Also, this lying piece of shit, the fucking commentator in that video, said that the Muslims castrated ALL their male slaves, used them in wars and then killed them all after they captured new slaves! Like I said, I wouldn't have commented if this were true, nor would it have affected my faith anyway, since, again Muslims killing Hussein or destroying the Kaaba reflects on Muslims and not Islam... However, again, Muslim Sultans did castrate some of their slaves, but only those who were responsible for taking care of their Harems...
Muslims did use slaves in wars, in fact there were slaves with high military ranks, but the Sultans didn't routinely kill them after the wars... and the fuckwit (the commentator) had the nerve to refer to the Fatimites (of Egypt) as an example of a Muslim dynasty who did this, when the fact is, in Egypt, the Army Slaves got so powerful, they even took over the court!
It's true that slavery perpetuated by Muslims took place over a longer period of time and that Muslims in total enslaved approximately 40% more slaves than Europeans did but it is also true that Muslim slaves were treated relatively better than their "Western" counterparts.
But slavery is evil by the very definition and the ultimate irony here is that worst slave-masters are those who treat their slaves with relative kindness and thus prevented the horrors of the system to be realized by those who suffered from it and by those who indirectly benefited from it.
Such charity (or any kind of charity) is therefore fundamentally evil because it is a substitute for a real change, worse it an active participant in the suffering.
Giving charity (money for example) is (to quote Lacan): "Money means I pay you so that we don't get involved."
On one hand society gives charity to alleviate the suffering of the poor but on the other hand that same society creates conditions that in turn create poverty.
One can use this argument not just against slavery but also against against Zakat - if Quran (and hence Islam) was truly perfect Zakat would be unnecessary even as a concept.
Among all three religions, the followers of Christinity (the most pacifist religion) were the most blood thirsty, then the Muslims, while the Jews (whose book is a horror book) were, BY FAR, the least violent.
Interesting observation. What exactly do you mean by "the most blood thirsty"? Christian conquests, slavery, colonialism and such?
No, he is NOT immoral... his grandfathers suffered slavery and he knows all about these horrors, he just didn't express himself well. You, on the other hand, took this chance to feel so good about yourselves and pat yourselves on the back for *supposedly* being far too morally superior to him.
The difference between you and Hassan is that Hassan would appeal to his humanity while you act so pompously and sciency as if he's inferior to you and needs to be taught something at our hands.
I partially agree with you.
However the problem with this stance is that is it basically even more self-righteous compared to the stance you were criticizing.
It positively assumes that the other side is somehow intellectually deficient and thus incapable of a serious debate and must therefore be pandered to in order to avoid hurting their feelings.
Real respect lies in the very fact that "the other" is treated as a serious adult who is completely responsible for his beliefs.
Topic: Peace, All