It does permit slavery. But only under very specific and limited circumstances, and the "slaves" are nothing more than slaves in name, but not in practice. They are not to be abused, captured into slavery, and are to be freed when they request their freedom. Now end the discussion.

"Absolute garbage. If getting manumitted is as easy as you describe (which is a lie, we both know that) then why was it that the slaves did not benefit from this clause? Was it in the small print?" I already gave you Quranic verses as well as Hadith's backing me up. If you choose to ignore it then so be it, but I cited my sources above and gave my rebuttals. If you want the evidences then look above. But I'm not gonna waste my time repeating myself on here.

I seen nothing here worthy of responding to. If I respond to Hobbesian, then I'm only repeating myself. I already gave my rebuttal, backed with facts and logic....and if this Islamophobe doesn't want to accept it, then so be it. There's no use in falling into the idiotic arguments posed by a man who registered on this forum solely to bash Islam. If he wanted to honestly research the truth, then he could have done so himself.

Khayr;973525 wrote: They have skillfully moved the debate to slavery. An Ad Misericodiam - an appeal to Emotion. E.g. Islam allows slavery. So therefor, the implementation of islamic law will make you a slave. How do you like that? So then, it makes sense. You don't want to be a slave - right? See how the argument is framed. P.S. The Pentagon has a huge initiative in engaging in cyber wars. These two new nomads appear to be agents of that anti-islam cyber war Initiative. They are trolls and should be banned. They definitely should be. There are massive cyber wars being waged against Islam on forums, chatrooms as well as blogs. But Alhamdulilah, the Muslims have provided their responses and completely disproved all of their arguments against Islam. BUT....and this is a major problem, our responses against their criticisms of Islam aren't organized in one, comprehensive site. And we should do that, as easy reference. And to prevent gullible, weak Muslims from being deceived by these ridiculous arguments

I don't understand why we are still having this discussion? All this is, is running around the same points again and again. As I said before, these people in this Thread would have us believe that "Islamic Slavery" is similar to the barbaric slavery practiced in the United States for 400 years. It is NOTHING like that. Muslims are even forbidden to beat their slaves: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657). We are forbidden to disrespect them, overburden them, make their lives uncomfortable, and if the slaves seek freedom, we must grant it to them. This is nothing at ALL like the slavery we're used to seeing on movies like Django and others. Furthermore, Islam forbids Muslims from taking on new slaves, unless the Muslims were on the battlefield and were fighting the enemy....and as a result of the Battle the Muslims took prisoners of war, then it would be permitted to keep them as slaves. Virtually every country in the world keeps war-prisoners, including the Western nations and Islam affirms that as well. Nowadays, in most Western nations...war prisoners are captured and then have to endure humiliating conditions in prison for indefinite periods of time. In Islam--especially during the time of the Prophet pbuh--war prisoners are captured on the battlefield and then live with their Masters in a setting of good treatment and safety, and are known as their "slaves". This HobbesianBrute would have us believe that Islam is a religion that is strictly dedicated to Theology and the private relationship between man and God. Islam is a complete system of life, and it addresses issues within ALL topics of life. In fact, Islam is a system which guaranteed the gradual abolishment of slavery within it's society. If it was obligatory in Islam to free your slaves, and if the expiation for many sins was to free a slave, then it would set about a chain of events which would lead to slavery's gradual abolishment. People would have us forget that Islam is a religion for ALL time, not just the 21st century. And it addresses issues which impact people for ALL time. So of course slavery was permitted under very narrow definitions, and these Islamophobic clowns are trying to conjure up images of the barbaric American-Style slavery which existed for 400 years, whereas Islam explicitly forbids this practice. And as for some Arab slave traders participating in the slave trade, I could easily dismiss it as these men were operating outside of Islam and were committing a major sin by enslaving these people. The Hadiths even say that anyone who captures a free man and sells him, will be disgraced on the Day of Judgement. And that it is a major sin in Islam. (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2227) So this barbaric practice of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was explicily forbidden in Islam. It is HARAM, it has nothing to do with Islam. And any of these insistences by these anti-Islamic clowns can't prove otherwise. There's no use in discussing the truth with someone who doesn't want to listen to it

If the Muslims in the West--hundreds of thousands of whom are well-educated and skilled--are deported to certain Muslim countries where they are free to work and practice their professions, then this will only help the Muslim World, and it will set us off on a trajectory where we could become fully industrialized and prosperous. It would be the opposite of a "brain drain" but this can only occur if the Muslims stick close to their way of life and fully practice their religion. This is similar to thousands of Japanese in the 1870's going to the West to study in their Universities, then going back to their country Japan to help build it. Within 30 years, Japan was powerful, wealthy and fully industrialized. Its a matter of time that we Muslims do the same thing

They would have us believe that Slavery in Islam means the kidnapping of millions of people and forcing them to work in awful conditions where they are abused and also forbidding them from seeking freedom. Islam definitely does not condone such practices and there are numerous sources from Islamic law which outline the treatment of "slaves" in Islam. The posts by Hobbes and AllYourBase paint a misleading picture. In Islam you are even commanded to free your slaves if they request to be freed. And the Prophet said in the Hadith's that your slaves should be treated as your brothers and deal with them on an equal basis. This is a detailed issue and there are volumes of books written on such a subject

These aren't real rebuttals. Your examples of mass-slavery occurring in some parts of Africa, are just examples of Arab Slave Traders looking to make a profit by imprisoning men, women and children and selling their price. When people think of slavery they picture the American Slave Trade where millions of Africans were kidnapped, Islam paints an entirely different picture and Islam links slavery ONLY to the acquirement of Prisoners of War after the battle is completed, similar to how the Americans and virtually every modern nation deals with war-prisoners. How in the hell did this discussion go from Somalias judicial system to slavery in Islam? And why are Hobbesian Brute and Allyourbases posts dedicated to bashing Islam? This is ridiculous and the Moderators shouldn't allow this constant derailing of threads to bashing Islam. All of your objections are responded to in numerous Muslim websites

Slavery in Islam only exists in the context of Jihaad and acquiring prisoners of war. So if the Muslim State wages war, then the POW's (prisoners of war) are then acquired as slaves. So Islam reformed society in the sense that there were multiple avenues to acquire slaves in ancient society.... But Islam reduced the avenues to acquire slaves to just one; having Prisoners of War after the battle is finished. Either way, this is a complex issue, but Islam certainly doesn't advocate going to random villages, capturing men, women and children, and then selling their price, which is what the American slave trade was infamous for. This Hadith by the Prophet says this: Sahih Bukhari Book 2 Number 29 "Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them." The Quran repeatedly tells the Believers to free their slaves, and it is also commanded to free your slaves if they request it, and write a contract guaranteeing their freedom (Surah 24:33) Either way, this is a detailed issue and is already addressed by numerous English-speaking Islamic scholars (Bilal Phillips) and others. Don't turn this forum into some Islamic Debate forum. Because every single post you made here is related to Islam and criticizing it thereof. Nothing else

Quran 4:135 "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah , even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted." Shariah Law--if applied correctly--would be perfect for Somalia! In fact it would be perfect for the entire Muslim World. It is a system which combines man's worldly interests with his spiritual interests. It maintains the unity of the family structure as well as providing a comprehensive framework for people in society to deal with each other. Shariah is the Way

Allyourbase;973275 wrote: Its funny you say this because Albert Einstein considered himself to be a Jew yet you come along and for the sake of conveniency remove him into the atheist column, a term he had never used. On the other hand you amalgamate the likes of Abdus Salam regardless of the fact that he is a follower of Ahmadiyya, a sect seen by majority of muslims as a non muslim, again for the advancement of your argument. The topic of discussion here is the contribution of Muslims to modern science (or lack of) as signified by the number of Nobel Prize winners, in relation of that of Jews, Christians, Atheists etc or Belarus (ha!). You could even take it along (the very interesting) route suggested by BlackFlash: Regardless of whether Einstein used that term or not, he clearly never believed in a God, he's said it before in his writings and interviews. And you completely avoid the point of whether this is an ethnic comparison or a religious comparison. Because if this was a religious comparison, then including Einstein and other self-proclaimed Atheists into the Jewish column is entirely misleading. Yes, Einstein comes from a Jewish background, but that's irrelevant since you're doing a religious comparison. Including an Ahmadiyyah Kaffir as a "Muslim" is also misleading, and I never argued otherwise.

The Chinese, Indians, and Black African Nobel Laureates number FAR LESS than the Jewish Nobel Laureates....even if you combine their numbers. Either way, the Jews being high-achievers is something that's already well-known, and you could easily use that point to bash South Americans, Africans, Indians, Chinese and others. Using that exclusively to bash Muslims shows you're not too bright, or you're just making these points out of pure malice.

I would really like these Islamophobes to start claiming that the Chinese are underachievers and dumb because the Jews, a group of only 13 million people, outnumber them in Nobel Prizes. But they won't admit that. Because they know their argument is shallow from the get-go. I'd also like to know how many of the "Jewish" Nobel Laureates are really Atheists. Most of the "Jewish" scientists, are in-fact outright Atheists, such as Albert Einstein and others. Would it be fair to describe them as "Jewish", then compare them to Muslims, even though these scientists don't even believe in God? So is this a religion comparison (Muslims and Jews), or is this an ethnic comparison? And if this was an ethnic comparison, then it's useless to discuss because Muslims aren't exactly an ethnicity. This entire thing is a misleading argument all-around. I assumed Tallabo would be smarter than that, but I was wrong

Allyourbase;973215 wrote: List of Chinese (a single country) Science Nobel Laureates: 1. Tsung-Dao Lee 2. Chen Ning Yang 3. Samuel C. C. Ting 4. Yuan T. Lee 5. Steven Chu 6. Daniel C. Tsui 7. Gao Xingjian 8. Roger Y. Tsien 9. Charles K. Kao List of Indian (a single country) Science Nobel Laureates: 1. Ronald Ross 2. C.V. Raman 3. Har Gobind Khorana 4. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 5. Amartya Sen 6. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan List of Muslim (60 states!) Science Nobel Laureates: 1. Ahmed Zewail A completely misleading comparison. First of all. there are about 4 or 5 Muslim Nobel Laureates. Second of all, your brackets suggesting Muslims control (60 states) yet China is only a "single country" is idiotic, dishonest, and you know it. There are 1.4 BILLION CHINESE. 1.4 BILLION. That's almost the same number of Muslims in this world. Why only a handful of Chinese Nobel Laureates? Are the Chinese dumb too? India has only SIX, and they have 1.1 billion people. Are the Indians dumb as well? Are you ready to state that the Jews are much smarter and better than the Chinese because they won more Nobel Prizes than the Chinese? What about the Africans? How many Black Africans won the Nobel Prize, and compare it to how many Jews won that prize. We both know very well that the Jews are disproportionately represented in the list of winners for this Prize, but to compare this to Muslim Nobel PrizeWinners and then suggest Muslims are the only group of people who aren't making a contribution is completely dishonest. You can do better than that.

This man would really have us believe that there are ONLY 2 groups of people in this world: Muslims and Jews As if everyone else doesn't exist. How many Nobel Prizes came out of the Congo? Or Zambia? Or Burkina Faso? When a country advances, and living standards rise as a result of economic development, then of course there's gonna be more Nobel Prizes coming out of that country....as the society is well-educated and they have the scientific tools necessary to make new discoveries. It isn't difficult to understand, but expecting Dawkins and his Atheist clowns to understand this is pointless. Sometimes common sense isn't so common.

Tallaabo;972754 wrote: Mr Dawkins has a point. Just compare the number of Jews who won this most prestigious of awards with that of the Muslim recipients. Population wise the Muslims are well over 1.5 billion strong whereas the Jews number about only 15 million or about the same size as the Somali population. Ala ceeb badanaa There are over 1.4 billion Chinese people living in this world, how many Chinese won the Nobel Prize? There are 1.1 billion Indians living, how many Indians won the Nobel Prize? There are over 1 billion Africans, how many of them won the Nobel Prize? What a ridiculous comparison. You obviously can't see for yourself that the vast majority of Nobel PrizeWinners come from Wealthy White Western nations, where they have advanced scientific methods and an advanced society. The vast majority of the world is severely lacking when it comes to Nobel Prizes, as only a few Chinese people won the Prize as well, despite the fact that there are MANY more Chinese people than there are Jews. Anyone who repeats such a sentence is trying to look for a reason--any reason--to mock the Muslim Ummah.

This government at Villa Somalia is incompetent to a level that I've never seen before. Elementary School Principals could do a better job of running Somalia than these group of losers

Brothers, please don't waste your time discussing this issue with these Kaffirs. It's obvious to everyone which issues are worth discussing and which issues aren't worth discussing at all. These pointless arguments serve no purpose at all, as it's well known that an All-Islamic State does not exist so all these examples of Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and all these other countries means absolutely nothing. There is no true Islamic State at all, but insha Allah we will see one in the future. We're fasting, there's no use in wasting these precious hours in frivolous debates with people who dislike Islam. All the answers to any objections they have on Islam can be found all over internet. The entire reason why I even engaged in such a debate was to clear up any misconceptions from the minds of Muslims. I have no intention of giving da'wah to these godless atheists and consider it a waste of time.

Nice reply. There were no new points and nothing worthy of being responded to. Nice job countering my evidences with your rhetoric

Your definitions of what's acceptable and whats not is warped to begin with, so spare me your personal opinion of why you think Jizyah is wrong. And your news stories have no relevance to this at all, as I can easily just say (and rightfully so) that no Muslim country truly practices Sharia Law, so your example of Iraq is not worth mentioning. Anyone remotely familiar with Islamic Law would say the same thing. Again, the tax is very light and poor people are exempt from paying it. And you keep mentioning that Non-Muslims are to be killed if they openly refuse to pay the Tax, as if you want us to ignore the very serious crime of tax evasion. And you completely ignored my example of the "Ridda Wars", where the Caliph Abu Bakr went to war against those Muslims who didn't pay their taxes. Its pointless discussing this very simple point with you and you seem to either be extremely slow or deliberately ignore what I've posted. And to dismiss my Link as something not credible despite the fact that there are numerous quotations from the Prophet himself, as well as the Sahaba regarding the treatment of Non-Muslims, and they all agree that the Non Muslim Dhimmis be treated with ease and gentleness. If you dismiss my evidences for no reason other than the fact that they don't fit in with your world view, then there's no use in debating with you. Your appeal to authority of Muslim writers is irrelevant, as in Islam the Prophets own word trumps that of any other Muslim. If the Prophet says one thing and a Muslim author says something else, then the Prophets word is to be taken. The Hadiths and the Prophets words agree with me, whereas you quote irrelevant news stories and quotes from Muslim authors. Pathetic. Finish this discussion, and having the last word doesn't mean anything Anyone who wants to learn more about this issue can visit http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_status_of_non_muslims_in_the_islamic_state

Did I not already give you evidence directly from the Hadiths that the Jizyah tax be light, that it be taken with gentleness and respect, and that the Non-Muslim Dhimmis be treated with courtesy? And did I not provide you with the link which explores the issue in even greater detail? What is the point of repeating the same points over and over? You can't some Muslim writers and then expect their words to hold more credibility than the words of the Prophet himself and the 4 Righteous Caliphs. It accomplishes nothing at all. Here is the link again: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_status_of_non_muslims_in_the_islamic_state And then you ask the question "Who are the Non-Muslims being protected from?"....a ****** question since the obvious purpose of any State and Military is to protect its citizens. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. Its like the Police Motto "To Serve and Protect", and the protection is from people who wish to do people harm. Not understanding such basic points is really shocking to me at the moment. And if you actually did state the facts then you wouldn't contradict yourself so thoroughly and then expect me to explain your point! You clearly contradicted yourself as you don't even know what the purpose of Jizyah is, how much should be charged, who should be charged Jizyah and how it should be taken. Back your assertions up, do not speculate and then expect us to understand your point. There are a huge number of Islamic resources going into the issue in detail and it is very clear that the Jizyah Tax is very reasonable and very humane. Any other points after this and I'm repeating myself so spare me the repetition

Hobbesian_Brute;970857 wrote: I don't know about artificially high rates but reconciling option 1 and 2 was a dilemma for the Muslims, their desire for steady revenue from the dhimmis clashed with their duty to convert non believers. that is why i touched on conversions being discouraged in some places lest the jizya revenue dry up. You know the Qura'an takes precedence over all the other sources right ? Here is what the ayah regarding Jizya says unambiguously; "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission , and feel themselves subdued ". . the bolded parts mean what they say, the rest is unimportant. We knew it was a revenue/extortion scheme, but don't lie, it has nothing to do with keeping the rights of dhimmis as they are accorded very little rights to begin with and treated as second class citizens in their own country. lastly why do you always end your writing with rants that have nothing to do with discussion at hand. stick to the topic. Again, if you want to educate yourself more about this topic, you should read the Hadiths supporting these Quranic verses, as well as the commentaries regarding it. You might also do yourself a favor and read the actual link that I posted. Regarding whether Non-Muslims should feel themselves subdued while paying Jizyah. This is just a term to emphasize the fact that the Non-Muslims who might have been hostile to the Muslim State previously, are now themselves subdued and willing to pay the tax. This is the same for all wars. I'm pretty sure the United States "subdued" Germany after 1945, but these terms are vague terms and you have no right to insert whatever meaning you like into them. In fact, Islamic scholars say regarding this verse: "This is groundless and the verse doesn't imply that. It is not related that the Prophet or the companions acted like that. The correct opinion regarding this verse is that the word "saghâr" means "acceptance" by non-Muslims of the structure of the Muslim right and their payment of Jizya. (Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume 1 p. 23-24). Once when Umar was on his way to Syria, he came across some Christian lepers at Jabia. He ordered the financial authorities to give them help from the Zakah funds and to provide for them. (Al-Baladhuri, Futuh Al-Buldan, p. 177) Either way, the Prophet and the 4 Righteous Caliphs all strove to protect the rights of their Non-Muslim subjects and set up a great structure in dealing with them and helping them prosper in the Islamic State, and I gave numerous examples of this. Muslims are even forbidden to backbite against Kafirs, and this further shows the exemplary nature of Islam. The rest of your post was pointless drivel with no substance and no facts. You pathetically attempted to reconcile 2 contradictory positions and now you're attempting to save face, instead of actual discussion. From the point of any rational person, this discussion is over. Take your Missionary points to another forum, because I've addressed everything I should have addressed.

Everything has to have a provided context. And again, I don't have the time to go into detail as I'm on my phone and at work. Visit the link I posted because every single thing I wanted to say should be inside that link. Either sincerely search for the truth or shut up. Don't get into discussions for the sake of discussions. Just discuss the issues whilst sincerely searching for the truth. The evidence is all in that link

This man has a ton of different claims with almost no real sources to back them up. I provided direct quotes from both the Prophet as well as the first 4 Caliphs who all ordered that the Jizyah Tax be light, that it be taken with respect, that the Non Muslims are free to practice their religion and prosper, that they aren't forced to accept Islam, that they won't be violated without having the protection of the Muslim Courts. But this man claims otherwise and doesn't back his assertions. Prove it, either prove it or back down. I already provided the link to all Muslims interested in this issue. But some of the Kafirs will always remain deaf, dumb and blind. Their hearts are sealed and they will never accept the truth. No use in discussions with some of them

Non Muslims prospered immensely under the Muslim State, unlike the Muslims who were slaughtered in Israel, Spain and India. We Muslims have a degree of tolerance and respect which no other culture possesses and this is a fact. Anyone who argues otherwise is not in touch with reality.