Support NeoGAF

[Metallix87]

Also, Religion is an ethnicity. Just like race or nationality.

No, this is just wrong, at least as far as we today see religion. To suggest that Islam is an ethnicity would suggest that all Muslims share the same culture and beliefs, which is hardly true, as we see today with ISIS.

How so? Because they say they are?

Are you suggesting they're not Muslims?

 

[daniels]

How so? Because they say they are?

Well since the big Mo did all these things and also ordered these things you can see why some people might mistake them islamic and if these people are extremists the reall "fun" starts to begin :X So in their eyes it is islamic because Mo is apperantly the perfect dude or something.

Also, Religion is an ethnicity. Just like race or nationality.

Wait what? ok f this you must be a troll

 

[Dongs Macabre]

How so? Because they say they are?

So they aren't Muslims because you say they aren't?

 

[MisterFalcon]

So they aren't Muslims because you say they aren't?

If they were muslims there would be something wrong with islam. Which there can't be. Therefore they are not muslims.

 

[rambis]

No, this is just wrong, at least as far as we today see religion. To suggest that Islam is an ethnicity would suggest that all Muslims share the same culture and beliefs, which is hardly true, as we see today with ISIS.



Are you suggesting they're not Muslims?

What do you mean like this? How who see's religion?

And no, because people are of a same ethnicity does not mean they share culture or beliefs. An ethnicity is a set of ethnic traits. Those traits can be racial, religious, national, cultural, lingual etc. Or combinations of those. People have multiple ethnicity's and there are alot of different groups.

 

[Duji]

If I were a Muslim, I would certainly be offended if someone said my religion treated women badly ... it's pretty clear that Muslims say Islam is a religion about love and respect etc etc so calling their faith names would count the same as calling them names....


Now the question if Islam is actually treating women like shit or not is whole other debate on its own, considering that what is taboo and 'not on' for Westerns is the reverse for others and vice-versa.

what is considered 'ok' and ethical for each person is a product of the stimuli and experiences and things he/she has learned based on where they grow up and the culture of said place.

For example, burping is considering rude in Western countries while it's considered a compliment in some Arab countries ( correct me if i'm wrong of course, but that's what I've heard).... same applies for almost everything even though treatment of women or other religions is a way more delicate subject than burping

Did you just compare the treatment of women to burping etiquette? I am now further convinced that arguments from cultural relativists are a complete joke.

You're trying way too hard to take what I say and run home here. I haven't said anything about criticizing religion or denying any other free speak about religion. I'm talking about a very specific scenario. Thats (

(a) one poster literally saying fuck a whole billion people group of people because a sub group of extremists decided to wreak havoc. Saying shit like its a "logical conclusion" or. "People are unreliable and petty and nobody can be trusted with religion."


(b) you sitting here and displaying a profound ignorance of what religion is.

)


Im a proud supporter of free speech, but I also realize sweeping generalizations about any major ethnicity is usually frowned upon and usually is piss poor taste.

a) He did not. He simply criticized the religion of Islam, not all Muslims -- there's a HUGE difference. He criticized a set of ideas. If one criticizes the fundamental set of ideas behind Communism is he "shitting on" all Communists? Nope.

b) It seems you don't even know what religion is because you said the following: "I also realize sweeping generalizations about any major ethnicity is usually frowned upon and usually is piss poor taste". "Muslim" is not a "major ethnicity". NO ONE here is even talking about ethnicity. Please.

 

[Duji]

You guys need more Islam-integration than anyone, so you'd see how unnecessarily hateful you are being.

How does one criticize the set of ideas in an ideology without you branding them us as 'hateful'? Or should we avoid criticism altogether?

 

[rambis]

So they aren't Muslims because you say they aren't?

No, because almost the whole of the muslim community says they aren't. People keep glossing over the fact that almost nobody has recognized ISIS. Perhaps they don't understand what that entails but ignorance is bliss I guess.

ISIS is a failed caliph.

 

[Metallix87]

What do you mean like this? How who see's religion?

And no, because people are of a same ethnicity does not mean they share culture or beliefs. An ethnicity is a set of ethnic traits. Those traits can be racial, religious, national, cultural, lingual etc. Or combinations of those. People have multiple ethnicity's and there are alot of different groups.

Today, we (the Western world) tend to identify one another based on shared regional origins, and religion is just a side-note to that.

And no, that is incorrect, since going by that argument, ethnicity can basically be a title and nothing more to someone. Let's define ethnic:

"of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition."

Going by this, if we are to assume religion is a standard qualifier, then ethnicity amounts to nothing, since religion is up to interpretation.

No, because almost the whole of the muslim community says they aren't. People keep glossing over the fact that almost nobody has recognized ISIS. Perhaps they don't understand what that entails but ignorance is bliss I guess.

ISIS is a failed caliph.

So how does this work, then? Is this essentially like being voted off the island? If everyone else who is Muslim considers you non-Muslim, then you are no longer a Muslim? Also, the "almost" is interesting, because it suggests that some percentage of the community DOES consider them to be Muslim, and thus they are Muslim by your definition, unless you THEN state that anyone who believes them to be Muslims are, themselves, no longer Muslim.

 

[Scoot McNairy]

If they were muslims there would be something wrong with islam. Which there can't be. Therefore they are not muslims.

I like this post.

Ultimately, if I wanted to defend Islam, here are the arguments I would make:

1. Attack anyone who criticises Islam (or anything to do with Islam, or even aligned tangentially to Islam), as being an Islamophobe. The reason this is such a great argument is because anything someone says in response can be stated as further proof of their islamophobia.

2. Attack anyone who criticises Islam as being a militant atheist, and how they're just on the opposite side of the same coin. This one works because it' simply so senseless this it can't be argued against using logic.

3. Repeatedly state that Islam means peace. If you say this enough times (and also use arguments one and two above when anyone says anything), eventually it will mean something and appear to an outsider as if it is a valid point.

Anyone have any more to add to the list?

 

[Nesotenso]

At least "Junior" reads all the relevant posts before he posts himself.

Also, those verse translations can be found all over the internet. Better to tackle the verses than the website they're on don't you think?

all your hadith quotes seem to go back to the same sort of sources.

 

[Skyzard]

How does one criticize the set of ideas in an ideology without you branding them us as 'hateful'? Or should we avoid criticism altogether?

Let me introduce you to a group of horrible people that rape villages, murder and sexually enslave women, who also claim to be very religious and want to establish holy laws based on that religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

Here's a clue.

When people talk about the bad things the Christians in Uganda do, they don't say it's because of Christianity, they say it's a bastardization of it. When some people talk about what a Muslim group does, they say it's because of Islam, not a bastardization.

 

[rambis]

Today, we (the Western world) tend to identify one another based on shared regional origins, and religion is just a side-note to that.

And no, that is incorrect, since going by that argument, ethnicity can basically be a title and nothing more to someone. Let's define ethnic:

"of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition."

Going by this, if we are to assume religion is a standard qualifier, then ethnicity amounts to nothing, since religion is up to interpretation.

Uh, I live in the western world.

ethnicity - ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association.

ethnic - pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like

So how does this work, then? Is this essentially like being voted off the island? If everyone else who is Muslim considers you non-Muslim, then you are no longer a Muslim? Also, the "almost" is interesting, because it suggests that some percentage of the community DOES consider them to be Muslim, and thus they are Muslim by your definition, unless you THEN state that anyone who believes them to be Muslims are, themselves, no longer Muslim.

They received support from jihadists. Which are the same radicals who cause most of the havoc in the Middle East now. Also its getting more and more apparent that you know nothing of Islam in the first place. I don't know what im arguing and trying to explain things for....

 

[Metallix87]

Uh, I live in the western world.

ethnicity - ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association.

ethnic - pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like

AGAIN, even the religion here isn't shared, because there are so many different interpretations of Islam. To call Islam an ethnicity is wrong. It's like saying Christianity is an ethnic group, despite all the many different versions of Christianity and the different personal beliefs associated with it.

They received support from jihadists. Which are the same radicals who cause most of the havoc in the Middle East now. Also its getting more and more apparent that you know nothing of Islam in the first place. I don't know what im arguing and trying to explain things for....

I know plenty about Islam, and I also know that you can't simply become a non-Muslim because a lot of people disagree with your views. The Quran is open to interpretation, and it so happens that a lot of people choose to gloss over / ignore the more radical and violent elements of it.

 

[Jimothy]

I believe that the ISIS is a horrible group that has nothing to do with Islam but I'd like to so more proof of this story than the Huffington Post and an Italian news paper. I don't see them allowing someone to keep a phone, especially someone they kidnapped. It's sounds to much like stories of Iraqi troops turning off babies life support during the first Gulf War.

This is exactly what this article reminded me of. ISIS is just the boogeyman of the week. All this shit coming out at once about their barbaric deeds (with minimal legit sources) is getting farcical.

 

[Duji]

Let me introduce you to a group of horrible people that rape villages, murder and sexually enslave women, who also claim to be very religious and want to establish holy laws based on that religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

You completely failed to answer the question.

 

[Skyzard]

You completely failed to answer the question.

No I didn't, you failed to understand the answer even when I made it easier for you to relate.

You can discuss hateful passages while showing respect to the followers as most don't interpret or follow the mentioned passages in any way.

The same way people don't blame Christianity for a group that is unfortunately similar to ISIS. Because they can relate and understand that most normal Christians don't allow sex slaves, even though it discusses them in holy books and the group says they are religious.

Imagine that. If Christianity was blamed for LRA actions. No one does that. But US media and posters here have done it with Islam and its followers followers.

Out of ignorance? Out of being pathetic? Who knows.

 

[Zoned]

I am feeling very sad for the women who are being treated like this.

Burn in hell bastards.

 

[beast786]

No I didn't, you failed to understand the answer even when I made it easier for you to relate.

You can discuss hateful passages while showing respect to the followers as most don't interpret or follow the mentioned passages in any way.

The same way people don't blame Christianity for a group that is unfortunately similar to ISIS. Because they can relate and understand that most normal Christians don't allow sex slaves, even though it discusses them in holy books and the group says they are religious.

Imagine that. If Christianity was blamed for LRA actions. No one does that. But US media and posters here have done it with Islam and its followers followers.

Out of ignorance? Out of being pathetic? Who knows.

Normal christian also don't believe the bible is a word of god, it's inspired by god. Normal muslim believe the quran is word of god. Hence , the verse have very different authority between Christian and muslim. Your example is not equivalent.

Of course there is media bias . Who bombed and ran two planes in New York City? So obviously that group will get more attention.

None what you posted states why ISIS is not islamic inspired muslim group that is non islamic

 

[Scoot McNairy]

The point about the Lord's Resistance Army is interesting.

Maybe we don't blame Christianity because the LRA has not become a global phenomenon in the way that Islamic Terrorism has since the mid nineties (with, say, loosely affiliated LRA groups popping up in every country and making headway into creating armies of child sex-slaves/child-soldiers everywhere from Seattle to Scotland). If

But I think the main problem with linking the LRA to Christianity is that they don't look like 'Christians.
'
So lets think about what it was the made islamic extremism explode in the west. The media will spew a lot of bullshit about this, but ultimately its fairly clear that it exploded out of

1. crushing jealously of western freedoms, hurt teenage ego's wondering why Westerners get to go out clubbing and make lots of money and have great social lives and hang out with hot women, whilst they have to reign in their desires and pray five times a day and they can't get involved in western social drinking/foodie cultures, and girls ignored them. The line between jealously and hatred is very thin, and all it takes to spark things off is...

2. an avenue to be righteously violent. And that is what the Koran provides. T he Koran is n islamic terrorist to distinguish himself from, say, Ted Bundy. Remember, everyone has a violent streak and can enjoy the thrill of violence, but we keep it locked away because society doesn't permit us to be violent unless it is justified (i.e. attacking in self-defence). The Koran provides another route, and allows people to plan and be violent in a way which is acceptable in their social circle.

 

[Skyzard]

Oh wow.

 

[Duji]

You can discuss hateful passages while showing respect to the followers as most don't interpret or follow the mentioned passages in any way.

I feel like the people you've called out for being 'hateful' have done that. I don't recall any instances of them bashing all Muslims.

The same way people don't blame Christianity for a group that is unfortunately similar to ISIS. Because they can relate and understand that most normal Christians don't allow sex slaves, even though it discusses them in holy books and the group says they are religious.

Imagine that. If Christianity was blamed for LRA actions. No one does that. But US media and posters here have done it with Islam and its followers followers.

Out of ignorance? Out of being pathetic? Who knows.

The LRA's ideology is undoubtedly a load of shit. Oh wait, I suppose by saying that I'm being 'hateful'. Whether or not we can link this to Christianity is another debate and it isn't at all clear right now. The LRA offering a plausible version of the Christian faith based on scriptural references to the Bible and instances where the "true followers" of the past acted in similar ways would be a good start.

However, if one looks at what the IS is doing and listens the arguments they make in various of their videos (I recommend everyone watch their self-produced 20 minute documentary on the Sharia courts in Raqqa) you see that some of these guys are true Divine command theorists. They cite Qur'an and Hadith for every punishment they carry out. Beheading sorcerers and whipping fornicators aren't things they came up with on their own. All one needs is a simple passing acquaintance with Islamic rulership in the past (even under Muhammad) to know that things like sorcery and fornication were viewed as crimes worthy of punishment. The IS simply takes these pronouncements more seriously than a vast majority of Muslims today. They're doing their best to follow the rules to a tee.

Do most Muslims act this way? Nope. Thankfully many Muslims live in countries who no longer subscribe to a 100% orthodox version of Islam. Most Muslims would flat out admit this fact too. Does this in any way tell us whether or not the IS "aren't real Muslims"? Not one bit.

The problem is that there a set of ideas that a group of people recognize as "God's commands". Some of these commands cause needless human suffering. Now obviously these commands are open to interpretation but often times commandments are very clear. Subscribing to the Divine command theory really is the root of the problem in this case. Avoiding it altogether also instantly fixes the trivial problem of knowing which interpretation is the right one.

 

[Sayah]

On Slavery


Islam did not initiate slavery but did permit it. It was already a common practice in 7th Century Arabia and was deeply embedded practice in society. From my perspective, at least, Islam addressed a lot of societal issues through gradual elimination rather than an outright ban.

Please also use non-biased and peer-reviewed sources when posting something addressing the issue from a historical perspective. It's a huge disservice to copy/paste religionofpeace. com information. Why post that when you have something like the BBC covering these topics?

Anyway, the end goal seems to be the elimination of slavery.

Firstly, the legality of slavery today (source: from above linked article):

While Islamic law does allow slavery under certain conditions, it's almost inconceivable that those conditions could ever occur in today's world, and so slavery is effectively illegal in modern Islam. Muslim countries also use secular law to prohibit slavery.

News stories do continue to report occasional instances of slavery in a few Muslim countries, but these are usually denied by the authorities concerned.

On Treatment of Slaves:

Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 2, Number 30:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur:

At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. 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.' "

On Slaves requesting freedom:

Quran 24:33 (Pickthall Translation)
And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, Lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.

Freeing Slaves:

Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari:

The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)."

Muslim: Book 015, Number 4079:

Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him (without any serious fault), then expiation for it is that he should set him free.

Quran 5:89
Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] - then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be grateful.

On Racism:
From: The Last Sermon

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white- except by piety and good action.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

The thing is, it's a lot about whether or not the slave girl wish, but it is in the hands of the master to determine what her wishes are - that's the danger with this, and many other commandments.

If the Quran outright had stated "Slave girls are not permitted to enter prostitution ot enter sexual relations, if they do, their master shall suffer the wrath of Allah" then you wouldn't have the excuses (which the ISIS soldiers surely make) of "It was what she desired, and I complied with her wishes."

Flawed book, should not be used as a moral guide.

 

[lazygecko]

It doesn't matter what some book says. People will always find some way to rationalize what they're doing.

 

[Dyno]

How so? Because they say they are?

Help us understand. I have three questions.

First: what must one do to become Muslim?

It leads to the second question: Do you think most ISIS members were raised as Muslims?

Third question: How does a person stop being a Muslim? What must they do? If a person rapes and kills do they automatically stop being a Muslim? I understand that this isn't modern Islamic behaviour but are they straight-up booted from the faith?

In Christainity, for example, a person who rapes and kills isn't following the faith but they can still identify as Christian and even attend services in prison.

 

[Dyno]

Let me introduce you to a group of horrible people that rape villages, murder and sexually enslave women, who also claim to be very religious and want to establish holy laws based on that religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

See in my mind the LRA are Christians. They are horrible, awful people who sew destruction and misery. They also pray to God and swear on the Bible. Christian.

In the same way of course ISIS is Islamic. Twisted and awful fiends, but also Muslims. I do not agree with Bill Mahar, I don't think Islam is particularly worse than other religions. It's simply a matter of timing. If they had Internet back when the Spanish Inquisition was going on then we would be talking about Christianity instead.

 

[Nitsuj23]

that's always the issue: the second you give divine power to any work of man, people are going to interpret it in such horrible ways. And their interpretation, sadly, cannot be said to inherently be any more or less right than anyone else's when scriptures exist that endorse slavery (or fail to say it's wrong) and speak negatively of homosexuals and more. Even as it repulses the stomach, one must acknowledge we will always be on this treadmill until the day we still giving divine authority to such works

I'm quoting this so I have something to go back to when trying to articulate myself. This is exactly how I feel.

 

[IHaveIce]

Can we finally get in there with a super taskforce that just takes no captives.
Kill this "human" scum

 

[AquaMotley]

It's a huge disservice to copy/paste religionofpeace. com information. Why post that when you have something like the BBC covering these topics?

The verses I posted from that site (and available on others) are the same as you'll find them on the online Qu'ran sites. But let us stop fixate on the source and deal with the verses themselves.

And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, Lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.

I've bolded the sentence that for me is the highlight and pretty much counters your bolded part in a significant way. You bolded the part where it may seem as if there is some dignity and lawful structure in the whole forced slave/concubine and master relationship.
It basically says don't make whores out of your slaves, but if you rape them Allah will be forgiving to the slave(girl). As if she's in the wrong. Well at least that means she doesn't have to be stoned to death. Lucky girl.

In response to several quotes of yours concerning the freeing of slaves I have one to add about Muhammed's feeling about one such occasion.

Volume 3, Book 47, Number 765 :
"The freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."

Source

For every verse you post that should convince me that Islam was pretty progressive in slave treatment etc I can post another verse that discards them, or gives loopholes, or simply doesn't set up any consequences for abuse. A big pile of paradoxes.

The BBC article states the following about forced concubinage in the Islamic world:

The nature of concubinage

Writers disagree over the nature of concubinage and the harem:

Some argue that it was seriously wrong in that
-it was just slavery
-it breached human rights
-it exploited women
-women could be bought and sold, or given as gifts
-it involved compulsory non-consensual sex - which would nowadays be called 'rape'
-it reinforced male power in the culture

Others say that it was relatively benign, because
-it gave female slaves a relatively easy existence
-it gave female slaves a chance to rise socially
-it gave female slaves a chance to gain power
-it gave female slaves a chance to gain their freedom

A balanced view might be to say that sexual slavery in this context was a very bad thing, but that it was possible for some of the more fortunate victims to gain benefits that provided some degree of compensation.

Relatively benign in that you were a forced, exclusive slave-whore with upward mobility ... if you were lucky.

Says it all doesn't it?

 

[Scoot McNairy]

It doesn't matter what some book says. People will always find some way to rationalize what they're doing.

Why is it that Sikhs have never taken sex slaves? Because there is no verse in the Guru Granth Sahib discussing raping your slave women, that's why. If Sikhs ever have taken sex slaves, it's been wholly unrelated to their religion - and thats why its never caught on, because society has always considered you as a rapist. What the Koran does is provide external societal justification for carrying out the violent fantasies, so that you're not a rapist per se, but merely a servant of god.

Also, that BBC article makes me sick. Why the fuck is it trying to take a balanced view on raping sex slaves? Here are some more positives of rape for the BBC website:

" - Well respected Muslim scholars say that taking the wives of enemy soldiers as slaves was a good thing, as it allowed the soldiers to fulfil various fantasies which they otherwise would not be able to, including rough sex, violent sex, raping big titted women, small titted women, raping children, mature women, skinny women, large women, watersports, bukkake, anal, deep throat, rimming, and other activities."

"It is generally agreed that having a room full of sex slaves improved the morale of the soldiers, as although the room was full of crying slaves and all a bit 12 Years, it did mean that whenever someone were horny they could fuck a child in front of her mother, so there was that. It also made it quite kinky when they told the child mid-coitus how fun it was when they had beheaded her father and brothers on taking the village"

" - Muslim scholars agree that one of the positives also was that it harmonised the family life of soldiers, as whenever they were angry about something, they could rape one of the ladies held in their sex dungeon whilst she begged that they kill them."

 

[ICKE]

Why is it that our media is doing its job now that these death cult members are abusing young girls from ethnic minority groups but they are nowhere to be seen regarding institutionalized slavery in the Middle-East. We all know what goes on behind the curtains in Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Dubai. I know a person who worked there for some time and was sexually abused, because that is just the normal practice - imagine what happens to young females who are taken from other countries and just disappear.

These medieval practices are absolutely vile but it just seems like they are used as a tool once again, just like the plight of women was constantly in the headlines before the war of Afghanistan.

This region is really doing my head in. I dislike the antiquated practices and how there is no conception of compromise and after every election the result is "if I win I get to beat you up". Even more so when a lot of people have access to information and carry smart phones but still cling to these sentiments.

 

[agrajag]

Christianity gets plenty of blame for various things. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades always get brought up in arguments about Christianity.

 

[MisterFalcon]

There are days in which ISIS kills more people then the Spanish Inquisition did in 160 years.

 

[kneePat]

There are days in which ISIS kills more people then the Spanish Inquisition did in 160 years.

McNamara fallacy?

 

[Jindrax]

...
When are we just going to fight these monsters in an all out total war...

 

[ICKE]

UK female jihadists run ISIS sex-slave brothels

Startling details have surfaced of British female jihadists forcing captured Iraqi women into sexual slavery at brothels run by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), British media reported Thursday.

The Brothels, operated by the female “police force” called the al-Khanssaa Brigade, have been set up for the use of ISIS militants, according to the Daily Mirror.

Thousands of Iraqi women have already been forced into sex slavery at the brothels , with as many as 3,000 women and girls been taken captive from the Yazidi tribe in Iraq over the course of the militants’ offensive across the region, according to the daily.

FULL STORY

This is beyond messed up.