Georgetown Islamic Studies Professor: Slavery OK, So is Non-Consensual Sex

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well why aren't you protesting? Until I see that, all Republicans are hypocrites. Maybe it's just easier to sit in your house and complain about "liberals" than it is to actually get up and participate in direct action.
I lolol at people who do not see the irony in complaining about the lack of protests when they themselves are not politically active. Haha. Ridiculous.

a reply to: ColdChillin

What a terribly calculated move it would be for conservatives to protest a "victim group". That is the dumbest thing I have heard all day.
Truly terrible optics.

It would give "proof" that conservatives are racist, bigot, white supremacist, hating, fascist, hitler.

To any conservatives out there, do not listen to this guy. Never Protest where a "victim group" is speaking/congregated.
hold rallies to support americans values.

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
a reply to: Indigo5

I agree with you. If you have half a brain and here the lecture it's very clear that there is a 180 spin on op's article.

Yes, It was an article with a sick agenda and it catered to a very specific group who love bashing Islam and they jumped on it like a starving man on food.

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
Okay... I'm a little late to the party but let me just say... I am listening to the actual lecture right now. And if you think this prof. is trying to say that slavery is ok then you are MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT of the lecture.

Dr.Brown is pointing out the gray area between slavery and freedom. There is no way to define what a slave really is without applying your own specific cultural bias. There is alot of history here, and a lot of him explaining how people take it out of context in this EXACT manor.

This is an utterly shamefully ignorant thread. If you have the time, listen to the real lecture. The article you've posted is COMPLETELY WRONG.

WTF ATS!??

It really belongs in the hoax bin...

a reply to: seeker1963

I didn't see this thread until someone pointed it out in a thread I started.

Here is part of what I wrote and links, including a video of his speech.

-----------
Apparently this sort of speech is only getting shocked reactions from a few blogs, and individuals meanwhile "academic circles" in general don't seem so concerned due to this political correctness climate in which we live these days.

Umar Lee
...
I thought the Muslim community was done with this dishonest North Korean style of propaganda. Obviously not. Brown went on to discuss the injustices of prison labor in America and a myriad of other social-ills. Absent from his talk (until challenged) was any recognition of the rampant abuse of workers in the Gulf, the thousands of workers in the Gulf dying on construction sites, the South Asian child camel-jockeys imported into the United Arab Emirates to race camels under harsh conditions, or the horrific conditions of prisoners in the Muslim World (the latest news being 13,000 prisoners executed in Syria).
...
“Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex” said Professor Jonathan Brown of Georgetown University.

Shortly after I asked Brown my questions about his defense of slavery a woman seated in front of me asked about the permissibility of sex with slaves. Brown emphatically stated consent is a modern Western concept and only recently had come to be seen as necessary (perhaps around the time feminism began to take root and women decided they wanted autonomy over their bodies). Brown went on to elaborate consent wasn’t necessary to moral and ethical sex and that the morality of sex is dependent on the lawfulness of the sex-partner and not consent upholding the verdict that marital-rape is an invalid concept in Islam.
...

Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown Defends Slavery as Moral and Rape as Normal in Virginia Lecture

Georgetown Professor Condones Rape And Slavery Under Sharia



Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown, a Muslim convert, gave a recent lecture at Georgetown University in which he basically tries to obfuscate what it means to be a slave by claiming that slaves under Shari'a law were/are always treated better than slaves were in the western world. He even states that in the western world we are already slaves, such as the relationship of employer and employee. Of course, he doesn't say that an employee can at any time leave his/her job, and in fact the employer does not own the employee.

He obviously ignores and condones the abuses that slaves in the Arab world had and have been receiving, and at one point in his lecture he proclaims: “It’s not immoral for one human to own another human.”

That would be shock enough if his lecture had ended there, but he also went on to defend nonconsensual sex (rape) as being normal, going as far as to proclaim: "Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex”.

People need to be aware of these sort of premises that would be implemented in certain parts of the United States if Shari'a is ever allowed to be implemented in the U.S. In another thread I pointed out how there are paid positions for Muslim scholars to discuss how Shari'a can be introduced in the United States.

Shari'a Fellowship Launched by Harvard University for the 2017-2018 Academic Year.

But again, I am sure a lot of people will simply dismiss this, more so when political correctness is being used as a tool to defend such views.

a reply to: soficrow

Not true Sofi. He was defending slavery under Islam claiming under Islam slaves were/are better. He even claims that in Islam slavery was not about race. But then again there have also been white slaves in Europe's history, did that make slavery somehow ok or better? It does not.

This professor obfuscates that slavery in itself is bad by claiming that what slavery means can differ depending on your culture. He claims that under Islam slaves were treated better, and then he tries to equate slavery with the relationship between employer and employee. When he is saying that slavery could be equated with the "employer and employee relationship" he is giving his own twisted opinion.

None of it is true. There were some slaves that were treated better than others in Muslim history, but the same can be said of the Romans, and almost every other region that had slaves. In Roman times some slaves had it better than others, does that make slavery any better? No.

This professor is even ignoring facts, many slaves in Muslim nations were treated as horribly, or worse than in other parts of the world. This professor "tries" to give a good image of slavery under Islam.

...
Where has the TARDIS taken us in our exploration of slavery? The first place we visited was the city of Mecca in the 1400’s. The ‘soft and delicate (raqaq)’ man Saffron was a slave in the wealthy man’s household who had an agreement with his master to buy back his freedom on installments (mukataba). Raqaq was the standard term for slave, and epicurean names like Saffron were typical. The younger man being smacked for bad service, who was tied to the household seemingly forever, was the wealthy man’s own son.

The second place we visited was the capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1579. The minister was Sokollu Mehmet Pasha, the grand vizier and de facto ruler of the empire during the time of three sultans. At the time of our visit, he had already been one of the empire’s richest and most powerful men for almost two decades. He was also a slave of the sultan. He was born in Bosnia, as were all his guards, who were also slaves of the sultan.[1]

The land where we met the man working in a clock factory was England in 1860. Although the worker was a free man, according to labor laws in England at the time a worker who failed to show up for work was guilty of stealing from his employer and was tried and sentenced as a criminal. Finally, the last place we visited was a land in which slavery had long been illegal: rural Arizona in 2004, where the local sheriff was overseeing a juvenile chain gang.
...

yaqeeninstitute.org...

Notice how he gave two examples of slavery under Islam, and both "seem positive", even though they are not. The one example he gives of the western world is the 1860 labor laws in England when a "free man" who was late for work could be charged as a criminal for stealing.

I am not defending the labor laws of England back in the day but this professor is being disingenuous by proclaiming that under Islam slaves were treated better.

History is full of slaves who were famous, even white slaves, and who were in some ways treated better, but were still slaves.

If you keep reading you will also find this.

...
Ownership is as much about how we imagine relationships as exercising real control.…

What would it mean to ‘own’ a person? Does it mean to have total control over them? We have full control over our young children, but, unlike a chair or a pen, we cannot seriously physically harm them without legal consequence. In fact, this distinction between ownership and control is not very helpful for defining slavery. As with our children today, it was impermissible for Muslims to kill or seriously injure their slaves, and those who did faced legal consequences under the Shariah. In some contexts, ownership might fail completely as a concept for understanding slavery. Slavery existed in imperial China, but it was not conceptualized through ownership. Slaves were not legally ‘owned’ at all for the very technical reason that Chinese law could not categorize people as ‘things.’[10]
...

That's nothing but false. Slaves under Islam were, and are to this day seen as property that their owners can do whatever they want with them. Slaves who were used to guard harems were castrated, eunuchs, and their owners could beat them, rape them or worse. They were sold, bought and used as property. Yes, it is true that slaves could be freed, but so could slaves in Europe. Does that make slavery any better? No...

His whole argument is to try to claim that "slavery has many different shades of gray and is dependent on opinions"... But it really isn't. He lies throughout the speech, ignores history and facts involving slavery under Islam, and instead tries to make slavery seem less terrible by equating it to "being employees"...

Yes, some people see work as a type of slavery, but an employer does not own you, and you are not their property. You can leave your work whenever you want. A slave could not, and can't give a week's notice and leave for another job. Not to mention that since slaves are seen as property, the owner could/can do anything he wanted to.

OK, what exactly are you folks objecting to?

-> The Judeo-Christian bible endorses slavery.
-> The Judeo-Christian bible endorses genocide.
-> The Judeo-Christian bible endorses the concept of an eye-for-an-eye.
-> Slavery in the US was locked in as a God-given natural condition by the Christian Churches of the day (especially in the South of course, but also in the North). (Anecdote: my great-grandfather, a prominent Church Leader in Michigan initiated a split in the church when he left it over the 'main-stream' Conventions support of slavery.)

If you are going to criticize the Quran and other sources of Sharia Law for supporting some particular 'foul' practice, you better bet damn well sure the Bible doesn't support that same practice.

The fact is that Sharia Law stipulates that followers MUST FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT THEY LIVE IN.

Sharia law does NOT trump domestic law any more than Judeo-Christian law does. It just doesn't.

Q&A: Jacqui Lambie and Yassmin Abdel-Magied exchange barbs over sharia law

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Slaves under Christianity were, and are to this day seen as property that their owners can do whatever they want with them.

Slaves under Judaism were, and are to this day seen as property that their owners can do whatever they want with them.

Slaves under Buddhism were, and are to this day seen as property that their owners can do whatever they want with them.

Fixed it for you just in case you missed the irony of your silly argument.

Did you know that slave owners in the USA maintained stud books for their human chattel just like they did for horses and pigs and dogs?

originally posted by: Kali74

It really belongs in the hoax bin...

Why, because it exposes the lies this man is trying to convey that under Shari'a and Islam slaves were/are treated better?

How politically correct of you...

Here is a side of history you obviously know nothing about, and it includes the story of an African woman who was sold into slavery in Sudan in current times. Her name is Mende Nazer, and like her there are many people still being sold to slavery. To this day there are Islamic nations under Shari'a law that allow slavery to continue legally. Contrary to the claims of some there is no Christian nation that legally allows slavery. Unfortunately there are black market human trafficking, but it is not legal, although it doesn't make it any better.

...
Over 28 Million Africans have been enslaved in the Muslim world during the past 14 centuries While much has been written concerning the Transatlantic slave trade, surprisingly little attention has been given to the Islamic slave trade across the Sahara, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

While the European involvement in the Transatlantic slave trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the slave trade has lasted fourteen centuries, and in some parts of the Muslim world is still continuing to this day. A comparison of the Muslim slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts.
...

www.africanecho.com...

No matter who did it, or who is still doing it slavery should not exist. This Muslim professor is lying through his teeth and that should have been a red flag even for ATS members like yourself, but instead you want to play the "politically correct game"

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's an interesting take on the lecture. Honestly, you're explanation is much more coherent than the article from the OP. I agree with you that the lecturer does kind of go off the deep end here and doesn't harp on how badly these people are mistreated. He definitely trips himself up trying to defend slavery. I see what you mean here and I do take back what I said before about the ignorance. When I think of slavery I picture people being tortured. I guess in the moment the prof had me thinking this was my cultural bias. In reality, there is no place for slavery on this planet. It's a barbaric bullsh*t practice that should be put to death worldwide.

Never mind..

originally posted by: rnaa

The fact is that Sharia Law stipulates that followers MUST FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT THEY LIVE IN.

Sharia law does NOT trump domestic law any more than Judeo-Christian law does. It just doesn't.

So you claim, that many do not want sharia to be the law of the land? That no go ghettos and separate sharia court systems do not exist in parts of Europe?

If a no go ghetto forms in the U.S. as a result of mass uncontrolled immigration and if those within decide they want their own separate sharia courts, the cops won't go into a no go ghetto. In a politically correct climate, military force will not be invoked to bring law and order. It will be lawless as regards US laws, all that will reign in a no go ghetto is the law they want to follow.

originally posted by: avgguy
Bro, it's just their culture.
There I summed up those couple of folks that'll swing by later to justify all of this.

It wasn't that long ago slavery and non-consensual sex was OK in America.

You know, if a woman dressed sexy it was her fault if she got raped.

You all have conveniently short memories of the culture that was acceptable in America.

Progressives must be bad.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: avgguy
Bro, it's just their culture.
There I summed up those couple of folks that'll swing by later to justify all of this.

It wasn't that long ago slavery and non-consensual sex was OK in America.

You know, if a woman dressed sexy it was her fault if she got raped.

You all have conveniently short memories of the culture that was acceptable in America.

Progressives must be bad.

I do not know how strongly different divisions take the different hadiths, or the various advocated versions of sharia, which are both were I hear some of the more questionable stuff is found. Nor am I sure what might imply the Koran, as often questionable stuff seems like it doesn't apply either due to context limiting it, being later abrogated in the text, or simply that the original language doesn't translate well to other languages, all explanations against anything bad brought up.

But thing is, it is said to be final word, from final prophet, and accounts about final prophet's life, iirc. Without reformation, I cannot see it changing in a thousand years.

When you can take the law of the land and overwrite the ancient holy texts, that's one thing. But when your very belief is that the law of the land should be replaced with one based on unchanging ancient holy texts, you can see the problem.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: avgguy
Bro, it's just their culture.
There I summed up those couple of folks that'll swing by later to justify all of this.

It wasn't that long ago slavery and non-consensual sex was OK in America.

You know, if a woman dressed sexy it was her fault if she got raped.

You all have conveniently short memories of the culture that was acceptable in America.

Progressives must be bad.

But thing is, it is said to be final word, from final prophet, and accounts about final prophet's life, iirc. Without reformation, I cannot see it changing in a thousand years.

So does the Bible.

Which is interpreted differently by which specific sect you belong to.

When you can take the law of the land and overwrite the ancient holy texts, that's one thing. But when your very belief is that the law of the land should be replaced with one based on unchanging ancient holy texts, you can see the problem.

Plenty of Christians believe their belief is above the law.

So, no -- I'm not seeing your point.

So...

White men should pay today for slavery from 200 years ago

and

It's fine for Islam to have slaves now.

That's some pretty amazing intellectual back-flipping by the libs.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So...

White men should pay today for slavery from 200 years ago

and

It's fine for Islam to have slaves now.

That's some pretty amazing intellectual back-flipping by the libs.

And the Native Americans should have already had guns to fight off the white man.

We can play this game all day.

Point is America had to evolve beyond stuff that once was acceptable. And not that long ago.

Some posts are very hypocritical considering our own history.

a reply to: ColdChillin
Protesting is a waste of time. All you are doing is begging the other side to do what you want... Unless you are just in it for the fun, and for the hippie chicks.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: avgguy
Bro, it's just their culture.
There I summed up those couple of folks that'll swing by later to justify all of this.

It wasn't that long ago slavery and non-consensual sex was OK in America.

You know, if a woman dressed sexy it was her fault if she got raped.

You all have conveniently short memories of the culture that was acceptable in America.

Progressives must be bad.

But thing is, it is said to be final word, from final prophet, and accounts about final prophet's life, iirc. Without reformation, I cannot see it changing in a thousand years.

So does the Bible.

Which is interpreted differently by which specific sect you belong to.

When you can take the law of the land and overwrite the ancient holy texts, that's one thing. But when your very belief is that the law of the land should be replaced with one based on unchanging ancient holy texts, you can see the problem.

Plenty of Christians believe their belief is above the law.

So, no -- I'm not seeing your point.

Who says bible is the word of the final prophet? Some say it is the word of god, but they follow most none of it in modern times, from stoning their children to weird food limitations, none is followed. At most the bigotry against homosexuality is justified with it as an excuse. And many claim Jesus basically means the old testament doesn't have to be followed at all. Look for a muslim that says the Koran doesn't have to be followed at all, there aren't any.

The Bible lays out all the rules for slavery. Look it up.