Abdul-Latif Mushtahari Quotes

Prior to 1799 it was common for Slave Ship owners to insure their cargo, the life of the slaves. Without such insurance the slave trade was a very risky business. There were cases of captains murdering “difficult” slaves and collecting the insurance on them and the most horrible of all, throwing lots of slaves overboard to avoid arrest by those countries which had outlawed the slave trade, and then collecting insurance on the dead “cargo.” One insurance company simply refused to write insurance on slave ships. See {622020}.

A Kafir is a non-Muslim. This statement is a distortion of a number of passages of the Koran.

His is the most cogent explanation of the early Muslim acceptance of slavery. However, he does not explain why Islamic nations were the last to make slavery illegal—usually under pressure from Christian nations or why illegal slavery continued to be openly practiced in Sudan and a few other Islamic countries even into the 21st century.

Muslims are divided about the role of the Islamic religious courts. Some believed that these should be the only courts and should govern all law, religious and civil on the grounds that there are no real differences in Islam. Others believe, as Jammal put forth, that religious courts should only deal with religious and personal matters. Still others believe that these is no place in modern society for religious courts. This debate echoes the debate that took place in Christianity and Judaism, but the vast majority of these have concluded that there is no place for religious courts

This treaty shows slaves were a major currency of the times and cultures. The Arab Armies of Egypt and the Nubians with this treaty declared an armistice. The extensive Arab use of Black slaves officially begun at this time, has plagued Africa since. Arab slave traders were the middle men who met the European and American demand for slaves until the 19th century. Even at the millennium the Sudanese civil war between the Arab North and Black South has reflected this resentment and hostility and has involved the Northerner’s enslaving tens of thousands of Black Southerners.

Van Buren was Ambassador to England at the time.

See {617160} for a similar legal opinion. The concern was that poor Muslims may desert their faith when they see how well-dressed the tolerated people, Christians and Jews, are. They might conclude that Christianity or Judaism is better at making people wealthy than was Islam. See {617162} for a Koranic support of the idea. The Western view of this is generally, that is what the marketplace of ideas is all about. In 21st century America, Jews and Mormons on the average were the wealthiest religious groups. The logic of al-Ramli is that Mormons and Jews—each only 6 percent of the population—should not be allowed to show their wealth, lest Roman Catholics for example—25 percent of the population—will convert from Catholicism to the other two religions. From a democratic point of view, the response should be, we so be it. That is their choice. But America is the living proof that the assumption of conversion and loss of faith is per se wrong. The Mormons and Jews are visibly more successful, yet there are very few Roman Catholics leaving their church and converting to the two wealthier religions. There are some, but not at any greater rate than people convert from “wealthier” religions.

See {617157} for a similar legal opinion. The concern was that poor Muslims may desert their faith when they see how well housed the tolerated people, Christians and Jews, are. They might conclude that Christianity or Judaism is better at making people wealthy than was Islam. See {617162} for a Koranic support of the idea. The Western view of this is generally, that is what the marketplace of ideas is all about. In 21st century America, Jews and Mormons on the average were the wealthiest religious groups. The logic of al-Ramli is that Mormons and Jews—each only 6 percent of the population—should not be allowed to show their wealth, lest Roman Catholics for example—25 percent of the population—will convert from Catholicism to the other two religions. From a democratic point of view, the response should be, we so be it. That is their choice. But America is the living proof that the assumption of conversion and loss of faith is per se wrong. The Mormons and Jews are visibly more successful, yet there are very few Roman Catholics leaving their church and converting to the two wealthier religions. There are some, but not at any greater rate than people convert from “wealthier” religions.

This was a book on Islamic law—Sharia. According to Khomeini, if a Muslim kills a Muslim he should be punished for murder. However of a Muslim kills a non Muslim, he should not be punished unless he is a serial killer of non-Muslims. This is not in the context of Jihad but in the ordinary course of normal human activity where murder may be committed. This is just another way in which Christians, Jews and others who are not Muslims are second class citizens in Islamic law.

Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, 1943-2010, was an modernistic Egyptian Islamic Scholar and a Professor at the University of Cairo. One of his writings argued that the discriminatory tax that the Koran specified for Christians and Jews in an Islamic nation was not fair or consonant with modern thought regarding freedom of religion and the rights of minorities. Some fundamentalist were outraged and charged him with Apostacy for criticizing a Koranic prescription. He was convicted and lost his professorship. That was the least of his problems. Since he was an apostate, he was not a Muslim the Egyptian Courts ruled, and therefore his wife, a Muslim, could not legally remain married to her. His marriage was legally dissolved and he was threatened with death by fundamentalists forcing him and his wife to go into exile in Holland where he taught at the Utrecht University. He never returned.

This quotation was reported to Congress by Thomas Jefferson. Essentially, this religious justification is no different from that made by contemporary Islamic extremists. Particularly interesting is the last sentence. The Koran states that all Muslims who die defending Islam will go immediately to heaven regardless of their previous sins and transgressions. Under that justification, even criminal extortion and terrorism is justified by some Muslims whenever the victims are non-believers.

The term “slave soldiers” oversimplifies the relationships which existed in Islamic societies. For example the Sultans of the Ottoman Turks established networks of non-Muslim minorities, Christians, Jews and others who while slaves could wield tremendous power. Grand Viziers were even slaves. The slavery concept meant that the Sultan had the power of arbitrary life and death over the soldier which is what he wanted for his key units. Islamic law prohibited Muslims from holding other Muslims as slaves.

There was little thought of emancipating slaves or their value to the South by the senior officers of the Union Army at the beginning of the war. The Secretary of War however changed that. See {629184}.

The Muslim Brotherhood had won the Presidency in the first Egyptian democratic election shortly after the ouster of Mubarak when they were the only party that was organized. However, after one year of government, their performance was so bad that critics like El Baradei offered strong public criticism—especially of the preoccupation with Islam with little government attention given to freedom, human rights, and the economy which was in terrible shape. This was the focus of the pointed article title. A few days after this article was published there was an insurrection of huge crowds of Egyptians and the Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi was forced to resign.

Earl of Cromer

Historically, this is an amazing quotation. It is typical of analyses of Islam in the 21st century when America and most of the non-Muslim world was having great difficulties with Islamic militancy. But this was written at the end of the 19th century, in 1899. Churchill had a grasp of much that it would take other politicians a century to understand. This book was relatively unknown to all but a few historians, military men, and political scholars. (There was a shortened version published in 1902 which did not include this passage and that is the version that Project Gutenberg posted on the Internet. So do not assume that the quotation is wrong if you cannot find it in the version you are reading on the Internet. You need the 1899 longer and more detailed version.

While the author represents the views of most Islamic Fundamentalists, a similar view is held by many ulta-orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians also.