To my knowledge, not only is that not the case, but it would be blasphemy for a Muslim to believe that. I'm quite sure they are much like many other religions in that they believe that only God is perfect.
From wikipedia: Hadith
Muslim scholars classify hadith relating to Muhammad as follows:
* What Muhammad said (qawl, )
* What Muhammad did (fi'l, )
* What Muhammad approved (taqrir, ) in others' actions.
Yep. Colossians. Timothy has additional instructions for how slaves should behave.
I looked it up (never having read the New Testament as I am not a Christian or that interested in Christian theology), and this is what I found: Colossians 3:22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh: not serving to the eye, as pleasing men: but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.
Now, I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean, but the term used is servant, instead of slave, which refers to a completely different relationship between the master and the individual. Now, granted, we don't know what the original Koine Greek word was, but it seems that at least the version of the New Testament that a lot of English speaking Christians use does not refer to slavery, as you insinuated.
In the parable, he neither supports nor condemns slavery, but it is a parable.
Then what's the problem? As for the other ones, you'll have to find them for me. Anyways, my original point remains: Jesus did not own slaves, unlike Mohammad, and even if he did, it would in no way make Mohammad's actions more respectable. You haven't addressed this point, just as you have not addressed many of my other points.
That can be said of virtually any major religion, including Islam. Note the differences between Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Sufis.
My point was that the Catholic Church's more questionable actions were not supported by Christian scripture, but rather by their own dogma. Shiites and Sunnis all both believe in the Holy Quran and the Hadith as far as I know, and therein lies the problem, as both the Quran and the Hadith have a lot of questionable content, including Mohammad engaging in sexual intercourse with a nine year old e.g.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). Link
And the Roman Catholic church was virtually all of Christianity -- particularly in Europe -- for much of the past two millenia.
And the veneer of education slips away. Need I remind you of Orthodox Christianity? And where it not for Islam, there would have been more Christians still including Copts (most of which are now miraculously dead).
Has nothing to do with slavery or religion.
I'm pretty sure that slavery is the antithesis of freedom. As such, the phrase "Life free or die" does have quite a bit so do with slavery. It embodies a philosophy whereby one refuses to life as a slave, regardless of how pleasant the master treats you; you attempted to defend Islam by stating that Islam compels people to treat slaves nicely -- whatever that means. If you believe that there is any merit to that sort of life, then you and I have diametrically opposed personal philosophies.
Oh, please! You sound... well, rather like a Muslim fundamentalist
You have to understand that Hitler was a rather shrewd politician. All the examples that you gave were from speeches or Mein Kampf, all of which were intended for public consumption, and which were probably not representative of his actual beliefs, as they conflict with what he said in private where he would be more likely to express his true views. Please read the link provided.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the chap above you. I hope you don't mind answering.
Did Mohammad own slaves? Please justify your answer by presenting some sort of proof (preferably at least a couple of external links).
Would you mind answering the following question for me?
Did Mohammad own slaves? (Yes/No) Please provide proof (preferably at least a couple of external links).
Black folks in West Africa were trading black slaves before any Europeans ever got there, and quite possibly well before Mohammed was even born. In fact, it was black folks who provided the black slaves that Europeans sent to the New World.
What "black" people did or did not do is immaterial, and only useful as an academic exercise due to the fact that most current "black" people don't idolize the behaviours of any of those "black" people (as far as I know). Current Muslims, on the other hand, are a bit of a different story. I do believe that Mohammad is considered by most to have been the perfect human being and the majority of devout Muslims probably strive to live their lives as he did; however, since Mohammad was a real human being (and therefore not perfect) this leads to a lot of problems as his imperfect actions are constantly interpreted as perfect and not up for discussion.
Prior to that, Romans traded slaves of all colors -- heck, in Rome you could sell yourself into slavery -- as did Muslims and other North Africans.
The Roman empire, both west and east, is dead, and there has not been any attempt to resurrect it in the last 50 years. The Caliphate (Islamic empire) on the other hand is quite different.
In the 6th century, Christians in England routinely enslaved pagan children.
That practice was never encouraged by the New Testament, nor was it engaged in by Jesus (as far as I know).
That the Quran addresses it is a reflection of the times, not an indictment of Islam.
How the Quran addresses it though, is a reflection of Islam; for something that is the perfect and unaltered word of God, the Quran does a pretty poor job.
Do note that the Bible addresses it too, among other things instructing slaves to perform their duties well.
Is that in the New Testament? If not, it is irrelevent as it was not a teaching or action of Jesus. Any Christian who attempts to use the Old Testament to justify anything is deeply lacking in what Christianity is about (mainly the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ, with the Old Testament there to provide a sense of historic continuity).
The portions of Genesis about Caanan were used as justification by Christians to enslave black people on the basis that they were descended from the Caananites, but other portions have been used to justify slavery of non-blacks.
Genesis is in the Old Testament. All the other portions probably were as well.
Around the time Mohammed was born, to encourage celibacy, it was canon law that the children of Christian clerics be enslaved.
I don't think that was part of either testament, almost certainly not the new one.
In 1452, the Pope authorized the enslavement of all non-Christians by the Kings of Spain and Portugal.
The Roman Catholic church is not Christianity. It did not operate merely by Christian scripture, but also by its own personal teachings.
It wasn't until the 18th century that a groundswell of anti-slavery sentiment grew amongst Christians.
But not amongst Muslims.
In fact, a Muslim friend of mine claims that the Quran requires humane treatment of slaves, and that a true Muslim could never treat a slave the way slaves were often treated in the American South.
Ah, how nice of them. Have you ever heard the phrase "Life free or die"?
You'll note that a couple of those items sound an awful lot like the Muslim brand of slavery.
Yes, it's almost as if Christians recognized that Islam was a more successful faith, and attempted to learn from it, and become more like it.
Pointing out that Muslims used to own slaves would be a much more compelling argument for how Christians are like Muslims, not unlike them.
Even if what you said was true (and Muslims were just like Christians) that would make Islam no less of a regressive force. This defense of Islam is often used out by people who disdain Christianity
Whilst it's true that Islam did not put an out right ban on slavery, it was highly encouraged that slaves be set free.
Proof?
You have to remember, culturally things were very different at that time, and in that part of the World, and so you shouldn't judge things by today's arbitrary sensibilities.
But is Islam not perfect, and by its perfection and divine inspiration should it not have surpassed the cultural conditions of its time? What exactly do you mean by "today's arbitrary sensibilities"? Are you referring to the current belief that slavery is wrong, thereby supporting slavery?
Also, you shouldn't assume the condition under which slaves were kept at that time to be the same as those that the slaves in Europe and America were subject to.
Yeah, I'm sure all those slaves were more than happy to be slaves, and if only Europeans had been nicer to their slaves, that would have been ok as well.
It is very clear that black people were not the only slaves, since slavery was an option when dealing with prisoners of war (other options including being set free, or ransomed, or in the case of only war criminals, killing).
I never said that black people were the only slaves Muslims kept. Some of my own ancestors were (probably) Muslim slaves, and I'm not Sub-Saharan African.
If you think that Islam brought bad and immoral behaviour, then you should really read up on what Arab society was like before Islam came.
Islam did not only conquer Arab society. It conquered so much more, including my homeland, which was quite far away. "Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, and Iberia." were among Islam's first conquests. Many more followed afterwards.
Read up on the earlier history of the Muslims and on the life of Muhammed ("Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources")
I prefer to learn about Mohammed from the Hadith and actual history books.
Islam brought the ideal model for society and nurtured the souls of people.
Sure, if you like slavery, oppression and stagnation, Islam is the model society for you.
Whilst many Muslims these days have left the teachings of Islam and behaviour of Prophet Muhammed (peace and blesings be upon him), there are still many true representatives around
I'm more concerned about those that haven't left the teachings and behaviours Mohammed behind than those that have.
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but the high and mighty Thomas Jefferson himself was a slave owner. In fact, even the demi-god George Washington was known to buy and sell a few.
Why would that burst my bubble? How bad Thomas Jefferson or Geroge Washington were does not change how bad Mohammed was. Furthermore, few people believe Jefferson or Washington were the ideal human, whose every action was perfect and is to be imitated; contrast this with a rather large number of Muslims. In addition, followers of Jefferonian democracy would probably not riot in response to cartoons depicting Jefferson being published.
Religion not only approves of slavery, it actively promotes it.
Do you have any proof of this? Does each and every religion, from Buddism to Taoism to Objectivism to whatever else is out there actively promote slavery? (Note: Buddism/Taoism/Objectivism may, I am not an expert on those three belief systems, but the probability that one belief system that does not "actively promote slavery" does exist somewhere out there.)
I'll leave you with one thought: If Jesus had owned slaves, I'm sure we would hear about it almost every day (not that it would affect me since I'm not a Christian/Jesus worshiper). So, why should the world not know about Mohammad and his exploits?
umm... maybe you should check and get your facts straight.
Gladly. Please provide me with some links and I'll look into it.
the prophet muhammad is the first one who abolished slavery actually
Do you have any proof? I watch/listen to Let the Quran Speak regularly. The presenter, who probably has a firmer grasp of the Quran than you stated (and backed up using surahs) that Islam does not condemn slavery.
Do a google search for slavery Saudi Arabia and you will find nothing but support for my argument, including from renowned organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
You should also note that Saudi Arabia only banned slavery in 1962, and slavery (or something very much like it, and not just in a hyperbolic sense) is still going strong in Saudi Arabia (as well as much of the rest of the Muslim world that does not contain a homogeneous population). Link from Human Rights Watch..
Put another way, all Muslims are prone to utter death threats at those that disagree with them?
Probably not, but at the same time, not all Nazi's were prone to run their own little concentration camps in their own basement. It's called division of labour (and probably a Gausian distribution for support of the actions in questions). "Put another way," what percentage of the Muslim world has expressed support for freedom of speech at the expense of their compatriots? (This is not a retorical question, I'm interested in an answer).
Adolf Hitler was a Christian
Hardly. Here are some quotes by Hitler, most from "Hitler's Table Talk" (published 1953):
"National Socialism [Nazism] and religion cannot exist together.... "
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity"
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism,
under a tinsel of metaphysics."
I forgot to mention this, but in the second link above you'll find evidence that Muslims were trading "black" slaves long before Europeans. You might say that they had prior art. Mohammed himself owned "black" slaves:
Mohammed referred to blacks as slaves. He even owned several black slaves. Bilal, Abu Hurairah, Usama Ebn Zayyed, and a "Ghullaam" (youth) named Rabbah, were among Mohammed's slaves.
It goes on:
Even in modern times, in Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "black" is "Abd" meaning slave. "
What was Mohammed's position on freeing the slaves?
In one instance, a man freed a slave that he kept as a sexual partner. When Mohammed heard what happened, he auctioned the boy and sold him for 800 derhams to Na-eem Ebn Abdullah Al-Nahham. (Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page 83)"
Interestingly enough, abd is both the Arabic word for slave and for persons of Sub-sahara African descent i.e. "black people." Link. This is probably due to the slave trade historically practiced by Muslims (note: not on Muslims, but by Muslims). Link.
You should have provided a bit more information about the matter. The Beeb article you linked to concerns congressional staffers editing Wikipedia articles about their superiors (as I understand it). Interestingly enough, the congress members that are listed in the article are:
- Norm Coleman (currently Republican [have never heard of him], "Previously a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party," according to Wikipedia (to the extent to which it can be trusted))
- Dianne Feinstein (Democrat; California, quite a bit more well known [to me])
- Tom Harkin (Democrat)
Well, that settles the matter then. Now the question that remains is why would the uploaders have decided to not allow the video to be shown in the US. To baffle and confound the would-be American audience? To fuel conspiracy theories? Now I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist myself.
That video doesn't display anything that might be damaging to the US Government either. It's just darkness, darkness, an explosion, followed by more darkness.
The description reads:
"This is a weapons cache found in Iraq, we detonated it with a few satchels of C4."
Of interest might be the fact that both this video and the other one use the pronoun "we," which I take to denote members of the US Armed Service.
Any proof that the government is coercing Google into not letting you see the video (instead of say Google doing it out of their own volition for some peculiar reason)? I really don't see what the US government (or anyone else) would have to gain from anyone not seeing that video. If anyone would care to explain it to me, please have a go at it.
I forgot to add: there are no people in that video whatsoever, getting injured or otherwise.
Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin)
Saudis are Arabs; Afghans are not. As far as I know, the US mostly founded Afghan Muslims.
Bin Ladin did not need any funding; he had enough from back home. In fact, that was his greatest contribution.
If you think I'm just making this up, feel free to read the 9/11 Report. It's in the first 70 or so pages (skip the parts about how the hijackings actually take place, the back story is far more interesting - incluidng the parts about Sudan, Somalia and the Balkans (if my memory serves me well)).
Well, this post certainly raises a question: if the US was nice to Muslims, how would we know? Out of the billions of actions carried out by the US, I'm sure some of them could be construed as such (State Department not defending cartoons -- instead saying they are deplorable, huge amounts of aid being funneled to to Middle East, etc.) , but they don't appear in the news. If it doesn't bleed, it does not seem to lead, as they say.
I guess they don't teach reading comprehension in school any more either. It's ok, I guess... as long as you feel good, have high self-esteem, accept yourself and all that... and know how to use the italics tag to really drive home your point.
Please, reread my post; I was talking about the language. When the Angles and the Saxons came to Britain, they brought their language (Germanic dialect) with them, resulting in Old English (which after the Norman invasion, which introduced a lot of French/Latin vocabulary, became Middle English). The Greeks, because they considered almost everyone else barbarians would have kept their language without many loanwords or grammar from other languages, especially not Germanic languages.
The fact that I have found two people to defend the imbecilic idea that English came from German through Greek is beyond belief.
Most of our modern English comes from German through Greek.
Wow. Just wow. Is that what they are teaching kids these days? Well, at least they don't claim it came from Arabic through Mandarin.
Consider this: The Angles and the Saxons were Germanic people from an area roughly around the current border of Germany and Denmark.
Also consider this: The Greeks considered everyone who wasn't Greek (except sometimes Romans and Punics) as barbarians.
The probability that something came into modern English from German through Greek is very very small.
Slashdot Mirror
To my knowledge, not only is that not the case, but it would be blasphemy for a Muslim to believe that. I'm quite sure they are much like many other religions in that they believe that only God is perfect.
... well, rather like a Muslim fundamentalist
From wikipedia: Hadith
Muslim scholars classify hadith relating to Muhammad as follows:
* What Muhammad said (qawl, )
* What Muhammad did (fi'l, )
* What Muhammad approved (taqrir, ) in others' actions.
If Mohammad was not perfect (or near perfect), why would what he approved in other's actions, or what he did be so important. Furthermore, His life constitutes the highest ideal, the perfect example, and the concrete instance of his Lord's command (M.H. Haykal, page-296-297).
Yep. Colossians. Timothy has additional instructions for how slaves should behave.
I looked it up (never having read the New Testament as I am not a Christian or that interested in Christian theology), and this is what I found:
Colossians 3:22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh: not serving to the eye, as pleasing men: but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.
Now, I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean, but the term used is servant, instead of slave, which refers to a completely different relationship between the master and the individual. Now, granted, we don't know what the original Koine Greek word was, but it seems that at least the version of the New Testament that a lot of English speaking Christians use does not refer to slavery, as you insinuated.
In the parable, he neither supports nor condemns slavery, but it is a parable.
Then what's the problem? As for the other ones, you'll have to find them for me. Anyways, my original point remains: Jesus did not own slaves, unlike Mohammad, and even if he did, it would in no way make Mohammad's actions more respectable. You haven't addressed this point, just as you have not addressed many of my other points.
That can be said of virtually any major religion, including Islam. Note the differences between Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Sufis.
My point was that the Catholic Church's more questionable actions were not supported by Christian scripture, but rather by their own dogma. Shiites and Sunnis all both believe in the Holy Quran and the Hadith as far as I know, and therein lies the problem, as both the Quran and the Hadith have a lot of questionable content, including Mohammad engaging in sexual intercourse with a nine year old e.g.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Link
And the Roman Catholic church was virtually all of Christianity -- particularly in Europe -- for much of the past two millenia.
And the veneer of education slips away. Need I remind you of Orthodox Christianity? And where it not for Islam, there would have been more Christians still including Copts (most of which are now miraculously dead).
Has nothing to do with slavery or religion.
I'm pretty sure that slavery is the antithesis of freedom. As such, the phrase "Life free or die" does have quite a bit so do with slavery. It embodies a philosophy whereby one refuses to life as a slave, regardless of how pleasant the master treats you; you attempted to defend Islam by stating that Islam compels people to treat slaves nicely -- whatever that means. If you believe that there is any merit to that sort of life, then you and I have diametrically opposed personal philosophies.
Oh, please! You sound
You have to understand that Hitler was a rather shrewd politician. All the examples that you gave were from speeches or Mein Kampf, all of which were intended for public consumption, and which were probably not representative of his actual beliefs, as they conflict with what he said in private where he would be more likely to express his true views. Please read the link provided.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the chap above you. I hope you don't mind answering.
Did Mohammad own slaves? Please justify your answer by presenting some sort of proof (preferably at least a couple of external links).
Would you mind answering the following question for me?
Did Mohammad own slaves? (Yes/No) Please provide proof (preferably at least a couple of external links).
Black folks in West Africa were trading black slaves before any Europeans ever got there, and quite possibly well before Mohammed was even born. In fact, it was black folks who provided the black slaves that Europeans sent to the New World.
What "black" people did or did not do is immaterial, and only useful as an academic exercise due to the fact that most current "black" people don't idolize the behaviours of any of those "black" people (as far as I know). Current Muslims, on the other hand, are a bit of a different story. I do believe that Mohammad is considered by most to have been the perfect human being and the majority of devout Muslims probably strive to live their lives as he did; however, since Mohammad was a real human being (and therefore not perfect) this leads to a lot of problems as his imperfect actions are constantly interpreted as perfect and not up for discussion.
Prior to that, Romans traded slaves of all colors -- heck, in Rome you could sell yourself into slavery -- as did Muslims and other North Africans.
The Roman empire, both west and east, is dead, and there has not been any attempt to resurrect it in the last 50 years. The Caliphate (Islamic empire) on the other hand is quite different.
In the 6th century, Christians in England routinely enslaved pagan children.
That practice was never encouraged by the New Testament, nor was it engaged in by Jesus (as far as I know).
That the Quran addresses it is a reflection of the times, not an indictment of Islam.
How the Quran addresses it though, is a reflection of Islam; for something that is the perfect and unaltered word of God, the Quran does a pretty poor job.
Do note that the Bible addresses it too, among other things instructing slaves to perform their duties well.
Is that in the New Testament? If not, it is irrelevent as it was not a teaching or action of Jesus. Any Christian who attempts to use the Old Testament to justify anything is deeply lacking in what Christianity is about (mainly the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ, with the Old Testament there to provide a sense of historic continuity).
The portions of Genesis about Caanan were used as justification by Christians to enslave black people on the basis that they were descended from the Caananites, but other portions have been used to justify slavery of non-blacks.
Genesis is in the Old Testament. All the other portions probably were as well.
Around the time Mohammed was born, to encourage celibacy, it was canon law that the children of Christian clerics be enslaved.
I don't think that was part of either testament, almost certainly not the new one.
In 1452, the Pope authorized the enslavement of all non-Christians by the Kings of Spain and Portugal.
The Roman Catholic church is not Christianity. It did not operate merely by Christian scripture, but also by its own personal teachings.
It wasn't until the 18th century that a groundswell of anti-slavery sentiment grew amongst Christians.
But not amongst Muslims.
In fact, a Muslim friend of mine claims that the Quran requires humane treatment of slaves, and that a true Muslim could never treat a slave the way slaves were often treated in the American South.
Ah, how nice of them. Have you ever heard the phrase "Life free or die"?
You'll note that a couple of those items sound an awful lot like the Muslim brand of slavery.
Yes, it's almost as if Christians recognized that Islam was a more successful faith, and attempted to learn from it, and become more like it.
Pointing out that Muslims used to own slaves would be a much more compelling argument for how Christians are like Muslims, not unlike them.
Even if what you said was true (and Muslims were just like Christians) that would make Islam no less of a regressive force. This defense of Islam is often used out by people who disdain Christianity
Whilst it's true that Islam did not put an out right ban on slavery, it was highly encouraged that slaves be set free.
Proof?
You have to remember, culturally things were very different at that time, and in that part of the World, and so you shouldn't judge things by today's arbitrary sensibilities.
But is Islam not perfect, and by its perfection and divine inspiration should it not have surpassed the cultural conditions of its time? What exactly do you mean by "today's arbitrary sensibilities"? Are you referring to the current belief that slavery is wrong, thereby supporting slavery?
Also, you shouldn't assume the condition under which slaves were kept at that time to be the same as those that the slaves in Europe and America were subject to.
Yeah, I'm sure all those slaves were more than happy to be slaves, and if only Europeans had been nicer to their slaves, that would have been ok as well.
It is very clear that black people were not the only slaves, since slavery was an option when dealing with prisoners of war (other options including being set free, or ransomed, or in the case of only war criminals, killing).
I never said that black people were the only slaves Muslims kept. Some of my own ancestors were (probably) Muslim slaves, and I'm not Sub-Saharan African.
If you think that Islam brought bad and immoral behaviour, then you should really read up on what Arab society was like before Islam came.
Islam did not only conquer Arab society. It conquered so much more, including my homeland, which was quite far away. "Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, and Iberia." were among Islam's first conquests. Many more followed afterwards.
Read up on the earlier history of the Muslims and on the life of Muhammed ("Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources")
I prefer to learn about Mohammed from the Hadith and actual history books.
Islam brought the ideal model for society and nurtured the souls of people.
Sure, if you like slavery, oppression and stagnation, Islam is the model society for you.
Whilst many Muslims these days have left the teachings of Islam and behaviour of Prophet Muhammed (peace and blesings be upon him), there are still many true representatives around
I'm more concerned about those that haven't left the teachings and behaviours Mohammed behind than those that have.
I thought it meant foreigner, not slave, although I could be wrong as it is not my area of expertise.
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but the high and mighty Thomas Jefferson himself was a slave owner. In fact, even the demi-god George Washington was known to buy and sell a few.
Why would that burst my bubble? How bad Thomas Jefferson or Geroge Washington were does not change how bad Mohammed was. Furthermore, few people believe Jefferson or Washington were the ideal human, whose every action was perfect and is to be imitated; contrast this with a rather large number of Muslims. In addition, followers of Jefferonian democracy would probably not riot in response to cartoons depicting Jefferson being published.
Religion not only approves of slavery, it actively promotes it.
Do you have any proof of this? Does each and every religion, from Buddism to Taoism to Objectivism to whatever else is out there actively promote slavery? (Note: Buddism/Taoism/Objectivism may, I am not an expert on those three belief systems, but the probability that one belief system that does not "actively promote slavery" does exist somewhere out there.)
I'll leave you with one thought: If Jesus had owned slaves, I'm sure we would hear about it almost every day (not that it would affect me since I'm not a Christian/Jesus worshiper). So, why should the world not know about Mohammad and his exploits?
umm... maybe you should check and get your facts straight.
Gladly. Please provide me with some links and I'll look into it.
the prophet muhammad is the first one who abolished slavery actually
Do you have any proof? I watch/listen to Let the Quran Speak regularly. The presenter, who probably has a firmer grasp of the Quran than you stated (and backed up using surahs) that Islam does not condemn slavery.
Do a google search for slavery Saudi Arabia and you will find nothing but support for my argument, including from renowned organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
You should also note that Saudi Arabia only banned slavery in 1962, and slavery (or something very much like it, and not just in a hyperbolic sense) is still going strong in Saudi Arabia (as well as much of the rest of the Muslim world that does not contain a homogeneous population). Link from Human Rights Watch..
Put another way, all Muslims are prone to utter death threats at those that disagree with them?
Probably not, but at the same time, not all Nazi's were prone to run their own little concentration camps in their own basement. It's called division of labour (and probably a Gausian distribution for support of the actions in questions). "Put another way," what percentage of the Muslim world has expressed support for freedom of speech at the expense of their compatriots? (This is not a retorical question, I'm interested in an answer).
Adolf Hitler was a Christian
Hardly.
Here are some quotes by Hitler, most from "Hitler's Table Talk" (published 1953):
"National Socialism [Nazism] and religion cannot exist together.... "
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity"
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics."
I forgot to mention this, but in the second link above you'll find evidence that Muslims were trading "black" slaves long before Europeans. You might say that they had prior art. Mohammed himself owned "black" slaves: Mohammed referred to blacks as slaves. He even owned several black slaves. Bilal, Abu Hurairah, Usama Ebn Zayyed, and a "Ghullaam" (youth) named Rabbah, were among Mohammed's slaves. It goes on:
Even in modern times, in Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "black" is "Abd" meaning slave.
" What was Mohammed's position on freeing the slaves? In one instance, a man freed a slave that he kept as a sexual partner. When Mohammed heard what happened, he auctioned the boy and sold him for 800 derhams to Na-eem Ebn Abdullah Al-Nahham. (Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page 83)"
Interestingly enough, abd is both the Arabic word for slave and for persons of Sub-sahara African descent i.e. "black people." Link. This is probably due to the slave trade historically practiced by Muslims (note: not on Muslims, but by Muslims). Link.
It's also at least the 5th most popular name in England and Wales as of 2004 (probably even higher by now). Link.
Time for the English and Welsh to learn a real life lesson about exponential functions.
You should have provided a bit more information about the matter. The Beeb article you linked to concerns congressional staffers editing Wikipedia articles about their superiors (as I understand it). Interestingly enough, the congress members that are listed in the article are:
- Norm Coleman (currently Republican [have never heard of him], "Previously a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party," according to Wikipedia (to the extent to which it can be trusted))
- Dianne Feinstein (Democrat; California, quite a bit more well known [to me])
- Tom Harkin (Democrat)
I do recall Clinton lying under oath, thereby perjuring himself. Let us not rewrite history, shall we.
Well, that settles the matter then. Now the question that remains is why would the uploaders have decided to not allow the video to be shown in the US. To baffle and confound the would-be American audience? To fuel conspiracy theories? Now I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist myself.
That video doesn't display anything that might be damaging to the US Government either. It's just darkness, darkness, an explosion, followed by more darkness.
The description reads:
"This is a weapons cache found in Iraq, we detonated it with a few satchels of C4."
Of interest might be the fact that both this video and the other one use the pronoun "we," which I take to denote members of the US Armed Service.
Any proof that the government is coercing Google into not letting you see the video (instead of say Google doing it out of their own volition for some peculiar reason)? I really don't see what the US government (or anyone else) would have to gain from anyone not seeing that video. If anyone would care to explain it to me, please have a go at it.
I forgot to add: there are no people in that video whatsoever, getting injured or otherwise.
The google video is 17 s of an explosion taped from far away with the description:
"Detonation of Improvised Explosive Device used against Coalition forces. We found this one before they could use it against us."
Are Americans actually not allowed to see it? Doesn't make much sense.
Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin)
Saudis are Arabs; Afghans are not. As far as I know, the US mostly founded Afghan Muslims.
Bin Ladin did not need any funding; he had enough from back home. In fact, that was his greatest contribution.
If you think I'm just making this up, feel free to read the 9/11 Report. It's in the first 70 or so pages (skip the parts about how the hijackings actually take place, the back story is far more interesting - incluidng the parts about Sudan, Somalia and the Balkans (if my memory serves me well)).
Well, this post certainly raises a question: if the US was nice to Muslims, how would we know? Out of the billions of actions carried out by the US, I'm sure some of them could be construed as such (State Department not defending cartoons -- instead saying they are deplorable, huge amounts of aid being funneled to to Middle East, etc.) , but they don't appear in the news. If it doesn't bleed, it does not seem to lead, as they say.
I guess they don't teach reading comprehension in school any more either. It's ok, I guess... as long as you feel good, have high self-esteem, accept yourself and all that... and know how to use the italics tag to really drive home your point.
Please, reread my post; I was talking about the language. When the Angles and the Saxons came to Britain, they brought their language (Germanic dialect) with them, resulting in Old English (which after the Norman invasion, which introduced a lot of French/Latin vocabulary, became Middle English). The Greeks, because they considered almost everyone else barbarians would have kept their language without many loanwords or grammar from other languages, especially not Germanic languages.
The fact that I have found two people to defend the imbecilic idea that English came from German through Greek is beyond belief.
Most of our modern English comes from German through Greek.
Wow. Just wow. Is that what they are teaching kids these days? Well, at least they don't claim it came from Arabic through Mandarin.
Consider this: The Angles and the Saxons were Germanic people from an area roughly around the current border of Germany and Denmark.
Also consider this: The Greeks considered everyone who wasn't Greek (except sometimes Romans and Punics) as barbarians.
The probability that something came into modern English from German through Greek is very very small.
What exactly does this have to do with my rights online?
Interesting naming choice seeing as Apples widget program has been called Dashboard for a while.