|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
You may remember Prof. Jonathan Brown, a Muslim convert who teaches Islamic civilizations at Georgetown, from his prior defense of Islamic rape and slavery.
“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody,” Jonathan Brown explained to attendees at his lecture. “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself.”
To a man who argued that slavery was wrong, Brown retorted, “How can you say, if you’re Muslim, the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not.”
When Brown had been asked in the past about the women and girls sold and raped by ISIS based on Islamic law, he defended the Islamic practice of sex slavery, “There is no doubt that the Quran and Sunna permit this.”
So too when defending Mohammed’s sexual abuse of a 9-year-old girl, Brown insisted, “You cannot say from a Sharia perspective that what the prophet did was wrong because the prophet can’t commit sins.”
“A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her… her ‘consent’ would be meaningless since she is his slave,” Brown had also explained in the past.
“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them,” he appears to have written on Facebook.
Had anyone tried to justify southern slavery, they would have been canceled until the end of their days, but defending Islamic slavery is okay and so Brown remains a respected scholar.
Now, Brown decided to pontificate on Islamic discrimination against non-Muslims. “So, in general, it’s correct to say that in Islamic civilization, both in theory and in practice, non-Muslims living under Muslim rule were called dhimmis and were lower in status than Muslims. But all they had to do to become part of this elite was say ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.'”
(Quote corrected to properly identify the deity worshiped by Muslims as ‘Allah’ without the misleading use of ‘God’ to imply commonality with pre-existing monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity.)
All non-Muslims had to do to achieve equality under Islam was… to convert and stop being non-Muslims. Conversely, then Muslims can’t complain about discrimination since all they have to do is convert. But we know that logic only works one way.
Brown’s job is to argue that it’s no big deal that Islam had slaves or oppressed non-Muslims, but the shoe is never meant to go on the other foot.
Then Brown argued that discriminatory clothing was actually beneficial to non-Muslims. “In various eras and places Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians and Buddhists had to wear certain colors or items of clothing to identity themselves, but this was completely normal in a pre-ID world and was often embraced by those minorities as means of preserving/policing their own communal boundaries.”
Completely normal. Like slavery, genocide and oppression. What are you guys complaining about anyway?
Much of the postmodern business of evil is this sort of relativism. And Islamists turn that to their advantage. Rape, genocide and oppression are no big deal. But a cartoon of Mohammed? Now that’s an atrocity.
I’ve often thought about that. Just say the words and you become a Muslim (I guess, what if they put you through some gruesome test?)
My own predilection is mathematics and Ancient Greek Philosophy of Science (Aristotle, etc.) which makes it hard to pretend to be a believer in Islam.
And certainly available for the reaction when Islam (again) has the Muslim finding both of those interests are ‘un-Islamic’. That was the chief development that happen when their ‘golden age’ died under attack from the fundamentalism that always lies waiting to rise.
Naturally – this is past all understanding by the likes of this professor, and we can know it when these monsters show us what their relativism always goes to – terror and death.
And rape and slavery.
Did it ever start? Certainly it was no more than a silver plated age vs as you put in quotes a golden age. They have no contributions to the world during this period, maybe a half contribution. Everything else they stole from people they conquered. and took credit for it while oppressing the people conquered with unfettered enthusiasm.
Never during that time period did their savagery and hatred. slow. Some of the philosophers and other intellectuals cited as making the slimes enlightened procurers of knowledge and open dialogue, in private would talk about how ugly it was to live under a slime regime, one stating, Is it possible for them to hate us more than they do? And that their enslavers had achieved hate possibly unparalleled
Not even a frontal lobotomy could get a guy like you to believe that vicious nonsense. No wonder the average Moslem IQ in the Near East is 75. (Mentally retarded.)
Well – a little in-breeding generally does little harm – but you really don’t want to keep at it. Like, no doubt, the generations of many Muslims there. Even by the 1750’s my ancestral island of Nantucket were being great pressure on people to NOT marry the First Cousin, but these Muslims seem to prefer nothing but First Cousins. I clearly believe what reports we have of these lands with problems of birth defects due to in-breeding.
I am terribly glad that these past 4-5 generations of my family tree have people who were not related. In my study of this heritage I have, one of the clearest thing I have reached is what happens when you keep breeding too close; it’s not at all good. And I mean – REALLY not good.
And I and Benjamin Franklin are double First Cousins. But this is nothing like the situation of these Islamic populations.
If someone wants to take Jonathan Brown into slavery who am I to say?
That’s exactly where he belongs, with plenty of floggings. He’s a monster.
The slavery argument as a whole is mute, historically speaking, since basically everyone had slaves in times past, including the Israelites. TREATMENT of those slaves is the issue here and during the year of Jubilee (every 50th year) those slaves were to be released per levitical law. I doubt very much that Mohammed followed suit.
But everything else this man utters is in keeping with what I know about modern professors and Islam. Pffft!
No because it is not an issue of the past. They still sell slaves in open market in countries like Mauritania
I understand what you’re saying jeremiah…and you’re right about common day markets. I’m just saying that we can’t be too judgmental about having slaves without coming off a bit hypocritical, since nearly every ethnicity and nationality in the past had slaves of one form or another.
My ancestors were Portuguese slaves who were brought to the ‘new world’ by the French and subsequently became free men after the Louisiana Purchase. One of those newly freed men eventually became a wealthy lumber baron with slaves of his own. It doesn’t matter to the world that, because of his own experiences as a slave, they were treated like family and ate at his table. They were still slaves at the end of the day…and the cycle continued.
So while, of course, I’ve never owned a slave, the taint of slavery from both sides of the equation courses through my veins, making me completely incapable of passing any judgement on the subject, and I can’t believe I’m the only one in that particular position.
The argument is not “mute” but “moot”.
The point is sadly not moot.
Because Mohammed is the example to all of mankind (according to Koran).
So all what he did 1400 years ago, is the summum of morality even for today
So no Mohammeds behaviour is still very relevant for today.
Like another American of the past said – Give me liberty or death. I have no need to submit to this moronic death cult.
What do you expect of a “dirt age” religion allegedly mandated by a Throne Archangel GABRIEL………….who told mohammy to create a new religion based upon death to non-believers……………… and to leave out the “Golden Rule”.
Jerusalem and Israel were free nation until the “occupiers” invaded……….. mohammy muslims in 630’s AD.
So who are really the “occupiers” in Israel??
This Georgetown University professor turned Muslim convert sounds like the protagonist in “Submission,” a 2015 novel by Michel Houellebecq, concerning a similar French academic and Muslim quisling. The plot sets up the Muslim Brotherhood as the new ruling party in France and analyses the positive reaction from the denizens of academia, taking a professorial anti-hero as a typical specimen. A slice of life portrait indicates that the professor was “transfixed” (as he’s wont to say) before several months of unopened mail– knowing that some time-sensitive omission on his part could spell regulatory-state doom. This solitary man casually consumes pornography and microwave dinners; gets news of his mother’s death from the morgue (unclaimed department), which he shrugs off (“neurotic bitch,” he said); he can’t remember the details of his published dissertation, while preening himself on its notoriety, and he accepts the new Muslim domination without a whimper– because his remuneration is tripled by Saudi oil interests. Like a certain Georgetown University academic, this squish of a man had no core identity left to compromise.
I guess blm and the shi womyn man haters club at Georgetown knows when to keep their traps shut for the revolution.
I’m for free speech, tell me what you think, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed. I do like seeing noses rubbed in their own blatant hypocrisy though, and they started this cancelling.
This Pinhead has all the thinking power of a Tree Stump
It’s too bad there’s not a law that allows us to execute Perfessor Brown. His sophistry is the most evil I’ve ever encountered. It would be justice if he were made a slave before his execution, too. Put him to work scrubbing toilets in Tijuana gas stations for a few years and make him a sex slave of Hairy Mary trannies.
I really hate sharing the planet with human turds like Brown.
What would be the crime under which Brown would be prosecuted and executed 20 years after initial guilty verdict?
A certain type of karma could occur if he ever became a slave
I hate the danger they represent. Send them to North Korea.
I wonder to what extent Professor Brown’s bizarre personal beliefs affect the material he teaches at Georgetown. The phenomenon of westerners converting to Islam begs deep and fair analysis. It makes no sense on its face other than a dramatic reordering of priorities in a person’s life. Is Brown married? Does he treat his wife with respect or as a slave?
The rules of the religion of plunder are not always followed as this bigot dubbed professor indicates. There have been Muslim rulers who did not permit dhimmis to convert because they would lose jizya tax payments. There have been Muslims, for example in black Africa, who were enslaved by Arabs in violation of the rule to not enslave them. Islamic policies resemble those of Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, and the SDS. “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” For communists and Islamists, it is always about the plunder, not the cause. The rulers are always, as Milovan Djilas called them, “The New Class.”
The person who called Islam the Religion of Peace has Sawdust for Brains
Islamic civilization is an oxymoron