Saying that the market does not work because the consumer does not have perfect access to all information is akin to saying that democracy does not work because the voter does not have perfect access to all information. Furthermore, the fact that the voter does not have perfect access to information does not give anyone the right to abolish democracy. Likewise, the fact that the consumer does not have perfect access to information does not give anyone the right to abolish the market (or meddle with it, as may be the case). If you think the consumer (or voter) lacks information that they should have, write about it, contact the media, or take out an add in a news paper. (Competitors (/opposition parties) offering other products (/platforms) not suffering from the deficiency you are concerned with should already be doing this, but somethimes they make mistakes and it never hurts to help them out if you believe in the cause.)
As long as freedom of speech exists, meddling with the free market directly (through the use of coercive means) is not the optimal solution. Anyways, remember that the most important freedom (aside from freedom of speech) is the freedom to make mistakes (which applies to both consumers and voters).
Don't be intellectually dishonest. List the full quote:
In theoretical economics[citation needed], a free market is an idealised economic model wherein exchanges are "free" of all coercive measures[citation needed], including such government interference as tariffs, taxation, and regulations, except those which allow for private property ownership in land, natural resources, and the broadcast spectrum, as well as intellectual property, corporations, and other legal fictions."
"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of harm (e.g., by physical force). Often, it involves inflicting some actual harm in order to make the threat credible, but it is the threat of (further) harm which brings about cooperation of the person being coerced." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
Anti-monopoly law exists to allow the government to prevent a corporation from doing so, hence making the market behave more similarly to the free-market.
Anti-monopoly laws are a form of regulation not designed to facilitate "private property ownership in land, natural resources, and the broadcast spectrum, as well as intellectual property, corporations, and other legal fictions." Therefore, anti-monopoly laws are a violation of the principle of a free market, as outlined above. Capisci?
Such a thing as economic coercion (based upon market power) does exist; however, it is a different thing entirely from the regular types of coersion including those used by governments (do as we say or we'll send our (wo)men with guns after you.)
Sums it up pretty well as well don't you think?
Your quote refers to physical coercion, not economic coercion (and remember, the only way governments can prevent economic coercion is physical coercion).
In that case, surely you won't mind quoting the parts which agree with you.
I quoted some of the parts that agreed with me, and didn't find anything which contradicted the parts which I qouted (unless you modified the article in the meantime).
P.S. Check your other posts. I provided you with more links there.
"trading without government control: an economic system in which businesses operate without government control in matters such as pricing and wage levels"
Looks like there's a libertarian around with a lot of mod points:)
No, it looks like someone who actually knows what a free market is somehow got mod points.
Never mind, the moral victory is yours.
Yes, ignore facts and just go with what feels right.
P.S. I doubt any true libertarian would mod something down.
The problem you face is that you do not understand that the term "free market" is actually defined as something, and I will not allow [Orwellian attempts to warp the English language so that a concept such as what the term "free market" currently referrs to will no longer exist] to go unchallenged.
Very good point. I've always said that a free market is a regulated market.
In related news, a free person is one whose every action is regulated by the government (slavery is freedom).
From wikipedia:
"a free market is an idealised economic model wherein exchanges are "free" of all coercive measures[citation needed], including such government interference as tariffs, taxation, and regulations, except those which allow for private property ownership in land, natural resources, and the broadcast spectrum, as well as intellectual property, corporations, and other legal fictions"
think it's just that there's been a surge in anti-Islamic and anti-Arab sentiments lately, while it's mostly just the same loonies that are anti-Semitic.
I don't know about that (scroll down a bit to understand).
If a gay man molests a little boy would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that homosexuals aren't sexual predators?"
If an African American commits a crime would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that African Americans aren't a bunch of criminals?"
And if a member of the KKK kills a "black" man would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that the KKK don't hate black people?"
Islam is not a race, or a sexual preference. Islam is an ideology, and deserves to be scrutinized as such.
Furthermore, the statement "Islam is a religion of peace." is a hypothesis, and deserves to be treated as such. At the moment, the experimental evidence (including the Quran) seems to contradict that hypothesis.
Please don't retaliate by inventing asprin or making beautiful music on the violin, I hate that. Why can't you just form an unruly mob, trample each other, and shoot guns in the air until the falling bullets threaten you like normal folks? Can't we all just fail to get along?
So true. Here's some background info on the man now thought to have played the major role in the chemical synthesis of Aspirin:
"Dr. Eichengruen was a survivor of the Theresienstadt concentration camp, and after the war he told his story: he had planned and directed the synthesis of aspirin along with the synthesis of several related compounds, and he was responsible for aspirin's initial surreptitious clinical testing (remember that the head of the Bayer pharmacology lab was against testing)." Link.
Of course, this link has to be balanced by the fact that the President of Iran (soon to have nuclear weapons) would like to remind us that the Holocaust is a lie fabricated by the Jews. Link. Keeping that "fact" in mind, maybe Eichengruen lied about the whole thing (just like he lied about the Holocaust, according to The President of Iran).
No kidding. OP was refering to that fact that it is forbidden to depict Me-hammered in any pictorial form whatsoever.
Repeat after me: depicting Mohammad is forbiden only for Muslims (just like Music and Chess seem to be). Non-muslims can depicting Mohammad all they want without fearing eternal damnation; instead, they just have to fear for their lives.
Either that, or it is short for the Norse home for martyred warriors. I believe they are hoping that the outcry from the Jewish and Old Norse communities will drown out criticism they have received from Muslim activists.
Well, seeing as there are approximately 7 million Jews (mostly in Israel), and over 1.2 billion Muslims (and growing, all over the world), if you're going to insult someone, you should probably stick with the Jews (and Old Norse). Or Buddists: they never seem to riot violently and at worst will just self-immolate.
i know the Quran much better than you do, have it memorized by heart, know and speak the Arabic language and do not need you to tell me what the Quran says and doesn't say.
Then it should be very easy for you to prove that everything that I said is wrong by quoting the Quran yourself, if indeed everything that I said was not supported by the Quran.
as i told you, slavery was abolished in islam in stages.
Fine, quote the Quran and the Hadith to prove this to me.
it was no just said outright "no slaves" because no one would have listened.
If Mohammad had made the penalty for owning slaves death or amputation of limbs as he did other crimes, almost everyone would have listened.
in addition, i don't really understand what you're trying to get at
I'm trying to get at the truth, whatever that might be.
are you more knowledgable of the Quran and the sunnah than muslims are?
According to this site, "90% of Muslims are unable to understand the [Classical] Arabic Qur'an," so maybe. Besides, knowledge does not necessarily imply a desire to honestly impart that knowledge to others.
islam is NOT pro slavery and that it did abolish it and was much more successful than the west or anywhere else ever was.
Proof from the Quran or Hadith?
quran, hadiths, like anything, can be taken out of context, out of meaning
Ok, so set me straight. Enlighten me.
if you just want to argue, go learn arabic
I already know some Arabic. I'm working on it; however, in the mean time, can we argue in English?
you are just copying and pasting english translations of things you don't understand.
Ok, teach me.
anyone who speaks more than one language knows
I speak four languages: English, French (poorly), German (better), and a fourth (fluently) which I am not going to list for you since I don't want you to know where I'm from. I use three different English translations of the Quran from here. If you don't think any of them are correct, talk to the site administrator and the translators and set them straight.
i gave you proof
Your proof was just some random people writing, without the Quran or Hadith supporting their arguments. I wouldn't trust the Pope to tell me about Catholicism/Christianity without quoting some passages from the Bible. I've been burned in the past, and I'm not willing to make the same mistake again.
i posted more than one site and more than one link
The other sites had even less proof from the Quran or the Hadith.
i, despite being muslim and knowing this stuff already, read the sites all the way through before posting the links even
Now, why would you do that?
its apparent you have your mind set, and i am not going to try to change your mind,
Throughout my life, I have changed my mind many times about many things (for one, I used to think Islam was a nice religion). Only by admitting that one was wrong, when presented with enough evidence that one is wrong, can one come closer to the truth than they were before.
I have read the entire link and I summarized what I read to you. If you don't think I summarized it properly, you should provide me with Hadiths and Surahs that prove me wrong.
furthermore, it is also apparent that you just wish to argue and are not up for having an intellectual conversation, and, as thus, i am not going to waste my time further.
Intellectual conversation usually include assertions, proof, and rebuttals. You seem to be stuck in the assertions phase. Now, if you don't want to have an intellectual conversation, that's fine, but don't try to blame me for your shortcomings.
you didn't read the entire page, did you?
I did read the entire page. I clicked on the link you provided, and then clicked on the slavery link at the top. I focused on the Hadiths and the Surahs provided, and not the authors baseless assertions which did not follow from either of them.
no. islam, likewise, happening in a society of all slavery, decreased slavery from 100% existance to 0% existance over stages.
Except for that part where Muslims are still allowed by the Holy Quran to take slaves during war, and rape their female slaves: "restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..." (Surah 70:30-31)
There is nothing in the Quran that I could find that overwrites these Surahs, so they seem to still apply. Explains all the cases of low wage worker abuse in Saudi Arabia rather nicely. Any thoughts?
Can I get some quotes from the Hadith or Quran to support this?
I'll quote some for you: Quran 33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."
"A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year."
(Sahih Bukhari,Volume 3, Book 46, Number 711: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah)
So, Mohammad not only kept slaves (including females), but also would not let a slave be freed, but instead sold him (personally). How interesting.
I can find you more Surahs and Hadiths if you want. I just love Bukhari's Hadith. They won't be any more flattering though.
I went to the site which you linked to and found this: Slavery seems to be allowed:
Note: "Right hand possession" are the human-captives of war who lived as slaves among Muslims.
"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;- (The Noble Quran, 4:36)"
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (The Noble Quran, 4:3)"
"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. (The Noble Quran, 4:24)"
"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:25)
"The Noble Quran, 4:24" seems to say that you can have sex with a woman you own even if she is married. How nice.
Below that is this:If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave.
How nice of them.
The rest of the stuff says that if a Muslim feels like freeing a slave he can (by paying his randsom, not by freeing his own slave). If a slave can pay for his own freedom, and a Muslim feels like it, he should take the money and free the slave (and then give the slave some of the money back). If you divorce your wives, and then want to remarry them, you have to free a slave before sleeping with them. All of that is from the surahs from the Quran from the link you gave me. Not very convincing at all. Then from the Hadith, they found one instance where Mohammad freed some of the slaves he took in war. We have another Hadith where Mohammad ordered one slave to be freed. Woopteedoo.
In fact, the only thing on that page that opposes slavery is from a footnote from a book some guy wrote that has nothing to do with the Quran or the Hadith. And that book is published in the US. Wow.
Better luck next time. If you have some more "proof" please show it to me. I'll be happy to look at it and quote you more Surahs and Hadiths that prove my point.
I appreaciate your curtesy and the information with which you have provided me.
It closed all avenues for obtaining new slaves except the capture of war prisoners
Mohammad certainly was quite smart; I could almost admire the man. I mean what better way to encourage people to go to war with you than by telling them that if they do, they can get free slaves, and if they don't, they'll have to buy slaves from someone else. When you said war prisoners though, you should have elaborated that this was not limited to combatants, but also their wives and children, as well as other noncombatants. Women were considered "booties" of war. Allow me to quote a surah from the Holy Quran:
[Yusufali 23:5] Who abstain from sex,
[Yusufali 23:6] Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
[Shakir 23:5] And who guard their private parts,
[Shakir 23:6] Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,
[Pickthal 23:5] And who guard their modesty -
[Pickthal 23:6] Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
And that is just from the Holy Quran. If we look at Bukhari's Hadith, we will find Mohammad approving of Muslims raping their female slaves. Even worse, he seems to say that they should not engage in coitus interruptus, but rather impregnate the raped slave girls. This can be seen in Vol. 7-#137, Vol. 5-#459, Vol. 3-#765, Vol. 5-#637. Abu Dawuds's Hadith is not much better.
This is an aside and not terribly relevant here, but in one of the gospels not included, a young Jesus whithers teachers he doesn't like and turns playmates who piss him off into stone. I can see that it makes Jesus look human and petty, and can understand why the creators of the New Testament chose not to include it, but is one of the gospels. Seems rather dishonest to me.
This is yet another way in which Islam is worse than Christianity. While the Christian scripture was edited to remove some of the wackiest stuff, the Muslim scripture was not.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? I'm anything but an apologist for slavery.
Are you reading what I am saying? I never said that you were an apologist for slavery, but rather for Islam (and all that that that entails). But that's even what I take issue with. I take issue with the line of reasoning: X is bad, Y is bad, Y may be worse than X, therefore X is good (where Y = Christianity, X = Islam in this case).
That doesn't follow logically from my statement.
Perhaps my phrasing was loose. English is my third language. Allow me to rephrase my statement. "And can one not condemn a murderer without also [having to condemn] all other murderers that have ever lived?" That should clear up any misunderstandings if they were caused by the phrasing.
Are you saying you can condemn some slavers, but not others?
I'm saying that if someone believes that murder/slavery is wrong, they can say person X is bad because they practice slavery/murder without in the same sentence having to say person A,B,C...W are also bad because they practice slavery/murder. The actions of A,B,C...W do not excuse the actions of X.
Some of them are isolated on islands in the South Pacific, but many of them live in areas where they are surrounded by the modern world (the Amish and the Mennonites come to mind).
There aren't 1.2 billion of those, whereas there are at least 1.2 billion Muslims, and that number is growing exponentially.
Furthermore, I don't think it's universally accepted that Muslims wish to live a pre-18th century way of life. None of those I know personally do.
Well, they probably don't want to give up all that sweet infidel technology, but when it comes to the progresses that infidels have made in philosophy, morality, and culture, most Muslims seem less then willing to indulge.
When I did a search on slavery at Human Rights Watch I noticed that you conveniently ignored all of the reports of slavery perpetrated by Christians, Hindus, animists, and assorted other non-Muslims.
I actually searched for Saudi Arabia not slavery. Regardless, how many times must I reiterate this: what bad things other people do does not excuse what bad thing Muslims do.
They may or may not defend the practice on religious grounds, but that is immaterial because it fails to show that slavery is any more common in the Muslim world that it is outside of the Muslim world.
Well, I bet you don't know anyone who owns any slaves currently wherever you live. If you lived in Saudi Arabia (and not just on a Western compound) you probably would. That would indicate that slavery is more common in Saudi Arabia (center of the Muslim world) than wherever you live, if relative comparisons are so important to you.
considering Hitler was never a religious figure, which would suggest to me some sort of cult-think.
Why was Hitler not a religious figure? Because he did not claim that he was talking with God? That just makes Hitler a bit saner than Mohammad.
In fact, I'm bothered more by evangelical Christians who are constantly pushing their religion in my face.
You are lucky that you do not live in a country with a considerably large Muslim population or you would have more to worry about than Christians exercising their freedom of speech.
I side with the folks who say "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll
Bush could blow a goat, and still walk away smelling like a rose to Fox News and other media patsy stations.
And I would support Bush blowing a goat under the following circumstances:
- He divorced his wife or had her permission for the extramarrital affair
- He had the concent of the goat (and was preferably married to it before hand, although I am willing to accept pre-martial goat blowing)
- He did not adamantly lie about it to the American people
- He admitted that blowing a goat was engaging in sexual relations with the goat
I also disagree with the headline. Bush may be bringing pleasure to the farm yard animal, but until he secures the borders and ports, he certainly isn't bringing security.
On a more serious note... I think he'd get away with running over a baby carriage in a market, at the end of a drunken rage. Why not? Ted Kennedy seems to have gotten away with something quite similar.
In the Bible, "servant" and "slave" are synonymous. This is widely accepted amongst Biblical scholars.
But is it widely accepted by the average Christian reading the Bible?
Of course, it always depends on which translation you're reading, too....
No doubt; however, you fail to realize that the many translations of the Bible into all languages with a considerable number of speakers is a huge advantage Christianity has over Islam (whose followers claim that you can only have read the Quran if you read it in Arabic (The Official Language of God). Christianity is far less linguistically imperialist and far more open to other cultures.
Need I remind you that the Catholic and Orthodox churches were one, with one Pope and shared dogma, until the 11th century?
Have you forgotten of the five patriarchs of Christianity: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria? You will note that Rome is only another patriarchy among the five. You will also note that Rome was the only patriarchy to not be conquered by Islam, although that was only due to luck and effort on the part of non-Muslims, and not due to lack of initiative on the part of Islam. The Roman patriarchy may have claimed jurisdiction and supremacy over the other four, but the other patriarchies did not stand for it. Before the Great Schism, the five patriarchies were united in the sense that they got together and talked to each other e.g. Council of Nicaea and that they recognized the honourary primacy of Rome.
You also forgot to mention the non-Chalcedonian churches: the Monophysites, the Monothelites, and the Nestorians who were neither Catholic nor Orthodox, although granted, there were less of those in Europe (though the distinction between Europe and the Mediteranean world not in Europe would not have been as prominent as it is today after the non-European Mediterranean world was conquered by Islam; and only two of the five patriarchies of Christianity were in Europe.)
I don't think either the Quran or the Bible say that.
I never said they did. It was my personal response to your apology of Mohammad having slaves/Islam condoning slavery on the grounds that Islam may have said that slaves should have been treated "nicely." Although if you look into the history of the Muslim slave trade (again, by Muslims, not on Muslims) from Africa, you'll find that the treatment was not nice at all, what with castration, and slaves being forced to march immense distances and a very low survival rate of the ordeal.
Yes, the teachings of Jesus are contained in the New Testament, but don't let that fool you into thinking that diminishes the importance of the Old Testament. After all, what do you think was Jesus' primary religious text?
Is it not true that a lot of the teachings of the New Testament contradict those of the Old, and that the God of the New Testament seems a bit different than that of the Old? If so, Jesus and those who wrote the New Testament did not seem to have cared much for the Old. I'm actually curious as to your answer regarding this; as I have stated repeatedly before, Christian theology is not my strong point by any means, and I have no qualms being educated about the subject.
That said, your attempts to tell me what Christians do and don't believe
I only attempted to tell you my opinion of what Christians do and don't believe. I think I was quite open about the fact that I was not an expert on the matter (as the only use I have for the subject is to mount another defense against the Christianity is just as bad as Islam, therefore lets embrace Islam crowd). I also did not base my argument on my knowledge of Christian theology as I myself openly recognized my limitations. I even stated in my original argument that how bad Christianity was/is in no way ameliorates how bad Islam is.
lead me to think that your knowledge of Islam is similarly suspect.
And yet again you deviate from the realm of civilized
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that the market does not work because the consumer does not have perfect access to all information is akin to saying that democracy does not work because the voter does not have perfect access to all information. Furthermore, the fact that the voter does not have perfect access to information does not give anyone the right to abolish democracy. Likewise, the fact that the consumer does not have perfect access to information does not give anyone the right to abolish the market (or meddle with it, as may be the case). If you think the consumer (or voter) lacks information that they should have, write about it, contact the media, or take out an add in a news paper. (Competitors (/opposition parties) offering other products (/platforms) not suffering from the deficiency you are concerned with should already be doing this, but somethimes they make mistakes and it never hurts to help them out if you believe in the cause.)
As long as freedom of speech exists, meddling with the free market directly (through the use of coercive means) is not the optimal solution. Anyways, remember that the most important freedom (aside from freedom of speech) is the freedom to make mistakes (which applies to both consumers and voters).
Don't be intellectually dishonest. List the full quote:
In theoretical economics[citation needed], a free market is an idealised economic model wherein exchanges are "free" of all coercive measures[citation needed], including such government interference as tariffs, taxation, and regulations, except those which allow for private property ownership in land, natural resources, and the broadcast spectrum, as well as intellectual property, corporations, and other legal fictions."
"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of harm (e.g., by physical force). Often, it involves inflicting some actual harm in order to make the threat credible, but it is the threat of (further) harm which brings about cooperation of the person being coerced." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
Anti-monopoly law exists to allow the government to prevent a corporation from doing so, hence making the market behave more similarly to the free-market.
Anti-monopoly laws are a form of regulation not designed to facilitate "private property ownership in land, natural resources, and the broadcast spectrum, as well as intellectual property, corporations, and other legal fictions." Therefore, anti-monopoly laws are a violation of the principle of a free market, as outlined above. Capisci?
Such a thing as economic coercion (based upon market power) does exist; however, it is a different thing entirely from the regular types of coersion including those used by governments (do as we say or we'll send our (wo)men with guns after you.)
Sums it up pretty well as well don't you think?
Your quote refers to physical coercion, not economic coercion (and remember, the only way governments can prevent economic coercion is physical coercion).
P.S. Make sure not to confuse a free market with a perfectly competitive market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_form
In that case, surely you won't mind quoting the parts which agree with you.
I quoted some of the parts that agreed with me, and didn't find anything which contradicted the parts which I qouted (unless you modified the article in the meantime).
P.S. Check your other posts. I provided you with more links there.
You won't read the wikipedia article, so I shall provide you with something shorter:a rket i ew=uk t .html
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20m
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/freemarket?v
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+market
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/free%2520marke
"trading without government control: an economic system in which businesses operate without government control in matters such as pricing and wage levels"
Any questions?
Looks like there's a libertarian around with a lot of mod points :)
No, it looks like someone who actually knows what a free market is somehow got mod points.
Never mind, the moral victory is yours.
Yes, ignore facts and just go with what feels right.
P.S. I doubt any true libertarian would mod something down.
The problem you face is that you do not understand that the term "free market" is actually defined as something, and I will not allow [Orwellian attempts to warp the English language so that a concept such as what the term "free market" currently referrs to will no longer exist] to go unchallenged.
Very good point. I've always said that a free market is a regulated market.
In related news, a free person is one whose every action is regulated by the government (slavery is freedom).
From wikipedia:
"a free market is an idealised economic model wherein exchanges are "free" of all coercive measures[citation needed], including such government interference as tariffs, taxation, and regulations, except those which allow for private property ownership in land, natural resources, and the broadcast spectrum, as well as intellectual property, corporations, and other legal fictions"
In our republican nation you may get a visit courtesy DMCA/Patriot Act.
Do you even know what (lower case r) republican means?
Don't worry. It's just a conservation of positive attributes (assuming that's a real image of her).
When I read the title, I thought they might be talking about Washington, D.C. In fact, I think that might actually be a better idea for a MMO.
think it's just that there's been a surge in anti-Islamic and anti-Arab sentiments lately, while it's mostly just the same loonies that are anti-Semitic.
I don't know about that (scroll down a bit to understand).
If a gay man molests a little boy would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that homosexuals aren't sexual predators?" If an African American commits a crime would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that African Americans aren't a bunch of criminals?"
And if a member of the KKK kills a "black" man would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that the KKK don't hate black people?"
Islam is not a race, or a sexual preference. Islam is an ideology, and deserves to be scrutinized as such.
Furthermore, the statement "Islam is a religion of peace." is a hypothesis, and deserves to be treated as such. At the moment, the experimental evidence (including the Quran) seems to contradict that hypothesis.
Please don't retaliate by inventing asprin or making beautiful music on the violin, I hate that. Why can't you just form an unruly mob, trample each other, and shoot guns in the air until the falling bullets threaten you like normal folks? Can't we all just fail to get along?
So true. Here's some background info on the man now thought to have played the major role in the chemical synthesis of Aspirin: "Dr. Eichengruen was a survivor of the Theresienstadt concentration camp, and after the war he told his story: he had planned and directed the synthesis of aspirin along with the synthesis of several related compounds, and he was responsible for aspirin's initial surreptitious clinical testing (remember that the head of the Bayer pharmacology lab was against testing)." Link.
Of course, this link has to be balanced by the fact that the President of Iran (soon to have nuclear weapons) would like to remind us that the Holocaust is a lie fabricated by the Jews. Link. Keeping that "fact" in mind, maybe Eichengruen lied about the whole thing (just like he lied about the Holocaust, according to The President of Iran).
No kidding. OP was refering to that fact that it is forbidden to depict Me-hammered in any pictorial form whatsoever.
Repeat after me: depicting Mohammad is forbiden only for Muslims (just like Music and Chess seem to be). Non-muslims can depicting Mohammad all they want without fearing eternal damnation; instead, they just have to fear for their lives.
Either that, or it is short for the Norse home for martyred warriors. I believe they are hoping that the outcry from the Jewish and Old Norse communities will drown out criticism they have received from Muslim activists.
Well, seeing as there are approximately 7 million Jews (mostly in Israel), and over 1.2 billion Muslims (and growing, all over the world), if you're going to insult someone, you should probably stick with the Jews (and Old Norse). Or Buddists: they never seem to riot violently and at worst will just self-immolate.
Allow me correct that for you:
1. Find images
2. Make t-shirts
3. Suffer at the hands of those who may not agree with what you have to say, and will fight to the death to suppress your right to say it.
Note: the link is an article about someone who did Steps 1 and 2, and has reached Step 3.
i know the Quran much better than you do, have it memorized by heart, know and speak the Arabic language and do not need you to tell me what the Quran says and doesn't say.
Then it should be very easy for you to prove that everything that I said is wrong by quoting the Quran yourself, if indeed everything that I said was not supported by the Quran.
as i told you, slavery was abolished in islam in stages.
Fine, quote the Quran and the Hadith to prove this to me.
it was no just said outright "no slaves" because no one would have listened.
If Mohammad had made the penalty for owning slaves death or amputation of limbs as he did other crimes, almost everyone would have listened.
in addition, i don't really understand what you're trying to get at
I'm trying to get at the truth, whatever that might be.
are you more knowledgable of the Quran and the sunnah than muslims are?
According to this site, "90% of Muslims are unable to understand the [Classical] Arabic Qur'an," so maybe. Besides, knowledge does not necessarily imply a desire to honestly impart that knowledge to others.
islam is NOT pro slavery and that it did abolish it and was much more successful than the west or anywhere else ever was.
Proof from the Quran or Hadith?
quran, hadiths, like anything, can be taken out of context, out of meaning
Ok, so set me straight. Enlighten me.
if you just want to argue, go learn arabic
I already know some Arabic. I'm working on it; however, in the mean time, can we argue in English?
you are just copying and pasting english translations of things you don't understand.
Ok, teach me.
anyone who speaks more than one language knows
I speak four languages: English, French (poorly), German (better), and a fourth (fluently) which I am not going to list for you since I don't want you to know where I'm from. I use three different English translations of the Quran from here. If you don't think any of them are correct, talk to the site administrator and the translators and set them straight.
i gave you proof
Your proof was just some random people writing, without the Quran or Hadith supporting their arguments. I wouldn't trust the Pope to tell me about Catholicism/Christianity without quoting some passages from the Bible. I've been burned in the past, and I'm not willing to make the same mistake again.
i posted more than one site and more than one link
The other sites had even less proof from the Quran or the Hadith.
i, despite being muslim and knowing this stuff already, read the sites all the way through before posting the links even
Now, why would you do that?
its apparent you have your mind set, and i am not going to try to change your mind,
Throughout my life, I have changed my mind many times about many things (for one, I used to think Islam was a nice religion). Only by admitting that one was wrong, when presented with enough evidence that one is wrong, can one come closer to the truth than they were before.
I have read the entire link and I summarized what I read to you. If you don't think I summarized it properly, you should provide me with Hadiths and Surahs that prove me wrong.
furthermore, it is also apparent that you just wish to argue and are not up for having an intellectual conversation, and, as thus, i am not going to waste my time further.
Intellectual conversation usually include assertions, proof, and rebuttals. You seem to be stuck in the assertions phase. Now, if you don't want to have an intellectual conversation, that's fine, but don't try to blame me for your shortcomings.
you didn't read the entire page, did you?
I did read the entire page. I clicked on the link you provided, and then clicked on the slavery link at the top. I focused on the Hadiths and the Surahs provided, and not the authors baseless assertions which did not follow from either of them.
no. islam, likewise, happening in a society of all slavery, decreased slavery from 100% existance to 0% existance over stages.
Except for that part where Muslims are still allowed by the Holy Quran to take slaves during war, and rape their female slaves:
"restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..." (Surah 70:30-31)
There is nothing in the Quran that I could find that overwrites these Surahs, so they seem to still apply. Explains all the cases of low wage worker abuse in Saudi Arabia rather nicely. Any thoughts?
Can I get some quotes from the Hadith or Quran to support this?
I'll quote some for you:
Quran 33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."
"A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year." (Sahih Bukhari,Volume 3, Book 46, Number 711: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah)
So, Mohammad not only kept slaves (including females), but also would not let a slave be freed, but instead sold him (personally). How interesting.
I can find you more Surahs and Hadiths if you want. I just love Bukhari's Hadith. They won't be any more flattering though.
I went to the site which you linked to and found this:
Slavery seems to be allowed:
Note: "Right hand possession" are the human-captives of war who lived as slaves among Muslims.
"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;- (The Noble Quran, 4:36)"
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (The Noble Quran, 4:3)"
"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. (The Noble Quran, 4:24)"
"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:25)
"The Noble Quran, 4:24" seems to say that you can have sex with a woman you own even if she is married. How nice.
Below that is this:If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave.
How nice of them.
The rest of the stuff says that if a Muslim feels like freeing a slave he can (by paying his randsom, not by freeing his own slave). If a slave can pay for his own freedom, and a Muslim feels like it, he should take the money and free the slave (and then give the slave some of the money back). If you divorce your wives, and then want to remarry them, you have to free a slave before sleeping with them. All of that is from the surahs from the Quran from the link you gave me. Not very convincing at all. Then from the Hadith, they found one instance where Mohammad freed some of the slaves he took in war. We have another Hadith where Mohammad ordered one slave to be freed. Woopteedoo.
In fact, the only thing on that page that opposes slavery is from a footnote from a book some guy wrote that has nothing to do with the Quran or the Hadith. And that book is published in the US. Wow.
Better luck next time. If you have some more "proof" please show it to me. I'll be happy to look at it and quote you more Surahs and Hadiths that prove my point.
I appreaciate your curtesy and the information with which you have provided me.
It closed all avenues for obtaining new slaves except the capture of war prisoners
Mohammad certainly was quite smart; I could almost admire the man. I mean what better way to encourage people to go to war with you than by telling them that if they do, they can get free slaves, and if they don't, they'll have to buy slaves from someone else. When you said war prisoners though, you should have elaborated that this was not limited to combatants, but also their wives and children, as well as other noncombatants. Women were considered "booties" of war. Allow me to quote a surah from the Holy Quran:
[Yusufali 23:5] Who abstain from sex,
[Yusufali 23:6] Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
[Shakir 23:5] And who guard their private parts,
[Shakir 23:6] Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,
[Pickthal 23:5] And who guard their modesty -
[Pickthal 23:6] Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,
And that is just from the Holy Quran.
If we look at Bukhari's Hadith, we will find Mohammad approving of Muslims raping their female slaves. Even worse, he seems to say that they should not engage in coitus interruptus, but rather impregnate the raped slave girls. This can be seen in Vol. 7-#137, Vol. 5-#459, Vol. 3-#765, Vol. 5-#637. Abu Dawuds's Hadith is not much better.
This is an aside and not terribly relevant here, but in one of the gospels not included, a young Jesus whithers teachers he doesn't like and turns playmates who piss him off into stone. I can see that it makes Jesus look human and petty, and can understand why the creators of the New Testament chose not to include it, but is one of the gospels. Seems rather dishonest to me.
This is yet another way in which Islam is worse than Christianity. While the Christian scripture was edited to remove some of the wackiest stuff, the Muslim scripture was not.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? I'm anything but an apologist for slavery.
Are you reading what I am saying? I never said that you were an apologist for slavery, but rather for Islam (and all that that that entails). But that's even what I take issue with. I take issue with the line of reasoning: X is bad, Y is bad, Y may be worse than X, therefore X is good (where Y = Christianity, X = Islam in this case).
That doesn't follow logically from my statement.
Perhaps my phrasing was loose. English is my third language. Allow me to rephrase my statement. "And can one not condemn a murderer without also [having to condemn] all other murderers that have ever lived?" That should clear up any misunderstandings if they were caused by the phrasing.
Are you saying you can condemn some slavers, but not others?
I'm saying that if someone believes that murder/slavery is wrong, they can say person X is bad because they practice slavery/murder without in the same sentence having to say person A,B,C...W are also bad because they practice slavery/murder. The actions of A,B,C...W do not excuse the actions of X.
Some of them are isolated on islands in the South Pacific, but many of them live in areas where they are surrounded by the modern world (the Amish and the Mennonites come to mind).
There aren't 1.2 billion of those, whereas there are at least 1.2 billion Muslims, and that number is growing exponentially.
Furthermore, I don't think it's universally accepted that Muslims wish to live a pre-18th century way of life. None of those I know personally do.
Well, they probably don't want to give up all that sweet infidel technology, but when it comes to the progresses that infidels have made in philosophy, morality, and culture, most Muslims seem less then willing to indulge.
When I did a search on slavery at Human Rights Watch I noticed that you conveniently ignored all of the reports of slavery perpetrated by Christians, Hindus, animists, and assorted other non-Muslims.
I actually searched for Saudi Arabia not slavery. Regardless, how many times must I reiterate this: what bad things other people do does not excuse what bad thing Muslims do.
They may or may not defend the practice on religious grounds, but that is immaterial because it fails to show that slavery is any more common in the Muslim world that it is outside of the Muslim world.
Well, I bet you don't know anyone who owns any slaves currently wherever you live. If you lived in Saudi Arabia (and not just on a Western compound) you probably would. That would indicate that slavery is more common in Saudi Arabia (center of the Muslim world) than wherever you live, if relative comparisons are so important to you.
considering Hitler was never a religious figure, which would suggest to me some sort of cult-think.
Why was Hitler not a religious figure? Because he did not claim that he was talking with God? That just makes Hitler a bit saner than Mohammad.
In fact, I'm bothered more by evangelical Christians who are constantly pushing their religion in my face.
You are lucky that you do not live in a country with a considerably large Muslim population or you would have more to worry about than Christians exercising their freedom of speech.
I side with the folks who say "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll
Bush could blow a goat, and still walk away smelling like a rose to Fox News and other media patsy stations.
And I would support Bush blowing a goat under the following circumstances:
- He divorced his wife or had her permission for the extramarrital affair
- He had the concent of the goat (and was preferably married to it before hand, although I am willing to accept pre-martial goat blowing)
- He did not adamantly lie about it to the American people
- He admitted that blowing a goat was engaging in sexual relations with the goat
I also disagree with the headline. Bush may be bringing pleasure to the farm yard animal, but until he secures the borders and ports, he certainly isn't bringing security.
On a more serious note...
I think he'd get away with running over a baby carriage in a market, at the end of a drunken rage.
Why not? Ted Kennedy seems to have gotten away with something quite similar.
In the Bible, "servant" and "slave" are synonymous. This is widely accepted amongst Biblical scholars.
But is it widely accepted by the average Christian reading the Bible?
Of course, it always depends on which translation you're reading, too....
No doubt; however, you fail to realize that the many translations of the Bible into all languages with a considerable number of speakers is a huge advantage Christianity has over Islam (whose followers claim that you can only have read the Quran if you read it in Arabic (The Official Language of God). Christianity is far less linguistically imperialist and far more open to other cultures.
Need I remind you that the Catholic and Orthodox churches were one, with one Pope and shared dogma, until the 11th century?
Have you forgotten of the five patriarchs of Christianity: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria? You will note that Rome is only another patriarchy among the five. You will also note that Rome was the only patriarchy to not be conquered by Islam, although that was only due to luck and effort on the part of non-Muslims, and not due to lack of initiative on the part of Islam. The Roman patriarchy may have claimed jurisdiction and supremacy over the other four, but the other patriarchies did not stand for it. Before the Great Schism, the five patriarchies were united in the sense that they got together and talked to each other e.g. Council of Nicaea and that they recognized the honourary primacy of Rome. You also forgot to mention the non-Chalcedonian churches: the Monophysites, the Monothelites, and the Nestorians who were neither Catholic nor Orthodox, although granted, there were less of those in Europe (though the distinction between Europe and the Mediteranean world not in Europe would not have been as prominent as it is today after the non-European Mediterranean world was conquered by Islam; and only two of the five patriarchies of Christianity were in Europe.)
I don't think either the Quran or the Bible say that.
I never said they did. It was my personal response to your apology of Mohammad having slaves/Islam condoning slavery on the grounds that Islam may have said that slaves should have been treated "nicely." Although if you look into the history of the Muslim slave trade (again, by Muslims, not on Muslims) from Africa, you'll find that the treatment was not nice at all, what with castration, and slaves being forced to march immense distances and a very low survival rate of the ordeal.
Yes, the teachings of Jesus are contained in the New Testament, but don't let that fool you into thinking that diminishes the importance of the Old Testament. After all, what do you think was Jesus' primary religious text?
Is it not true that a lot of the teachings of the New Testament contradict those of the Old, and that the God of the New Testament seems a bit different than that of the Old? If so, Jesus and those who wrote the New Testament did not seem to have cared much for the Old. I'm actually curious as to your answer regarding this; as I have stated repeatedly before, Christian theology is not my strong point by any means, and I have no qualms being educated about the subject.
That said, your attempts to tell me what Christians do and don't believe
I only attempted to tell you my opinion of what Christians do and don't believe. I think I was quite open about the fact that I was not an expert on the matter (as the only use I have for the subject is to mount another defense against the Christianity is just as bad as Islam, therefore lets embrace Islam crowd). I also did not base my argument on my knowledge of Christian theology as I myself openly recognized my limitations. I even stated in my original argument that how bad Christianity was/is in no way ameliorates how bad Islam is.
lead me to think that your knowledge of Islam is similarly suspect.
And yet again you deviate from the realm of civilized
Thank you. That is quite interesting. Would you happen to have a link (I don't doubt you, but I would like to read it myself if possible).