Peaceful Islam?

[Lonestar]

Uh....the Civil War?

[Imran Siddiqui]

OK, Imran, what were the "other" factors that ended slavery.

Already told you over and over. For someone that tells me to read things, you should really read yourself.

The tide turned against slavery after the Enlightenment, when humanists believed all men (and women) were equal and thus slavery was a blight on the world. Secular humanists like Voltaire were very big in convincing the masses that slavery should be abolished.

[Wernazuma III]

Wow, this is successful threadjacking! From "peaceful Islam" to "Christianity and Slavery". Why do most threads about Islam turn into threads about Christianity?

[Kropotkin]

Possibly because few around here actually knows anything about islam but a lot about christianity.

[Ned]

Wernazuma, many defenders of Islam always try to divert attention. However, there are others who are truly interested in discussing Islam. You and GePap included.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

OK, Imran, what were the "other" factors that ended slavery.

Already told you over and over. For someone that tells me to read things, you should really read yourself.

The tide turned against slavery after the Enlightenment, when humanists believed all men (and women) were equal and thus slavery was a blight on the world. Secular humanists like Voltaire were very big in convincing the masses that slavery should be abolished.

In England Rev. Wesley was an early opponent to slavery. In the later part of the 18th century and the early part of the 19th century the leaders of the anti-slavery movement were largely clergy of the new Methodist movement and a number of evangelizing Anglicans. In the US a varieyt of northern clergymen took up the cause in the 19th century. Neither Harriet Beecher Stowe nor Fredrick Douglas can hardly be called atheists. You really need to do some research before you make such sweeping, inaccurate statements.

In France the Jacobin controlled National Assembly outlawed slavery, but after the terror was put down the Directorate reinstituted it. So much for your enlightenment.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
GePap, exactly.

While you can point to Churchmen that disagreed with slavery, you can easily point to those that backed it. The change in slavery came as a result of other factors, not the Church. To say slavery ended because of the Church is ludicrous.

The real question is who led the movements to end slavery in each nation that abolished it. In France the secular Jacobins abolished it, then the equally secular Directorate re-established it. I believe that it was Loiuse Phillipe who finally abolished slavery permanently following the English lead in the 1830s.

In England the horrors of the French Revolution ended for quite a while the influence of the "enlightenment". Instead the movement against slavery that culminated in legislative abolition in 1832 was led largely by clergymen.

In the US the influence of evangelists is also incontrovertable. Yes, the Freemasons also advocated abolition, but their influence was virtually eradicated by scandals in the 1830s.

Spain and Portugal abolished slavery in their colonies in the 1880s largely due to external pressure from Britain, the US and others. Slavery in their European holdings had been abolished in the 18th century.

Going back even further I might point out that the Roman empire abolished slavery in the 5th century due to the influence of Christianity. Unfortunately the northern Germans re-introduced slavery in the 10th and 11th centuries. For awhile many areas of Europe existed under dual law, one for the Germans, who kept their slaves and one for the original inhabitants. Eventually a compromise which included the watered down form of slavery known as serfdom was introduced. Contact with muslims in the 16th century re-introduced full fledged slavery. Slavery was abolished again in Europe in the 18th century and in European colonies in the 19th century. Meanwhile in the Islamic world slavery flourished essentially right up to the era of the colonialism in Africa and Asia, or right up to the end of WWI. In the absence of European occupation I am utterly cetain that slavery would still be fluorishing in those areas.

[Kropotkin]

Obviously no one gives a rats ass about my explanation, the economic incentives. Oh well.

In the absence of European occupation I am utterly cetain that slavery would still be fluorishing in those areas.

IS, or isn't, this just a matter of semantics? There was no real need for formal slavery as it de facto still was slavery. With superior weapons and administration it wasn't necissary. After all, who here dares to claim that there wasn't any forms of slavery in Belgian Congo?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Going back even further I might point out that the Roman empire abolished slavery in the 5th century due to the influence of Christianity. Unfortunately the northern Germans re-introduced slavery in the 10th and 11th centuries.

I still try not to get into this too much, but what the hell are you talking about? No law in the Roman Empire EVER abolished slavery.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


I still try not to get into this too much, but what the hell are you talking about? No law in the Roman Empire EVER abolished slavery.

May I be so bold as to conjecture.

There was a law -- passed by Diocletion, that tied the farmer to his land but also prevented anyone from displacing him from it. These farmers eventually because serfs.

Over time, farm-worker slavery was completely abandoned in favor of the new system. However, when the Goths took over the governence of Italy at the request of the Eastern Empire, they passed a law repealing Diolectians law - hence freeing the serfs.

[Saint Marcus]

Agreed.

now we're getting somewhere

The problem seems to be those who read the Bible or the Koran "literally." In the context of the Roman Empire, the Church accepted slavery. Later it condemned it.

Just as an asside, I have severe problems with Christian sects who take the Bible literally and who ignore all the wisdom of two millenia of development since.

As to the OBL and his merry band of terrorists, it seems that they might be reading the Koran literally. If so, they are like the Christian fundamentalists who ignore the doctrinal developments made over the centuries.

The Taliban are exactly like Christian fundies. Al Qaeda are a bit harder to pinpoint. I don't think Al Qaeda is a religious organisation per se, there are a number of non-religious sides to Bin Laden and his merry bunch. (one small issue:. The Taliban considered shaving a sin. Yet, Al Qaeda instructs their agents to be clean shaven abroad in their training manual.)

But as I am somewhat ignorant of the development of Islam, I am at this point only making observations and asking questions.

In the Middle Ages, Islam was enlightened, and Christianity brutal. The Islamic world was ahead in science, and their society was a lot more tolerant towards people with different believes than the Christians were. Just compare Islamic rule of the Holy Land with Christian rule (during the crusades).

Anno 2002, the situation is reversed. But as can be seen from history, things weren't always this bad with Islam, and things weren't always this good with Christianity. In just about any war where religion plays a part, be it a Crusade or a Jihad, that religion is usually a pretext or vehicle of the fighting side(s).

Islam in itself isn't any worse, or better, than Christianity. It's people that screw it up.

[Saint Marcus]

When a religion is "universal," its mixture has led to conquest for the very purpose of spreading the religion.

interesting that you use the word universal. Check your dictionary for the meaning of the word catholic.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned
Wernazuma, many defenders of Islam always try to divert attention. However, there are others who are truly interested in discussing Islam. You and GePap included.

Arguing whether Islam is peaceful or not is always relative. Peaceful compared to what? It automatically involves all other religions because without them you have no relative scale. If you are interesting in learning about Islam why not start a thread asking what statements in the Koran support a peaceful Islam, what statements support a violent Islam? If the question were phrased that way you would be justified in asking that other religions weren't brought up. I would also be quite interested in a thread like this.

[Ned]

Gsmoove, I have been asking, repeatedly and for months, why Islam turned away from conquest. I don't know the exact date, but the initial conquests conducted by Arabs seemed to run out of steam in the mid 700's. Perhaps they, like the Romans, simply became overextended and they had their own Augustus/Hadrian.

[Kropotkin]

They where defeated at Tours and Poitiers in 732 (as you probably know), a conventional explanation, besides better opposition, is as far as I know that there where some internal reasons for discontent. Social and economic troubles where caused by the fact that conqured peoples got the same status as arabs after convertion, uprisisings and power struggles followed.