Sex slaves sold by Islamic State, the younger the better

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. This thread isn't about Thailand.

[ABCer]

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, there is a dangerous dichotomy in your thinking. There was another guy here saying about the same. Basically, without specifics, the thesis is - the Prophet lived in the VII Century - so whatever he did or say was according to the "truths and beliefs of the time". For example - marriage to a young girl or taking slaves, etc.

This is a dangerous double thinking. A true believer does not think at all. Thinking and analyzing leads to heresy even with Christians, let alone with Islam.

Understand this: - Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his only true Prophet. Both Allah and his Prophet are forever! They cannot be changed by infidels. They cannot be changed in time. At least this is how I understand Islam.

I would really like to hear what was happening in pre-Allah times, like with Jews or Christians, but I am in the dark on this. And afraid to ask.

I think I am right. Otherwise how one explains that all other Religions changed, evolved, became non-aggressive liberalised and tolerant except Islam? It had over 1,200 years to change but never did!

[Credo]

Religions grow and change. They may be steeped in tradition and archaic in their beliefs, but they still have to adapt to modern life. Slavery is just sooooooo 14th century!

They are cherry picking their beliefs. Otherwise, they should stop using modern medicine, electricity, vehicles and certainly modern media is out of the question.

Slavery might have in vogue during Mohammad's time, but times have changed. There are no countries where slavery is legal.

[sammygood]

everywhere there are muslims, there is trouble

and for the muslim huggers, tell me different please ...

[jinners]

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".

Not really sure how to take your post ABC. Are you seriously approving of the findings of the sales sheet discovered in Iraq? Where children as young as ONE are up for sale?

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

If the Prophet approved of slavery, who are you to object?; Erm a civilised citizen living in the 21st century not some bearded weirdo from 2000 years ago. You having trouble telling the difference?

Put an end to Jihad? If I was in a position to do so, I'd put an end to it really really quick.

How do you classify sex slavery as 'maltreatment'?; That question doesn't even deserve an answer

Like I say, I'm having a hard time with your post as I can't believe anyone in their right mind would attempt to justify this type of religious mumbo jumbo that is clearly so wrong minded, so barbaric that other than condemnation poses a question to your mental well being. As an atheist I have no problems with others believing, as the Thais do with ghosts and kids with fairies at the bottom of the garden. When that belief starts to murder and abuse others to such a reprehensible degree as Islam does, then I lose all respect. I currently have zero respect for those following the mutterings of some guy, interpreted and translated over the years following his (supposed) death and continuing to live by those mutterings to this day. Islam, what a mess. If more muslims were outspoken against what IS are doing, perhaps more people would view those that follow this belief as part of the greater human race.

From a total none believer

[Steely Dan]

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

Whatever justifications ISIS use there can be no denying that slavery is part and parcel of Islam's dealings with the Kufr since its earliest days.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6020/islamist_rape_of_white_women_as_old_as_islam_itself

To bring us back to the present I just read that ISIS have just executed 19 sex slaves for refusal to perform their 'duties'.

[Lissos]

A true believer does not think at all.

Indeed, and as a former member of what could be called a cult (non Abrahamic), intellect is always scoffed at as only going to lead you into unnecessary tensions. Generally it will go something along these lines - "Watch and absorb 'this' official approved history of our group. Avoid critical websites and un-approved documentaries as all are run by 'ignorant' snakes / swine who know 'nothing', and with whom it is a drain upon you to converse with. We are victims of 'slander'. Nothing we did or do, justifies their opposition"

[Jimlove]

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?

Agree ... Its a fact that many muslims condone what in the West would be pheadophilia ... Prophet Muhammed comes to mind - Holy Quran say he married Aisha when she was 9 years old ... The younger the better seems like ... Dispicable

Edited August 5, 2015 by Jimlove

[Lissos]

It comes from the Imams. They are the doctrine.

Imams could be said to be middle men, and while scholars were usefull in the consolodation phase of Hadith to vet them with a complex system of verification of authenticity, the doctrine is now there for anyone to see. In these times, with translations into many languages, Imams are for the lethargic and dishonest. Imams also lead to something else, that the disposition of the individual Imam will choose 'what' his listeners are exposed to about Islam and will find people either attracted to his leaning or find themselves repelled by it, moving on to find one that is more hard or soft depending on the listener's own inherent natural disposition.

It explains this illusion of so called 'perversions'. Islam is to be taken as a whole, consumed as whole. It is a cake made from core ingredients, baked in the same oven and issued as one cake by Allah. Islam is both War 'and' Peace, and while those who distance themselves from the vengefull merciless uncompromising aspects will say those who embraced this are creating some 'perverted' version of Islam, the reality is that those who reject the merciless uncompromising thrust of Islam are 'also' perverting Islam because Islam is not a menu. We, the Kuffar, understandably prefer the perversion that only embraces the 'downtime' aspect. The core point is that Islam is not a menu to be chosen from. It is a meal to consume in totality.

[Rancid]

ISIS are a bunch of animals and the sooner they are eliminated the better.

Interesting though that Turkey has been buying oil from ISIS, and as such helping funding them and supplying them through their border. Also that the Kurds have been the most successful force stopping and then evicting ISIS from territory. However US ally Turkey has just granted the US the right to use their basis to supposedly bomb ISIS, as a reward they are now allowed to bomb the Kurds. So now the lot who were helping ISIS are now supposedly attacking ISIS, even though it seems they are actually attacking the only group who has been successfully standing up to them.

It would seem there is a lot more going on with ISIS than we see on the evening news. There are several other countries who are also implicated in supporting ISIS. Then we consider that ISIS is largely fighting the Syrian regime that the same countries implicated in supporting ISIS want to see removed.

No sane person could support ISIS and their barbarism, as such what does that say about its hidden benefactors?

[The Deerhunter]

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.

Separatists but not Islamists? Are you kidding? Q. Separating for what? A. From a Buddhist state that offends us. Q. What would make you happy? A. Our own state. Q. How would that be different? A. We could have our own laws not Buddhist or other non-muslim laws. Q. What sort of laws would you like? A. Well, Sharia I think. Yes Sharia, of course, but definitely not Islamic. Q. What form of government would your separatist state have? A. Some form of Muslim government, but definitely not Islamic. I think a Caliphate or Sultanate like we had before would be nice. Separatists but not Islamists??? Welcome to cloud cuckoo land. That is the looniest thing I have seen on TVF for nearly an hour. (but I was having dinner)

[Friendly Stranger]

Great, if younger the better, why stop at double digits. Add paedophilia to their impressive resume. Go, go, you brainwashed fools, this is the ideology you're supporting LMFAO.

I was only too happy to hear the Canadians that went there to support them now have interchangable parts and are DEAD.

[ABCer]

A true believer does not think at all.

Indeed, and as a former member of what could be called a cult (non Abrahamic), intellect is always scoffed at as only going to lead you into unnecessary tensions. Generally it will go something along these lines - "Watch and absorb 'this' official approved history of our group. Avoid critical websites and un-approved documentaries as all are run by 'ignorant' snakes / swine who know 'nothing', and with whom it is a drain upon you to converse with. We are victims of 'slander'. Nothing we did or do, justifies their opposition"

Dear Lissos. I am an old man. Never did I belong to any group,- political, religious, cult, even ethnic.

Of course by the virtue of being born I do have a certain ethnicity. But I do not feel as belonging to a group.

I am an anti-groupie if you like.

And never in my life did I allow to any theory, belief or group to shit implant ideas into my head.

Always think for myself.

BTW free critical individual thinking has been always discouraged by all Religions. Jews are less guilty in this respect today, - but look what they did in the old times...

Edited August 6, 2015 by ABCer

[The Deerhunter]

A true believer does not think at all.

Indeed, and as a former member of what could be called a cult (non Abrahamic), intellect is always scoffed at as only going to lead you into unnecessary tensions. Generally it will go something along these lines - "Watch and absorb 'this' official approved history of our group. Avoid critical websites and un-approved documentaries as all are run by 'ignorant' snakes / swine who know 'nothing', and with whom it is a drain upon you to converse with. We are victims of 'slander'. Nothing we did or do, justifies their opposition"

Dear Lissos. I am an old man. Never did I belong to any group,- political, religious, cult, even ethnic.

Of course by the virtue of being born I do have a certain ethnicity. But I do not feel as belonging to a group.

I am an anti-groupie if you like.

And never in my life did I allow to any theory, belief or group to shit implant ideas into my head.

Always think for myself.

BTW free critical individual thinking has been always discouraged by all Religions. Jews are less guilty in this respect today, - but look what they did in the old times...

Nice that you were born just the once, not hatched or created in a Petri dish. But if you do not wish to have ideas implanted in your head, just make sure you are never "born again"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Deerhunter]

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, there is a dangerous dichotomy in your thinking. There was another guy here saying about the same. Basically, without specifics, the thesis is - the Prophet lived in the VII Century - so whatever he did or say was according to the "truths and beliefs of the time". For example - marriage to a young girl or taking slaves, etc.

This is a dangerous double thinking. A true believer does not think at all. Thinking and analyzing leads to heresy even with Christians, let alone with Islam.

Understand this: - Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his only true Prophet. Both Allah and his Prophet are forever! They cannot be changed by infidels. They cannot be changed in time. At least this is how I understand Islam.

I would really like to hear what was happening in pre-Allah times, like with Jews or Christians, but I am in the dark on this. And afraid to ask.

I think I am right. Otherwise how one explains that all other Religions changed, evolved, became non-aggressive liberalised and tolerant except Islam? It had over 1,200 years to change but never did!

Dear ABC. At risk of being misunderstood, may I just say "AMEN" to everything you said above??? 555

Edited August 6, 2015 by The Deerhunter

[Lissos]

The Thais will slaughter them. I'm not talking about the army, I mean the people, even if it's with pitchforks.

Katoey as an elite moped charge. Merciless, terrifying, unstoppable.

"Ye shalt tremble at the sight of ladies who art men, whom come thither"

"O' lord, but I see not Adam's Apple, therein"

"Verily,it matters nought for thou arst still in grave peril"

[Andre0720]

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".

Hummm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG1icK5j7xs

[Catoni]

Sounds like the Catholic Church in the 70s and 80s.

I know that the Catholic Church had problems with Peado Priests.

I do not recall any price lists of children for sale.

Or throwing gays off tall buildings to braying mobs with piles of rocks to make sure they were dead.

Or loping heads off.

So what point were you actually failing dismally to make ?

Paedophilia was not limited to the Catholic Church. Over the years the Anglican Church, Mormon Church, and United Church also had Paedophile problems.. Probably others as well. Not just a problem with Catholic priests and little altar boys..

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. Posts have been removed.