Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[North German Realm]

I will just say this.
If a slavery apologist is right about Islam, than Islam is truly an irredeemable religion, and should be eliminated entirely.
Every time we see posts like these it makes Islam look contemptible at best.

Maybe the poster is really anti Muslim, and just pretending to be a Muslim to make Islam look horrible?

Regardless either the poster is wrong, or Islam is evil.

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

Not this shit again. His Ideas aren't in "sharp contrast" to Islamic Principles. They're Islam as it was supposed to be.

[Nova Cyberia]

I will just say this.
If a slavery apologist is right about Islam, than Islam is truly an irredeemable religion, and should be eliminated entirely.
Every time we see posts like these it makes Islam look contemptible at best.

Maybe the poster is really anti Muslim, and just pretending to be a Muslim to make Islam look horrible?

Regardless either the poster is wrong, or Islam is evil.

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

"Sharp contrast"

Yes, slavery in the Quran is clearly in sharp contrast to Islamic ideals.

[Hanafuridake]

Far be it for me of all people to defend a Catholic missionary order, but the Jesuits were actually far more respectful of China's Confucian traditions than other Catholic missionary orders. The Dominicans and Franciscans reported back to Rome that the Jesuits were permitting Chinese converts to participate in Confucian ancestor veneration, and the papacy eventually sided with them and banned Chinese Catholics from participating in Confucian ceremonies. The result was that the Kangxi Emperor banned Christian missionaries from preaching to the Chinese altogether.

Some of them (such as Ricci) saw Confucianism as a proto-Christian religion similar to Judaism or the Pre-Socratics, the view served as useful fodder against the Buddhists and Daoists who the missionaries could claim were the natural enemies of both the Christians and the Confucianists. This concept over-time became discredited.

These things arose on account of the lack of knowledge at that time and the Fathers' ways of speaking and the conformity (as in their ignorance they saw it) of our holy religion with the literati sect, which is diabological and intrinsically atheistic, and also contains fundamental and essential errors against the faith.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

"Sharp contrast"

Yes, slavery in the Quran is clearly in sharp contrast to Islamic ideals.

Is this sarcasm or real talk?

[Nea Byzantia]

Far be it for me of all people to defend a Catholic missionary order, but the Jesuits were actually far more respectful of China's Confucian traditions than other Catholic missionary orders. The Dominicans and Franciscans reported back to Rome that the Jesuits were permitting Chinese converts to participate in Confucian ancestor veneration, and the papacy eventually sided with them and banned Chinese Catholics from participating in Confucian ceremonies. The result was that the Kangxi Emperor banned Christian missionaries from preaching to the Chinese altogether.

Some of them (such as Ricci) saw Confucianism as a proto-Christian religion similar to Judaism or the Pre-Socratics, the view served as useful fodder against the Buddhists and Daoists who the missionaries could claim were the natural enemies of both the Christians and the Confucianists. This concept over-time became discredited.

These things arose on account of the lack of knowledge at that time and the Fathers' ways of speaking and the conformity (as in their ignorance they saw it) of our holy religion with the literati sect, which is diabological and intrinsically atheistic, and also contains fundamental and essential errors against the faith.

This just proves my previous point:

The Jesuits almost never brought Catholic Christianity to other nations without having ulterior political motives, or without using crooked methods to convert people. For instance, they got permission to set up Catholic schools in the Ottoman Empire - on the surface this was to "help" the impoverished Greek, Armenian and Slavic Orthodox Christians living under the Sultan's yoke, but in reality they were hoping to expand Rome's ecclesiastical reach into traditionally Orthodox lands; you could only send your kids to these schools if they became Catholic. They did a similar thing with the Antiochian Orthodox Christians in Lebanon (also under Ottoman rule), as well as in Ukraine, back when vast portions of it were ruled by the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom. Its called Casuistry, and its fundamentally immoral. This is just what they did with their fellow Christians, let alone the non-believers.

Its unfortunate that the Jesuits ruined it for all the other Christian missionaries, and given the Catholic Church a bad name.

[Diopolis]

Correct. So is rape. So whether she consents or not, the husband can't do anything to her.

So either way a woman still gets punished for denying someone sex?

I can't speak to Islam, but most Christian conceptions of the marital debt hold that the wife's discretion as to a reasonable excuse is considered the default.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So either way a woman still gets punished for denying someone sex?

I can't speak to Islam, but most Christian conceptions of the marital debt hold that the wife's discretion as to a reasonable excuse is considered the default.

Could you explain this better pls?

[Nea Byzantia]

I can't speak to Islam, but most Christian conceptions of the marital debt hold that the wife's discretion as to a reasonable excuse is considered the default.

Could you explain this better pls?

Even I'm confused.

[Diopolis]

I can't speak to Islam, but most Christian conceptions of the marital debt hold that the wife's discretion as to a reasonable excuse is considered the default.

Could you explain this better pls?

The marital debt holds that a spouse has a duty to have sex if their spouse requests it. Notably, competent theologians do not treat it as a license to commit rape- rape is still considered to be domestic violence. It's simply that denying a request without a good reason is considered a sin(often a minor sin, in denominations that recognize a distinction).
Here's the thing- it's considered up to the woman's discretion as to what is a good reason to not have sex. There are general guidelines, sure- lack of privacy, illness, etc.- but the woman is the one who gets to make the calls it doesn't cover.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Could you explain this better pls?

The marital debt holds that a spouse has a duty to have sex if their spouse requests it. Notably, competent theologians do not treat it as a license to commit rape- rape is still considered to be domestic violence. It's simply that denying a request without a good reason is considered a sin(often a minor sin, in denominations that recognize a distinction).
Here's the thing- it's considered up to the woman's discretion as to what is a good reason to not have sex. There are general guidelines, sure- lack of privacy, illness, etc.- but the woman is the one who gets to make the calls it doesn't cover.

Sounds similar to what I've been saying literally everytime this is brought up

[Diopolis]

The marital debt holds that a spouse has a duty to have sex if their spouse requests it. Notably, competent theologians do not treat it as a license to commit rape- rape is still considered to be domestic violence. It's simply that denying a request without a good reason is considered a sin(often a minor sin, in denominations that recognize a distinction).
Here's the thing- it's considered up to the woman's discretion as to what is a good reason to not have sex. There are general guidelines, sure- lack of privacy, illness, etc.- but the woman is the one who gets to make the calls it doesn't cover.

Sounds similar to what I've been saying literally everytime this is brought up

I don't think anyone's been harping on Islam allowing the rape of married women.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Sounds similar to what I've been saying literally everytime this is brought up

I don't think anyone's been harping on Islam allowing the rape of married women.

A thorough sifting through my post history shows me and many other Muslims debunking claims of marital rape. If people don't falsely accuse you of supporting rape that'd be some dark humorous comedic irony.

[Diopolis]

I don't think anyone's been harping on Islam allowing the rape of married women.

A thorough sifting through my post history shows me and many other Muslims debunking claims of marital rape. If people don't falsely accuse you of supporting rape that'd be some dark humorous comedic irony.

OK. Let me make this clear: Islam's standards on sexual consent are fair and reasonable in the context of a marital relationship, at least considering the amount of knowledge available at the time of the relevant hadiths. I have qualms with the phrasing, but it looks like at least an attempt at a reasonable solution to the fact that 1) people getting married have presumably consented to have sex with each other, and so it is reasonable to presume consent in such a case and 2) marital rape still exists.
The problem comes with the application of the same standards to slaves. Slaves have not chosen to be slaves, let alone slaves owned by a particular master.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

A thorough sifting through my post history shows me and many other Muslims debunking claims of marital rape. If people don't falsely accuse you of supporting rape that'd be some dark humorous comedic irony.

OK. Let me make this clear: Islam's standards on sexual consent are fair and reasonable in the context of a marital relationship, at least considering the amount of knowledge available at the time of the relevant hadiths. I have qualms with the phrasing, but it looks like at least an attempt at a reasonable solution to the fact that 1) people getting married have presumably consented to have sex with each other, and so it is reasonable to presume consent in such a case and 2) marital rape still exists.
The problem comes with the application of the same standards to slaves. Slaves have not chosen to be slaves, let alone slaves owned by a particular master.

Thank you for at least understanding. That's all I wanted.
As for slaves, well yes, no one wants to be a slave unless it's towards Allah SWT, hence why He made it better to free slaves than to own them. Now I don't know the authenticity of this, but some Muslim Islamic scholars say that a master marrying a slave makes said slave a freeperson. What is authentic is that a slave woman having a child with her master makes her and the child free, because in Al-Islam, slavery is not inherited. This also means that children of slaves cannot be enslaved, because Prophet Muhammad SAWS forbade and spoke against that (can't find the Hadith but it's SaHeeH [authenticated]). As for sexual relations with slaves, yes, this is possible without any wrongdoing against the master, or it would not have been Halaal. People talk about the power imbalance, but Allah SWT tells us to be good towards everyone, including "those whom your right hands possess" - meaning slaves. Obviously, raping slaves is not "doing good" to them as you cause physical and psychological harm on them. And even with the supposed power imbalance, if the slave feels that the master is using his/her power to coerce the slave into sex, the slave can and should contact the authorities (as has happened in the time of Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and in the case of a castrated slave).

So no, rape of any human being whatsoever is a Haraam practice and a disgusting act. It falls under the punishment of zina - illegal sexual intercourse - which is punishable under Shari'ah by 100 lashes. Yes, it is possible to have sexual relations with one's slave and not cause harm to them as I explained above. Yes, I am ok with this, even it is recommended to free slaves in the 1st place, something I support even more.

[Diopolis]

OK. Let me make this clear: Islam's standards on sexual consent are fair and reasonable in the context of a marital relationship, at least considering the amount of knowledge available at the time of the relevant hadiths. I have qualms with the phrasing, but it looks like at least an attempt at a reasonable solution to the fact that 1) people getting married have presumably consented to have sex with each other, and so it is reasonable to presume consent in such a case and 2) marital rape still exists.
The problem comes with the application of the same standards to slaves. Slaves have not chosen to be slaves, let alone slaves owned by a particular master.

Thank you for at least understanding. That's all I wanted.
As for slaves, well yes, no one wants to be a slave unless it's towards Allah SWT, hence why He made it better to free slaves than to own them. Now I don't know the authenticity of this, but some Muslim Islamic scholars say that a master marrying a slave makes said slave a freeperson. What is authentic is that a slave woman having a child with her master makes her and the child free, because in Al-Islam, slavery is not inherited. This also means that children of slaves cannot be enslaved, because Prophet Muhammad SAWS forbade and spoke against that (can't find the Hadith but it's SaHeeH [authenticated]). As for sexual relations with slaves, yes, this is possible without any wrongdoing against the master, or it would not have been Halaal. People talk about the power imbalance, but Allah SWT tells us to be good towards everyone, including "those whom your right hands possess" - meaning slaves. Obviously, raping slaves is not "doing good" to them as you cause physical and psychological harm on them. And even with the supposed power imbalance, if the slave feels that the master is using his/her power to coerce the slave into sex, the slave can and should contact the authorities (as has happened in the time of Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and in the case of a castrated slave).

So no, rape of any human being whatsoever is a Haraam practice and a disgusting act. It falls under the punishment of zina - illegal sexual intercourse - which is punishable under Shari'ah by 100 lashes. Yes, it is possible to have sexual relations with one's slave and not cause harm to them as I explained above. Yes, I am ok with this, even it is recommended to free slaves in the 1st place, something I support even more.

I see we're simply at a fundamental impasse on the ability of a master-slave sexual relationship to be consensual. There's no real point in continuing this discussion further.
I thank you for responding to my actual argument, which most wouldn't do.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Thank you for at least understanding. That's all I wanted.
As for slaves, well yes, no one wants to be a slave unless it's towards Allah SWT, hence why He made it better to free slaves than to own them. Now I don't know the authenticity of this, but some Muslim Islamic scholars say that a master marrying a slave makes said slave a freeperson. What is authentic is that a slave woman having a child with her master makes her and the child free, because in Al-Islam, slavery is not inherited. This also means that children of slaves cannot be enslaved, because Prophet Muhammad SAWS forbade and spoke against that (can't find the Hadith but it's SaHeeH [authenticated]). As for sexual relations with slaves, yes, this is possible without any wrongdoing against the master, or it would not have been Halaal. People talk about the power imbalance, but Allah SWT tells us to be good towards everyone, including "those whom your right hands possess" - meaning slaves. Obviously, raping slaves is not "doing good" to them as you cause physical and psychological harm on them. And even with the supposed power imbalance, if the slave feels that the master is using his/her power to coerce the slave into sex, the slave can and should contact the authorities (as has happened in the time of Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and in the case of a castrated slave).

So no, rape of any human being whatsoever is a Haraam practice and a disgusting act. It falls under the punishment of zina - illegal sexual intercourse - which is punishable under Shari'ah by 100 lashes. Yes, it is possible to have sexual relations with one's slave and not cause harm to them as I explained above. Yes, I am ok with this, even it is recommended to free slaves in the 1st place, something I support even more.

I see we're simply at a fundamental impasse on the ability of a master-slave sexual relationship to be consensual. There's no real point in continuing this discussion further.
I thank you for responding to my actual argument, which most wouldn't do.

Sure thing

[Jolthig]

I will just say this.
If a slavery apologist is right about Islam, than Islam is truly an irredeemable religion, and should be eliminated entirely.
Every time we see posts like these it makes Islam look contemptible at best.

Maybe the poster is really anti Muslim, and just pretending to be a Muslim to make Islam look horrible?

Regardless either the poster is wrong, or Islam is evil.

As I've stated in the past, Islam intends to abolish slavery, and not prolong it.

[Jolthig]

I have a perfect solution to all these debates about Islam and anti-Islam, and I say this as a Muslim (realizing this is RWDT and not IDT as I mistakenly thought at first). How about we don't debate on that subject and everyone respects one another's views or if not, they don't talk to said person? I am kinda bored with these kinds of debates. Heck, I'd rather use a different way of preaching islam to people whom I already commonly debate than to debate.

[Novus America]

I have a perfect solution to all these debates about Islam and anti-Islam, and I say this as a Muslim (realizing this is RWDT and not IDT as I mistakenly thought at first). How about we don't debate on that subject and everyone respects one another's views or if not, they don't talk to said person? I am kinda bored with these kinds of debates. Heck, I'd rather use a different way of preaching islam to people whom I already commonly debate than to debate.

Sure, if one poster would stop trying to throw Islam into every debate, stop spamming links to Islamic texts and stop trying to justify slavery we could do that.

[Jolthig]

I have a perfect solution to all these debates about Islam and anti-Islam, and I say this as a Muslim (realizing this is RWDT and not IDT as I mistakenly thought at first). How about we don't debate on that subject and everyone respects one another's views or if not, they don't talk to said person? I am kinda bored with these kinds of debates. Heck, I'd rather use a different way of preaching islam to people whom I already commonly debate than to debate.

Sure, if one poster would stop trying to throw Islam into every debate, stop spamming links to Islamic texts and stop trying to justify slavery we could do that.

Of course. It's just these debates get boring and old after a while. People start hating each other as a result.

Amin remember Surah al-Kafireen. Let these people go bro. It's useless to debate them.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Lol, apparently telling posters they should be taken prisoner and ransomed is now not actionable.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Sure, if one poster would stop trying to throw Islam into every debate, stop spamming links to Islamic texts and stop trying to justify slavery we could do that.

Of course. It's just these debates get boring and old after a while. People start hating each other as a result.

Amin remember Surah al-Kafireen. Let these people go bro. It's useless to debate them.

Ignoring the fact that I wasn't the one who started this, sure.

So, um.........Rome, amiright?

[Conserative Morality]

Lol, apparently telling posters they should be taken prisoner and ransomed is now not actionable.

>> mfw

[Diopolis]

I have a perfect solution to all these debates about Islam and anti-Islam, and I say this as a Muslim (realizing this is RWDT and not IDT as I mistakenly thought at first). How about we don't debate on that subject and everyone respects one another's views or if not, they don't talk to said person? I am kinda bored with these kinds of debates. Heck, I'd rather use a different way of preaching islam to people whom I already commonly debate than to debate.

Sure, if one poster would stop trying to throw Islam into every debate, stop spamming links to Islamic texts and stop trying to justify slavery we could do that.

Let's be fair here: he's not the only poster who's tried to justify slavery.

Lol, apparently telling posters they should be taken prisoner and ransomed is now not actionable.

If you think it's actionable, report it. Otherwise, I agree with Jolthig- the Islam debate is going nowhere and we should all move onto other topics, like the role of the state. Or porcupines.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Lol, apparently telling posters they should be taken prisoner and ransomed is now not actionable.

>> mfw

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b4/3e/d5/b43ed59040ddbe506a845db9ee03cb93.jpg

Sure, if one poster would stop trying to throw Islam into every debate, stop spamming links to Islamic texts and stop trying to justify slavery we could do that.

Let's be fair here: he's not the only poster who's tried to justify slavery.

Lol, apparently telling posters they should be taken prisoner and ransomed is now not actionable.

If you think it's actionable, report it. Otherwise, I agree with Jolthig- the Islam debate is going nowhere and we should all move onto other topics, like the role of the state. Or porcupines.

Oooh, the role of the state, I like that topic. The role of the state is to serve Allah SWT to the best of its ability. Also what do y'all think about that cross memorial situation?