Malcolm x: The house negro and the field negro

[Akherousin]

No he didnt get less extreme, he became a muslim, at his extreme time Malcolm X wasnt a Muslim, he was a non-muslim that followed a religion called 'nation of Islam' that believed the white man is the devil.

...how does leaving NOI constitute not being less extreme? I would think quite the opposite.

[Manzareh]

Because NOI were militant and had extreme views. care to explain why you think the opposite?

The NOI are not Muslims and never have been.

[faye]

Thats the laughable thing, you dont even know how to take care ov yourselves after taking a shiit. you used to take a piss in buckets and throw them out of windows wereas at the same time Muslims had complex sewage systems. Answer the question, the same hand you use to clean yo ass is the same hand you use to eat, you probly dont even think about it but it still a 50% chance your sniffin yo backside while munching on ya bacon sandwich..then you call us primitive. Infact its a survey'd statistic that most of you dont even wash yourhands after going to the toilet.

Hazaras moved to ozzyland etc and you moved to which is a native brown country, why dont you stick in your own part of the world and then maybe we'l be free to develope and wont have any need to move amongst you pissheads.

how can you put sanctions on brown people of the world, you do not let them progress, The west has plenty of superpowers why does it hurt so bad when korea or Iran make advancements? or is civilisation only for the white people

You cant complain about swords chopping heads off or barbaric behaviour in the East as you people are a direct obstacle from it not happening and stopping the browns having the same progression and living standards in the west, You blow a country up for no reason kill millions of its people off sending them back to the stone age and then have the nerve to take the piss and complain they are in a stone age.

Everybody has there own struggle, your sitting there talking shiit as if white on white crime doesnt happen, do you really want me to prove how some of your kind act, just because it isnt shown on fox news doesnt mean people are oblivious to it, save your white supremacey fairytales for your imaginary grandchildren at bedtime.

manzareh, the muscles in your brain have caused a seizure of your intelligence. this is very sad to see, that you have regressed to this pitiful standard.
your ego is your own creation. it is one of the aspects of a human being that with your free will, you design. if you think you have to break the rules of your own religion to make a point to a kaffir like me, then you are suffering from weakness.
why are there no warnings for travellers to western countries, about diseases cause by fecal matter?

[Manzareh]

You a monk or something.

to answer question, because they have diseases as they are living in the stone age. why are they in the stone age? refer to the previous post.

[faye]

do you hammer in nails with your forehead, manzareh?

[Manzareh]

Speaking of nails, your head definitely needs fixing, maybe you need a nail or two in the head to secure that plank of wood you have in place of a brain.

and speaking of deceases why did your people create HIV/AIDS and then spread it through Africa. If black man no slave then black man no good huh?

[Akherousin]

Funny thing is, Malcolm X became less extreme as he got older and eventually agreed that both the white population of USA and the black population could live and work together.

But of course, no one discusses that, oh no.

Because NOI were militant and had extreme views. care to explain why you think the opposite?

The NOI are not Muslims and never have been.

Trying to restrain myself with the lack of reading comprehension here...

[کیش]

And the house Negro always looked out for his master. When the field Negroes got too much out of line, he held them back in check. He put 'em back on the plantation. The house Negro could afford to do that because he lived better than the field Negro. He ate better, he dressed better, and he lived in a better house. He lived right up next to his master - in the attic or the basement. He ate the same food his master ate and wore his same clothes. And he could talk just like his master - good diction. And he loved his master more than his master loved himself. That's why he didn't want his master hurt. If the master got sick, he'd say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" When the master's house caught afire, he'd try and put the fire out. He didn't want his master's house burned. He never wanted his master's property threatened. And he was more defensive of it than the master was.

I have this coversation daily.

[faye]

kais, u a house or fieldy?

[Ghundal]

its a classic speech.

"What's the matter, boss, we siiccccckkkkkkk?'

LOL, he sure did know how to make a point with a hilarious twist.

A very charismatic speaker

[کیش]

kais, u a house or fieldy?

House

Master owns business, I own business.

[Manzareh]

Trying to restrain myself with the lack of reading comprehension here...

Because it seems you lack the ability to follow a conversation. Try understand what i said instead of reading sentences like a robot, it'l help.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I have a question which is probably worthy of another thread, but as I understand it, whilst Muslims are encouraged to free slaves, in an 'ideal' Muslims theocracy slavery is still a legally defined status within Islamic jurisprudence.

Therefore as per the Islamic definition of slavery, free-born Muslims would be at liberty to buy and sell human slaves, right?

Am I right in understanding that technically, slavery therefore cannot be outlawed?

From what I understand in the Islamic jurisprudence there is the status of Haraam and the status of Makruh. I think two definitive pieces of evidence that shows where slavery falls on the spectrum are the following:

Bukhari:
Allah's Apostle said "Three persons will have a double reward: 1. A Person from the people of the scriptures who believed in his prophet (Jesus or Moses) and then believed in the Prophet Muhammad (i .e. has embraced Islam). 2. A slave who discharges his duties to Allah and his master. 3. A master of a woman-slave who teaches her good manners and educates her in the best possible way and manumits her and then marries her

*Note that each step of the discussion of how a female slave is treated is not contingent on the next one. So for instance, her education is not incumbent on him teaching her manners and her manumussion is not correlated to having to marry the master.

The added level of complexity comes in when we adjust our mind to the fact that how society is ordered today is not the only way that it is allowed to be ordered across the world and across time. For instance, is the inner city African American more free than Malcolm X and MLK were years ago or less free? Is freedom defined as simply: the right to be mobile + the right to say as you please + the right to not recieve an order? Are African nations and occupied nations in a state of perpetual slavery or are they free? Is the underlying article of free will what defines slavery versus freedom? For instance, though the emancipation proclamation was promulgated in the 1800s would we then have defined Blacks as less free or more free relative to the Civil Rights Act era under Kennedy?

Why I raise these questions is that Islamic theology makes radical statements regarding the definition and role of a slave:
Bukhari:
"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.' "

The execution of what is deemed "dress him of what he wears" is clearly provided by the behavior of Abu Dhar. Meaning of Tor Khan gets to wear a nice Chapaan and a cotton turban he needs to ensure his slave gets some of his wealth as well. If Tor Khan asks his slave to build a house, and notes that he is overdoing it, he must pitch in and help.

Then the Quran completes the circle with the following ayaah at its front end:

"Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous."

Surah Baqraah indicates that this is a righteous act.

In short Islam
1. Does not declare slavery haraam
2. But it does advocate freeing slaves completely
3. In a societal structure where slaves are kept, a bill of rights exists to protect them

I would assume this renders the act Makruh, but I am not an alim and am discussing this as an amateur.

Is there room for innovation? For instance, if a Caliph promulgates an emancipation proclamation, is he exceeding his authority?

The question of innovation was actively debated during Othmaan Ibn Afaan's time as many of is reforms such as

1) Collecting the Quran into a single Mushaaf
2) Organizing the muezzins

are discussed as potential innovations... yet they recieved a consensus opinion.

Yet Omar attempted to limit the dowry and the females of the populace were able to counter him and debate him about his abuse of executive privelege (i.e. he declared unlawful what God and his Prophet had not).

yet Omar also suspended the hand cutting in a time of famine...

So my gut feeling is that if a Caliph did something of the sort he could gather a consensus... but these are vibrant and lively debates that need to be had.

I actually do not consider this a "dirty secret" of the Muslim world... rather I consider the discussion found in the corpus of the hadith and the Quran as revolutionary when it comes to human rights. Thankfully, they provide a basis to reach a consensus statement.