Posted on 08/23/2017 11:17:31 AM PDT by Starman417
Ensconced on the wall of the Supreme Court is a freize of the supposed "great lawgivers" of the Middle Ages.
Under the prevailing left wing mores, one of the images simply must be removed- the image of Muhammed.
Muhammed was a slave owner.
The paradoxBernard Lewis:A poignant paradox of Islamic slavery is that the humanity of the various rules and customs that led to the freeing of slaves created a demand for new slaves that could only be supplied by war, forcing people into slavery or trading slaves.
Muslim slavery continued for centuries
The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.
Slaves came from many places
Unlike the Atlantic slave traders, Muslims enslaved people from many cultures as well as Africa. Other sources included the Balkans, Central Asia and Mediterranean Europe.
Slaves could be assimilated into Muslim society
Muhammad's teaching that slaves were to be regarded as human beings with dignity and rights and not just as property, and that freeing slaves was a virtuous thing to do, may have helped to create a culture in which slaves became much more assimilated into the community than they were in the West.
Muslim slaves could achieve status
Slaves in the Islamic world were not always at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Slaves in Muslim societies had a greater range of work, and took on a wider range of responsibilities, than those enslaved in the Atlantic trade.
Some slaves earned respectable incomes and achieved considerable power, although even such elite slaves still remained in the power of their owners.
The Qur'an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery. It regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it. The Prophet Muhammad and those of his Companions who could afford it themselves owned slaves; some of them acquired more by conquest. But Qur'anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances .Muhammed is also said to have owned sex slaves.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
So?
Yes, but to liberals some slavery is good while others are bad. It all depends on their real political agenda of destroying western civilization and replacing it with liberal fascism.
Wow, powerful point. I’d love to hear how a liberal would reply to this.
So was Abraham.
Do you know any rulers in the middle ages that were not slave owners? Any Patriarchs or Kings in the Bible, who were not slave owners?
The leftist/progressive state that the protests against Confederate Memorials and for their removal are for two main reasons
1. They were traitorous rebels who seceded from the union
2. They supported slavery
Yet these same leftist/progressives grandly and publically support:
1. The California secessionist movement (Calexit)
2. Islam
To include the founder, Mohamed, who was a slave hunter, slave trader, sex slave trader and child slave trader.
To include the “holy” books (Koran and Hadith) of Islam which have specific holy instructions on how to take slaves, how to trade slaves, how to keep slaves and how to rape slaves.
Why are there no protests at Calexit meetings and at Mosques? Why are leftist/progressive so supportive of these secessionist and slavery movements?
We all know the reasons.
These protests and their largely sympathetic press coverage have nothing to do with “healing” or “cleansing our past of sins” or “Slavery” or “secessionists.”
They are temper tantrums and a way to delegitimize to the legally elected president.
The King of Kings owned no slaves.
++++
Any Patriarchs or Kings in the Bible, who were not slave owners
150 years before the Muslims outlawed slavery.
Islam still practices slavery.
I’m pretty sure Jesus wasn’t a slave owner.
Aren’t mosques monuments to you know who?
But this is the religion of peace. Their slaves are blessed, it is okay their women are masked and mistreated, that they rape and kill unbelievers. Just repeat... the religion of peace.
Booker T. Washington's approach to the system he was born into, seems much more Biblical than that of some of the "Reverends" on the Left, today:
The word: “Slavery” comes from 8th century when the Muslims were legally able to own the Slav’s in Europe.
Worse than owning them—he captured free people and enslaved them.
muslims are still slavers.
And a rapist and a murderer, but the liberals are turning m*slims into a huge solid voting block, and will not let truth get in the way of that.
Was not he also a misogynist and a pedophile? Whithin the Democrat Party, ALL are resume enhancements.
Oh and MLK wrote that homosexuality was a “problem” someone could solve.
just sayin..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.