Jow Forums gets a PhD in Islam. Lesson 8: Slavery in islam

To be fair, this hadith (which apologists love to quote) sounds remarkably kind towards slaves:

>«[Muhammad said:] Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one's brethren under one's control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job).» [Bukhari 2545: sunnah.com/bukhari/49/29]

And yet, the treatment slaves received from their muslim masters was (and still is) very often inhumane, among castration, rapes, lashings, constant hard work, etc. Why is that?

For starters, the hadith doesn't specify if ALL slaves are entitled to that gentle treatment, or if it should be reserved to the muslim ones. But it does say that slaves are muslims' "brethren", and islamic scriptures are very clear in this regard: only other muslims are muslims' brethren. Never infidels. All the opposite, infidels are described in the quran as «the worst beasts in Allah's sight» (8:55), while muslims are His «viceroys of the earth» (6:165) and are repeatedly commanded to not fraternize with unbelievers (quran 3:28, 3:118 and 4:144; also the sahih hadith by Abu Dawud n. 2787), so it's only natural that infidel slaves wouldn't get treated as well as muslim ones.

In this hadith, Muhammad reiterates the principle that muslim lives are worth more than unbeliever ones by trading two infidel (black) slaves for a muslim slave:

>«There came a SLAVE and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (pbuh) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (pbuh) said: Sell him to me. And HE BOUGHT HIM FOR TWO BLACK SLAVES, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).» [Sahih Muslim 1602: sunnah.com/muslim/22/152]

Attached: arab slave raid in East Africa in 1888.jpg (250x155, 13K)

A slave's life is worth less than the life of a free muslim:

>«A FREE MAN IS NOT KILLED FOR A SLAVE nor a Muslim for a non-Muslim because the higher is not killed for the lower.» (Ibn Abi Zayd, “Al-Risala”, 37.1a. muwatta.com/ebooks/english/risala_ibn_abi_zayd.pdf)

But an infidel, even if free, is killed in retaliation for the murder of a slave, if the slave was a muslim:

>«A free Muslim is not killed for a slave. A FREE NON-MUSLIM IS KILLED FOR A MUSLIM SLAVE.» (Al-Risala, 37.10e)

Paragraph 37.16, titled "Killing a Slave", tackles the homonym issue thus:

>«If a Muslim kills a slave, he owes his price from his own property, WHETHER IT IS ACCIDENTAL OR DELIBERATE, unless he kills him for financial gain. Then he is executed for Allah's right.»

So unless he kills a slave "for financial gain", maybe in the course of a robbery, the muslim just has to pay back to the owner the pecuniary worth of the slave. Even if he killed him intentionally, and for whatever reason: jealousy, boredom, religious fervor... There is no mention of “invalid reasons” for killing a slave: if you want to kill one, just do it and then pay back their owner. After all, this is what you do when you damage someone's property.
(Note: this is the view of the Maliki, Hanbali and Shafi schools of law. The Hanafi is the only one that disagrees and executes the free man who deliberately kills a slave for futile reasons.)

Secondarily, at a closer look, that apparently enlightened hadith simply gives three very practical orders:
>1) feed your slaves well,
>2) clothe them properly,
>3) don't overexert them.
In other words, keep them healthy and capable of being exploited. Slaves are tools, and tools need proper maintenance.
Claiming this hadith proves that slaves in islam had almost the same rights as free men is a wild interpretation at best. As we've seen, slave lives are explicitly described as being inferior to free men's. And slave INFIDEL lives, even more so.

Attached: slave market in Zanzibar.jpg (250x244, 16K)

Here's a summary of the actual rights of slaves under islam:

>«Although the law required owners to treat slaves well and provide medical treatment, a slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), had no right to property, could marry only with permission of their owner, and was considered to be a chattel, that is the (moveable) property, of the slave owner.
>«Conversion to Islam did not automatically give a slave freedom nor did it confer freedom to their children. Whilst highly educated slaves and those in the military did win their freedom, those used for basic duties rarely achieved freedom. In addition, the recorded mortality rate was high -- this was still significant even as late as the nineteenth century»
("The Role of Islam in African Slavery", thoughtco.com/the-role-of-islam-in-african-slavery-44532 Also see: Bernard Lewis, "Race and Slavery in the Middle East", Oxford Univ Press, 1994. sourcebooks.fordham.edu/med/lewis1.asp)

So once again we have a subjugated class of people at the complete mercy of their masters, since they can't seek justice in court (unless the master refuses to feed them, clothe them and give them medical care), can't own property, and are considered movable property themselves. They can't decide which jobs to perform and for how many hours, can't decide where to live, can't avoid being sold to anyone at any time, can't marry freely, and must allow their master to have sex with them whenever he wants. (Note: of course muslim women are forbidden to have sex with slaves.)
Also, I can't stress this enough, their lives are established as of inferior value and, according to most schools, can be taken at any time by any free muslim willing to repay the owner.

Not exactly the sweet life muslims try to paint.

(Muslims hammer on the fact that islamic slavery is kinder because it “has rules”. Don't they know western slavery also had slave codes?)

Attached: islamic slaves rescued by the british navy.jpg (576x422, 115K)

Slaves had it so good in islam's loving embrace that they started the greatest slave rebellion in history: the Zanj Rebellion, a desperate war which lasted 14 years and claimed tens of thousands of lives, before the muslims managed to drown it in blood. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion)

The only advantage slaves have in islam is that, being considered inferior beings, they have a lessened responsibility for their actions, so for some crimes they receive half the penalty (half the lashes for pre-marital relations, for instance). Apart from this bittersweet perk, there really is no upside in being a slave.

But even if islam really did treat slaves better than any other slave-driving culture in history, muslims don't seem to get one simple fact. Muslim readers, allow me to explain in the simplest possible terms:
>A system which allows people to OWN other people is simply not acceptable to the western mentality, and never will be, no matter how you try to doll it up.
Your attempts to make islamic slavery appear “nice” are not only sterile, but even self-defeating. Slavery in the West has become a taboo, a proposition that simply cannot be entertained even for fun. Islam would have a much greater chance of being accepted in the West if it rejected slavery outright, but here it's held back by the usual handicap (no, not the inbreeding): ISLAM CANNOT BE MODERNIZED.

As we've seen in the 5th lesson, quran and sahih hadiths can't ever be modified. Any innovation in religious matters is “bid'ah”: always negative and punishable by death.
Since, as we've seen, Allah and Muhammad have both made it unequivocally clear that slavery is cool, modern muslims have no choice but to desperately defend it and try to sell it to a western audience conditioned since the cradle to recoil in horror at the mere idea of enslaving someone for any reason. But no amount of shameless historical revisionism will make this particular shit cake palatable to a western mouth.

Attached: Gerome_Achat_d'une_esclave_1857.jpg (1000x1522, 227K)

Of course, the fact that islamic scholars can't reject slavery doesn't mean that some of them can't PRETEND to reject it in order to fool infidels. As we've seen in the first lesson on Taqiyya, muslims are allowed to lie when their goal is allowed, and OBLIGED to lie when their goal is obligatory. And spreading islam «until the religion is only for Allah» (8:39) is perhaps the most obligatory goal there is.

This might be why the entire section k32 of "Reliance of the Traveller", which deals with slavery and regulates the practice, WAS LEFT UNTRANSLATED in the english edition.
Instead of translating how slaves should be acquired and treated according to islam, the (muslim) translator simply wrote an apologist dissertation (pic related) where he points out that slavery wasn't invented by islam, that islam really wanted to abolish it but couldn't, and that Allah did everything in His power to gradually eliminate this obsolete custom... which, by the way, was completely, totally different from the “actual” slavery practiced by western infidels, and much kinder.

But since islam has always contemplated slavery in every age, and since NOTHING in the quran or the sunnah suggests, even vaguely, that it's a custom muslims should strive to abolish, these justifications in place of a translation are nothing but a clear example of Taqiyya: dissimulation for religious purposes.

Attached: taqiyya in Reliance of the Traveller about slavery.png (643x1178, 261K)

Apologists love to claim that Muhammad did his best to reduce or even eliminate slavery, but couldn't do it outright because it was “too deeply ingrained” in arab society and would have caused too many problems.

But eating pork, drinking alcohol, playing music, singing, drawing and sculpting animate beings, not to mention being a goddamn polytheist, also were DEEPLY INGRAINED customs. Yet, he had no qualms about abolishing all of them pretty much immediately and with no exceptions allowed, even at the cost of fighting wars. Why couldn't he do it with slavery as well?
Also, even admitting he couldn't go cold turkey on this particular issue, he could have severely limited the number of slaves one could own, like he limited his followers' wives to a maximum of four. Or set a time limit after which a slave was automatically freed, whether the master agreed or not. He had several options, had he really wanted to reduce slavery.

Instead, all he did was forbid to enslave debtors, but beside that, he allowed muslims to get as many slaves as they wanted, fuck them, sell them, lash them, put them to work, and in general do whatever they wanted with them, provided they fed them, clothed them, and didn't torture or kill them for futile reasons (in which case, they had to pay their price). And as we've read from the Sirat, he lead by example, getting himself lots of slaves, selling them to finance his wars of aggression, and thoroughly enjoying captive pussy.

Far from bringing about its gradual elimination, Muhammad effectively MADE SLAVERY ETERNAL by including it in the goddamn Word of Allah. Since both the quran and the sunnah clearly endorse it, now muslims CAN'T ABOLISH IT EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO.

Attached: muslim slavers handling their slaves.jpg (478x360, 74K)

As a consequence, muslims always considered slavery a legitimate practice like any other, and the islamic slave trade flourished for 14 centuries, becoming maybe the widest and surely the longest lived trans-continental slave trade in human history, spanning from Portugal to China. It began with Muhammad in the 7th century and was only abolished in many (but not all) muslim countries in the 20th century, and even then, only thanks to insistent international pressures by the West (notably France and the UK).

It's eloquent that islam NEVER had an abolitionist movement. The West spent centuries arguing and infighting fiercely on this ethically crucial issue, a debate pioneered by none other than the ebil Christian Church itself, armed with its Golden Rule and the belief that every life is sacred, no exceptions.

But islam never questioned the morality of slavery or tried of its own free will to extirpate it. It always had to be FORCED to do so by western countries, and only obeyed begrudgingly while mumbling about “foreign interferences” in their customs. We've already examined the reason for this: questioning or abolishing slavery would've meant questioning Allah's Word and criticizing Muhammad's actions. Crimes which in islam carry the death penalty.

So the islamic slave trade continued for 1,400 years.

Attached: islam-slave-trade.jpg (770x376, 68K)

This interesting article (which draws from Ronald Segal's "Islam's Black Slaves" and Robert Davis' "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters") highlights some crucial differences between the Atlantic and the Islamic slave trades:

>«While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was BETWEEN 80 AND 90%!
>«While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for SEXUAL EXPLOITATION as concubines, in harems, and for military service.
>«While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were CASTRATED, and most of the children born to the women were KILLED AT BIRTH.
>«The Caliph in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7000 black eunuchs and 4000 white eunuchs in his palace.» ("The Scourge of Slavery", Christian Action, 2004. webcitation.org/5xK9q4TPm)

While americans used slaves as farming tools and domestic help, muslims also used them as soldiers (the Janissaires being the most notable example), entertainers and sexual commodities. Which meant that the women became unpaid maids, concubines and dancers, and the males became eunuch laborers and warriors.

Eunuchs were a luxury item in the muslim world. A eunuch could fetch a very high price, and so countless slaves (both white and black) were subjected to the removal of the testicles and/or of the penis. Obviously, such a brutal mutilation carried out in questionable hygienic conditions and without any anesthesia had a very high death rate, which is why the few survivors were such prized possessions.

Attached: islam's black slaves.jpg (226x320, 17K)

Bump for interest

This also explains why, differently from the USA, there are very few descendants of those slaves in the muslim world. Even if a eunuch managed to buy his freedom, there was no way to fix the damage done to him and leave children. Which was excellent for the muslims, who absolutely didn't want the slaves to covet and tempt their women.

The article continues by noticing that islam is not very politically correct with regards to africans:

>«[Muslim scholars] noted that blacks "lack self-control and steadiness of mind and they are overcome by fickleness, foolishness and ignorance."

>«Ibn Khaldun, the pre-eminent Islamic medieval historian and social thinker, wrote: "The Negro nations are as a rule submissive to slavery, because they have attributes that are quite similar to dumb animals."

>«It was noted that black slaves were castrated "based on the assumption that the blacks had an ungovernable sexual appetite." […]

>«It is estimated that possibly as many as 11 million Africans were transported across the Atlantic. However, at least 28 million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. As at least 80% of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave markets, it is believed that the death toll from the 14 centuries of Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been over 112 million. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the Trans Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly HIGHER THAN 140 MILLION PEOPLE.»

The open spite islam always had towards blacks makes it all the more ridiculous when some african-american claims to have chosen islam because "it's not a white religion". It ain't a black one either.

Attached: christian slaves muslim masters.png (240x372, 149K)

The article points out that the white slaves weren't treated better than the blacks:

>«"White slaves from Christian Spain, Central and Eastern Europe" were also shipped into the Middle East and served in the "palaces of rulers and the establishments of the rich. [...] All slavic eunuchs are castrated in that region and the operation is performed by Jewish merchants."

>«Historian Robert Davis [...] estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780. These white Christians were seized in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall. Thousands of white Christians in coastal areas were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim slave masters in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were the hardest hit, but the Muslim slave raiders also seized people as far afield as Britain, Ireland and Iceland. They even captured 130 American seamen […]

>«Many of these white, Christian slaves were put to work in quarries, building sites and galleys and endured malnutrition, disease and mistreatment at the hands of their Muslim slave masters. Female captives were sexually abused in palace harems and others were held as hostages and bargained for ransom. […]

>«Professor Davis estimates that up to 1,25 million Europeans were enslaved by Muslim slave raiders between 1500 to 1800.»

Attached: white slaves.jpg (1280x720, 106K)

Differently from the US, slavery in islam was extremely widespread:

>«Even as late as the 19th Century, it was noted that in Mecca "there are few families that do not keep slaves, they all keep mistresses in common with their lawful wives." […]

>«When the Fatimids came to power [...] slave armies from 30,000 to up to 250,000 became common-place. […]

>«Just in the 19th Century, for which we have more accurate records, 1.2 million slaves were brought across the Sahara into the Middle East, 450,000 down the Red Sea and 442,000 from East African coastal ports. That is a total of 2 million black slaves – just in the 1800's. At least 8 million more were calculated to have died before reaching the Muslim slave markets.»

Slavery is so deeply ingrained in islamic societies that many muslim cultures still practice it covertly or more-or-less openly (Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Yemen, Ciad, Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Sudan).

Saudi Arabia and Yemen resisted until 1962 before finally caving in and abolishing slavery – and even then, only thanks to british pressure. Oman only did it in 1970. Mauritania likes abolishing slavery so much, it has done it three times: in 1905, in 1981 and in 2007. And it's still not enough: it's estimated that up to 18% of its population is still made of slaves. (antislavery.org/what-we-do/mauritania/)

Very often, the trafficked slaves are children, both boys and girls, sold and bought to be sexually abused. After all, as we've seen in the previous lesson, sexual relations with children is another custom islam has always sanctioned and keeps defending even now.
(An overview of contemporary islamic slavery can be found here: wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Slavery#Modern_Day)

Attached: white slave poosy.jpg (1280x720, 158K)

Raping prepubescent slave girls was a common way for the Prophet's merry band to celebrate a military victory (read: usually unprovoked sneak attack followed by massacre, robbery and enslavement):

>«Narrated Buraida: The Prophet (pbuh) sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus [the one fifth of the booty which went to Muhammad] and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (AFTER A SEXUAL ACT WITH A SLAVE-GIRL from the Khumus). […] When we reached the Prophet (pbuh) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."» [Bukhari 4350: sunnah.com/bukhari/64/377]

Why did Buraida complain that Ali had fucked the slave-girl? Is it because sex with slaves is rape and thus evil?
Nope.
As explained in Ibn Hajar's "Fath al-Bari" (the most celebrated commentary on Sahih Bukhari's hadiths), the problem was that Ali had sex with the slave-girl immediately after battle, when he should have waited for the commanded period (Istibra = one menstrual cycle) to make sure that she wasn't already pregnant with someone else. Buraida was pissed because:
1) Ali fucked her too soon.
2) Ali took from the booty of his own initiative.
But "Fath al-Bari" explains why Ali's actions are fine:

>«Ali was blamed for having intercourse with the slave-girl without the Istibra and also for the share of the khumus that he took for himself.
>«Now the first allegation is defensible as she was a virgin and NOT PUBESCENT, and thus she did not need any Istibra – In accordance with THE PRACTICE OF MANY SAHABA (Companions) before him.»
(Fath al-Bari 8/67.)

So Ali slamming a prepubescent slave-girl was ok because it was a common practice for the friends of the holy prophet.

(As for the second accusation, Muhammad in the hadith says that Ali only took from the booty what he was entitled to, and deserved "more than that" anyway.)

Attached: ISIS fighter keeps holy traditions alive.jpg (470x245, 27K)

Despite the laws forbidding slavery and the efforts by western countries and organizations to see these laws actually observed, many contemporary muslim leaders and theologians keep ignoring them and sometimes even denouncing them as unfairly discriminatory against their religion of pieces. A few examples:

>«Today, too, if there’s a war between us and the infidels, we’ll take slaves. THE RULING ON SLAVERY HASN'T EXPIRED AND IS ETERNAL. We'll take slaves and we'll bring them to the world of Islam and have them stay with Muslims.»
(Shia Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, a member of Iran's Assembly of Experts, in a 2006 interview. Transcript: web.archive.org/web/20150923220623/http://www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-HomaTV.html)

>«The main author of the Saudi religious curriculum expressed his UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF SLAVERY in one of his lectures [...] Leading government cleric Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan is the author of the religious books currently used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the and in Saudi schools aboard – including those in the Washington, D.C. metro area.
>«“SLAVERY IS PART OF ISLAM,” he says in the tape, adding: “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”»
(2003, indybay.org/newsitems/2003/11/11/16588041.php)

>«Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women?»
(2008, Saudi cleric Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, urging palestinians to enslave jewish women. arabmuslimslavery.blogspot.com/2008/10/unknown-slavery-in-muslim-world-that-is.html)

In a 2013 fatwa, Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni encouraged muslims to rape and enslave any non-sunni woman. (humanevents.com/2013/04/02/islamic-cleric-rape-of-non-muslim-syrian-women-permitted/)

Attached: Sheikh Saleh al-Fawzan.png (600x341, 378K)

>«If only we can conduct A JIHADIST INVASION AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa [proselytizing] or stands in our way, then we must kill them or take as hostage and CONFISCATE THEIR WEALTH, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
>«Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business [...]
>«WHEN I WANT A SEX-SLAVE, I GO TO THE MARKET and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.»
(Muslim scholar Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini in a 2011 interview: raymondibrahim.com/2011/05/31/raped-and-ransacked-in-the-muslim-world/)

In 2011, Salwa al-Mutairi, a muslim "feminist" and political activist, said that muslims should rape and enslave non-muslim women to prevent cheating (fucking slaves is not considered unfaithfulness). (rt.com/news/activist-sex-sold-war/)

In 2016, Egypt’s Al-Azhar Professor Suad Saleh (another muslim "feminist") said that raping and enslaving infidel women is ok. (theglobaldispatch.com/egypts-al-azhar-professor-suad-saleh-rape-allowed-by-allah-islam-only-regulated-the-practice-makes-infidel-women-slaves-26321/)

Both Boko Haram (abcnews.go.com/Blotter/boko-haram-kidnappers-slave-owners-terrorists-killers/story?id=23598347) and ISIS (theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/isis-confirms-and-justifies-enslaving-yazidis-in-new-magazine-article/381394/) openly pratice slavery and have given their (theologically solid) reasons to do so.

In 2014, 126 islamic scholars have signed a letter to ISIS' leader al-Baghdadi to denounce his endorsement of slavery and claim that the ijma (scholarly consensus) clearly considers slavery unacceptable.
Apologists and western liberals the world over rejoiced... except that this view has NO RELIGIOUS BASIS whatsoever, and is directly contradicted by the same ijma they mention.

Attached: Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini.jpg (674x485, 25K)

Not surprisingly, the letter is riddled with half-truths, intentional ambiguities and outright lies disprovable simply by opening any islamic legal manual. Greatest hits:
> jihad is only defensive,
> muslims who kill infidels "misinterpret islam",
> killing "innocents" is forbidden (true, but they don't say that islam has a peculiar view of who is innocent),
> denying women "their rights" is forbidden (true, but they don't say that women's rights in islam are VERY different from men's),
> islam must adapt to modern times (the exact opposite is true),
> it's forbidden to declare someone an apostate unless they "openly declare disbelief" (really? Then why are Ahmadi, Alawites, Mutazilites and other groups considered apostates even though they claim to be muslims?),
> slavery was abolished by "universal consensus" (outright, brazen lie),
> loyalty to one's nation is permissible in islam (of course, but only if that nation is islamic),
...and many more.
It's a disconcerting read, clearly crafted to manipulate a western audience and muddy the waters. (Letter: web.archive.org/web/20140925193528/http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php)

Once we clean up the lies, all that remains is the simple, undeniable fact that slavery was NEVER abolished in islam, not in the quran, not in the sunnah, never, nowhere. Nothing in islam's sacred texts even vaguely suggests that.
Anybody who wants to claim the opposite must provide some kind of THEOLOGICALLY VALID evidence. Nobody has ever done so – and nobody will, because such evidence can't exist: Allah and his mouthpiece have made it too unequivocally clear that enslaving the infidels is perfectly halal.

Slavery is so intricately entwined with islam's most fundamental tenets (the necessity of jihad, the inferiority of unbelievers), and endorsed so many times and with such unreserved enthusiasm in all its holy texts, that the only way to remove it is to remove islam itself.
Which is cool.

See you in the next lesson!

Attached: Open-Letter-to-ISIS-Shaykh-Hamza-Yusuf-Full.jpg (771x969, 285K)

Bump to expose islamic depravation.

Lesson 11 sounds interesting.

It's not supposed to be a vademecum, though.

these are always great and well sourced. thanks user

You're welcome, burger.

Coming soon with archive link and screenshot.

Still reading it. It's disgusting.

>this much of a text wall
Never seen anyone near as triggered as you before. This is a first.

On mobile but saved to read later, thank you mario

found the mudshit

Islam is incompatible with the West.

Call me what you like, the West is ending because you people chose degeneracy and atheism over monotheism, even a stupid corrupted monotheism like Christianity was preferable.

On the whole, Jow Forums has veered away from obsessing over and attacking Islam because many people have realised that Islam is an ally against degeneracy, Marxism and feminism.
Spout all the shit you want about us, but you people attacking Islam are not going to be around for much longer. There should be a lesson in that for you.

That archive link around yet?

Hold on there, uh, fellow human. God Almighty does not favour your people any more than He favours mine. By far and away God Almighty favours bats. There are upwards of 40,000 times more bats on Earth than all the other mammals combined. And let's face it, mammals are the superior build in all of His Creation.

Not even kidding, bats make up the majority of the superior multi-cellular lifeforms on this planet by a vast margin. What do your bronze aged scrawlings have to say to counter this demonstrable favouritism and dare I type love? God loves bats. Any religion that does not acknowledge this is empirically false. Any religion that doesn't even mention bats is clearly the work of Satan, who is obviously a nigger because only niggers eat bats.

Bats. Best. Coincidence? I think not.

Attached: 1547657757742.png (602x463, 189K)

>the West is ending because you people chose degeneracy and atheism over monotheism
...or maybe because we're directing our excessive empathy towards people who consider themselves our enemies and only want to acuse our kindness to destroy us.

Here it is: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/200684486

Attached: Lesson 8 - Slavery.png (1308x9777, 2.5M)

It's ending because we allowed communists to teach us how to think. Communists ruined schools, they're still ruining schools. They ruined our free speech, reduced our language to political correct, thus reducing our free judgement. Now schools teach multiculturalism, holocaust, politically correct history in which every country made something useful to human progress and white nations are to blame because of imperialism. Schools don't teach our youth to be proud as they call it negative nationalism.

>>Lesson 11:
>Faggots (and the best ways to murder them).
You have my attention.

>On the whole, Jow Forums has veered away from obsessing over and attacking Islam
And on this episode of muslims being delusional little inbreds...

>Islam is an ally against degeneracy
Islam allows slavery and child fucking.
Islam IS degeneracy.

>you people attacking Islam are not going to be around for much longer.
Is that a treat, peaceful member of the religion of piss?

And there's a difference between "attacking" and "systematically demolishing using your own holy books, exegesis and legal texts".

>God loves bats.
Anybody loves bats.

Islam is full of degeneracy, just like all the YHWH cults and humanity in general.

A little here and a little there I think. Moral degeneration and atheism led to misplaced empathy towards groups that want to destroy us. As much as I hate Islam, it's a brilliant religion in regards to what it instills into its followers in regards to conquest and subversion.

>Isaiah 2: 20
>20 In that day mankind will cast away their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to the moles AND TO THE BATS
Ignore the mole propaganda, for what is a mole but a bat that has shed its wings? A bat that has cast aside its divinity, no less. Turned its little squint away from the glory of the Lord? Even then, they will be favoured at the End of all things, BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL BATS.

Attached: 1535833183988.png (412x299, 98K)

One thing I recently noticed is that in Italy we have the "Day of Remembrance" (January 27th).
Ostensibly, this day should serve to remind us of all the terrible episodes in our history so that we can avoid repeating them... but in fact, all we EVER talk about is the holocaust. That's it.

Isn't that monstruously arrogant? The holocaust has been effectively promoted to the rank of "only tragedy worth remembering". All the other genocides have been deemed forgettable (and indeed, how many remember stuff like the holodomor?).

The holocaust, in other words, has officially become a foundational myth for our culture, a legend, a narrative beyond questioning (legally too).

Professor Kafir, I understand the many downsides and pitfalls of Islam now. Thank you for that. But, in your opinion, are there any *good* things about Islam that the West would do well to emulate?

Attached: Dog Thrown Out of Plane.webm (360x360, 1.46M)

No question, the formula "shit out as many kids as you can and kill anybody who disagrees" produces a dangerous culture. Hence, why we're having these threads.

But "dangerous" isn't the same as smart, worthy, kind or even powerful. All muslims have are numbers and our own compliance.

>people attacking islam are not going to be around for much longer
Are you going to explode among us?

>are there any *good* things about Islam that the West would do well to emulate?
Sure:

1) Stop apologizing for everything.

2) Stop pretending you don't want what you want and like what you like.

3) If you're strong, take what you want.

4) Stop throttling yourself with misplaced compassion and exaggerated, pathological self-whipping to the point of nihilistic masochism.

5) Be proud of your culture (we have many good reasons to be, differently from muslims).

6) Defend your culture from enemies.

7) For the love of christ, keep your women in check.

>Are we allowed to eat Bat?
>In the name of Allah, We praise Him, seek His help and ask for His forgiveness. Whoever Allah guides none can misguide, and whoever He allows to fall astray, none can guide them aright. We bear witness that there is no one (no idol, no person, no grave, no prophet, no imam, no dai, nobody!) worthy of worship but Allah Alone, and we bear witness that Muhammad (saws) is His slave-servant and the seal of His Messengers.
>There is no specific injunction from either the Quran or Sunnah whether the bat is halaal or haraam as food for the believers. Allah and His Messenger (saws) have provided us with a short haram list; if the animal is not in that list, then it will be considered halaal as food.
I REST MY CASE: Islam is the work of the bossnigger satan.

Attached: 1531764739155.jpg (265x505, 45K)

Soldiers don't need to be smart, they just need to be fanatical and brutal. Which is exactly the mindset Islam provides. Overwhelming numbers conquers. The biggest issue is that these diseases are occurring within Western Countries rather than outside of it. It has to be stamped out now or else it will run amok. Only issue is the weakness of "tolerance" that pervades the Western man, none of which these Islamic cancer cells have.

You are very toxic to Islam!!!!

> holocaust only genocide to be remembered
If you read Italian newspapers, sometimes holocaust """survivors""" use that argument (we were deported and gassed) to support indiscriminate immigration from muslim countries, openly against white Christian culture, with the leitmotiv "once deported we were like those immigrants, in a foreign country, helpless, so please give them welfare, so you won't forget the only meaningful tragedy that was holocaust and our society can grow up and learn from that tragedy".

thats an awful lot to read in one go proffesor

also, I am autistic enough to have read those books

>Only issue is the weakness of "tolerance" that pervades the Western man
That is indeed the main issue.

Fortunately, muslims themselves are the cure. As soon as western people interact with muslims a bit, they generally recognize them for the toxic waste they are.

Hello, fellow autist.

Reading is good. It makes us big and strong.

Spread your autism.

>Ali slamming a prepubescent slave-girl was ok because it was a common practice
Islam is satanic degeneracy.

We don't need to emulate this from islam. We need fathers to teach their kids to be proud of being white. And mothers proud to teach traditional values instead of whining and tolerance.

>We need fathers to teach their kids to be proud of being white. And mothers proud to teach traditional values instead of whining and tolerance.
That alone would probably generate all the other points.

I met enough tolerant people who became fascist after living next to migrant shitholes. You're right.

Gay. Aids. Sage.

>The last tribe remaining was the Banu Qurayza. Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight. Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power.

>Some 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment to today’s Muslim apologists (according to Ibn Kathir, the number ranges from 400-900 v.3 p.170). It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also refutes the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus and his disciples doing such a thing.

>It is only in modern times (as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate) that the story of the massacre has become controversial. Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience. Others are unaware of it altogether. But, the incident well documented in the Sira (biography of Muhammad).

yet mohammed was the most perfect man, an example for all musims to be like, and islam is a religion of peace

Read. Thread. Burger.

It would be fun to print these and leave them around in universities and high schools.

You know, to counter the proislam propaganda.

Someone archive these threads
Could you do one on the Talmud ?

They're already archived: Here's the archive for this thread: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/200684486

>Could you do one on the Talmud ?
Not my area of expertise, sorry. I'd have to spend years studying jewish scriptures and eventually I surely wouldn't do a job half as good as what these guys already did with their 2,000 pages book:
>whenvictimsrule.blogspot.com/
PDF:
>europeanamericansunited.org/school1/History/victimsprint.pdf

Hello user, thank you so much for providing such detailed information about this wretched religion. It's absolutely vital in equipping anons against the constant lies and tactics used by Muslim adherents in the West by accurately citing their own history and religious texts. Please continue what you are doing!

But what many are wondering is that when you are done with your series on Islam, if you will then turn to Judaism and give it a similar treatment. Is that project of any interest to you? If you would need assistance to engage in that work, what would it be?

Thanks for all your hard work.

Attached: Jewish Talmud on Goyim.png (1158x1621, 411K)

Ah damn, I thought so. Well, consider it. We don't have many theology experts here to browse through such dense material. But thanks for the links regardless.

Fuck islam and whoever doesn't curse it.

Bump.

archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/subject//TG/ - Talmud General/

Will you look at that. Interesting thread.

threads*

Daily reminder islam is still fine with slavery. In the 21st fucking century.

So is Judaism.

So is Christianity

Yes, they need to be mopped up as well.

No.

Bumperino.

Thank you so much, Professor. Honestly learning a lot, and seeing the unrelenting asspain from various muslim and muslim fetishists every thread just underlines everything. Not to mention a rolling bibliography slightly less then one tacked on to a master's thesis. From a pure information standpoint alone, some of the better threads here.

A question though: Is there anything to be done? Despite the massive infighting and violent nature, Islam doesn't look like it'll implode any time soon. It's been demonstrated that the west and islam cannot coexist. Even simple segregation would be at best a stopgap measure. Have we truly reached another "Carthage Must Fall" point, or is there something between suicide and genocide for the west to grab on to?

I've no love or compassion for muslims as a whole, it's more an academic consideration. Is there anything short of the taking of Mecca and the breaking of the Kaaba that ends with the west not under threat of overt or covert death by islam?

Attached: 1334206915139.jpg (443x430, 129K)

Kill all Muslims in Minecraft of course

My fucking God, I MUST burn the mocca that suddenly appeared in my country and get my weapon license.
I knew they were a bunch of degenerates but to this extent, they deserve death.

Attached: descarga (3).jpg (203x146, 5K)

Absolutely based professor

No Sandniggers here tonight.
Proof that one based pasta-nigger can defeat Allah.

>Is there anything to be done?
I'd proceed with a 2 step plan:

>1) Relentlessly show western people the real face of islam, its brutal, disgusting, backward nature.
The minority of mentally ill turboliberals will refuse to see it, but the majority is still sane of mind. Just dazed, apathetic and misled by constant propaganda. They can be woken up. They can be brought over to our side, just like we were as soon as we were exposed to the real islam and not the edulcorated version propagandized through our media and schools.

The informations I'm posting in my threads would be more than enough, if it was widely distributed.

>2) Openly fight islam with every weapon we have.
Declare its many unconstitutional tenets illegal.
Strictly patrol their ghettoes, mosques and "cultural centers", instead of just letting them do whatever they want there, building sharia-regulated cities inside our cities.

Annull any form of welfare that finances our declared enemies and attracts an ever greater number of them inside our homes.

Keep them under constant surveillance for anti-western behaviors or propaganda and as soon as some of them does or says something illegal, kick them out of the country immediately. No second chances. No exceptions.

When muslims will inevitably protest, do the same with the protestors. If it degenerates in one or many civil wars, excellent. Destroy as many of them as possible and expel the rest.
They cannot be allowed to undermine our society however they please and chimp out when we dare to object. If they behave in that way, they're dangerous criminals and they need to be treated as such.

Also, give the money saved up from the welfare that before went to muslims to western families that can't afford children. Make more western children. In the long run, it's the only way not to die out and win this thing. We can't have a 20-to-1 numerical inferiority.

>Have we truly reached another "Carthage Must Fall" point
We're dealing with a cartoonishly supremacist ideology openly hellbent on goddamn world domination like the nazis in a liberal daydream. Muslims will never stop wanting to conquer the planet. They will never stop considering themselves superior to infidels. They will never stop wanting to apply the commandments from Allah. They will never stop lying, killing, raping, stealing and enslaving. They can't stop: their religion considers them hypocrites if they do.

I don't see any other option but open war (legal, economical, demographic, educational and eventually physical war) to get rid of islam.

The issue is very simple. When your enemy rejects logic and reason and insists on considering himself your master, either you submit or you kill him. Islam itself has created this situation. We don't have the power to change it.

Stop. I can only get so erect.

Bump for muslim anal rape.

Discussion is more interesting tonight. There are no green flag trolls or liars. I'm enjoying this peaceful discussion about white race and how to save ourselves.

Unreal, just unreal. I wish you were incorrect, or even just a bit unreasonable, but you are indeed right. The west faces an enemy that will never relent or allow peace, and any overtures to either are merely a more covert mode of attack. I hate to see a people slaughtered, even brainwashed lunatics, but it's getting to a "you or me" point, and i'll protect my family and children to the death to keep them from even a tiny portion of the islamic nightmare.

I worry, in a way, that we can't do it anymore. That something in the will of the west won't allow us to just eradicate another people. Would the religious nature of the conflict galvanize more people, do you think? Can the western nations still actually destroy a threat without half-assing it? Or is that still something that can't be foreseen until the time comes?

I also wonder if the liberal death cult is new, or just the latest edition? Have there always been unaffiliated bleeding hearts or sand fetishists who open gates, silence resistance, and cry for mercy even as their blood cools on the mosque steps?

If so, and you have the chance, a lesson on the roles of apologists, fetishists, and various enablers of islam in the advance thereof would be very interesting, i think.

Attached: 1498421046330.jpg (840x840, 36K)

day of the rope is near you muslim filth

Professor you say reproduce but western women is just lost, could artificial wombs be the answer?
Not only that but I believe the only reason government accepted them was because how dependant we are on oil, I believe they will openly rise to arm when we discover a new source of energy better than black gold

JIDF seems desperate lately.

Reminder: an army of well funded, well organized jew shills patrol the internet in effort to shut down any counter-jew discussion and to promote the globalist anti-white jew agenda.

youtube.com/watch?v=7dGJDJoeAok

youtube.com/watch?v=T6ToRD1ng5o

youtube.com/watch?v=8XnQN9Jjh2Q

act-il.com/

youtube.com/watch?v=tYleadaZ8vM
>ACT.IL shill recruitment video

thejidf.org

thejidf.org/2008/10/about-jidf.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

fortune.com/2016/09/12/facebook-google-israel-social-media/
archive.is/HpArO
>Why Facebook and Google Are Complying With Israel to Delete Certain Content

archive.is/sMsxH
>Psyops by jews work to flood social media with jew agenda propaganda. They range from infiltrating Wikipedia, Reddit and Jow Forums to influencing YouTube. Some operate out of Jewish Community Centers in the U.S.

archive.is/bdyTW
>Israel launches secret squad to challenge negative image & boycott campaign

youtube.com/watch?v=Vqhi16iikxk
>"Israel's Internet Censorship War - If Americans Knew"

youtube.com/watch?v=ceCOhdgRBoc
>"The Lobby P1: Young Friends of Israel – Al Jazeera Investigations"

youtube.com/watch?v=7dGJDJoeAok
>"JIDF Editing on Wikipedia"

youtube.com/watch?v=2zbcEcSYcS8
>Israeli American Council shill recruitment video

youtube.com/watch?v=D2cNvncfCtk
>"Tony Martin IHR Conference Tactics of Organized Jewry in Suppressing Free Speech"

youtube.com/watch?v=G6m_1bstc3E
>How Israel lobbies and shills manipulate the USA

youtube.com/watch?v=XNWF9CeoZdE
>How acusations of anti-semitism are used as a JIDF tool to silence goyim who criticize anything related to jews.

Attached: gaslighting.jpg (530x590, 113K)

>I worry, in a way, that we can't do it anymore. That something in the will of the west won't allow us to just eradicate another people.
Breaking the conditioning will surely be extremely hard, but as you said, we're getting to a "you or me" situation.

When we'll see ourselves slaughtered and raped for sport by laughing muslims bragging about it to our faces and telling us that we and our families are gonna be next, when we'll finally believe that it's really happening, our healthier instincts will take over. If not, it means we're not equipped for life on this planet anymore, and we would disappear anyway, islam or not. But I believe that at the decisive moment, we'll defend ourselves.

I only hope we'll do it thoroughly, without stopping after a few victories to go back to our peaceful lives and allowing our enemy to gather its strenght for yet another attack a few generations from now (like we did with the Crusades).

>I also wonder if the liberal death cult is new, or just the latest edition? Have there always been unaffiliated bleeding hearts or sand fetishists who open gates, silence resistance, and cry for mercy even as their blood cools on the mosque steps?
I'm pretty sure mentally ill people eager to conquer the moral high ground even at the cost of extermination have always existed. But our all too tolerant society is the first one where they weren't immediately crushed and were allowed (even encouraged) to proliferate.

>a lesson on the roles of apologists, fetishists, and various enablers of islam in the advance thereof would be very interesting, i think.
I think so too. Will think about it.

>western women is just lost
Don't fall for defeatism. Only a small minority are too mentally ill to be saved. The rest is just misinformed and conditioned by the society around them to repeat the liberal slogans. Show them what islam really is and how it treats infidels, women and children, and virtually all of them will turn to our side.

>artificial wombs
Having kids without a nuclear family as the basis for our society probably wouldn't be enough. We can't just give up on 50% of our population. Women are essential for more than just reproduction.

Shut the fuck up Muhammad.

kafir did you ever had a conversation with muslims or did you only read books, texts etc... ?

>I believe they will openly rise to arm when we discover a new source of energy better than black gold
They will surely consider it an attack on "the wealth of all muslims" (they already did it when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq) and react with the usual arrogant demands, economical blackmails and finally violence.

>did you ever had a conversation with muslims
Sure.
The most shocking thing is how clueless they are about their own religion. They consider it a central part of their identity, they're willing to spend hours defending it even against the evidence, they will support the killing of people criticizing it... and most of them haven't even read the quran. Nevermind the hadiths or the tafsirs.

I expected the lies, the victimhood, the hypocrisy and the arrogance. I did not expect the bottomless ignorance.