Malcolm X, Converts & Moving Past Window Dressing Islam

[miandadrules]

http://almadinainstitute.org/blog/malcolm-x-converts-moving-past-window-dressing-islam/

Malcolm X, Converts & Moving Past Window Dressing Islam

Mohammed Saleem on 16 February 2015

Mohammed Saleem is the editor-in-chief of ImanWire and contributor for Al-Madina Institute. He tweets at @imanwired.

America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered ‘white’—but the ‘white’ attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color.

-The Autobiography of Malcolm X 1

Growing up Muslim in greater white America, Malcolm X was a figure rarely spoken of. This was no different in the insular immigrant Muslim community, borne out of an ignorance of the full trajectory of his life, its own racial attitudes and ethnocentric concerns, and a disinterest in the struggle for black liberation (and indeed most issues facing indigenous minorities). If there was a cursory mention of him, it simply parroted the narrative and assessment of Malcolm that white Christian America defined for them: He was one of those Black Muslims (not a real one), he was dangerous, he ruffled feathers, he was unpalatable to his society—in other words, he was the opposite of what most immigrant Muslims were trying to achieve in their materialistic American dream that promised security. Like most immigrants, trying to gain a socioeconomic foothold in the land and establish themselves was the paramount concern; interest in the local struggles unpopular to their masters, the ruling white establishment—no matter how severe the injustice—was not.

While second-generation Muslims enjoyed the economic comforts of what their immigrant parents had established for them, finding relevancy in the American landscape and forming a distinctly American Muslim identity was the challenge. For me, and I’m sure countless others, the fateful day was when, by chance, I came across The Autobiography of Malcolm X as a teenager browsing in the library. To my astonishment, as I flicked through the pages, a chapter titled “Mecca” caught my eye and I read on. For the first time in my life, there it was, an example of a real American Muslim that rang true. The specifics of our alienation may have differed, but its essence, and the path to rectifying it, was the same. Any notions of cultural dissonance and ambiguity were finally clarified into a vision of who the American Muslim should be—reflections of the spiritual light of the Messenger ﷺ, calling humanity to what is greater than themselves, while freeing them from the yokes of injustice and barriers that prevent them from reaching their God-given potential.

Whether you are “immigrant” or “indigenous”, The Autobiography of Malcolm X is the book every American Muslim needs to have close to their heart. His moving account of the Hajj, in particular, and the ensuing transformation he experiences is required reading. We do him a great disservice however when we limit our conception of him to only the Hajj. Pigeonholing Malcolm to his Hajj experience alone also reflects our tendency to do the same to converts2 in general, as we often ignore their life experience preceding their Islam, even though those experiences fostered their Islam and could, if we allowed it, foster our own awakening. Reflecting on the period of Malcolm’s life after the Hajj is therefore essential because it highlights our need to integrate our role as callers to Islam with the call to justice.



After the Hajj in April 1964, Malcolm travelled extensively throughout Africa and the Middle East (two separate trips spanning a total of six months) forming relationships with leaders while highlighting the struggle of black Americans in a greater global context, calling on the world to support their liberation. Before Hajj, locally at home, he had established the Muslim Mosque Inc. to serve as the spiritual base for Muslims. After Hajj, he founded the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), a non-religious organization that allowed non-Muslims and Muslims to participate. The two organizations were conceived to be complementary, one serving the spiritual needs specific to Muslims themselves and necessary for black liberation, the other seeking broader cooperation with those of other faiths to achieve that same goal. The flowering of his faith did not make him more exclusive, but rather made his efforts more expansive, as the fight for black liberation was a human issue, not simply for those of African descent. True faith expands both merciful love and justice, rather than restricting it.

Several of his contemporaries in the Muslim world hoped however that he would stress calling people to orthodox Islam after Hajj, perhaps hoping his outspoken focus on black liberation would fade away or cease. They failed to understand that truly internalizing Islam as Malcolm did bolstered and guided his effort to serve humanity, first and foremost by addressing the most pressing injustice facing his community—fighting white supremacy. It was a call he would never abandon, as it was inseparable from his very religious identity.3

This attitude is sadly shared by many “born” Muslims in our relationship with our brothers and sisters who have accepted Islam. Like Malcolm, we expect their “Hajj moment”, their entrance into the faith, to mark the abandonment of every concern and struggle they had in their “pre-Islamic” life. “You’re Muslim now, there is no longer racism. We are all brothers. You can forget about the other causes now.” That may not be exactly what we say, but it’s what we mean.

It is this idealization of Muslims that causes us to be blinded to the evident racism both in and outside the community, as well as the real social problems on our very doorstep living in America. Many an African-American Muslim has heard the critique from their Christian counterparts: “You moved from the back of the bus to the back of the mosque.” Yes, this phenomenon is a product of racism, but it also stems from the immigrant Muslim communities’ overall failure to learn from the struggles and culture of those who convert. The thinking essentially is: We were always Muslim. These are the issues that really matter to our tribe of Islam, adopt our cultural identity and narrative to replace your own, and forget everything else. It’s not just racism, it’s our feeling of religious superiority and authenticity, a type of intra-Muslim exceptionalism based on our own cultural standards rather than the overarching Divine message.

This reality on the ground in our communities will always then be fodder for both critics and non-Muslim supporters of Malcolm himself. As powerful as his Hajj account may be for Muslims, skeptics have always called into question the real meaning of his post-Hajj conclusions about race. In 1967, Reverend Albert Cleage went so far as to state that Malcolm could not have been duped by the “window dressing” at Hajj, noting the reality of racism and slavery in the Middle East.4 Others posited that the Autobiography intentionally idealized the Hajj as a form of religious propaganda. Even some of Malcolm’s own followers questioned his new conclusions about race relations that were reflected in the letters he wrote while abroad.

Was his experience on Hajj not entirely “real” because racism exists in the Muslim world, or could they simply not believe that this type of brotherhood could exist at all, regardless of religious affiliation?

Muslims would argue the emotions and insights experienced by Malcolm were in fact undoubtedly real, based on their own personal experiences, yet this does not negate the fact that racism exists in the Muslim community. When we are in congregational prayer or performing the rites of Hajj alongside people of different colors and cultures, there is real brotherhood—within that act of ritual worship. This is evident by the fact that the thoughts about these differences between us are absent in our minds as we perform these acts. Even a racist Muslim would not likely be bothered by or even consider the race of the worshiper in close contact with him as he performs his prayer. That these conscious feelings are removed in this ibadah, no matter how brief this may be, is the mercy and beauty that God has blessed the community of Muhammad ﷺ in these rites of congregational worship. We do not pray in parallel, we are connected, at the very least temporarily, as human beings together in worship of Allah alone.

The degree by which we inculcate the universal message of Islam and demonstrate our taqwa (God-consciousness) to the Creator depends on how much we strive to extend that feeling of brotherhood beyond these acts of ritual worship. Malcolm was blessed with the insight to see that this could be extended beyond worship, that Islam could solve the race problem, if Islam was truly practiced as it was intended to be by God and His Messenger ﷺ.



That was, and is, his lasting challenge to the American Muslim community, fifty years later. Making the brotherhood a reality requires that we truly learn about the issues and struggles unique to the life experiences of both our co-religionists from different backgrounds and our neighbors of other faiths. For converts, it means appreciating and learning from the positive elements of their life prior to their testimony of faith. When Hakim ibn Hizam (may Allah be pleased with him), who lived for 60 years prior to accepting Islam, asked the Prophet ﷺ what would happen to his prior good deeds, which notably included maintaining good relations with others, charity and freeing slaves, the Prophet replied, “You embraced Islam with all the good deeds which you did in the past”.5 His very acceptance of Islam, in fact, was the result of the good he had done previously, and he would be rewarded for both.

How then could we ever expect someone to leave or diminish a struggle for which the gift of Islam was its reward? Indeed, it should be the reverse; we must embrace that struggle not only to serve the obligation of justice Islam mandates on us, but to share in the blessings and spiritual gifts from that struggle. Moreover, the Prophet ﷺ made it a point to indicate that he would still fulfill the pledge of Hilf-ul-Fudul, an agreement safeguarding the safety and security of people by the Quraysh before his Prophethood. Good causes remain good causes, regardless of the parties involved, and we must not be reticent to work with anyone. Like Malcolm’s OAAU, we don’t need to require Muslim membership to collaborate.

Our goal must be to actively seek out and support whatever benefits people on the ground, rather than passively react to an endlessly negative news cycle that only serves to paralyze and distract us from the greater good. If those causes happens to benefit Muslims, that is a blessing, but it is never the intent. “And no one has in his mind no favor from anyone for which a reward is expected in return, except the seeking of the pleasure of his Lord, the most High” (The Qur'an, Al-Layl: 19-20). We are only the best community when we enjoin what is just for the sake of God alone, not for the sake of appearances or secondary motives. As Malcolm taught us that is the only way we can cure ourselves of the deeply entrenched cancer of racism. The struggle has to be our own and emanate from pure hearts that implore God to remove this disease and make us beacons of light in the world, so that the spirit of Hajj permeates all our relationships. To strive for anything less would be window dressing Islam.

It's a creative exercise I suppose, to take a well known personality and imagine that he might have renounced his beliefs if he lived in a different time. You could probably do the same with most personalities to be fair. Winston Churchill would have been described as a racist today, but he's remembered for his impact in context of the era he lived in.

Would Gandhi have renounced his spinning wheel and Hindu asceticism and donned his lawyer hat instead in today's fast paced world? Would Donald Trump be exactly the same brash, loudmouth oaf if he lived in the 1920's or would he have been bumped off by Al Capone for stepping on his turf?

It's a fair proposition that history's figures may all have turned out different if they lived in another era.

I thought I was trying to look at it from your perspective by examining famous personalities through a different lens using time and context. Is that now considered putting a spin on it?

The basic premise of the original article was the relevance of Malcolm's message today and moving past a superficial understanding of what he said. The author, in what is essentially a poorly written article, makes numerous references to racism and prejudice within the Muslim community and it's failure on the whole to even acknowledge it let alone address it.

In order to apply his message today, you would also have go beyond "the window dressing" (as the author like to put it) not just of his Hajj experience but also beyond that quote you are so fond of continually posting. In order to truly appreciate the significance of Malcolm's world view with regards to its relevance today, you would need delve deeper and see if he analysed the issues that plague the Muslim world (such as race) and it's doctrine of slavery.

The fact that you don't even acknowledge this suggests that not only were you making statements with regards Malcolm's views and racial discrimination in the middle-east, which you acknowledged when pressed you knew little of but also you may not have even read the original article or at the very least understood it's basic premise. Which is shocking to say the least.

Your examples of Gandhi and Churchill are absurd as they have no correlation to what is being discussed here. The issue isn't Malcolm's historical standing but the application of his world view today.

If anyone proposed to impose Churchill's colonialist world view today, with it's underlying premise of moral superiority they would rightfully be called a bigot. This is exemplified by criticisms of the nascent Alt-Right. That wouldn't have any bearing on the analysis of him as a leader during war time nor his securing Britain's world standing as her power plummeted.

The Gandhi example is even more absurd as what relevance does his career choice in todays setting have?

If you had made the correlation between suggesting Gandhi's world view to be adopted today then the analysis of his actions and beliefs would be totally relevant. Ghandi's humble persona was a facade, which was evident by how much it costs the Congress party. This was put quite eloquently by Patrick French in his book "Liberty or Death" when he quoted Nehru (I think) stating that it costs Congress a lot of money to keep that old man poor.

His asceticism was exposed even at the time, with his abhorrent views on South African Blacks and Dalit's as well as his behaviour with young female members of his congregation. So, if you were to suggest Gandhi's views as a guide to modern living such analysis would be essential.

Like you did in the evolution thread, you have a tendency to make bold statements on issues you have little grasp of and then look introduce caveats and attempt to divert the focus of the discussion.

 

[miandadrules]

Because now that there are no slaves, I want to see what will happen if some Muslim country with a khulafa e rashida like government comes into power. btw, do you know the answer?

Unfortunately, slavery is being practiced in various forms throughout the world.

And because there is textual justification, if reports are to believed then groups such as ISIS and Bako Haram use this rationale to enslave.

 

[miandadrules]

You clearly have no idea of captives when it comes to Islam.

The term slavery is not relevant to the principles of Islam. According to the laws of the faith, you can only keep those captive who are fighting you , ie prisoners of war. In times of war there are 3 options, you can kill the captive, let them go or keep them as prisoners of war. Letting someone go who will attempt to kill you and your family again isn't always an option. In Islam you can't go around capturing free people to keep as slaves. You have to integrate POW's back into society and it is highly recommended to free them when there is no fear of more aggression.

I suggest you learn a lot more before commenting on a subject you claim to know about but have no clue of the basics.

Do you think this is some profound logic?

According to you only those that fight you can be held captive, yet you fail to give a definition of an opposition fighter or what would constitute a prisoner of war?

What great psychoanalysis was done to deem them a threat and what analysis to deem them neutralised? We have thousands of books on such subjects now,so please share this knowledge, otherwise it would be seem an arbitrary exercise based on the whims of the slave master.

In the same token, I guess you have no issue with the practice of the USA in Guantanamo Bay? Those captives seem to fall in to your conveniently vague definitions.

What judicial procedures were in place to judge someone guilty of the such an offence?

If it is only combatants then why were women enslaved? And why were these women then used as concubines? If your rational is to be followed and you can only hold those captive that are a threat to you, then surely they can't also be a concubine? Why this logical fallacy? Or is this a means to integrate them in to society, as you like to put it?

According to Bukhari (44/6) a freed slave was sold back in to slavery due to no fault of his own, which does make a mockery of your assertion that a free person couldn't be enslaved.

I take it from your support of this practice that you feel groups such as ISIS are justified in their actions with regards to enslavement?

You can chose to believe whatever you want but you can't then run from the reality of such justification when it is used to persecute people. Muslim history is filled with incidences of brutal enslavement because the practice was legitimised ranging from the events leading up to the Zanj rebellion to modern day actions of ISIS and Boko haram. You can claim differing interpretations, but the very fact this is open to any interpretation means it can be used to brutalise people, which is the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

So, why don't you go back to the charlatan that fed you that rationale and ask him to provide you with something a little more intellectually robust and with some gravitas and then we can really see how little I know on the subject.

You have a propensity to support policies which can lead to the persecution of minorities, as is evident from your justification of slavery, defence of the slave-labour practices of Middle-eastern countries and your support of blasphemy laws, all with very vague definitions. As long it is not you at the receiving end you are more than happy with the practices but you're the first to cry victimisation when your clan is on the receiving end.

That some moral compass you have.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The basic premise of the original article was the relevance of Malcolm's message today and moving past a superficial understanding of what he said. The author, in what is essentially a poorly written article, makes numerous references to racism and prejudice within the Muslim community and it's failure on the whole to even acknowledge it let alone address it.

In order to apply his message today, you would also have go beyond "the window dressing" (as the author like to put it) not just of his Hajj experience but also beyond that quote you are so fond of continually posting. In order to truly appreciate the significance of Malcolm's world view with regards to its relevance today, you would need delve deeper and see if he analysed the issues that plague the Muslim world (such as race) and it's doctrine of slavery.

The fact that you don't even acknowledge this suggests that not only were you making statements with regards Malcolm's views and racial discrimination in the middle-east, which you acknowledged when pressed you knew little of but also you may not have even read the original article or at the very least understood it's basic premise. Which is shocking to say the least.

Your examples of Gandhi and Churchill are absurd as they have no correlation to what is being discussed here. The issue isn't Malcolm's historical standing but the application of his world view today.

If anyone proposed to impose Churchill's colonialist world view today, with it's underlying premise of moral superiority they would rightfully be called a bigot. This is exemplified by criticisms of the nascent Alt-Right. That wouldn't have any bearing on the analysis of him as a leader during war time nor his securing Britain's world standing as her power plummeted.

The Gandhi example is even more absurd as what relevance does his career choice in todays setting have?

If you had made the correlation between suggesting Gandhi's world view to be adopted today then the analysis of his actions and beliefs would be totally relevant. Ghandi's humble persona was a facade, which was evident by how much it costs the Congress party. This was put quite eloquently by Patrick French in his book "Liberty or Death" when he quoted Nehru (I think) stating that it costs Congress a lot of money to keep that old man poor.

His asceticism was exposed even at the time, with his abhorrent views on South African Blacks and Dalit's as well as his behaviour with young female members of his congregation. So, if you were to suggest Gandhi's views as a guide to modern living such analysis would be essential.

Like you did in the evolution thread, you have a tendency to make bold statements on issues you have little grasp of and then look introduce caveats and attempt to divert the focus of the discussion.

you are right, I didn't read the full article, I got past the first couple of paragraphs before my eyes started glazing over, so on reflection I should have just ignored the thread. The Churchill and Gandhi references might have seemed absurd to you, but at the end of the day when you are speculating on what a famous figure might have done in an alternate future, by nature you are indulging in conjecture. At best you might hold the opinion that your conjecture might be more likely to play out than mine. at the end of the day though, it is still just your opinion and it is still just conjecture. Maybe better researched and better informed conjecture, but conjecture all the same.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do you think this is some profound logic?

According to you only those that fight you can be held captive, yet you fail to give a definition of an opposition fighter or what would constitute a prisoner of war?

What great psychoanalysis was done to deem them a threat and what analysis to deem them neutralised? We have thousands of books on such subjects now,so please share this knowledge, otherwise it would be seem an arbitrary exercise based on the whims of the slave master.

In the same token, I guess you have no issue with the practice of the USA in Guantanamo Bay? Those captives seem to fall in to your conveniently vague definitions.

What judicial procedures were in place to judge someone guilty of the such an offence?

If it is only combatants then why were women enslaved? And why were these women then used as concubines? If your rational is to be followed and you can only hold those captive that are a threat to you, then surely they can't also be a concubine? Why this logical fallacy? Or is this a means to integrate them in to society, as you like to put it?

According to Bukhari (44/6) a freed slave was sold back in to slavery due to no fault of his own, which does make a mockery of your assertion that a free person couldn't be enslaved.

I take it from your support of this practice that you feel groups such as ISIS are justified in their actions with regards to enslavement?

You can chose to believe whatever you want but you can't then run from the reality of such justification when it is used to persecute people. Muslim history is filled with incidences of brutal enslavement because the practice was legitimised ranging from the events leading up to the Zanj rebellion to modern day actions of ISIS and Boko haram. You can claim differing interpretations, but the very fact this is open to any interpretation means it can be used to brutalise people, which is the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

So, why don't you go back to the charlatan that fed you that rationale and ask him to provide you with something a little more intellectually robust and with some gravitas and then we can really see how little I know on the subject.

You have a propensity to support policies which can lead to the persecution of minorities, as is evident from your justification of slavery, defence of the slave-labour practices of Middle-eastern countries and your support of blasphemy laws, all with very vague definitions. As long it is not you at the receiving end you are more than happy with the practices but you're the first to cry victimisation when your clan is on the receiving end.

That some moral compass you have.

I would advise you worry about your understanding of this subject rather than my moral compass, since you don't know me and never will.

You're making some ridiculous claims here , bringing in ISIS as a form of argument. lol.

Please start a new thread on this subject and outline your position clearly with evidence , instead of pointing to one hadith.

Keep in mind..

Islam is a faith of justice. A former slave was given the honour of standing upon the house of God to deliver the call to prayer. Women taken as captives were given the same right as ones wife, they were not forced into having intimate relations. They were allowed to marry, have children of their own. Lawful captives were integrated and became leaders of people. Such people were given food, clothing as like that of their masters. Some battles were such no captives were even taken but allowed to go free such as the conquest/liberation of Mecca. There are countless texts which shows the rights of such people, how they should be treated and allowed to be free too. Captives even had a voice equal to free men in matters. It's idiotic to claim Islam allowed slavery as most people understand it. But I look forward to you starting a new thread and explaining this to me , as so far you have said nothing convincing in your argument but as usual like to ask questions when you have no explanation yourself.

 

[miandadrules]

you are right, I didn't read the full article, I got past the first couple of paragraphs before my eyes started glazing over, so on reflection I should have just ignored the thread. The Churchill and Gandhi references might have seemed absurd to you, but at the end of the day when you are speculating on what a famous figure might have done in an alternate future, by nature you are indulging in conjecture. At best you might hold the opinion that your conjecture might be more likely to play out than mine. at the end of the day though, it is still just your opinion and it is still just conjecture. Maybe better researched and better informed conjecture, but conjecture all the same.

So, once again you've tried to make a series of "definitive" statements on a subject matter you have little understanding of.

The premise of the article was the relevance of Malcolm's message today. It is logical to question the appropriateness of such a premise without having clear statements from Malcolm on the issues I raised. Yet you insisted that all that was required was that quote as justification, without context and without nuance. So the speculation was on your part, whereas I merely raised appropriate and relevant questions. I didn't speculate on what his answers would be. I have already come to my own conclusion that Malcolm's message isn't relevant today on the subject of Islam and race relations.

It is not conjecture on my part as I am not proposing Malcolm's world view, I am questioning the author's rationale in doing so. Such basic critical thinking skills are required in analysing any material.

Hence, it's strange why didn't you call out the author for his speculation?


I will ask again how are your examples analogous to what is being discussed here?

What do Churchill's views on race have on his standing as a war time leader? There is no speculation to be had. No one is being asked to assess his morality nor to adopt his philosophy now. Had these things been proposed you would be justified in asking questions, but even then your questions have no relevance to the issue you raised. Totally illogical.

The Gandhi analogy is even more preposterous. What relevance does Gandhi being a lawyer today have to do with it? What parameters are even being discussed?

The fact is you have been exposed and now are looking for an out, by diminishing criticism directed at you by saying that it's merely conjecture by all. However, which scenario did I say was going to play out? I didn't, I merely asked a question. It is you who speculated, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't tar me with your ignorant brush.

 

[miandadrules]

I would advise you worry about your understanding of this subject rather than my moral compass, since you don't know me and never will.

You're making some ridiculous claims here , bringing in ISIS as a form of argument. lol.

Please start a new thread on this subject and outline your position clearly with evidence , instead of pointing to one hadith.

Keep in mind..

Islam is a faith of justice. A former slave was given the honour of standing upon the house of God to deliver the call to prayer. Women taken as captives were given the same right as ones wife, they were not forced into having intimate relations. They were allowed to marry, have children of their own. Lawful captives were integrated and became leaders of people. Such people were given food, clothing as like that of their masters. Some battles were such no captives were even taken but allowed to go free such as the conquest/liberation of Mecca. There are countless texts which shows the rights of such people, how they should be treated and allowed to be free too. Captives even had a voice equal to free men in matters. It's idiotic to claim Islam allowed slavery as most people understand it. But I look forward to you starting a new thread and explaining this to me , as so far you have said nothing convincing in your argument but as usual like to ask questions when you have no explanation yourself.

I'm more than secure in my understanding of the subject matter, and certainly don't need advise from someone who openly supports the institution of slavery, defends the inhumane labour laws of Middle-eastern states and proposes imposition of blasphemy laws he knows are used to persecute minorities. Are these not your views? And they give a clear indication of your morality.

You say I am making ridiculous claims, then please feel free to expose them.

I understand that critical thinking isn't your forte so I will try to make it a little easier for you to follow. You said that mentioning ISIS was ridiculous, whilst totally failing to grasp what was being said. So let me rephrase it for you;

DO ISIS CLAIM ISLAMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR ACTIONS, IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARDS TO CAPTIVES?

A simple yes or no shall suffice.

The fact that such a crime against humanity is open to interpretation shows the fallacy of your proposition. The only reason ISIS can legitimise it is because it is permissible, only the method is open to debate. Knowing the consequences such a heinous crime has, why wasn't it forbidden like so many other things in Islam?

I don't need to start a new thread to clearly outline my position. Here it is;

SLAVERY IN ANY FORM IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS MORALLY CORRUPT.

If this isn't clear enough for you I'm more than happy to repeat it for you.

Once again you resort to ignorant rhetoric without any substance, regurgitating platitudes that we hear from every corner preacher. You gave an example of Bilal but what about all the slaves that have been abused throughout Islamic history because the practice was not explicitly outlawed despite knowing that it is open to abuse.

You say women taken captives have the same rights, then why are they captive? By the reasoning you provided how can they even be taken captive? Were they on the battlefield?

Why are intimate relations allowed with them, when not with a free woman? Seems like a convenient caveat for abuse.

You can claim they have free will, but we know from history that they are at the mercy of their master and no matter what mental gymnastics you perform there is no way you can prove that they could truly exhibit free will. Ultimately, they did whatever their master demanded under duress, be it explicit or implicit.

Why were the children of captives classed as slaves? What was their crime?

If your previous example of only captives being taken in as slaves holds true, then why didn't every Muslim upon declaring their faith for the first time free every single one of their slaves? Why did they still keep them after accepting Islam?

It doesn't matter what peoples understanding of slavery is and what forms Islam condones, the bottom line is it condones the ownership of another human being which is morally reprehensible.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So, once again you've tried to make a series of "definitive" statements on a subject matter you have little understanding of.

The premise of the article was the relevance of Malcolm's message today. It is logical to question the appropriateness of such a premise without having clear statements from Malcolm on the issues I raised. Yet you insisted that all that was required was that quote as justification, without context and without nuance. So the speculation was on your part, whereas I merely raised appropriate and relevant questions. I didn't speculate on what his answers would be. I have already come to my own conclusion that Malcolm's message isn't relevant today on the subject of Islam and race relations.

It is not conjecture on my part as I am not proposing Malcolm's world view, I am questioning the author's rationale in doing so. Such basic critical thinking skills are required in analysing any material.

Hence, it's strange why didn't you call out the author for his speculation?

It's not that strange since I already said that I didn't read the article past the first couple of paragraphs. It just seemed an odd exercise that someone would imagine an alternate future in order to present that person as someone who's view would be drastically opposed to what he stood for by the time he died. That said, you did suggest that he was constantly questioning his previous beliefs so if that's true, it's perfectly plausible. Anything is possible in an imaginary future.

As for me being exposed, well that's just awful for me. Oh dear. Well never mind. If you feel tarred by my ignorance then I shall offer my apologies and take extra care not to raise issue with you again without due consideration first.

 

[miandadrules]

It's not that strange since I already said that I didn't read the article past the first couple of paragraphs. It just seemed an odd exercise that someone would imagine an alternate future in order to present that person as someone who's view would be drastically opposed to what he stood for by the time he died. That said, you did suggest that he was constantly questioning his previous beliefs so if that's true, it's perfectly plausible. Anything is possible in an imaginary future.

As for me being exposed, well that's just awful for me. Oh dear. Well never mind. If you feel tarred by my ignorance then I shall offer my apologies and take extra care not to raise issue with you again without due consideration first.

Once again, the author is proposing Malcolm's world view for today, without any references to his opinion on the issues raised.

It isn't alternate future, but an analysis of the premise. Do you draw conclusions with inadequate information?

You can try and trivialise it all you like but the fact of the matter I didn't imagine an alternate future. I raised the need for greater enquiry. Which is totally different to the spin you are trying to put on it, in a futile effort to diminish the issues raised.

Did I say his views would be drastically different or did I say that he never addressed the issues raised in any great detail?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Once again, the author is proposing Malcolm's world view for today, without any references to his opinion on the issues raised.

It isn't alternate future, but an analysis of the premise. Do you draw conclusions with inadequate information?

You can try and trivialise it all you like but the fact of the matter I didn't imagine an alternate future. I raised the need for greater enquiry. Which is totally different to the spin you are trying to put on it, in a futile effort to diminish the issues raised.

Did I say his views would be drastically different or did I say that he never addressed the issues raised in any great detail?

Point taken. You have issue with the premise and feel that needs greater enquiry. I wish you good luck with that endeavour and acknowledge your clarification.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I'm more than secure in my understanding of the subject matter, and certainly don't need advise from someone who openly supports the institution of slavery, defends the inhumane labour laws of Middle-eastern states and proposes imposition of blasphemy laws he knows are used to persecute minorities. Are these not your views? And they give a clear indication of your morality.

No they are not. You're confused with the point(s) I was making.

You say I am making ridiculous claims, then please feel free to expose them.

I understand that critical thinking isn't your forte so I will try to make it a little easier for you to follow. You said that mentioning ISIS was ridiculous, whilst totally failing to grasp what was being said. So let me rephrase it for you;

DO ISIS CLAIM ISLAMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR ACTIONS, IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARDS TO CAPTIVES?

A simple yes or no shall suffice.

The fact that such a crime against humanity is open to interpretation shows the fallacy of your proposition. The only reason ISIS can legitimise it is because it is permissible, only the method is open to debate. Knowing the consequences such a heinous crime has, why wasn't it forbidden like so many other things in Islam?

It's not open to interpretation, it's very simple and clear. ISIS are modern day Khawarij, just as in history groups USED Islam to defend their methods, they are doing so now. No ISIS leader could debate the justification of their actions with any half learned scholar or even a layman with basic knowledge. Only ambiguous issues can be open to interpretation and this is not one. Using ISIS as a point of debate in Islamic laws and principles is foolish to say the least.

I don't need to start a new thread to clearly outline my position. Here it is;

SLAVERY IN ANY FORM IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS MORALLY CORRUPT.

If this isn't clear enough for you I'm more than happy to repeat it for you.

Once again you resort to ignorant rhetoric without any substance, regurgitating platitudes that we hear from every corner preacher. You gave an example of Bilal but what about all the slaves that have been abused throughout Islamic history because the practice was not explicitly outlawed despite knowing that it is open to abuse.

You say women taken captives have the same rights, then why are they captive? By the reasoning you provided how can they even be taken captive? Were they on the battlefield?

Why are intimate relations allowed with them, when not with a free woman? Seems like a convenient caveat for abuse.

You can claim they have free will, but we know from history that they are at the mercy of their master and no matter what mental gymnastics you perform there is no way you can prove that they could truly exhibit free will. Ultimately, they did whatever their master demanded under duress, be it explicit or implicit.

Why were the children of captives classed as slaves? What was their crime?

If your previous example of only captives being taken in as slaves holds true, then why didn't every Muslim upon declaring their faith for the first time free every single one of their slaves? Why did they still keep them after accepting Islam?

It doesn't matter what peoples understanding of slavery is and what forms Islam condones, the bottom line is it condones the ownership of another human being which is morally reprehensible.

In the 7th Century every major community on the planet kept 'slaves' the Europeans, Romans , Greeks kept arguably the most. Many were their own kind and racism had little do with 'slavery' until the Atlantic slave trade began.

You have made a statement but once again forget taking prisoners is normal and just, whether it's in war or whether it's breaking the law of the land, so you're statement makes no sense as once again you have clearly not thought things through. Again I ask you to provide strong evidence to support your claim Islamic principles of keeping prisoners are not just. Start a new thread, this is about Malcolm X and posts can be removed for this purpose.

 

[miandadrules]

No they are not. You're confused with the point(s) I was making.

Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and stand by your statements. Those are your points. You do support the blasphemy law even though you know how it is used to persecute minorities. You did defend the Gulf states in their treatment of migrant workers and you are in this very thread defending slavery.

It's not open to interpretation, it's very simple and clear. ISIS are modern day Khawarij, just as in history groups USED Islam to defend their methods, they are doing so now. No ISIS leader could debate the justification of their actions with any half learned scholar or even a layman with basic knowledge. Only ambiguous issues can be open to interpretation and this is not one. Using ISIS as a point of debate in Islamic laws and principles is foolish to say the least.

Once again you don't even have the capacity to understand the point at hand. I didn't ask for your opinion nor what you believe is the correct interpretation. I asked you a very simple answer. Do ISIS claim Islamic justification for the use of slavery?

You can claim that you have the correct interpretation but they can counter with the same . The fact of the matter is that this practice has not been explicitly forbidden in Islam and is condoned, your interpretation only differs with theirs in how it is practiced.

As you continue to be facetious and are exhibiting a shocking deficiency in critical thinking let me break it down for you in the most basic of ways.

Islam explicitly prohibits the consumption of alcohol despite initially condoning it because of the debilitating effect on society. There is no debate on this issue. However, despite the scope for far greater abuse in the practice of slavery, it has never been prohibited and because of this Islamic history is littered with atrocious crimes against humanity in this field.

Do you think the Atlantic slave trade would have been as widespread had Islam outlawed the practice?

Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

The scope for abuse is far too great for it not to be prohibited, even if we grant you the most generous and idealised of interpretations, which is far detached from the reality.

In the 7th Century every major community on the planet kept 'slaves' the Europeans, Romans , Greeks kept arguably the most. Many were their own kind and racism had little do with 'slavery' until the Atlantic slave trade began.

Yet another ignorant statement. Who is claiming that those societies were the perfect example of mankind or that they were just in keeping slaves? Who is claiming that humanity should model themselves on these societies like you are claiming with the first Islamic society? Those actions are rightfully seen as crimes against humanity and no one is defending them. Yet you seem to think it was a righteous act.

Why are you conflating race with slavery when I made two separate points. One being the Islamic justification of using slaves and the other of racism within the Muslim world.

You have made a statement but once again forget taking prisoners is normal and just, whether it's in war or whether it's breaking the law of the land, so you're statement makes no sense as once again you have clearly not thought things through. Again I ask you to provide strong evidence to support your claim Islamic principles of keeping prisoners are not just. Start a new thread, this is about Malcolm X and posts can be removed for this purpose.

Yet again indulging in ignorant rhetoric.

Why can't you make your mind up?

Were the slaves prisoners of war? If so why weren't slaves of those who accepted Islam freed straight away? If they were prisoners of war why were women and children taken? Why were the children of slaves classed as slaves?

Why were slaves accepted as gifts from other tribes? Why were slaves exchanged for goods?

If they were criminals then why was the enslavement period arbitrarily decided by their master?

If they were merely captives and like you claim a danger to society why were intimate relations permissible? Why were such acts permissible when they weren't with a free woman? You make a laughable assertion that consent is required without acknowledging that consent cannot be true under duress or in an unequal situation such in a master and his slave. You're just making an excuse to facilitate abuse and absolve yourself of the moral consequences. All that without even factoring in the obvious hypocrisy of allowing this to happen to a slave and not a free woman.

What strong evidence have you provided on anything other than an ignorant platitudes? You lied about Malcolm having knowing about Islam and slavery, and all you have provided is excuses and shifting definitions without even having the integrity to accept what the consequences of your views are.

You know full well that the forum rules prohibit the discussion of such matters in the necessary detail so creating a new thread would be futile. I am more than confident of creating posts that wouldn't be deleted and if they are I more than happy to rephrase anything I say.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and stand by your statements. Those are your points. You do support the blasphemy law even though you know how it is used to persecute minorities. You did defend the Gulf states in their treatment of migrant workers and you are in this very thread defending slavery.

I have but you're understanding is poor. I can't help if you can't understand my simple enough points.

The blasphemy law in Pakistan was implemented by Brits , in order to cause harmony in community. In theory if the law is followed, nobody is discriminated and it helps minorities from feeling under attack because any abuse of their religion is prohibited, I have no issue with this law. Simple enough?

As for Gulf states labour, people from all over the world come to work. From high level businessmen, professionals, drivers, labourers , pretty much every field is covered in the UAE by expats wanting to earn a living. I believe all conditions of work should be good but people are NOT forced to work in any environment and I feel if they want to work, they should be allowed. Unless YOU'RE willing to pay for the food on their families table. No I guess not, you're happy sitting outside of Small Health complaining.

Once again you don't even have the capacity to understand the point at hand. I didn't ask for your opinion nor what you believe is the correct interpretation. I asked you a very simple answer. Do ISIS claim Islamic justification for the use of slavery?

LOL. This is a question which comes straight out of the Islamaphobes manual of idiotic questions about Islam.. It's actually embarrassing having to address this. It's the same as asking do the cults who marry their own family members use Christianity as justification. Maybe you're ignorant but ISIS consists of an estimated 10-20,000 people. How does the actions of a cult have any bearing on the laws and principles of a religion?

You can claim that you have the correct interpretation but they can counter with the same . The fact of the matter is that this practice has not been explicitly forbidden in Islam and is condoned, your interpretation only differs with theirs in how it is practiced.

Which scholar have they debated and countered?

As you continue to be facetious and are exhibiting a shocking deficiency in critical thinking let me break it down for you in the most basic of ways.

You're the last person I need help from.

Islam explicitly prohibits the consumption of alcohol despite initially condoning it because of the debilitating effect on society. There is no debate on this issue. However, despite the scope for far greater abuse in the practice of slavery, it has never been prohibited and because of this Islamic history is littered with atrocious crimes against humanity in this field.

What Muslims do has no bearings on the laws of the religion. You seem to struggle with such a basic concept. There is debate in alcohol for health reasons and other reasons but like slavery the fundamental laws/principles are clear.

Do you think the Atlantic slave trade would have been as widespread had Islam outlawed the practice?

No idea.

Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

The scope for abuse is far too great for it not to be prohibited, even if we grant you the most generous and idealised of interpretations, which is far detached from the reality.

Anyone with basic knowledge will see no 'scope for abuse'.

Yet another ignorant statement. Who is claiming that those societies were the perfect example of mankind or that they were just in keeping slaves? Who is claiming that humanity should model themselves on these societies like you are claiming with the first Islamic society? Those actions are rightfully seen as crimes against humanity and no one is defending them. Yet you seem to think it was a righteous act.

I was trying to give you some basic background knowledge of the times.

[/QUOTEPWhy are you conflating race with slavery when I made two separate points. One being the Islamic justification of using slaves and the other of racism within the Muslim world.[/QUOTE]

I'm not, you're confused again.

Yet again indulging in ignorant rhetoric.

Why can't you make your mind up?

Were the slaves prisoners of war? If so why weren't slaves of those who accepted Islam freed straight away? If they were prisoners of war why were women and children taken? Why were the children of slaves classed as slaves?

Women and children often travelled with their soldier husbands for battles. When the Crusaders travelled from England, France many bought their whole families along. If an army when to a particular area to fight with those were plotting to fight them, the families of those enemies also came into play.

You really should read upon of historical warfare.

Why were slaves accepted as gifts from other tribes? Why were slaves exchanged for goods?

Why not, it's economics?

If they were criminals then why was the enslavement period arbitrarily decided by their master?

The master is the judge.

If they were merely captives and like you claim a danger to society why were intimate relations permissible? Why were such acts permissible when they weren't with a free woman? You make a laughable assertion that consent is required without acknowledging that consent cannot be true under duress or in an unequal situation such in a master and his slave. You're just making an excuse to facilitate abuse and absolve yourself of the moral consequences. All that without even factoring in the obvious hypocrisy of allowing this to happen to a slave and not a free woman.

Integration.

What strong evidence have you provided on anything other than an ignorant platitudes? You lied about Malcolm having knowing about Islam and slavery, and all you have provided is excuses and shifting definitions without even having the integrity to accept what the consequences of your views are.

Lol. I lied.

I stated there is no reason to doubt X was a knowledgeable man who knew the history of slavery and thus it's fair to assume he studied this topic in Islam too.

You know full well that the forum rules prohibit the discussion of such matters in the necessary detail so creating a new thread would be futile. I am more than confident of creating posts that wouldn't be deleted and if they are I more than happy to rephrase anything I say.

You just seem to be trolling. You can't even confirm if you're a Muslim yourself and yet to sit back like some snotty judge questioning other people.

Unless you start a new thread and present evidence Islam is unjust, taking captives in Islam is unjust etc. I wont be replying as I'd rather spend my free time watching the GOAT Afridi rather than wasting time with you.