Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Mahdistan]

Really, that extreme huh?

I still don't see how wanting prisoners to work (something plenty of non Muslims worldwide support) would count as something as extreme as that.

Think you're just overreacting.

Requiring prisoners to work to offset the cost they impose on society and compensate their victims is not extreme nor religious even. Just reasonable policy.

Also requiring POWs to work is explicitly allowed by the Geneva conventions.

Exactly, I don't see why this is so controversial.

[Hoffenland]

Not just this, but also your support for a religious based legal system. Once again, sure you're not Daesh or AQ. So congrats on that. You're the Phelps family or any other sort of American evangelist that calls for the Bible to be the law of the USA. Which is not a moderate position.

No smiley spam.

And an equal argument could be made for secularists calling for a secular government. The idea of removing religion from the public sphere was once as controversial as people today trying to implement. If we're going to go by the same standard, you, too, are an extremist. Not a bomb-slinging, church-burning communist, but a 'Sam Harris' or any other sort of secularist who calls for removing all religion from the state. And considering the treatment 'extremists' have received here, why should I care what you think?

The difference is that a secular government doesn't restrict personal religion, while religious government, more often than not, restricts religion and irreligion

[Jochistan]

So me thinking prisoners should work as part of their sentence is an extremist view...

You...you're serious...you're actually serious.

But even if it technically would count as slavery, personally I wouldn't care.

Not just this, but also your support for a religious based legal system.

Before this, you just didn't agree with that view. Now that I said convicts should be put to work (which they already are in prisons, making liscence plates and picking up litter and all that) that's an extremist view?

[Napkiraly]

Requiring prisoners to work to offset the cost they impose on society and compensate their victims is not extreme nor religious even. Just reasonable policy.

Also requiring POWs to work is explicitly allowed by the Geneva conventions.

Exactly, I don't see why this is so controversial.

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

[Napkiraly]

Not just this, but also your support for a religious based legal system. Once again, sure you're not Daesh or AQ. So congrats on that. You're the Phelps family or any other sort of American evangelist that calls for the Bible to be the law of the USA. Which is not a moderate position.

No smiley spam.

And an equal argument could be made for secularists calling for a secular government. The idea of removing religion from the public sphere was once as controversial as people today trying to implement. If we're going to go by the same standard, you, too, are an extremist. Not a bomb-slinging, church-burning communist, but a 'Sam Harris' or any other sort of secularist who calls for removing all religion from the state. And considering the treatment 'extremists' have received here, why should I care what you think?

Because religion has no place in government. People can practice their religion among themselves, but should not be able of pushing their religious laws upon others.

[Mahdistan]

No smiley spam.

And an equal argument could be made for secularists calling for a secular government. The idea of removing religion from the public sphere was once as controversial as people today trying to implement. If we're going to go by the same standard, you, too, are an extremist. Not a bomb-slinging, church-burning communist, but a 'Sam Harris' or any other sort of secularist who calls for removing all religion from the state. And considering the treatment 'extremists' have received here, why should I care what you think?

The difference is that a secular government doesn't restrict personal religion, while religious government, more often than not, restricts religion and irreligion

In a society where it's kept in balance, yes, but then there's supposedly 'more secular' countries like France, where being religious may put people at a societal disadvantage. Then of course, there was Mao's China, where being religious was literally illegal, arguably the secular variant of Daesh, the Lord's Resistance Army, etc. The common argument is that it was in the name of communism, not secularism, but I could say that Al-Qaeda is fighting in the name of fascism, not Islamism.

[Hoffenland]

Exactly, I don't see why this is so controversial.

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

Just for clarification, my understanding is that slavery in Islam isn't chattel/ownership slavery (doesn't make it just, though).

[Jochistan]

Ahh, NSG, where community service is an extremist view, but race war and marxist revolution aren't.

[Napkiraly]

Not just this, but also your support for a religious based legal system.

Before this, you just didn't agree with that view. Now that I said convicts should be put to work (which they already are in prisons, making liscence plates and picking up litter and all that) that's an extremist view?

You said you wouldn't care if it was slavery. I do consider apathy or support for slavery to be an extremist position.

Would you care or support if those prisoners were forced to become the property of either individuals, say those they wronged, or the state?

[Mahdistan]

Exactly, I don't see why this is so controversial.

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

It's an overly-emotional reaction to something which already takes place in every society, since imprisonment began. It doesn't cause physical harm to be considered under different laws.

[Jochistan]

Before this, you just didn't agree with that view. Now that I said convicts should be put to work (which they already are in prisons, making liscence plates and picking up litter and all that) that's an extremist view?

You said you wouldn't care if it was slavery. I do consider apathy or support for slavery to be an extremist position.

Would you care or support if those prisoners were forced to become the property of either individuals, say those they wronged, or the state?

What? Yeah I would care. They have human rights.

Having them work as part of their sentence isn't viewing them as non human.

Although I do think terrorists, child molesters and serial killers aren't exactly human beings myself, but that would be more warranting of capital punishment. An opinion Nuclear Fist and others share very strongly with me.

[Mahdistan]

No smiley spam.

And an equal argument could be made for secularists calling for a secular government. The idea of removing religion from the public sphere was once as controversial as people today trying to implement. If we're going to go by the same standard, you, too, are an extremist. Not a bomb-slinging, church-burning communist, but a 'Sam Harris' or any other sort of secularist who calls for removing all religion from the state. And considering the treatment 'extremists' have received here, why should I care what you think?

Because religion has no place in government. People can practice their religion among themselves, but should not be able of pushing their religious laws upon others.

Who says? People can practice religion among themselves, while having a government which promotes one faith.

[Napkiraly]

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

Just for clarification, my understanding is that slavery in Islam isn't chattel/ownership slavery (doesn't make it just, though).

My understanding of the jurisprudence was that they had some qualities of a person (ie certain rights) but also that of a possession. Which is nothing new and was standard throughout most societies that practiced slavery. Even Roman slaves had their legal status improved over time, to the point where a master who unjustly killed a slave of his could be tried for homicide.

[Napkiraly]

Because religion has no place in government. People can practice their religion among themselves, but should not be able of pushing their religious laws upon others.

Who says? People can practice religion among themselves, while having a government which promotes one faith.

Which is wrong and historically has had a bad outcome, especially for religious minorities and non-religious people.

[Jochistan]

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

Just for clarification, my understanding is that slavery in Islam isn't chattel/ownership slavery (doesn't make it just, though).

It isn't. That type of slavery was meant to be gradually abolished. As abolishing them outright would just lead to slavery in all but name for those people.

As it did in the American South.

[Mahdistan]

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

Just for clarification, my understanding is that slavery in Islam isn't chattel/ownership slavery (doesn't make it just, though).

That is correct. However, in in handing them over to a private owner, they would have to be considered as a form of property, and therefore their responsibility, which I suppose makes some people upset. That doesn't make it wrong, though.

[Napkiraly]

You said you wouldn't care if it was slavery. I do consider apathy or support for slavery to be an extremist position.

Would you care or support if those prisoners were forced to become the property of either individuals, say those they wronged, or the state?

What? Yeah I would care. They have human rights.

Having them work as part of their sentence isn't viewing them as non human.

Although I do think terrorists, child molesters and serial killers aren't exactly human beings myself, but that would be more warranting of capital punishment. An opinion Nuclear Fist and others share very strongly with me.

Good. That's not slavery. My issue was when you, perhaps unintentionally, implied you wouldn't care if they were enslaved.

[Napkiraly]

Just for clarification, my understanding is that slavery in Islam isn't chattel/ownership slavery (doesn't make it just, though).

That is correct. However, in in handing them over to a private owner, they would have to be considered as a form of property, and therefore responsibility, which I suppose makes some people upset. That doesn't make it wrong, though.

Yeah, having people as property is going to horrify most people, especially in the West. Shocker.

I hope you're still not a Trotskyite. Because, er, communists generally have a rather negative view on the whole people can be property front.

[Novus America]

Exactly, I don't see why this is so controversial.

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

Of course POWs and prisoners are not slaves nor property. You cannot buy them or sell them. But they can be required to work.

[Napkiraly]

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

It's an overly-emotional reaction to something which already takes place in every society, since imprisonment began. It doesn't cause physical harm to be considered under different laws.

So because slavery still exists, we should just be fine with it and even legalise a form of it?

[Jochistan]

What? Yeah I would care. They have human rights.

Having them work as part of their sentence isn't viewing them as non human.

Although I do think terrorists, child molesters and serial killers aren't exactly human beings myself, but that would be more warranting of capital punishment. An opinion Nuclear Fist and others share very strongly with me.

Good. That's not slavery. My issue was when you, perhaps unintentionally, implied you wouldn't care if they were enslaved.

I don't care if people would call what I just descibed slavery. Or if people would classify what I just described as slavery.

Because it isn't. And no one is supporting anything besides what I just described here.

[Mahdistan]

What? Yeah I would care. They have human rights.

Having them work as part of their sentence isn't viewing them as non human.

Although I do think terrorists, child molesters and serial killers aren't exactly human beings myself, but that would be more warranting of capital punishment. An opinion Nuclear Fist and others share very strongly with me.

Good. That's not slavery. My issue was when you, perhaps unintentionally, implied you wouldn't care if they were enslaved.

Wait a minute, that's what I've been advocating for this whole time! I think this might just be a case of miscommunication. His and my views on this are quite similar, the only notable difference, which I don't know his opinion on, is that I think that independent people may purchase their labor to profit from, at least as long as capitalism is around.

[Napkiraly]

Because POW's and prisoners are not property under the law. Slavery is about applying property law to human beings. Human beings are not property. You said you want slavery, even if it's only for criminals. That means making them property of either an individual or the state.

Of course POWs and prisoners are not slaves nor property. You cannot buy them or sell them. But they can be required to work.

Right, but Mahd is talking about bringing back slavery for them. Which is an entirely different thing.

[Mahdistan]

It's an overly-emotional reaction to something which already takes place in every society, since imprisonment began. It doesn't cause physical harm to be considered under different laws.

So because slavery still exists, we should just be fine with it and even legalise a form of it?

Because imprisonment exists, and is a necessity, we should legalize this form of it. As pointed out above it isn't actually outlawed, either.

[Napkiraly]

Good. That's not slavery. My issue was when you, perhaps unintentionally, implied you wouldn't care if they were enslaved.

Wait a minute, that's what I've been advocating for this whole time! I think this might just be a case of miscommunication. His and my views on this are quite similar, the only notable difference, which I don't know his opinion on, is that I think that independent people may purchase their labor to profit from, at least as long as capitalism is around.

If you just support penal labour for convicts without making them property of either an individual or the state, that's a form of forced labour but not the same as slavery. Slavery really has a really, really bad reputation here in the West so honestly you shouldn't have been surprised when myself and a few others got noticeably pissed when you said you were advocating a reintroduction of slavery.