Article

2005-06-14 Home Front: WoT

Daniel Pipes - Saudis Import Slaves to America

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-06-14 10:55|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Oh, how muslim of them!

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-06-14 11:18|| 2005-06-14 11:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Brings to mind the other notable saudi imports: 1) oil; 2) terrorist; 3) intolerant religious education; 4) lots of investments; 5) university students who are often short on intelligence and long on cashflow; 6) halfwit royalty able to spend with abandon; and 7) the influence that money buys. Did you say Koran desecration? What happened to the Korans of these people? I need to know. No, not the slaves. I want to know about the Korans of those poor pious slavemasters.

Posted by Abu Al-Taxi 2005-06-14 11:55|| 2005-06-14 11:55|| Front Page Top

#3 Slavery is not endorsed by Islam, in fact, the abolishment of it is. Repeatedly freeing of slaves are options in Islamic law, never there is a mention of someone loosing their freedome (becoming slave) as punishment. Note that on the olden days, slavery was an accepted part of life in the area and in other parts of the world, but in Islam, the preference is to free slaves, not taking them. The Sheikh is clearly wrong.

Posted by Someone 2005-06-14 12:01|| 2005-06-14 12:01|| Front Page Top

#4 I disagree, someone. Islam is all about submission, and subjugating others. Even the name Abdullah (Abdallah) means Abd (slave) of Allah. The natural order of things is for everyone to serve the alpha male in this society.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-06-14 12:14|| 2005-06-14 12:14|| Front Page Top

#5 You sure?
Bukhari 3-#765 Narrated Kuraib: 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."

How many slaves did Big Mo have? After all he did get 20% of all the booty. And what to make of all those verses about capturing slaves in raids and wars and rapng them?

Posted by ed 2005-06-14 12:17|| 2005-06-14 12:17|| Front Page Top

#6 The Sheikh is clearly wrong.

And yet he's a ranking religios figure in Saudi Arabia and you're an anonymous commentor.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-06-14 13:13|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-06-14 13:13|| Front Page Top

#7 Taqqyia alert.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-06-14 13:28|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-06-14 13:28|| Front Page Top

#8 I thought islam menat peaceful slaves?

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-14 13:40|| 2005-06-14 13:40|| Front Page Top

#9 I see, so using a weak hadith to trump what is in numerous places in the Koran is OK?, i think not. Islam is about submission to god not to other people. And if the Sheikh is using an argument like this than he is definitely wrong. Using a religion to controll people and to hold on to power is also wrong. I might be an anonymous commentor , but that does not reduce my chances to be right, does it?

Posted by Someone 2005-06-14 13:58|| 2005-06-14 13:58|| Front Page Top

#10 I might be an anonymous commentor , but that does not reduce my chances to be right, does it?

When stacked against known facts about the practice of Islam, and the words of a government-funded religious authority in the Islamic country in all the world, your chances to be right were pretty slim in any case.

I see, so using a weak hadith to trump what is in numerous places in the Koran is OK?

Give us a citation, then. Should be easy for such a scholar as yourself.

(Ptah -- I think you're right. But it's rather clumsy taqqyia. Keerist, you'd think we didn't know about Mohammed's own life.)

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-06-14 14:14|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-06-14 14:14|| Front Page Top

#11 "When stacked against known facts about the practice of Islam, and the words of a government-funded religious authority in the Islamic country in all the world, your chances to be right were pretty slim in any case."

according to the govt funded chief rabbis in Israel, the Conservative Judaism I practice is heresy. They are wrong.

Text based religious traditions often have diverse opinions on points of law. So far "Someones" comments on Islamic law in this thread have been measured and on topic. I would appreciate the chance to learn from him - lets PLEEZE not chase him away - not until (and if) he starts trolling. We're trying to win people over, remember??

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:35|| 2005-06-14 14:35|| Front Page Top

#12 "Islam is all about submission" to Allah, not to man.

abd in adallah is clearly the same semitic root as Hebrew Aved - servant, slave. Avodah can mean work or service in that sense, but it can also mean service to G-d - the Temple sacrifices, which are ordained in the bible are called avodah. Avodah is later used to mean prayer in general. I suspect Jews for Jesus uses the word avodah to refer to Christs sacrifice. So I would be careful in denigrating this ancient Semitic word.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:38|| 2005-06-14 14:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Repeatedly freeing of slaves are options in Islamic law

The implications of big-s Someone's statement are: 1) Slaves are owned, and 2) Under Islam, one may, not must free them. This contrasts with most of the rest of the world, where it is forbidden to hold a person in chattel slavery, or even bond servitude. Ever. Under any circumstances.

Little-s someone, we know you aren't the one engaging in this sad exercise in taqiyah.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-06-14 14:39|| 2005-06-14 14:39|| Front Page Top

#14 avedim chayenu, atah bnei chorin

once we were slaves, but now we are free (passover haggadah)

But

Al shlosha dvarim haolam omed , al hatorah, al haavodah, v al gimlut chasidim.

There are three things on which the world stands - on Torah, on prayer, and on deeds of piety. (Talmud)

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:41|| 2005-06-14 14:41|| Front Page Top

#15 Ok, I googled this up for you, there about 7 references here in preference of freeing a slave. I am sure there are more.

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/slavesq.htm

And again, me being an insignificant, small, etc .. does not reduce my chances to be right, it only reduces my chances of surviving being right and talking about it.

Posted by Glese Whaiper2938 2005-06-14 14:43|| 2005-06-14 14:43|| Front Page Top

#16 1) Slaves are owned, and 2) Under Islam, one may, not must free them.

which is consistent with Jewish law in the Talmud, and the views of St. Paul.

This contrasts with most of the rest of the world, where it is forbidden to hold a person in chattel slavery, or even bond servitude. Ever. Under any circumstances.

which view arose as part of the 18th century enlightenment, and has been law in ALL of the United States only since 1865. It is also law now in ALL muslim countries - it is violated in many of muslim countries, but in many non-muslim countries as well.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:43|| 2005-06-14 14:43|| Front Page Top

#17 correction - under Jewish law, slaves (at least Jewish ones) are to be freed in the jubilee year, which comes every 49 years.

HOwever Roman slaves were NOT so freed, and this bothered St. Paul not one bit.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:46|| 2005-06-14 14:46|| Front Page Top

#18 IE slaves under Roman law, not specifically Roman slaves held by Jews

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 14:47|| 2005-06-14 14:47|| Front Page Top

#19 Someone,

Is that why it took the saudi vermin until 1963 to abolish slavery?

Posted by TMH 2005-06-14 14:53|| 2005-06-14 14:53|| Front Page Top

#20 Someone,

Is that why the muslim vermin went to Africa to hunt Africans like animals and sell them into slavery?

Posted by TMH 2005-06-14 14:56|| 2005-06-14 14:56|| Front Page Top

#21 Gentle? Is that you?

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-06-14 15:01|| 2005-06-14 15:01|| Front Page Top

#22 If slavery is so un-muslim, why did Soddy not ban slavery until the 1960s? Slaves have always been part of islam, read some history.
BTW LH - St. Paul wrote: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (as he was expecting the second-coming at any time and such distinctions mattered no more).

Posted by Spot">Spot 2005-06-14 15:27|| 2005-06-14 15:27|| Front Page Top

#23 I dont know that slavery is unmuslim, any more than its unJewish or UnChristian. It allowed, but freeing slaves is mentioned as a good thing, at least enough to so that a modern has a textual basis for antislavery.

I thought Paul said something more than that, saying good slaves should serve their masters, something like that.

In any case, the later fathers of the church, who i suppose knew the second coming wasnt imminent, didnt have much problem with slavery either.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 15:31|| 2005-06-14 15:31|| Front Page Top

#24

catholic encyc - article on slavery (which is quite an awesome attempt at apologetics)

"St. Peter points out their duty: to be submissive "not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward", not with a mere inert resignation, but to give a good example and to imitate Christ, Who also suffered unjustly (I Peter, ii, 18, 23-4. In the eyes of the Apostles, a slave's condition, peculiarly wretched, peculiarly exposed to temptations, bears all the more efficacious testimony to the new religion. St. Paul recommends slaves to seek in all things to please their masters, not to contradict them, to do them no wrong, to honour them, to be loyal to them, so as to make the teaching of God Our Saviour shine forth before the eyes of all, and to prevent that name and teaching from being blasphemed (cf. I Tim, vi, 1; Tit., ii, 9, 10). "

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 15:34|| 2005-06-14 15:34|| Front Page Top

#25 liberalhawk, I think you need to consolidate your statements to make a point. In theory and in practice Judaism, along with Christianity, has not allowed slaveholding for 150 years or so. In theory, according to Someone, Islam encourages manumission, but in practice slaveholding is common, at least among rich Gulf Arabs (I find it hard to believe this is a practice of the Saudis alone). There is a great deal of indentured servitude on the Indian subcontinent even yet, where families are held generation after generation to pay off a debt incurred long ago; and I believe slavery still exists illegally in the hinterlands of Brazil, and likely elsewhere in the hinterlands of South America; and certainly slavery is very much the practice (Arab Muslims holding Black slaves) in sub-Saharan Africa. But none of this shows Islam's benevolence wrt slaveholding.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-06-14 15:35|| 2005-06-14 15:35|| Front Page Top

#26 Ahah! You did make a point, but it was while I was typing, so I missed it. Sorry. Good point. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-06-14 15:36|| 2005-06-14 15:36|| Front Page Top

#27 "In theory and in practice Judaism, along with Christianity, has not allowed slaveholding for 150 years or so"

Er no. Judaism requires one to follow secular law as a general rule. "Deena de malchuta Deena" Ergo when say, the US abolished slavery, Jews in the US had a halachic requirement to free their slaves. BECAUSE it was US law. Jews in the Ottoman empire could own slaves until the OE abolished slavery. I dont know of any generally accepted halachic decision that says slavery is assur (forbidden) where secular law allows it. No jews owned slaves in KSA in 1962, cause Jews werent allowed to live in KSA in 1962.

I cannot address Christianity of course. Which post 1600 is quite diverse.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 15:41|| 2005-06-14 15:41|| Front Page Top

#28 "In theory and in practice Judaism, along with Christianity, has not allowed slaveholding for 150 years or so"

Er no. Judaism requires one to follow secular law as a general rule. "Deena de malchuta Deena" Ergo when say, the US abolished slavery, Jews in the US had a halachic requirement to free their slaves. BECAUSE it was US law. Jews in the Ottoman empire could own slaves until the OE abolished slavery. I dont know of any generally accepted halachic decision that says slavery is assur (forbidden) where secular law allows it. No jews owned slaves in KSA in 1962, cause Jews werent allowed to live in KSA in 1962.

I cannot address Christianity of course. Which post 1600 is quite diverse.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 15:41|| 2005-06-14 15:41|| Front Page Top

#29 "From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:03:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Morality of slavery

Shmuel Himelstein wrote:

> It seems to me that we don't have to look very far to see that the Torah
> disapproves of slavery - certainly in terms of Jews.
> The simplest proof is that of the Eved Nirtzah, the Jewish slave who,
> when his servitude is up, decides that he would rather remain a
> slave. His ear is pierced, says the Midrash, because the ear which heard
> "Avadai haim" - they are My servants - and then voluntarily accepted
> slavery, deserves to be pierced. To me, this is a clear example that the
> Torah posits that slavery is a B'di'avad (ex post facto) construct, and
> not a LeChatchila (ab initio) construct. In other words, it seems to me
> - and again I say, at least in terms of Jews, the Torah regards the
> institution as an evil - even if under certain circumstances it might be
> a necessary evil.

But the Torah is clear about *why* it regards the institution of Eved
Ivri as undesirable: it's not because there's something wrong with
slavery, or with Jews being owned, but because `they're *my* slaves'.
When a Jew is sold involuntarily, he is merely suffering the just
punishment that Hashem has prescribed for him in the Torah. But when he
voluntarily submits himself to another person, he is renouncing Hashem's
prior ownership of him, and thus rebelling against his true Owner. So
even though Hashem permits it for humanitarian reasons (`for he loves
you and your family, for he has it good with you'), He makes it clear
that He disapproves.

Furthermore, the Torah makes it clear *why* we are Hashem's slaves; it's
not because He made us, as He did the whole world, but because He
rescued us from Egypt, not to set us free but to take us for Himself.
Goyim, who were not rescued from Egypt, are not Hashem's slaves, except
in the general sense in which `the whole world and its contents are
Hashem's', and therefore the Torah does not at all disapprove of owning
them, and indeed says `from them you *shall* buy slaves', which at least
some Tana'im saw as a positive command.

Rachel Rosencrantz wrote:

> First off, what we commonly think of as slavery (ala slavery in the USA)
> is quite different from what slavery is defined as in the Torah.
> It is said "He who acquires a slave acquires a master." (Kiddushin)
> After looking at the laws of slavery (at least a slave who is a Jew) its
> hard to see why anyone would want to have slaves.

This is only true of the Eved Ivri, who is better described as an
indentured servant than as a slave. As I said above, the true owner of
every Jew is Hashem, and while He permitted us under some circumstances
to have a limited `sublease' on other Jews, this is not a `ownership of
the body' but only of the work that the servant will perform. The Eved
Kenaani, on the other hand, is a true slave, whose owner has `ownership
of the body', and is not even obligated to feed him, let alone treat him
better than he treats himself. I see no significant difference between
this institution and slavery as it existed in the USA.

> In the case where someone sold themselves as a slave because they had no
> money, likewise it is intended as a period for the person to learn how
> to live on their own. At the end of 7 years the slave is to go free.
> If the slave chooses to stay it is seen as a problem.

Actually, the 6-year limit only applies to thieves sold involuntarily.
When a Jew sells himself, the term of his indenture is whatever he
negotiates with the purchaser, provided that it doesn't go past the
Yovel. In the first year of the Yovel, a Jew can sell himself for 49
years."

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-14 15:44|| 2005-06-14 15:44|| Front Page Top

#30 More on slavery in Soddy (from Dhimmi Watch)-
In Islam Unveiled I explain the theological and legal reasons why slavery persists in some Islamic societies â notably Mauritania and Sudan. I had a little bit of information on slavery in Saudi Arabia in there but for reasons I don't recall it didn't make the final draft. Still, slavery was only abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962, and there are numerous indications that it continues today â including this ad in Saudi paper (which I saw thanks to LGF) offering a 1991 Dodge for a "female servant" from Sri Lanka or India.

And why not? It's taken for granted in the Qur'an (see Suras 2:178, 2:221, 4:92, 5:89, and many more), and that is the foundation of Saudi society. It is also a cornerstone of the oppression of non-Muslims dhimmis, who throughout history have often been enslaved or treated as slaves by their Muslim overlords. The fact that such laws are still on the books ought to be the first concern of human rights organizations worldwide.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2005-06-14 16:19|| 2005-06-14 16:19|| Front Page Top

#31 Someone,
"....Yeman has recoved 3500 children trafficked in Saudi Arabia and other neighboring
... They were taken for the purposed of Slavery and illegal adoption. ..."
This was very recent, as recent as last year.

Posted by TMH 2005-06-14 17:42|| 2005-06-14 17:42|| Front Page Top

#32 TMH that's a cultural thing, you wouldn't understand.

Course it's the same culture that adopts a lying pederast as a seer. Who's to know.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-14 19:20|| 2005-06-14 19:20|| Front Page Top

#33 Well, after making my point, i will have to state that these countries, while stating that they are Islamic, in fact they only use Islam as a tool to strengthen their own hold on power. religion is used as a tool to drive (hurd) the people according to the wishes of the rulers.

As to connect an illegal activity done by a person or persons of religion to the religion itself, i don't think is very fortunate or correct.

Posted by someone 2005-06-14 19:46|| 2005-06-14 19:46|| Front Page Top

#34 Slavery may have been "outlawed" ina S.A., in a convieniently cosmetic "law" forming nothing more than a Chamberlainian piece of paper they they can narcissistically wave around in the usual self parody of vanity. They can claim "Outlawed" but not ABOLISHED. Shame on all those indulging in the criminal abuse of the term.

Posted by an dalusian dog">an dalusian dog 2005-06-14 22:00|| 2005-06-14 22:00|| Front Page Top

23:51 Captain America
23:19 eLarson
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:13 3dc
23:05 2b
23:00 3dc
22:55 mom
22:01 ed
22:00 an dalusian dog
21:41 badanov
21:35 Hank
21:26 Bobby
21:07 Spot
21:03 Atomic Conspiracy
20:59 mojo
20:51 Shairong Sninter4063
20:42 Bomb-a-rama
20:42 Zhang Fei
20:34 Bomb-a-rama
20:28 Frank G
20:26 OldSpook
20:25 .com
20:19 Tom
20:18 Apache