confusing the readers.

The problem is (take a pick):

- IS is not really Islamic;

- Islam is good, IS Jihadis are bad;

- There are 'good' and 'bad' Muslims;

- What is wrong in general with 'the younger - the better' concept?;

- If the Prophet approved of slavery, who are you to object?;

- If the Prophet never put an end to slavery and Jihad, - can you really?;

- How do you classify sex slavery as 'maltreatment'?;

And finally, putting 'historical' aspects of Islam as remote, obscure and misinterpreted by infidels, let me quote a more up-to-date authority:

" The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam".

We should all be mindful of "... Islam's role in advancing justice,progress, tolerance and dignity of all human beings".

" We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as our own".

-Can you quote Meccan verses that prove IS is not Islamic?

-Can you provide examples of where Islam is a source of good and peace in this world?

-Can you provide examples of the good Muslims being proactive against the bad Muslims? And don't trot out examples of reactive action in the protection of their rule.

-When the perfect man who's example is to be emulated married and raped a prepubescent child who he physically assaulted it's a bit hard to defend the younger is better isn't?

-If a religion arises that states non-new-religionists (to include Muslims) should be fought against, slaughtered, their women raped and children sold into slavery...who would you be to question it?

-The West did a pretty good job of stopping the slavery in the Muslim world.

-This has to be your most jaw dropping comment. The debasement of being a slave compounded by the violation of rape is truly sickening. And Muslims know that. Hence the rape of the Yazidi women, Qyadifi, the US ambassador, etc.

How is a self described Christian living in a western country an expert? Especially one who studied constitutional law and yet still thinks that limits on freedom of speech are ok?

dave_boo, Boo unto you!

I am not used to being ironical and sarcastic yet have to warn people like you not to take it on a face value.

Everything I said means the opposite. Pardon me for your stupid remarks.

Oh, yeah! Since you are so easily deceived - be careful. The last three quotes, the ones in inverted commas and in bold print are the pearls of wisdom from POTUS Barack Obama himself!

Edited August 4, 2015 by ABCer

[Lissos]

Yes, Dave jumped the gun there a tad..lol!

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts have been removed along with replies. This thread isn't about the Catholic Church, or the Irish, or Israel or other tangential issues.

[heardy]

Its true there are Good and bad Muslims, but the fact remains if there were no Islam the world would be at peace

[simple1]

Aside from 7th century Islamic jurisprudence that slaves are 'war booty', Daesh are true believers of the Islamic version of the apocalypse. Deash have claimed justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

Edited August 4, 2015 by simple1

[Linky]

Islamic state's approach will be - "It was good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for us". What I mean by that is (and this is neither slander nor Islamophobia. It is fact based history, relevant to discussion of this trend) that slave ownership, buying, selling and exchange were as normal as camel riding in the prophet's own lifetime. With whom did he travel to Bosra with in his mid 20s? A slave boy, supplied by Khadijah. Slavery runs through the entire story of the Prophet, his dealings, his family, his post revelation ayings and guidance and crucially he never put an end to it, nor to Jihad.

Modifications were made, clearer instructions (manual) were made on treatment (good treatment, or inflicting your wrath for transgressions) and differing treatment depending on the circumstances of slaves coming into your possession (as booty from conquest in war, not great prospects), but crucially he never put an end to it and followers are instructed to emulate his life example, are they not. Nor did Allah via Jibreel, instruct an end to the taking, owning, trading of slaves, so I guess not all human beings are deemed equal in the eyes of Allah, never mind his chosen messenger. Allah clarifies this. To me, the core point is that while he condemned 'unjust' maltreatment of slaves, 'just' maltreatment of slaves is clearly permitted.

Islamic State has an idol in historical example, and this is a problem.

You are misunderstanding and confusing the readers.

The problem is (take a pick):

- IS is not really Islamic;

- Islam is good, IS Jihadis are bad;

- There are 'good' and 'bad' Muslims;

- What is wrong in general with 'the younger - the better' concept?;

- If the Prophet approved of slavery, who are you to object?;

- If the Prophet never put an end to slavery and Jihad, - can you really?;

- How do you classify sex slavery as 'maltreatment'?;

And finally, putting 'historical' aspects of Islam as remote, obscure and misinterpreted by infidels, let me quote a more up-to-date authority:

" The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam".

We should all be mindful of "... Islam's role in advancing justice,progress, tolerance and dignity of all human beings".

" We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as our own".

-Can you quote Meccan verses that prove IS is not Islamic?

-Can you provide examples of where Islam is a source of good and peace in this world?

-Can you provide examples of the good Muslims being proactive against the bad Muslims? And don't trot out examples of reactive action in the protection of their rule.

-When the perfect man who's example is to be emulated married and raped a prepubescent child who he physically assaulted it's a bit hard to defend the younger is better isn't?

-If a religion arises that states non-new-religionists (to include Muslims) should be fought against, slaughtered, their women raped and children sold into slavery...who would you be to question it?

-The West did a pretty good job of stopping the slavery in the Muslim world.

-This has to be your most jaw dropping comment. The debasement of being a slave compounded by the violation of rape is truly sickening. And Muslims know that. Hence the rape of the Yazidi women, Qyadifi, the US ambassador, etc.

How is a self described Christian living in a western country an expert? Especially one who studied constitutional law and yet still thinks that limits on freedom of speech are ok?

Rubbish.

Imams decipher and say what is acceptable and how the koran is to be followed.

Iran is fighting ISIS. So that is one example, there are many many more if you care to use google. The muslim counsel os australia regularly meets with other faiths and authorities to discuss bad muslims and how to stop muslims being disenfranchised.

This stuff about the prophet marrying and raping prepubescent is a load of....What he did at the time was acceptable and legal, whether you like it or not. So it is taught that under todays laws to do what is acceptable and legal. So yes, easy to defend as we all live by the laws of our time.

Slaughter and slavery cannot be questioned? Better tell that to the millions and millions of muslims who dont slaughter and enslave. So yes they do question it.

Many religions are accepted in all but one muslim country. Saudi Arabia is the only country that does not allow other faiths to be openly followed. Indonesia, the largist muslim populated country in the world has over 60,000 Christian churches. How does that fact sit with you blinkered view.

[simple1]

Its true there are Good and bad Muslims, but the fact remains if there were no Islam the world would be at peace

BS

Edited August 4, 2015 by simple1

[amerasianex]

Dont think for one munute that ISIS does not have Thailand in their sights. Because they do. And will move to take the country as soon as possible. Their ultimate goal is the entire world. Ireally do think they are already here in the south in some strength.........

Congratulations on the daftest post this year

is daftest really a word?......goof ball read the news about southern Thailand and Myanmar. Or any news for that matter. Pr if you really want a heads up take a vacation to Yala providence

[up-country_sinclair]

The article in the OP should not be surprising to anyone knowledgeable on ME affairs. Those same knowledgeable people are aware that Daesh do not speak for the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Daesh represents a disgustingly violent perversion of Islam, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims renounce.

[ozyjon]

The whole thing makes me sick, the worse part is seeing those leaders of society, you know, the well dressed, well groomed men children look up to for example smashing ancient artifacts in the name of the prophet with a sledge hammer, i'm glad i'm a catholic, we are the good ones, to be sure, to be sure, (aren't we) ?

[Lissos]

Imams decipher and say what is acceptable and how the koran is to be followed.

Is there something in Islamic doctrine authorising this?

The Qu'ran states that Allah's messenger, his life, deeds and example are the beacon.

And that life is a mix of generosity and merciless fantacism.

it is taught that under todays laws to do what is acceptable and legal. So yes, easy to defend as we all live by the laws of our time

Taught by whom? I refer to my first question.

Who authorised Muslims to live by the laws of our time?

Allah-Jibreel-Muhammad = Laws that Muslims are to follow, and their duties.

Slaughter and slavery cannot be questioned? Better tell that to the millions and millions of muslims who dont slaughter and enslave. So yes they do question it.

Why authorised Muslims to question God's explicit message and designations?

Muslims are supposed to 'submit' (Islam) to Allah's laid out path.

Maybe inherent human instinct questioned those things?

If so, bravo, but Allah will 'not' be happy.

Islam was the 'final' instruction for humanity from Allah, according to the message.

I repeat, where is the part saying - "Amend as required, during future centuries" ?

[Thongkorn]

Dont think for one munute that ISIS does not have Thailand in their sights. Because they do. And will move to take the country as soon as possible. Their ultimate goal is the entire world. Ireally do think they are already here in the south in some strength.........

You talk out of your rectum. The war in South Thailand is nothing to do with Muslims, its about wanting to rule themselves they dont count themselves as Thai or Malaysian , both Governments put their spokes in to keep the war going its political.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. This is the World News section. The topic is not about Thailand.

Edit: Off-topic post removed.

[ABCer]

Its true there are Good and bad Muslims, but the fact remains if there were no Islam the world would be at peace

I am sorry, my friend, but there are no 'good' or 'bad' Muslims. There are Muslims, period.

The reason some people invent these terms depends on what exactly Muslim does at the given moment at the given place and under given circumstances.

When the moment, place or circumstances change - the very same 'good' Muslim can change into 'bad' one.

There is no test telling one from another. All the 'bad' Muslims from IS are former 'good' Muslims from other countries.

The world was never at peace even before Islam appeared. WWI and WWII started before the Muslim problem in Europe.

Once again, sorry to disappoint you.

[Linky]

Imams decipher and say what is acceptable and how the koran is to be followed.

Is there something in Islamic doctrine authorising this?

The Qu'ran states that Allah's messenger, his life, deeds and example are the beacon.

And that life is a mix of generosity and merciless fantacism.

it is taught that under todays laws to do what is acceptable and legal. So yes, easy to defend as we all live by the laws of our time

Taught by whom? I refer to my first question.

Who authorised Muslims to live by the laws of our time?

Allah-Jibreel-Muhammad = Laws that Muslims are to follow, and their duties.

Slaughter and slavery cannot be questioned? Better tell that to the millions and millions of muslims who dont slaughter and enslave. So yes they do question it.

Why authorised Muslims to question God's explicit message and designations?

Muslims are supposed to 'submit' (Islam) to Allah's laid out path.

Maybe inherent human instinct questioned those things?

If so, bravo, but Allah will 'not' be happy.

Islam was the 'final' instruction for humanity from Allah, according to the message.

I repeat, where is the part saying - "Amend as required, during future centuries" ?

It comes from the Imams. They are the doctrine.

Yes hey follow islamic laws and they are the laws of their countries. In muslim countries where sharia law is not used, or parts of a country not under sharia law they follow common law. In western countries they follow the laws of that country. The only law I know that is different is the number of wives allowed. Any other laws I know of under sharia does not break any western laws.

If allah is not happy if muslims dont follow the teachings word for word then isnt that a good thing according to you? I dont know anyone that follows the bible word for word. Muslims and Christians follow the same God.

The words do not have to be amended. Its the context of the message that is amended. Happens to all religions. Isnt that a good thing?

[Linky]

Imams decipher and say what is acceptable and how the koran is to be followed.

Is there something in Islamic doctrine authorising this?

The Qu'ran states that Allah's messenger, his life, deeds and example are the beacon.

And that life is a mix of generosity and merciless fantacism.

it is taught that under todays laws to do what is acceptable and legal. So yes, easy to defend as we all live by the laws of our time

Taught by whom? I refer to my first question.

Who authorised Muslims to live by the laws of our time?

Allah-Jibreel-Muhammad = Laws that Muslims are to follow, and their duties.

Slaughter and slavery cannot be questioned? Better tell that to the millions and millions of muslims who dont slaughter and enslave. So yes they do question it.

Why authorised Muslims to question God's explicit message and designations?

Muslims are supposed to 'submit' (Islam) to Allah's laid out path.

Maybe inherent human instinct questioned those things?

If so, bravo, but Allah will 'not' be happy.

Islam was the 'final' instruction for humanity from Allah, according to the message.

I repeat, where is the part saying - "Amend as required, during future centuries" ?

It comes from the Imams. They are the doctrine.

Yes hey follow islamic laws and they are the laws of their countries. In muslim countries where sharia law is not used, or parts of a country not under sharia law they follow common law. In western countries they follow the laws of that country. The only law I know that is different is the number of wives allowed. Any other laws I know of under sharia does not break any western laws.

If allah is not happy if muslims dont follow the teachings word for word then isnt that a good thing according to you? I dont know anyone that follows the bible word for word. Muslims and Christians follow the same God.

The words do not have to be amended. Its the context of the message that is amended. Happens to all religions. Isnt that a good thing?

[Johpa]

Because you are wrong. The muslim world does not justfy slavery and it is not accepted in the majority of muslim countries.

Individual Muslims and individual nation-states that are primarily Muslim may not justify or legalize slavery, but Islam does justify slavery in that their prophet Muhammed is posed as having led the perfect life and therefore if Muhammad owned slaves then any conservative Muslim is allowed to infer that slavery is not prohibited, and even permissible unless one can find a specific ban on the practice in the Koran. The heart and soul of modern conservative Salafism/Wahabism is Saudi Arabia which only titularly banned slavery in 1962 but still gets a lot of very bad press for treating foreign workers as slaves, especially African workers. Just use The Google.

Its true there are Good and bad Muslims, but the fact remains if there were no Islam the world would be at peace

Highly unlikely, but as a devout atheist, I do believe that the world would be a better place without Islam and an even better place without the fallacy of most of the other monotheistic religions. But I acknowledge that there are very good people who I do like a lot who disagree with me on that. I also acknowledge that causing suffering is not confined to monotheistic religions as even in Tibet they practiced something akin to slavery. Thailand too had slaves until the reign of Rama V.

[cookee68]

Islamic state's approach will be - "It was good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for us". What I mean by that is (and this is neither slander nor Islamophobia. It is fact based history, relevant to discussion of this trend) that slave ownership, buying, selling and exchange were as normal as camel riding in the prophet's own lifetime. With whom did he travel to Bosra with in his mid 20s? A slave boy, supplied by Khadijah. Slavery runs through the entire story of the Prophet, his dealings, his family, his post revelation ayings and guidance and crucially he never put an end to it, nor to Jihad.

Modifications were made, clearer instructions (manual) were made on treatment (good treatment, or inflicting your wrath for transgressions) and differing treatment depending on the circumstances of slaves coming into your possession (as booty from conquest in war, not great prospects), but crucially he never put an end to it and followers are instructed to emulate his life example, are they not. Nor did Allah via Jibreel, instruct an end to the taking, owning, trading of slaves, so I guess not all human beings are deemed equal in the eyes of Allah, never mind his chosen messenger. Allah clarifies this. To me, the core point is that while he condemned 'unjust' maltreatment of slaves, 'just' maltreatment of slaves is clearly permitted.

Islamic State has an idol in historical example, and this is a problem.

You missed out the bit where the prophet married a 6 year old girl, but Muslims will say she was 8 so i wont split hairs, and this is the religion they call true, and peace, so i guess because the Prophet did it, then it must be ok

[nodomino]

well that's provocative. Should have been easy enough to get a copy or photo of the sex slave menu but alas...nothing. Just another unsubstantiated hate mongering allegation designed to support the illegal and immoral invasion and terrorization of defenseless people.

[hawker9000]

Note that rich Middle Easterners are currently buying slaves sold by ISIS. This should tell anyone paying attention that the religious texts cited by ISIS justifying slavery are also accepted elsewhere in the Muslim world, and why not for any who believe the Quran is the literal word of God?

Yeap. So, would the Middle Easterners buying these slaves, and all those who are tolerant of slavery and believe it to be "justified" by the Quran, be "good Muslims" or "bad Muslims"? How about someone who tolerates the abuse of women (as westerners would define it) - "good" or "bad" Muslim? A man ostracizes his daughter from the family (or worse) for marrying outside the faith or otherwise "dishonoring" him - "good" or "bad" Muslim? Apologists tend to focus on the "very small minority" of violent Jihadists, but what about the perhaps not so small minority and their abhorrent, but faith-based, practices? How much "tolerance" is really appropriate?

[car720]

Islamic state's approach will be - "It was good enough for the prophet, it's good enough for us". What I mean by that is (and this is neither slander nor Islamophobia. It is fact based history, relevant to discussion of this trend) that slave ownership, buying, selling and exchange were as normal as camel riding in the prophet's own lifetime. With whom did he travel to Bosra with in his mid 20s? A slave boy, supplied by Khadijah. Slavery runs through the entire story of the Prophet, his dealings, his family, his post revelation ayings and guidance and crucially he never put an end to it, nor to Jihad.

Modifications were made, clearer instructions (manual) were made on treatment (good treatment, or inflicting your wrath for transgressions) and differing treatment depending on the circumstances of slaves coming into your possession (as booty from conquest in war, not great prospects), but crucially he never put an end to it and followers are instructed to emulate his life example, are they not. Nor did Allah via Jibreel, instruct an end to the taking, owning, trading of slaves, so I guess not all human beings are deemed equal in the eyes of Allah, never mind his chosen messenger. Allah clarifies this. To me, the core point is that while he condemned 'unjust' maltreatment of slaves, 'just' maltreatment of slaves is clearly permitted.

Islamic State has an idol in historical example, and this is a problem.

You are misunderstanding and confusing the readers.

The problem is (take a pick):

- IS is not really Islamic;

- Islam is good, IS Jihadis are bad;

- There are 'good' and 'bad' Muslims;

- What is wrong in general with 'the younger - the better' concept?;

- If the Prophet approved of slavery, who are you to object?;

- If the Prophet never put an end to slavery and Jihad, - can you really?;

- How do you classify sex slavery as 'maltreatment'?;

And finally, putting 'historical' aspects of Islam as remote, obscure and misinterpreted by infidels, let me quote a more up-to-date authority:

" The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam".

We should all be mindful of "... Islam's role in advancing justice,progress, tolerance and dignity of all human beings".

" We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as our own".

But he was just a man which means that he was as ambitious and greedy as the next man. Ergo, just as full of bull. This is someone to worship?

[simple1]

But he was just a man which means that he was as ambitious and greedy as the next man. Ergo, just as full of bull. This is someone to worship?

Worship of Muhammad would be considered to be polytheistic in direct contradiction to the monotheism of Islam.

[Naam]

But he was just a man which means that he was as ambitious and greedy as the next man. Ergo, just as full of bull. This is someone to worship?

Worship of Muhammad would be considered to be polytheistic in direct contradiction to the monotheism of Islam.

pearls before...

[jerojero]

Just love it (huge sarcasm). As someone poignantly said: some of the world's worst atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, or committed by religious zealots. Sex slaves via ISIS 2015.... Scumbag, immoral, a**holes, mildly put!

Edited August 5, 2015 by jerojero

[Lissos]

Worship of Muhammad would be considered to be polytheistic

in direct contradiction to the monotheism of Islam.

Yet, it was inevitable because the Qur'an extolls him as a role model. Polytheism it ain't, but it is blind 'fandom' and reverence. Reverence / uncritical adoration is dangerously close to worship. What is mocking, denying or attacking Muhammad or the message?

It is essentially mocking, denying and attacking Allah. Why? Because Allah's appointed vehicle on earth was Muhammad. I recall a line from the movie Braveheart :

"an assault on the King's soldiers is the same as an assault on the King himself"

In his own time, this is how Muhammad also viewed things. Along the way, he had his fans confront or take out critics / mockers for him. (while dishing out tongue lashings against the Kuffar, without restraint) Qur'an clarifies that Muhammad is the example.

Muhammad is Allah's vehicle on earth. Don't touch the car!

Events in Paris were emulating this.

[Lissos]

pearls before...

...filthy Kuffar?