The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

When the legendary Gil Scott-Heron wrote the iconic "The Revolution Will Not be Televised" he did so as a statement specifically denouncing the bulk of what crony capitalism, government, the media and entertainment in general stood for: the denigration of values, morals and the corrosion of quality time and quality of life. For a modern day corporation seen largely as a looming monopoly to utilize the key anchor of that song, and that vision, as a call to action in a commercial announcing the merger of one entertainment giant by another, in order to further hook, engage, distract and consume the very life out of the consumers Gil Scott-Heron sought to educate and inspire - is a colossal corporate and marketing fail. Listen to the Gil Scott-Herons mind blowing wake up call, from 1971, watch the commercial and decide for yourself. 

Day 3 of Islam Video

Day 3 Video

Muslim Conductor Preaches to Orchestra

Muslim Conductor

President Seize Resources, Slaves

Executive Order 13603
National Defense Resources Preparedness

• Signed:   March 16, 2012
• Federal Register page and date: 77 FR 16651, March 22, 2012
• See: EO 11858, May 7, 1975; EO 12472, April 3, 1984; EO 12656, November 18, 1988

Dictator

Section 502 Slave Labor

502

Table of Contents

39

Black Identity

Gil Scott-Heron

The Music of Youth and Rebellion

Doors
Pink Floyd
Grateful Dead
Jefferson Airplane
Velvet Underground
Lou Reed
Bill Graham
Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young
Joni Mitchell

The Birth of the Feminist Era
Betty Friedan

Questions of Male Identity
Lance Loud

Deconstruction and Poststructuralism
Derrida

Imaging Islam

Slavery in Islam

You concede my central contention: "There [sic] were part of the customary laws of war in those times."

Mohammed owned, bought, and traded in young girls and blacks; Jesus did not. 

Stark was a long time professor of sociology and of comparative religion at the University of Washington now Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, co-director of the university's Institute for Studies of Religion, and founding editor of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. 

He is a qualified academic. His views on unrelated issues are irrelevant. I repeat: Eliade was the editor, not the author of the article cited. Ad hominem attacks on scholars do not advance your position. 

"Eliade's encyclopedia of religions is not considered a very good source on Islam by Muslim researchers."

Jews and Christians do not get to choose what is acceptable research according to their faith criteria and Muslims must submit to the same standards of non-sectarian, academic inquiry. 

You are reversing the onus: it is not for me to prove a negative, but to you to prove the contrary. Rodney Stark is a "cultural Christian" most critical of other cultures a who doesn't even accept the theory of evolution. Between the fascist Eliade and Stark, you have curious references.

A commonly accepted translation of Qu'ran 33:50 is:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee.

Giles Raymond DeMourot And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

That's the Yusuf Ali translation. It is about the spoils of war. There were part of the customary laws of war in those times. I gave you references to quotes in the Bible that don't differ in principle. These laws of war were those extant at the tile and had little to do with religion, except they were not challenged by religion -either one.

I never said non-Muslims should be excluded from the debate but you are doing the opposite: excluding Muslims from it, and bringing in commentators whose hostility to Islam is well-known. One is a fascist and Nazi collaborator who left France when placed under investigation and the other one, who teaches at Baylor University and now describes himself as an independent Christian, claims to be a rational thinker but his attitude to the theory of revolution rather puts this into question.

• Eliade is not a reference; he edited the Encyclopedia. The article cited was written by a non-sectarian scholar of Islam, not Eliade. 

  
  

  The problematic case of Bilal can be discussed but slavery for Mohammed included multiple slaves and trading according to a "serious" source, the Qur'an. 

  
  

  “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)

  
  

  In addition, serious scholars acknowledge Muhammed's slave ownership and slave trading. Rodney Stark argues that "the fundamental problem facing Muslim theologians vis-à-vis the morality of slavery is that Muhammad bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves: "For the Glory of God," p. 338, 2003, Princeton University Press.

  
  

  On the other hand, I grasp the considerable lengths to which sectarian Muslims need to scrub the primary sources of uncomfortable aspects--the owning of "little girls" and "blacks"--of Muhammed's slave holding and trading. 

  
  

  "Muslim researchers" alone do not get to judge what is scholarship. As Max Mueller observed: 'he who knows one knows none.' 

  
  

  If Christian researchers were supremacists then Liberty University, The Pontifical Institute, and BYU could do likewise. 

  
  

  What primary documents can you reference which demonstrate that Mohammed was not a slave master and trader?

  
  
  
  GProphet Mohammed's only slave who was freed, was Bilal. Bukhari contains many weak hadith as modern criticism has shown. 
  
  I can't prove a negative! There is no serious source that Mohammed was a slave trader!
  
  No Eliade's encyclopedia of religions is not considered a very good source on Islam by Muslim researchers. 
  
  There is for a new (2012 I believe) effort in Turkey led by Ali Bardakoglu and Mehmet Görmez to oublish a revised list of hadiths, including Bukhari's. 
  
  Hadiths like “Women are imperfect in intellect and religion", “The best of women are those who are like sheep,” “If a woman doesn’t satisfy her husband’s desires, she should choose herself a place in hell", “If a husband’s body is covered with pus and his wife licks it clean, she still wouldn’t have paid her dues", “Your prayer will be invalid if a donkey, black dog or a woman passes in front of you” have been easily found to be apocryphal.
  
  (continued)

  5h

• 

  Giles Raymond DeMourot (continued)
  
  Modern Muslim intellectuals have long argued that the hadiths should be revised, but this is the first time in recent history that a central Islamic authority -Diyanet- has taken the dramatic step of deciding to edit them. The media and intellectuals of Ankara and Istanbul largely welcomed the move, which the Turkish government supported. And although there were rumblings of discontent from ultraconservative commentators, they didn't amount to a protest.
  
  The hadiths were compiled two centuries after the Koran, which was transcribed during the prophet's lifetime and canonized right after his death in Medina in the 7th century. By the 9th century, people were constructing such strange stories from the prophet that scholars such as Muhammad al-Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj decided to evaluate and catalogue them. Focusing on the reliability of the chain of transmitters, these scholars created collections of sahih , or trustworthy, hadiths. 
  
  (continued)

  5h

• 

  Giles Raymond DeMourot (continued)
  
  However Bukhari and Ibn Al Hajjaj did not have at their disposal the modern tools of analysis. Mustafa Aykol wrote in the Washington Post that some modern Islamic scholars have felt increasingly uneasy about the inconsistencies and narrow-minded assertions in these collections. There are other hadiths that explain Muhammad's great respect for his wives, for example, and insist on the rights of women. The contradiction implies a need for revision. 
  
  In proposing to create its new standard collection, the Turkish Diyanet intends to look beyond the chain of transmitters to logic, consistency and common sense. In many ways, this is a revival of an early debate in Islamic jurisprudence between rival camps known as the adherents of the hadiths and the adherents of reason -- a debate that ended with the triumph of the former. 
  
  http://wapo.st/1VSFM9B
  
  (continued)

  5h

• 

  Giles Raymond DeMourot (continued)
  
  My late friend Mohammed Arkoun, an Algerian who taught and did research at the Sorbonne in Paris, and had worked with Fernand Braudel, also did work on hadiths which was of interest, including on Bukhari. He showed me for instance for Bukhari to have received the text of two hadith in two different cities at the date he indicated, he should have been able to travel on the Concorde.
  
  To return to Eliade, one of his most influential contributions to religious studies was his theory of Eternal Return, which holds that myths and rituals do not simply commemorate hierophanies (manifestation of the sacred), but, at least to the minds of the religious, actually participate in them. It is not considered as a rational theory.
  
  Eliade left France for Chicago in 1956 after having been placed under investigation for his pro-Nazi actitivities and his membership of Iron Guard during the war (which included writiing hostile pieces on Jews and Muslims). 
  
  (continued)

  5h

• 

  Giles Raymond DeMourot (continued)
  
  Before the war he had been arrested once on July 14, 1938 after a crackdown on the Iron Guard authorized by King Carol II. In 1942, Eliade authored a volume in praise of the Estado Novo, established in Portugal by António de Oliveira Salazar,claiming that "The Salazarian state, a Christian and totalitarian one, is first and foremost based on love". In autumn 1943, he traveled to occupied France, where he rejoined Emil Cioran, also meeting with scholar Georges Dumézil and the collaborationist writer Paul Morand. He was involved in intellectual collaboration with the Vichy regime.

  5

Eliade is not a reference; the Encyclopedia of Religion is a secondary source of contemporary scholarship which documents the veracity of Bukhari as a primary source.

The Quran and the reliable Hadiths are references which document Mohammed as a slave master.

What primary documents can you reference which demonstrate that Mohammed was not a slave trader?

• 

  Bukhari is a compendium of hadiths. Mircea Eliade would not be my reference. The fact of the matter is that Mohammed had a slave, Bilal, and freed him. He didn't abolish slavery, something that had to wait the 19th century in Europe, the US and Brazil, with an abundance of religious justification on both sides of the issue. Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia only in 1962.
  
  In the 1860s, Southern preachers defending slavery took the Bible literally. They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9). Christians who wanted to preserve slavery had the words of the Bible to back them up.

• 

  
  
  Historian James Howell Moorhead of Princeton Theological Seminary points out that other ministers drew on the Book of Revelation and suggested that a Northern victory might prepare the way for the Kingdom of God on earth. Still others preached that God would not allow the North to win until it ended slavery. The Battle Hymn of the Republic summed up such Union beliefs:
  
  "In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on."
  
  George Washington rightly observed: "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause." 
  
  (continued)

  2h

• 

  Giles Raymond DeMourot (continued)
  
  Peter Wood, emeritus professor of American history at Duke University, suggests that in revisiting the Civil War, we need to remember not only the preaching of white ministers from the North and the South, but also the perspective of African Americans, so absent during the Centennial. "In Frederick Douglass' world," says Wood, "devout black believers — and numerous white abolitionist allies, violent and non-violent — were quick to see slavery as a sin and a defilement of New Testament values that had to be rooted out."

  2

You do not need hundreds of quotes; it should be easy for you. You only need to produce one Quranic quote or reliable primary source exonerating the slave master Mohammed. 

"Recent opinion is inclined to see more hadith as sound, and also recognizes that the Hadith, whether 'true' or not, were a powerful formative influence in Islamic society. Scholars made many collections of 'sound' Hadith, and six of these came to have a kind of canonical status among Sunni Muslims; the earliest of the six where those of al-Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim (d. 875)." The Encyclopedia of Religion, Eliade, 10:145. 

Muhammed's "black slave" Bukhari 3:43:648
"Girl slave" Bukhari 3:47:765
"Slave girls" Bukhari 4:53:344
"Slave Midam" Bukhari 5:59:541
"Slave girl" Bukhari 6:60:274
"Slave" Bukhari 6:60:281
"A black slave" Bukhari 6:60:435
"Black slave of his" (Mohamed) Bukhari 7:62:119
"Prophet had received a few slave girls" Bukhari 7:64:274
"His (Muhammad) slave tailor" Bukhari 7:65:344-346


Bukhari's hadiths are supposed to be a reference, but modern critics have shown some of them are at best second hand. See for instance Bünyamin Erul in Turkey. With the passage of tile and modern historiographic tools one realizes that the proportion of weak hadiths is higher than previously thought.

Now we can both align hundred of quotes without progressing one inch. Christianity and Islam for a long time did not question slavery as it was part of society as existed then. Christianity turned against slavery earlier than did Islam, but that's rather easy to explain with the social-cultural and religious stagnation that Ottoman domination implied. There were also minor theologians trying to justify slavery before and until the end of the US civil war. 

"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship')."

Zad al-Ma'ad, pp. 114-116

Muhammad's Maid Slaves "are Salma Um Rafi', Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war."

Zad al-Ma'ad, pp. 114-116

So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself.

Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 116, See also: Ishaq:511

Narrated Al-Hasan: 'Amr bin Taghlib told us that Allah's Apostle got some property or some war prisoners and he distributed them in the above way (i.e. giving to some people to the exclusion of others) .

Sahih Bukhari 4:53:373

Narrated Jabir: A man manumitted a slave and he had no other property than that, so the Prophet cancelled the manumission (and sold the slave for him). No'aim bin Al-Nahham bought the slave from him. Sahih Bukhari 3:41:598

• 

  Mohammed had one slave, Bilal, which he freed. But he didn't call for the abolition of slavery, neither did Jesus. Among Muslims and Christians, some did condemn slavery. St Augustine is one. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles justified slavery. He believed that the universe had a natural structure that gave some men authority over others. He justified this by pointing out the hierarchical nature of heaven, where some angels were superior to others. Martin Luther did not condemn slavery. We can go on and on.

Mohammed was a slave master; Jesus was not.

You have conceded my premise; the seven Quranic texts and the slave practices of Mohammed can not be questioned.

I have no need for literalism.

I will interpret the Islamic and Christian practices of slavery in light of later knowledge as you suggest.

One of Master Muhammad's closest companions was Umar, who became the 2nd caliph two years after the Islamic leader died. Umar enslaved black Africans with a Baqt (treaty) that was unchallenged by Muslims for seven hundred years.

On the other hand, a later authoritative Christian leader after Jesus, Augustine, wrote in The City of God: "But by nature, as God first created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin" (Ch. 15, Book 19).

Interpreted in later practice just after their respective founders Christianity opposed slavery but Muslim leaders continued the slave holding precedent of Mohammed.

The Prophet freed his slave Bilal. A major proportion of the Hadith are "weak", and the Sunna is uncertain in some parts. Only the Qu'ran cannot be questioned, though it can be to a degree interpreted in the light of later knowledge. Beware of literalism. The reality is while neither Christianity nor Islam justified slavery, they initially accepted it as an institution of society. In the US South slavery was often justified with quotes from the Bible, while Abolitionists also quoted the Bible. The title of this thread, "Women slaughter is simply part of their religion", will be offensive to most Muslims including to moderate Islamists. The letter to AB Al-Baghdadi sates that "It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights."

Quran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee." 

Quran (23:5-6) - "who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess."

Quran (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

Quran (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good."A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

Quran (24:32) - "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves."

Quran (2:178) - "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female."

Quran (16:75) - "Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.' (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah's gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).

There are seven prescriptive Quranic verses describing how Muslims are to take, treat, and master their slaves to imitate Muhammed's example as a slave master. 

Jesus was not a slave master and Ephesians is a descriptive text of Greco-Roman society. 

In the Hadith and Sira there are of course nineteen more prescriptive passages for Islamic masters to follow and imitate Muhammed's example; in contrast, there are no Christian slaveholding texts for the centuries of patristic literature. 

No, neither does the Quran. Both Holy Books start from the premise that slavery exists, and give advice as to how to treat slaves. Prophet Mohammed freed his slave Bilal who remained his servant. As the letter to Al-Baghaddi says, "The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus." Not because the Quran said so. The Bible does not say either that slaves should be freed. Slavery had nothing to do with either Christinity but existed in the societies where religion was revealed.

I suggest you read Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:39-55, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Ephesians 6:5, Exodus 21:2-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-15, Jeremiah 34:14, Leviticus 25:44-47, Exodus 21:26-27. The Islamic State and its theories do not represent Islam, only some religious-political extremists.

I took your advice and read Ephesians 6:5.

Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ,

The verse does not advocate slavery: it tells Christians who are victimized as slaves, since slavery already exists as a pre-existing social condition, to ὑπακούετε (literally: you obey) obey their earthly masters.

In point of contrast, the Qur'an directs a Muslim to master "those whom you own as slaves."
This is not extreme behavior but it is a Quranic directive.

I made no reference to the Hebrew Scriptures thus the passages have no bearing on Ephesians.

The Christian bible does not authorize slavery: the Quran does. In Islam, no earthly authority trumps Allah. Do not confuse the foibles of human nature, slavery may potentially exist at all times by all peoples and religions; and, on the other hand, the Quranic admonition that slavery is justified. All religions and their subsequent institutions and practices are not the same. As a result, Christians such as Quakers are early abolitionists but Muslims persist long after the Enlightenment to create the Islamic State.

Giles Raymond DeMourot Certainly slavery existed in Islam (as in Christianity by the way), but the document I referred to and authored by the highest authorities in Sunni Islam says: "The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus."

Mā malakat aymānukum ("what your right hands possess", Arabic: ما ملكت أيمانکم‎‎) is a reference in the Qur'an to slaves.

Bernard Lewis translates ma malakat aymanukum as "those whom you own." Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates it as "those whom your right hands possess", as does M. H. Shakir. N. J. Dawood translates the phrase more idiomatically as "those whom you own as slaves."

Marco: That as nothing to do with Islam. The practices of the Islamic State are known for their barbarity. For the Islamic position from the point of view of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam, read "Open letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi":

_6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
_10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
_11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
_12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
_13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
_14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
_17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

Women Slaughter is Simply a Part of Their Religion