Slavery intrinsic to Arab Culture?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

all of what you say is non sense buddy.
Pashutns owning slaves is a fairytale.
Pashtuns never have owned slaves.

then why do Pashto books confirm it? the only nonsense here is how you desperately live in denial.

[khushal]

then why do Pashto books confirm it? the only nonsense here is how you desperately live in denial.

It is nonsense. show me sources.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

It is nonsense. show me sources.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OUbd6sOliLIC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=S.+A.+Mousavi,+%22thousands+of+Hazara+men,+women,+and+children+were+sold+as+slaves+in+the+markets+of+Kabul+and+Qandahar,+while+numerous+towers+of+human+heads+were+made+from+the+defeated+rebels+as+a+warning+to+others+who+might+challenge+the+rule+of+the+Amir%22&source=bl&ots=O1w2Cq_Ycz&sig=CkD66fAzHR2P_KHKbszDQ788qWU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ixm7T8e7G4GJ6AHyteTVCg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=S.%20A.%20Mousavi%2C%20%22thousands%20of%20Hazara%20men%2C%20women%2C%20and%20children%20were%20sold%20as%20slaves%20in%20the%20markets%20of%20Kabul%20and%20Qandahar%2C%20while%20numerous%20towers%20of%20human%20heads%20were%20made%20from%20the%20defeated%20rebels%20as%20a%20warning%20to%20others%20who%20might%20challenge%20the%20rule%20of%20the%20Amir%22&f=false

[Bigmo]

Slavery is forbidden in the Koran and iot was one of the issues Moses accused the Pharoah of and also it was one of the acts Joseph's brother did to him out of envy and hate.

Muslim authorities justified slavery by saying that the term in the Koran (ma malakat aymunukum) means female slaves. However MMA means a concubine and no a slave. Muslim authorities claimed that the propeht ordered female captives to be sold as slaves to the Muslim population. The Koran gave two options for prisoners of war. Freedom or ransom. The Muslim authorities added slavery for females and executions for males. This is just a few of the corruption that came to Islam.

The Koran tells us that feeding prisoners of war is an act of charity. This corruption has turned the history of Islam to a slave trade. Hence Islam became Pharoanic.

In the Bible


Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives.[8] The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.
The concubine may have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly translated as "wife", is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". (However, on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.[9]) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved.[10][11] The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and none of them result in capital punishment for either party,[12][13][14] although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship.[8] For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.[15] However, this instance is as likely dishonoring to David because it involves a form of incest, as David's concubines would have been somewhat like step-mothers to David's children.[16]
Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah.[8] The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife;[8] for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine.[17] Later[8] biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.[18]
In Judaism

In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword deriving from the Greek word pallakis, Greek παλλακίς,[19][20][21] meaning a mistress staying in house. Or the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife.[citation needed]
According to the Babylonian Talmud,[22] the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

[khushal]

http://books.google.com/books?id=OUb...mir%22&f=false

you said pashto books confirm it. you did not provide.

But this S A Mousavi is a racist shia hazara who claims riduculous things like hazara are the second largest ethnic group. His claims are ludicrous and is not backed by evidence. him claiming it is like you claiming it with no evidence.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Oh , well if you want a Pashto source, look in the memoirs of Abdur Rahman Khan

Mousawi being a "Maoist Shi'a" doesn't discredit him; that's called Ad-Hominem remember? That's Logical Fallacy.

so it still stands.


here is an english translation of the Pashto book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lEkoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA277&dq=The+life+of+Abdur+Rahman+labouring+classes+of+hazaras&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I1C7T4jgNsed6AG7trmDCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[khushal]

Oh , well if you want a Pashto source, look in the memoirs of Abdur Rahman Khan

Mousawi being a "Maoist Shi'a" doesn't discredit him; that's called Ad-Hominem remember? That's Logical Fallacy.

so it still stands.


here is an english translation of the Pashto book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lEk...page&q&f=false

What discredits him is not that he is a racist shia or that he has a habit of false claims but that he claims things without evidence. It will stand once he provides evidence. We are witnessing a narrative to make the hazaras as victims in Afghanistan like they made a narrative of making jews as victims after WW2.

You are going to have point out where abdur rahman claims he enslaved hazaras becasue I couldnt find it. All I could find is how the mongols massacred and colonized this region and left those people behind in hostile territory.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Then why even mention he's a maoist, shi'a hazara ....anyone can make an accusation. This doesn't discredit them. So yes it's stiill ad-hominem

well read the link; you'll find reference to Hazara slavery, in the annotations. It's on the same page

[khushal]

Then why even mention he's a maoist, shi'a hazara ....anyone can make an accusation. This doesn't discredit them. So yes it's stiill ad-hominem

well read the link; you'll find reference to Hazara slavery, in the annotations. It's on the same page

becasue he is a racist, thats why. besides you were playing games by saying pashto books. I wanted to make it clear that he is not a pashtun but a racist hazara. read his book "the hazaras of afghansitan" and you will see how much of a racist he is making false and ridiculous claims with no evidence. Its not ad hominem. it is claiming with no evidence like taj anderson.

all I could find on the same page was how the donkeys the hazaras use work like slaves. he does not say anything about how he enslaved the hazara. he just makes a comment about donkeys the hazara use. If anything he claimes the hazara are enslaving the donkeys.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

read further down Same page, trust me , THE ANNOTATION ... where is your evidence that he's a racist? You seem to be attacking the person and not the content; again an Ad-Hominem, the difference with taj Andersen is she's been proven wrong.

[khushal]

I read page 276-278 like three times. its not there.

i already listed the evidence as him being a racist. its his book "the hazaras of Afghanistan." he has not been proven right.

you still have not provided the evidence.

[khushal]

the annotation is a commentary, its not what abdur rahman wrote

it says that there is no house without a hazara servant. thats impossible since pashtuns dont allow outsiders in their home with their women. They have thier women do all the houselhold work. besides what happened to these hazaras, moast hazaras are in central afghanistan and the ones that live in kandahar and quetta escaped wars in central afghanitan. it does not make sense.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

and how do you know it isn't what he wrote? and even then, how would this change that it comes from a Pashto source?

[khushal]

its an annotation. its a commentary. why did he not write it in the book. its not from abdur rahman, you said that its from abdur rahman. your using trickery. your being intellectually dishonest.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Quote the whole annotation verbatim come on Khushal, and come on does servant have to be a male ?

you're squirming, this is fun.