Sunday, February 22, 2009

Packerwatch Shows His Stuff

packerwatch has left a new comment on the post "Why Islam Attacks":

the passage still JUSTIFIES slavery, regardless of which translation you use. to me, slavery is unjustifiable. do you think that the bible was wrong in this particular instance, or do you think that "you don't have to but you may" enslave certain people?

my point wasn't that the old testament should be taken as an absolute authority. my point was that the bible, or any religious text, shouldn't be taken as the sole, absolute authority on what is justifiable.

The Arabic word for slave and the Arabic word for black happen to be the same: abed. Arabic names such as Abdulla have meaning; in this case: slave of Allah. Moe's practice was to stage razzia & ghazwats and hold prisoners for ransom. He also enslaved prisoners for whom he could not collect ransom. I direct your attention to
33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
Of course you don't have a clue yet. I do not expect a Moron to have a clue. I shall now proceed to furnish one for you.


When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.


When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

That is Islamic law as codified in Umdat as-Salik, Book O, Chapter 9. In case it excaped your attention on the first pass:
When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.
Most of the slaves sold to American plantations were enslaved and sold by Muslims. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not abolish slavery until 1964.

Did Jesus Christ own any slaves? Did Moe? Moe emancipated and adopted a male slave, later arranging his divorce so that he could add his daughter in law to his harem. Moe was presented slaves as tribute and added one of them, a Christian girl, to his harem. No, I will not give you the citations! Do your own research. Hint: Zaid, Zainab, Mariyah and Sirin.


Ema Nymton said...


Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul,

The most striking similarities between the two men, Jesus and Mohammad, are both men died over a thousand years ago, they left no written documents, and their teachings were first passed through oral histories for many years before being written down.

You claim _ALL_ are guilty because of the actions of a few. Hysterically you say actions by people in the past can be used to condemn _ALL_ Muslims forever.

People use evil to advance their unholy ways; all the while saying god told me to do it (remember the Crusades?). Evil does not exist, except within people.

For you to blame and smear a whole religion because _YOU_ follow an extremely warped interpretation of the writings of Islam is absurd. You are called on your ugly hatred. You have no credibility and are so funny trying to play the victim.

Packerwatch is correct when he says, "any religious text, shouldn't be taken as the sole, absolute authority on what is justifiable."

But you are simply using race bating tactics to fling turds of lies. As long as you spew your hate, you can expect others to hold you up as examples of lying hypocrites.


Anonymous said...

Oddly enough, I never mentioned Islam in that comment. It was neither a defense or criticism of Islam. And you have yet to address my original point.

Ben said...

Face it, fizzlewitz; a pair of Idiots against a full house. You can't win this debate.

Argumentum Tu quopue is a diversion, not a defense. It refutes nothing.

The O.T. said... so what? Did Jesus Christ confirm it? Did Jesus Christ exemplify it? Did Jesus Christ attack and enslave people?

But Moe did. Jesus did not command his disciples to attack anyone. But Moe did.

The difference between the two men and their two systems sticks out like a sore toe but you can't perceive it because of analencephalopathy, a condition in which the anal sphincter is substituted for the brain.