Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Tommy Robinson is a refor...
Yesterday at 04:21 PM

Why did mohamed pray so m...
Yesterday at 02:48 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
Yesterday at 11:45 AM

Turkey: evolution theory ...
Yesterday at 01:31 AM

Crazy Canadian School-Boa...
Yesterday at 01:26 AM

MMA (Mixed Martial Arts)
June 26, 2017, 11:14 PM

Men are forced into marri...
June 26, 2017, 12:49 PM

Ringside: Quod Sum Eris v...
June 26, 2017, 10:14 AM

Headscarves and Haircuts
June 26, 2017, 08:53 AM

How many of you smoke cig...
June 26, 2017, 02:00 AM

Crime and Punishment
June 25, 2017, 11:12 PM

Some Good Vids
June 25, 2017, 11:05 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Love and compassion

 (Read 5920 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #60 - April 19, 2017, 06:45 PM

    Akhi he doesn't even read our posts, he just conveys the message and stays away from fitnah wa-liyadhubillah.

    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #61 - April 19, 2017, 10:56 PM



    إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ ۚ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا - 33:56

  • Love and compassion
     Reply #62 - April 20, 2017, 06:25 AM

    Love it Grin I miss my old mushaf. Actually used this verse and the one where Allah orders the believers to answer those who mock them with "salaam" to stop my now ex-husband from acting like an even bigger shit everytime a non-Muslim would do or say something shitty. Dude, if you do, all we ever gonna do when we go outside is arguing with people -_-

     I still haven't gotten hold of my own personal Quran :,(

    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #63 - April 20, 2017, 10:07 AM

    What sort of a Quran are you after?

    I've not tried any of the allegedly free sources, as I don't have a PO box and am wary of giving away my home address - when I needed one some years back, I ended up sourcing it from Ebay.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #64 - April 20, 2017, 12:01 PM

    The good ol' Madinah/Uthmani version. Preferably the green one with beige pages  Tongue. I refuse to go to my local masjid, can't buy it online here in Sweden because urgh don't want to leave out my name and adress to anyone. But buying it off Amazon costs a ton because of shipping.

    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #65 - April 20, 2017, 12:22 PM

    The good ol' Madinah/Uthmani version. Preferably the green one with beige pages  Tongue. ......

    how are you doing  Cornflower??   you  mean this one 


    from    darussalam.com??


    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #66 - April 20, 2017, 12:55 PM




    Grin

    That verse was one of my favorite “limited context” verses.  It sounded so good and pious until you read more context. Popularized by its prevalence at the end of khutbatul jumu’ah, I often noted internally that most of the nice, progressive Muslims in the congregation who would loudly “send their prayers upon the prophet” at the khateeb’s mention of this verse would also likely be embarrassed by having to defend the verses not far before or after it.

    Verses like this one don't really help akay's thread title.

       لَّئِن لَّمْ يَنتَهِ الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ وَالْمُرْجِفُونَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لَنُغْرِيَنَّكَ بِهِمْ ثُمَّ لَا يُجَاوِرُونَكَ فِيهَا إِلَّا قَلِيلًا   

    مَّلْعُونِينَ أَيْنَمَا ثُقِفُوا أُخِذُوا وَقُتِّلُوا تَقْتِيلًا

    "If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while; Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering."

    "God will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Make me and my mother gods beside God?" Qur'an 5:116

    "I told them clearly that I am a man...and that they should never make a mistake in assuming or pretending that the human being is emanated from a deity." - Haile Selassie
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #67 - April 20, 2017, 04:41 PM

    The good ol' Madinah/Uthmani version. Preferably the green one with beige pages  Tongue. I refuse to go to my local masjid, can't buy it online here in Sweden because urgh don't want to leave out my name and adress to anyone.

     

    In Canada/USA we have this thing where you can rent a post box in a post office so you can get things shipped without having to give away your actual address.

    I assume they probably have something similiar in Sweden.

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #68 - April 22, 2017, 08:54 PM

    This is clearly the new bahiraomaresque thread, so I'm going to spam it with a different argument instead:

    I believe that Age of Empires is the greatest game of all time. At some point I might try to substantiate this claim with various evidences. Watch this space.


    You do not need evidence for something that is self-evident  Cheesy
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #69 - April 22, 2017, 09:48 PM

    The most common name of Muhammad of Islam, Muhammad (“the Glorified One”), is part of the daily call to prayer

    following the attestation to the oneness of God, the believer proclaims, “Verily, I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God” (Ashhadu anna Muḥammadan rasūl Allāh). When this name is uttered among Muslims, it is always followed by the phrase ṣalla Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam (“may God’s blessings and peace be upon him”), just as, whenever Muslims mention the name of other prophets such as Abraham, Moses, or Jesus, they recite the words ʿalayhi al-salām (“upon him be [God’s] peace”). Muhammad also became widely known in Europe by diverse forms of the name such as Mahon, Mahomés, Mahun, Mahum, and Mahumet (all French), Machmet (German), and Maúmet (Old Icelandic). Moreover, Muhammad is the most popular male name in the Islamic world either by itself or in combination with other names such as ʿAlī and Ḥusayn.


    It's always a joy when Allah blesses you with a child. Children bring great happiness, but also trials and responsibilities. One of the very first duties you have toward your new child, besides physical care and love, is to give your child a meaningful Muslim name.

    It is reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "On the Day of Resurrection, you will be called by your names and by your fathers' names, so give yourselves good names." (Hadith Abu Dawud)
    Muslim Names for Boys
    When choosing a name for a boy, Muslims have several choices. It is recommended to name a boy in a way that indicates service to God, by using 'Abd in front of one of God's Names. Other possibilities include the names of Prophets, names of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, or other male names which have a good meaning. There are also some categories of names which are prohibited to use for Muslim children.

    \\\\\\\\\



    Praise be to Allaah.

    Hypocrisy is a serious sickness and a great crime. It means making an outward display of Islam whilst inwardly concealing kufr. Hypocrisy is more dangerous than kufr (disbelief) and the punishment for it is more severe, because it is kufr mixed with Islam and its harmful effects are greater. Hence Allaah will put the hypocrites in the lowest level of Hell, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “Verily, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depth (grade) of the Fire; no helper will you find for them[al-Nisaa’ 4:145]

    The hypocrites are always confused, always planning deceit and plots. Although outwardly they appear to be with the believers, inwardly they are with the kaafireen. So sometimes they are inclined towards the believers and sometimes they are inclined towards the kaafireen.

    “(They are) swaying between this and that, belonging neither to these nor to those; and he whom Allaah sends astray, you will not find for him a way (to the truth — Islam)”[al-Nisaa’ 4:143 – interpretation of the meaning]

    Because of the corruption of their hearts, the hypocrites are the most averse of mankind to the religion of Allaah, as Allaah tells us about them (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And when it is said to them: ‘Come to what Allaah has sent down and to the Messenger (Muhammad),’ you (Muhammad) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad) with aversion”

    [al-Nisaa’ 4:61]

    The dealings of the hypocrites revolve around their own interests. When they meet the believers, they make a show of belief and loyalty, in order to deceive the believers and as an action of dissimulation, hoping for whatever good and war-booty they have. But when they meet their masters and chiefs, they say, we are with you in your shirk and kufr. Allaah says concerning them (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And when they meet those who believe, they say: “We believe,” but when they are alone with their Shayaateen (devils — polytheists, hypocrites), they say: “Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking

    Allaah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doing to wander blindly”[al-Baqarah 2:14-15]

    The hypocrites have many characteristics, the worst and most serious of which is disbelief in Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And when it is said to them (hypocrites): ‘Believe as the people (followers of Muhammad, Al-Ansaar and Al-Muhaajiroon) have believed,’ they say: ‘Shall we believe as the fools have believed?’ Verily, they are the fools, but they know not”[al-Baqarah 2:13]

     Among their characteristics are enmity and envy (hasad) towards the believers, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “If good befalls you (O Muhammad), it grieves them, but if a calamity overtakes you, they say: ‘We took our precaution beforehand’ and they turn away rejoicing”[al-Tawbah 9:50]

     Among their characteristics is mockery of Allaah, His Messenger and His religion. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’

    Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed”[al-Tawbah 9:65-66]

    Among their characteristics is that they spread corruption on earth, with disbelief, hypocrisy and sins. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And when it is said to them: ‘Make not mischief on the earth,’ they say: ‘We are only peacemakers.’

    Verily, they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not”[al-Baqarah 2:11-12]

    Among their characteristics are slander and lies. Allaah tells us about them (interpretation of the meaning):

    “They swear by Allaah that they are truly, of you while they are not of you, but they are a people (hypocrites) who are afraid (that you may kill them)”[al-Tawbah 9:56]

    Among their characteristics is that they enjoin what is evil and forbid what is good, and they are stingy with their wealth. Allaah says concerning them (interpretation of the meaning):

    “The hypocrites, men and women, are one from another; they enjoin (on the people) Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief and polytheism of all kinds and all that Islam has forbidden), and forbid (people) from Al-Ma‘roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and they close their hands [from giving (spending in Allaah’s Cause) alms]. They have forgotten Allaah, so He has forgotten them. Verily, the hypocrites are the Faasiqoon (rebellious, disobedient to Allaah)”[al-Tawbah 9:67]

    Among their characteristics are greed and avarice:

    “And of them are some who accuse you (O Muhammad) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms. If they are given part thereof, they are pleased, but if they are not given thereof, behold! They are enraged![al-Tawbah 9: 58 – interpretation of the meaning]

    Among their characteristics are those which were described by the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him):

    “There are four (characteristics), whoever has all of them is a complete hypocrite, and whoever has some of them has some element of hypocrisy, unless he gives it up: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a treaty, he betrays it; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; when he quarrels, he resorts to insults.”(Narrated by Muslim, 53)

    Among their characteristics is a concern with appearances and fancy speech whilst they are inwardly corrupt. Allaah says concerning them (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And when you look at them, their bodies please you; and when they speak, you listen to their words. They are as blocks of wood propped up. They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies, so beware of them. May Allaah curse them! How are they denying (or deviating from) the Right Path?”[al-Munaafiqoon 63:4]

    If the kuffaar are obvious enemies from without, then the hypocrites are hidden enemies from within. They are more harmful and more dangerous to the Muslims, because they mix with them and know their situation. Allaah has decreed that the ultimate destiny of the kuffaar and hypocrites will be in Hell:

    “Surely, Allaah will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell”[al-Nisaa’ 4:140 – interpretation of the meaning]

    But because of the seriousness of the harm they cause, the hypocrites will be in the lowest level of Hell, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “Verily, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depth (grade) of the Fire”[al-Nisaa’ 4:145]

    Because the danger posed to the Muslim ummah by the kuffaar and hypocrites is so great, Allaah commanded His Messenger to strive against them:

    “O Prophet (Muhammad)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe against them; their abode will be Hell, and worst indeed is that destination”

    [al-Tahreem 66:9 – interpretation of the meaning]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqgWJkNJ20k
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #70 - April 22, 2017, 09:53 PM

    I often hear Christian missionaries criticizing Islam and accusing it because Islam permitted slavery, and saying that this is a transgression against man’s freedom and rights. How can we respond to these people?.

    Praise be to Allaah.

    Discussing slavery and asking questions about it on the part of those who promote Christianity and try to divert people from following the religion of Islam is something that annoys the wise person and makes him point the finger of accusation towards the ulterior motives that lie behind these questions. 

    That is because slavery is well established in Judaism and Christianity, where it has taken unjust forms. They have many books which discuss that in detail and condone it. Therefore it makes you wonder: how can these churchmen call people to Christianity when Christianity condones and legitimizes slavery?

    In other words: how can they stir up an issue when they themselves are up to their necks in it?!

    The issue of slavery is completely different when discussed from the angles of Christianity and Islam, and when compared with the situation that prevailed at the advent of Islam.

    Hence we must discuss this topic in some detail with reference to what is said in Judaism, Christianity and contemporary culture on this matter, then we will speak of slavery in Islam.

    Many lies have been fabricated about Islam on this topic, at a time when criminals with lengthy track records are safe and nobody points a finger at them.

    Islam and slavery:

    Islam affirms that Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, created man fully accountable, and enjoined duties upon him, to which reward and punishment are connected on the basis of man’s free will and choice.

    No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and oppressor. 

    This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in sharee’ah, whilst also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.

    When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need.

    Slavery did not spread in this appalling manner throughout all continents except by means of kidnapping; rather the main source of slaves in Europe and America in later centuries was this method.

    The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).

    It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.

    There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means.

    Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war and on their womenfolk and children.

    Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger. When Allaah enables the Muslim mujaahideen who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kuffaar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/387).

    He also said:

    If it is said: If the slave becomes Muslim then why keep him as a slave, when the reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger, so this reason no longer applies?

    The answer is that the well known principle among the scholars and all wise people, which is that the previously established right cannot be erased by a right that is established later, and that what came first takes precedence, is obvious.

    When the Muslims captured kuffaar, their right to possession was affirmed by the law of the Creator of all, Who is All Wise and All Knowing. So this right is confirmed and established. Then if the slave became Muslim after that, his right to escape slavery by embracing Islam was superseded by the mujaahid’s prior right to take possession of him before he became Muslim, and it would be unjust and unfair to annul the prior right because of a subsequent right, as is well known to all wise people.

    Yes, it is good for the master to free the slave if he becomes Muslim. The Lawgiver enjoined and encouraged that, and opened many doors to it. Glory be to the Most Wise, the All Knowing. “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Knower” [al-An’aam 6:115].

    “in truth” means in what He tells us, and “in justice” means in His rulings.

    Undoubtedly this justice refers to owning slaves and other rulings of the Qur’aan.

    How many people criticize something sound when their problem is their own misunderstanding. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/389).

    Capture of prisoners during war was the most common way of acquiring slaves. Prisoners would inevitably be captured during any war, and the prevalent custom at that time was that prisoners had no protection or rights; they would either be killed or enslaved. But Islam brought two more options: unconditional release or ransom. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam)” [Muhammad 47:4]. During the battle of Badr the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted ransoms from the mushrik prisoners of war and let them go, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) let many of the prisoners go for free, releasing them with no ransom. During the conquest of Makkah it was said to the people of Makkah: “Go, for you are free.”

    During the campaign of Banu’l-Mustaliq, the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married a female prisoner from the defeated tribe so as to raise her status, as she was the daughter of one of their leaders, namely the Mother of the Believers Juwayriyah bint al-Haarith (may Allaah be pleased with her). Then the Muslims let all of these prisoners go.

    Islam is not thirsty for the blood of prisoners, nor is it eager to enslave them.

    Thus we may understand the limited ways that can lead to slavery. Islam did not abolish it altogether, because the kaafir prisoner who was opposed to truth and justice was a wrongdoer, or was a supporter of wrongdoing or was a tool in the execution or approval of wrongdoing. Letting him go free would give him the opportunity to spread wrongdoing and aggression against others and to oppose the truth and prevent it reaching people. 

    Freedom is a basic human right which cannot be taken away from a person except for a reason. When Islam accepted slavery within the limits that we have described, it put restrictions on the man who exploits his freedom in the worst possible way. If he was taken prisoner in a war of aggression in which he was defeated, then the proper conduct is to keep him in reasonable conditions throughout his detention.

    Despite all that, Islam offers many opportunities to restore freedom to him and people like him.

    The principle of dealing with slaves in Islam is a combination of justice, kindness and compassion.

    One of the means of liberating slaves is allocating a portion of zakaah funds to freeing slaves; the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows and having intercourse during the day in Ramadaan, is to free a slave. In addition to that, Muslims are also encouraged in general terms to free slaves for the sake of Allaah.

    This is a brief summary of some of the principles of dealing with slaves in a just and kind manner:

    1 – Guaranteeing them food and clothing like that of their masters.

    It was narrated that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

    2 – Preserving their dignity

    It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard Abu’l-Qaasim (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever accuses his slave when he is innocent of what he says will be flogged on the Day of Resurrection, unless he is as he said.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6858).

    Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) manumitted a slave of his, then he picked up a stick or something from the ground and said: There is no more reward in it than the equivalent of this, but I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657).

    3 – Being fair towards slaves and treating them kindly

    It was narrated that ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan tweaked the ear of a slave of his when he did something wrong, then he said to him after that: Come and tweak my ear in retaliation. The slave refused but he insisted, so he started to tweak it slightly, and he said to him: Do it strongly, for I cannot bear the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. The slave said: Like that, O my master? The Day that you fear I fear also.

    When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

    One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab passed by and saw some slaves standing and not eating with their master. He got angry and said to their master: What is wrong with people who are selfish towards their servants? Then he called the servants and they ate with them.

    A man entered upon Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) and found him making dough – and he was a governor. He said to him: O Abu ‘Abd-Allaah, what is this? He said: We have sent our servant on an errand and we do not want to give him two jobs at once.

    4 – There is nothing wrong with slaves having precedence over free men in some matters

    - with regard to any religious or worldly matters in which he excels over him. For example, it is valid for a slave to lead the prayer. ‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers had a slave who would lead her in prayer. Indeed the Muslims have been commanded to hear and obey even if a slave is appointed in charge of their affairs.

    5 – A slave may buy himself from his master and be free.

    If a person is enslaved for some reason but then it becomes apparent that he has given up his wrongdoing and forgotten his past, and he has become a man who shuns evil and seeks to do good, is it permissible to respond to his request to let him go free? Islam says yes, and there are some fuqaha’ who say that this is obligatory and some who say that it is mustahabb.

    This is what is called a mukaatabah or contract of manumission between the slave and his master. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allaah which He has bestowed upon you”

    [al-Noor 24:33]

    This is how Islam treats slaves justly and kindly.

    One of the results of these guidelines is that in many cases, the slave would become a friend of his master; in some cases the master would regard him as a son. Sa’d ibn Haashim al-Khaalidi said, describing a slave of his:

    He is not a slave, rather he is a son whom [Allaah] has put under my care.

    He has supported me with his good service; he is my hands and my arms.

    Another result of the Muslims treating slaves in this manner is that the slaves became part of Muslim families as if they were also family members. 

    Gustave le Bon says in Hadaarat al-‘Arab (Arab Civilization) (p. 459-460): What I sincerely believe is that slavery among the Muslims is better than slavery among any other people, and that the situation of slaves in the east is better than that of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the east are part of the family. Slaves who wanted to be free could attain freedom by expressing their wish. But despite that, they did not resort to exercising this right. End quote.

    How did non-Muslims treat slaves?

    Attitude of the Jews towards slaves:

    According to the Jews, mankind is divided into two groups: the Israelites form one group and all of mankind is another group. 

    As for the Israelites, it is permissible to enslave some of them, according to specific teachings contained in the Old Testament.

    As for people other than the Israelites, they are a low-class race according to the Jews, who may be enslaved via domination and subjugation, because they are people who are doomed to humiliation by the heavenly decree from eternity. It says in Exodus 21:2-6:

    “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

    3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

    4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

     5 But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'

    6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life”

    As for enslaving non-Hebrews, this is done by taking them captive or overpowering them, because they believe that their race is superior to others, and they try to find a justification for that slavery in their distorted Torah. So they say that Ham the son of Noah – who was the father of Canaan – angered his father, because Noah was drunk one day and became naked as he was sleeping in his tent, and Ham saw him like that. When Noah found out about that after he woke up, he got angry and he cursed his progeny who were descendents of Canaan, and he said – according to the Book of Genesis 9:25-26): “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.’ He also said, ‘Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.’”

    In the same chapter (v. 27) it says: “May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his [or their] slave”.

    In the Book of Deuteronomy 20:10-14, it says:

    “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

    11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

    12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

    13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

    14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves”

    Attitude of the Christians towards slaves:

    Christianity confirmed slavery as it had been affirmed beforehand by Judaism. There is no text in the Gospels that prohibits or denounces slavery. It is remarkable that the historian William Muir criticized our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for not immediately abolishing slavery, whilst overlooking the attitude of the Gospels concerning slavery, as there is no report from the Messiah, or from the Disciples, or from the churches concerning this issue.

    Rather, in his Epistles, Paul advised that slaves should be loyal to their masters, as he says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he enjoins slaves to obey their masters as they would obey the Messiah:

    “5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

    6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

    7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,

    8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free”

    (Ephesians 6:5-9).

    In Grand Larousse encyclopédique, it says: It comes as no surprise that slavery has continued among Christians until today; the official representatives of the faith have affirmed its validity and accepted its legitimacy.

    … to sum up: the Christian religion approved fully of slavery and still does so today. It is very difficult for anyone to prove that Christianity strove to abolish slavery.

    The saints affirmed that nature makes some people slaves.

    Churchmen did not prevent slavery or oppose it; rather they supported it, to such an extent that the philosopher saint Thomas Aquinas supported the philosophical view that agreed with the view of religious leaders, and he did not object to slavery, rather he praised it because – according to the view of Aristotle – it is one of the conditions in which some people are created naturally, and it does not contradict faith for a man to be content with the lowest position in life.

    Haqaa’iq al-Islam by al-‘Aqqaad (p. 215).

    In the Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. George Yousuf it says: Christianity did not object to slavery for political or economic reasons, and it did not urge believers to oppose their generation’s views with regard to slavery, or even debate it, and it did not say anything against the rights of slave owners or motivate the slaves to seek independence; it did not discuss the harm or harshness of slavery and it did not enjoin the immediate release of slaves. 

    It did not change anything in the nature of the relationship between master and slave; on the contrary, it affirmed the rights and duties of both parties.

    Contemporary Europe and slavery

    It is the reader’s right, in this era of advancement and progress, to ask questions about the pioneers of this progress and the numbers of people who died because of the way in which they were hunted, and who died on their way to the coast where the ships of the English Company and others would wait, then the rest died due to changes in climate. Approximately 4% died as they were being loaded onto the ships, and 12 % during the journey, let alone those who died in the colonies.

    The slave trade continued at the hands of English companies that obtained the right of monopoly with the permission of the British government, then gave free rein to British subjects to enslave people. Some experts estimate that the total number of people seized by the British during slavery and exiled to the colonies between 1680 and 1786 CE was around 2,130,000.

    When Europe made contact with Black Africa, this contact led to human misery during which the black people of that continent were faced with a major calamity that lasted for five centuries. The states of Europe came up with evil ways of kidnapping these people and bringing them to their lands to serve as fuel for their revival, where they burdened them with more work than they could bear. When America was discovered, the calamity increased and they became slaves in two continents instead of just one.

    The Encyclopaedia Britannica says (2/779) on the topic of slavery: Hunting slaves in the villages that were surrounded by the jungle was done by lighting fires in the straw of which the corrals surrounding the villages were made, then when the villagers fled to open land, the British hunted them down with whatever means they had at their disposal. 

    During the period from 1661 to 1774, for every million Black Africans who reached the Americas, a further nine million died during the hunting, loading and transportation. In other words, only one tenth of those who were hunted survived and actually reached the Americas, where they found no rest or relief, rather they were subjected to hard labour and torture.

    At that time, they had laws which any wise person would be ashamed of.

    Among these evil laws were those which said that any slave who transgressed against his master was to be killed, and any slave who ran away was to have his hands and feet cut off, and he was to be branded with hot iron; if he ran away again, he was to be killed. How could he run away if his hands and feet had been cut off?!

    It was forbidden for a black man to become educated, and the jobs of whites were forbidden to coloureds.

    In America, if seven black people gathered together, that was regarded as a crime, and if a white man passed by them it was permissible for him to spit at them and give them twenty lashes.

    Another law stated that the blacks had no soul and that they possessed no smartness, intelligence or willpower, and that life existed only in their arms.

    To sum up, with regard to his duties and service to his master, the slave was regarded as sane, responsible and punishable if he fell short, but with regard to his rights, he had no soul and no being, and he was not more than a strong pair of arms!

    Finally, after many centuries of enslavement and oppression, there came the protocol to abolish slavery and strive to put an end to it, in a resolution issued by the United Nations in 1953 CE.

    Hence their consciences did not awaken until the last century, after they had built their civilization on the corpses of free men whom they had enslaved unlawfully. What fair-minded person can compare this with the teachings of Islam, which came fourteen hundred years ago? It seems that accusing Islam with regard to this topic is like the saying, “She accused me of her problem then walked away.”

    And Allaah knows best.

    See: Shubahaat Hawl al-Islam by Muhammad Qutub; Talbees Mardood fi Qadaaya Khateerah by Shaykh Dr. Saalih ibn Humayd, the Imam of the Haram in Makkah.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGy4Osb_Pt8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0PzELymfkg

  • Love and compassion
     Reply #71 - April 22, 2017, 09:55 PM

    CHRISTIANS

    Christians drink because they believe that there is nothing wrong when one drinks moderately alcoholic beverages. They even support their claim through medical research, that moderate drinking is good for the heart. They support their claim by stating that Jesus Christ (PBUH= peace be upon him) made fermented wine at the wedding in Cana; That he approved of intoxicant drinks in the parable of new wine skins and old wine; That he admitted to drinking wine in describing his lifestyle (”eating and drinking”). And by instituting the cup of the Lord’s Supper he commanded its use until eternity. In otherwords for the Christians, Jesus's (PBUH) example and teachings form the belief and practice. Logically and rationally if wine was good for Jesus (PBUH) it is also good for his followers.

    "The Biblical terms for wine (yayin in Hebrew and oinos in Greek) are used in Scripture to refer to the juice of the grape, whether fermented or unfermented. This significant finding discredits the popular claim that the Bible knows only fermented wine, which it approves when used moderately. The truth of the matter is that the Bible knows both fermented wine, which it disapproves, and unfermented grape juice, which it approves.

    Some of the reasons Scripture condemns the use of alcoholic beverages are that they distort the perception of reality (Is 28:7; Prov 23:33); they impair the capacity to make moral, responsible decisions (Lev 10:9-11); they weaken moral sensitivities and inhibitions (Gen 9:21; 19:32; Hab 2:15; Is 5:11-12); they cause physical sickness (Prov 23:20-21; Hos 7:5; Is 19:14; Ps 60:3); and they disqualify for both civil and religious service (Prov 31:4-5; Lev 10:9-11; Ezek 44:23; 1 Tim 3:2-3; Titus 1:7-Cool." (REF: S. Bacchiocchi. The Sobering Facts About New Testament Wine, Signs of the Times, January 1990)

    "Contrary to popular opinion, in the ancient world the preservation of grape juice unfermented was a relatively simple process. It was accomplished by boiling down the juice to a syrup, or by separating the fermentable pulp from the juice of the grape by means of filtration, or by placing the grape juice in sealed jars which were immersed in a pool of cold water, or by fumigating the wine jars with sulphur before sealing them. The use of such techniques clearly indicates that the means of preserving grape juice without fermentation were known and used in the ancient world." (REF. Bacchiocchi, Ibid)

    The Wedding at Cana

    In the Bible (Revised Standard Version or RSV) in the book of John, Chapter 2 and verses 1-11, describe that Jesus (PBUH) his mother and his disciples were invited to a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Here Jesus (PBUH) shows a miracle by converting water into wine.

    " When the steward of the feast tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from: the steward of the feast called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2: 10, 11.

    Samuele Bacchiocchi (REF: S. Bacchiocchi. The Sobering Facts About New Testament Wine, Signs of the Times, January 1990, pp. 3-5 ) argues that "good wine" does not mean that it has a high alcoholic content.

    He says Christians believe that the wine was fermented from grape juice and that the word “the best” (John 2: 10 NIV) is interpreted as “a high quality alcoholic wine.” He further states that the words “have drunk freely” does not mean that they were intoxicated from an overuse of fermented wine. According to Bacchiocchi the wine” used in the wedding at Cana was unfermented grape juice and that the Jews at that time knew how to preserve unfermented grape juice through the year. The expression “have drunk freely”, he says, “is used in the sense of satiation. It refers simply to the large quantity of wine generally consumed at a feast, without any reference to its intoxicating effects.”

    One can read “In Cana, the disciples did not enjoy the new supply of wine but ‘believed in him’ who had made it (John 2: 11).” (The Broadman Bible commentary Vol. 9, 1970, p. 229).

    “ And no one puts new wine into old “wineskins”; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins.”

    Mark 2: 22



    Christians interpret this verse to mean that Jesus (PBUH) is advising not to put “new wine into old wineskins.” This is rebuffed by Bacchiocchi by quoting Alexander B. Bruce (”The Synoptic Gospels” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Grand Rapids, 1956, p.500) “ Jesus was not thinking at all of fermented, intoxicating wine, but of must, a non-intoxicating beverage, which could be kept safely in new leather bottles, but not in old skins which had previously contained ordinary wine, because particles of albuminoid matter adhering to the kin would set up fermentation and develop gas with an enormous pressure.”

    “ For John the Baptist (Yahya (AS)) has come eating no bread and drinking NO wine; and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!.'



    Luke 7: 33,34 (RSV)

    Again Christians believe that Jesus (PBUH), is admitting his ‘eating and drinking’ life style and they conclude that Jesus (PBUH), must be drinking alcoholic wine, otherwise he will not be called a “drunkard.” In counter argument, Bacchiocchi (Ibid) says “Jesus used the phrase “eating no bread and drinking no wine” to describe the life style of John the Baptist (Yahya (AS)) who was socially isolated, whereas Jesus describes his own life style as “ eating and drinking” meaning that Jesus lived a “life style free of social association.” “ The important point is in the words “Son of man has come eating and drinking” the word wine is missing. Hence if Jesus (PBUH) was a wine-drinker he could have repeated the word wine which he used in describing John the Baptist.

    The word “drunkard” used against Jesus (PBUH) is a false accusation. Because on two occasions his adversaries said of him “you have a demon” (John 7:20., 8:118). Does it mean that Jesus (PBUH) had an evil spirit within him simply because his adversaries say so. Jesus (PBUH) was a Prophet and his life style of self-denial is the proof.

    The following verses refer to the Last Supper of Christ (PBUH):

    “Drink of it, all of you for this is my blood of the cove­nant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of’ the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

    Matthew 26: 28-29 (RSV).



    “ And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant,

    Which poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of’ God.”

    Mark 14: 24-25 (RSV)

    Christians believe that the wine used during the Last Supper was alcoholic because words “fruit of the vine” are interpreted as fermented wine. Secondly they assume that during Passover time Jews drink only fermented wine. Bacchiocchi (Ibid) says “Fermented wine is not the natural fruit of the vine but the unnatural fruit of fermentation and decay. The Jewish historian Josephus, who was a contemporary of the apostles, explicitly calls the three clusters of grapes freshly squeezed in a cup by Pharaoh’s cupbearer “the fruit of the vine.” Thus the phrase was used to designate the sweet unfermented juice of the grape…. Christ could hardly have commanded “all” of his followers through the ages to drink the cup if it contained alcoholic wine. There are some to whom alcohol in any form is very harmful. We cannot conceive of Christ bending over to bless in grateful prayer a cup containing alcoholic wine which the Scripture warns us not to look at (Prov 23:31). A cup that intoxicates is a cup of cursing and not "the cup of blessing" (1 Cor 10:16); it is "the cup of demons" and not "the cup of the Lord" (1 Cor 10:21); it is a cup that cannot fittingly symbolize the incorruptible and "precious blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18-19). This gives us reason to believe that the cup He "blessed" and gave to His disciples did not contain any "fermented thing" prohibited by Scripture."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE9Oj_UQQuI
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #72 - April 22, 2017, 10:02 PM


    The reputation of the Holy Qur'an cleft the bonds of time and distance and influenced beyond them. The miracles of the prophets before the Prophet of Islam (p.b.u.h.), and even his own miracles save the Qur'an, happened in a special period of time, at a definite place and for a specific group of people. For example : the utterances of the holy little child of Virgin Mary, and raising the dead by Jesus (a.s.) were done at some definite times and places before the eyes of some particular people. And we know that regarding the things that depend on time and place, the farther we move away from them correlatively the weaker they become. This is one of the properties of affairs related to time.
    But, the Holy Qur'an does not depend on time and place. Its brilliance and authority that illuminated the darkness of Arabia fourteen centuries ago continues unwaveringly to shine with its original splendor. Besides that, the passing of time, the advancement of science and the development of information have made it possible for us to understand it and take its advantages even more than the nations of former ages did. It is evident that what time and place cannot influence will continue to be everywhere in the world for eternity. It is also clear that a world-wide everlasting religion should have a world-wide everlasting document of legitimacy in its possession.
    Not only with science. It is a book of history, philosophy, laws and many more. An unique book to guide the humanity.

    Then we can discuss the Holy Qur'an :
    from the point of modern science;
    and the scientific explorations;
    and the rotation of the Earth;
    and reproduction in the plant kingdom;
    and general reproduction in all the particles of the world;
    and general gravity;
    and the surrendering of the Sun and the Moon;
    and the secrets of the creation of mountains;
    and the advent of the world;
    and the existence of life on other planets;
    and the winds, the pollinator of plants;
    and the question of the roundness of the Earth; (2)
    And many other scientific facts and knowledge about the world can be found in the Holy Qur'an, too.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3rEFOhPL_Y

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrSKNBhvApQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTqrOurm8KU


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOw1X4GIAYM


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9D15CnSCMY

  • Love and compassion
     Reply #73 - April 22, 2017, 10:09 PM

    Seriously, it's obvious you're either not actually interested in converting anyone to Islam, or you're too clueless thanks to being psychologicallly conditioned from a young age. It's also impressive how you can logically objectively criticize the New Testament and the rearranged Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament)  and show their flaws without excuses yet when it comes to Islam you completely shut your brain off. I'd bother refuting you and showing you how to stop using such basic logical fallacies but I have a life and things to take care of and I can only deal with this kind of baloney for so long. Not to mention I've already responded to you before and you didn't even reflect on what I said at all. 

    You are THE MOST stereotypical Dawah preacher I've ever encountered and you will NEVER turn anyone to Islam.

    If I'm going to be reprimanded for personally attacking someone then so be it. This just gets old and pathetically sad after a while.

    Then you have the wine that doesn't make you drunk. Seriously, who's idea was that? It's called Juicy Juice where I come from, mofo, you ain't fooling me.

  • Love and compassion
     Reply #74 - April 22, 2017, 11:18 PM

    Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians

    The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

    In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

    The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

    Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

    From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

    The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

    The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

    Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

    Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

    We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

    Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

    The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

    The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

    The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

    The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

    The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

    The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

    The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

    The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

    The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

    The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

    The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

    The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

    We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

    Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.

    A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

    The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

    But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.

    In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

    Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

    Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

    The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

    At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

    But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

    Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

    This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

    Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

    Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

    Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

    Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

    The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

    The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

    In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

    All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

    All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

    Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

    In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

    Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

    The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtBoj7557IM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_IbVi9eyo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYSXh7j6494

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQZR6xzDkjc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8EMx7Y16Vo
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #75 - April 23, 2017, 01:46 AM

    That was lovely. Bjii peshmarga!

    I don't want to be good anymore. I want to be right.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #76 - April 23, 2017, 03:12 AM

    "But, the Holy Qur'an does not depend on time and place."

    Lolwut.

    It depends on an audience that can understand classical Arabic speech and Syriac-Christian jargon. If Gabriel had delivered the Revelation to, say, a fifth-century Maya like the king K'inich Popol Hol of Copan, he'd not understand a word of it.

    Besides, he'd already own a copy of the Book of Mormon. Duh.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #77 - April 23, 2017, 12:55 PM

    What sin did the Jewish whore commit? I don't get what she needs forgiveness for. Are we judging her by Judaism or Islam? Prostitution is legal in Israel.


    Since we're talking about 1400 years ago, Israel wasn't a thing; Judaism was, but Israel definitely wasn't. Prostitution kinda is and isn't legal in Judaism. You're not permitted to cause your son or daughter to become a shrine prostitute (more of an issue 3000 years ago than 1400 years ago), and the daughter of a priest who is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night is burned to death for prostitution in the house of a priest. The daughters of common Jews who were married or betrothed were punished with stoning for affairs, which Jewish sources say meant throwing them off a cliff then covering the corpse with stones. However, if a Jewish woman WASN'T married or betrothed, she could basically sleep with whoever she wanted (including other women!), but her kids wouldn't be considered legitimate, wouldn't be able to inherit anything from their fathers, and wouldn't be able to be a priest or hold any other position of religious or political authority.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #78 - April 23, 2017, 01:08 PM



    In Canada/USA we have this thing where you can rent a post box in a post office so you can get things shipped without having to give away your actual address.

    I assume they probably have something similiar in Sweden.


    Other non-state-run shipping services like UPS may also offer them.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #79 - April 23, 2017, 03:11 PM

    Since we're talking about 1400 years ago, Israel wasn't a thing; Judaism was, but Israel definitely wasn't. Prostitution kinda is and isn't legal in Judaism. You're not permitted to cause your son or daughter to become a shrine prostitute (more of an issue 3000 years ago than 1400 years ago), and the daughter of a priest who is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night is burned to death for prostitution in the house of a priest. The daughters of common Jews who were married or betrothed were punished with stoning for affairs, which Jewish sources say meant throwing them off a cliff then covering the corpse with stones. However, if a Jewish woman WASN'T married or betrothed, she could basically sleep with whoever she wanted (including other women!), but her kids wouldn't be considered legitimate, wouldn't be able to inherit anything from their fathers, and wouldn't be able to be a priest or hold any other position of religious or political authority.


    Hmm. That throws that whole "daughter in law waits by the roadside pretending to be a prostitute so her father in law can impregnate her" story on it's ear. I thought she was taking some sort of risk.

    I don't want to be good anymore. I want to be right.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #80 - April 23, 2017, 07:47 PM

    Hmm. That throws that whole "daughter in law waits by the roadside pretending to be a prostitute so her father in law can impregnate her" story on it's ear. I thought she was taking some sort of risk.


    Technically, Tamar was married to Judah's son Shelah, but since Tamar's two previous husbands, Er and Onan, who were incidentally Judah's oldest two sons, had both died shortly after marrying her, Judah didn't want to give her a husband. So she got knocked up by him instead and when confronted with it, he ordered her execution since she was technically married to his minor son, but she proved she was impregnated by him and he said "fair enough, I did have a social obligation to get you pregnant with someone in my family as a woman with no children who married into my house, now how about you leave me and my remaining son alone".

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #81 - April 23, 2017, 08:05 PM

    Also, Jews don't consider Judah or even his father Israel/Jacob to have been Jews. They consider Judaism to have started with Moses, although the patriarchs prior to Moses were definitely good people in their eyes. Jews have this idea that there are two laws given by God, the Noahide law (given to all mankind) and the Mosaic law (given exclusively to the Jews).

    There are only seven Noahide laws, given to Noah after the flood to prevent God from getting angry and wiping out the planet again. Those laws are:
    • Do not deny God.
    • Do not blaspheme God.
    • Do not murder.
    • Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
    • Do not steal.
    • Do not eat from a live animal.
    • Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.

    There are 613 laws in the Mosaic law, found mostly in Exodus and Leviticus. Incidentally if you count them there aren't actually 613, but the ancients considered it a magical number, so apologists have been trying to make the number fit by combining laws for a while. There are actually closer to 620 depending on how you count.

    So Jews consider Judah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to not have been bound by the laws of Moses. Which is convenient for apologists since their stories are actually based on the Code of Hammurabi, while the later Mosaic law was based on Zoroastrianism, which are two completely separate frameworks (one of them is polytheistic while the other isn't, for a start).

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #82 - April 23, 2017, 11:56 PM

    That is fascinating, actually, I had no idea.

    I don't want to be good anymore. I want to be right.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #83 - April 24, 2017, 12:03 AM

    If you like that kind of content you may also enjoy my playlist where i rant about this shit for ages with Jakob to pull me back to the topic when I wander too far afield.
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4z05WlvBucUX6yn5YBihotwi_esV5Dhh

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #84 - April 25, 2017, 02:00 AM

    I seriously need a Jakob to reel me back in when I talk. Great idea and thanks!

    I don't want to be good anymore. I want to be right.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #85 - April 25, 2017, 02:08 AM

    Racial justice group disrupts neo-Nazi gathering at restaurant, propels art gallery to remove ‘anti-Semitic’ exhibit
    By JOE SONKA | April 21, 2017 7:20 pm
    Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

    Louisville Anti-Racist Action was behind the effort to remove an art show from Tim Faulkner Gallery and, in a separate incident, confront white supremacists gathered at local restaurant The Irish Rover.
    A day after defending an artist from allegations of white supremacy, the Tim Faulkner Gallery announced Friday it is reversing course and removing the art show of Kevin Caster, who also decided not to renew his lease with the Portland art studio.

    Caster’s artwork and opinions about protecting “European Americans” from “miscegenation” had recently come under fire from Louisville Anti-Racist Action, the same group that on Thursday night participated in the confrontation of white supremacists dining at The Irish Rover on Frankfort Avenue, chanting “Nazis out!” as restaurant management asked the diners to leave.

    The Faulkner Gallery exhibit

    In a press release Thursday, Louisville ARA said they initially brought their concerns about Caster’s art show — titled “Will the Goyim’s Children Curse ‘Em?” — to Tim Faulkner, whom they say defended Caster’s work but promised to remove pieces from the show that contained swastikas. Louisville ARA also stated bluntly that Caster “is a white supremacist” who works with organizers for the Traditionalist Workers Party, a neo-Nazi white nationalist group that has made headlines in Kentucky over the past year.

    Louisville ARA claimed Caster posted under a pseudonym at the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website and regularly meets with other local members of that site, including at his show’s opening. They also posted screenshots from Caster’s Facebook page, including one in which he claimed that “because European Americans hold the key for the collapsing of the totalitarian globalist slave project we’re their primary target… Knock us out via tools such as massive immigration, stripped identity, false narratives, miscegenation, guilt and shame, feminism and the sexual revolution and voila, the path for these swine to get what they want is all cleared out.”

    According to Louisville ARA, Caster admitted to posting under the pseudonym at Daily Stormer but defended his actions and his show by claiming they are “performance art,” and his persona should be seen as a character in a film he’s producing. The group rejected that explanation and said the Tim Faulkner Gallery should not “provide a platform for white supremacy and white nationalism, no matter how subtle, edgy or artsy it is.”

    “Even if Caster were engaging in performance art in this manner, he would be giving voice to anti-Semitic ideas and espousing racial violence while encouraging avowed white nationalists to do the same,” stated the Louisville ARA press release. “This show is an attempt to openly recruit and to disseminate anti-Semitic ideas to our community under the guise of merely ‘asking questions.'”

    A response posted Thursday on the Facebook account of the Tim Faulkner Gallery — signed by “Tim, Margaret & our entire family” — defended the character of Caster and criticized the “unfounded” press release of Louisville ARA, stating “it is apparent that they have pulled their trigger much too quickly and now can’t seem to control the aftermath.”

    Referring to their gallery as “a diverse group of creatives, none of which are Nazi sympathizers or sympathetic to the cause of any white supremacy organization,” the post stated that their decision not to cancel Caster’s art show or terminate his studio lease “is based on the fact that the ARA cannot provide definitive proof that their claims are true. In addition, we actually know Kevin… We will not destroy him based on circumstances.”

    The post further stated that in his five years at Faulkner Gallery, they had “never seen a single indication of hate or bigotry from him,” though “upon our investigation we discovered that the only thing Kevin Caster was guilty of was some poor decision making.” Referring to Caster’s “film project,” the post claims he did follow and join “a couple of organizations online known to be right wing extremists,” which was “part of his research.” It goes on to say that Caster “made the very poor judgment of attending a ‘book club’ meeting” and inviting those people to his show’s opening at the gallery, and that “I and Margaret… expressed our displeasure with his lack of foresight and quite honestly a minimal use of common sense.”

    The post does not identify the people in the “book club,” though photos shared by the Louisville ARA show one person at his exhibit wearing a T-shirt bearing the logo of a white supremacist podcast. It closed by noting that the gallery was hosting a Catholic Charities event that night to help refugees, and has previously hosted a hip-hop festival and LGBTQ events, and “will continue to be a place open and welcome to everyone and will not be bullied into causing harm where it certainly doesn’t belong

    Several people in the comments to this Facebook post shared screenshots from Caster’s social media account, which the Faulkner Gallery defended. On Caster’s comment that Muslim refugees possess “high propensities for terror, rape and other modes of criminality,” the gallery responded on Facebook that this was “clearly an immediate and fear based response” to a multiple-stabbing by a refugee at Ohio State University that day, which “echoed across the entire country.” On Caster’s comments decrying the mixing of races as an attempt to destroy white people, the Faulkner Gallery replied: “Again, another fear based post that proves absolutely nothing. I don’t have to agree with him, but it doesn’t make him a Nazi… We do not promote white nationalists.”

    Despite the defense of Caster and his work a day earlier, the gallery subsequently posted a statement on its Facebook page stating the art show would be removed and the artist would not renew his studio lease, as “hate is not to be tolerated here at Tim Faulkner Gallery.” While acknowledging errors made by Caster, most of the gallery’s response was devoted to criticizing Louisville ARA, which said the local group was just as bad as Nazis.

    “Let it be clear that we are not cowering to the bullying tactics demonstrated by the Louisville ARA,” stated the gallery’s post. “We acknowledge that Kevin made a grave error in judgement during his ‘research’ for his film project. However, the hate tactics demonstrated by members of the local ARA are just as abhorrent as the groups they claim to stand against. The persecution of the gallery as white supremacists is completely unfounded and misguided and will not be tolerated.”

    “It goes without saying, card carrying Nazis have never been welcomed by Tim Faulkner Gallery and never will be. That sentiment also applies to the rabid fanaticism perpetrated the ARA group,” the post continued. “So, to be clear, Nazis, you are not welcome at TFG, Louisville ARA neither are you. Keep the hate to yourselves.”

    Louisville ARA responded to the Faulkner Gallery’s reversal with a statement thanking “everyone who mobilized and shared the information. Louisville ARA’s first point of unity is that we go where they go. Sometimes that puts us in the uncomfortable position of having to look inside our own communities. The Tim Faulkner Gallery was never our target, but we can not allow white supremacy to have a platform in any space.”

    “Nazis out!”

    On Thursday evening, a group of roughly 40 people that included the Louisville ARA confronted a group of of people at The Irish Rover whom screenshots show had organized on the Daily Stormer website as the “Louisville Book Club.” The confrontation was broadcast live on Facebook accounts, as people shouted “Nazis out!” until the group left; one of the group members was wearing the Nazi SS symbol and another was wearing a shirt with the Rhodesian army on it, a favorite of white supremacists across the globe.

    Another Louisville ARA press release on Friday hailed the action at the restaurant, sharing Daily Stormer screenshots from when they were organizing the “book club” event. In one post, someone with a username referencing Nazi Germany’s SS suggested having their meeting on April 20 (Adolf Hitler’s birthday), adding “if you don’t know why that date, lurk more… this is like a Holiday, for me it is anyway.”

    Another Daily Stormer poster applauded holding their event in the liberal Clifton neighborhood, stating “Just think of the irony, evil fascists meeting right under the noses of the Commies… you’ll see alot of houses with ‘Black Lives Matter” signs and those gay ass ‘We’re glad you are our neighbor’ signs.”

    “Louisville ARA praises the members of our community who joined us in rejecting neo-Nazis meeting in our public spaces, especially the patrons of the Irish Rover who joined in the chants and the owners who demanded that the white supremacists leave their property,” stated the ARA press release.

    Management at the Irish Rover told IL they stand behind their decision to ask the group to leave.



    Correction: The original version of this story stated a “Louisville Book Club” member brought a cake to the meetup at the Irish Rover, when in fact, it was a protestor.

    https://insiderlouisville.com/lifestyle_culture/arts-and-entertainment/tim-faulkner-gallery-reverses-course-removes-art-show-accused-of-ties-to-white-supremacy-neo-nazis-run-out-of-irish-rover/

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next generation might be doing alright. Nice to see the ARA in the news lately, they are forming a bit of backlash, exactly as they and friends did in the early nineties. Shout out to CH Boot Crew with love from Mom.

    I don't want to be good anymore. I want to be right.
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #86 - April 25, 2017, 08:48 AM

    Why such variance in viewpoints?  To begin with, different theological camps disagree on which books should be included in the Bible.  One camp’s apocrypha is another’s scripture.  Secondly, even among those books that have been canonized, the many variant source texts lack uniformity.  This lack of uniformity is so ubiquitous that The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.”[2]

    Not one sentence?  We can’t trust a single sentence of the Bible?  Hard to believe.
    Maybe

    The fact is that there are over 5700 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.[3]  Furthermore, “no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike in all their particulars….  And some of these differences are significant.”[4]  Factor in roughly ten thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, add the many other ancient variants (i.e., Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Nubian, Gothic, Slavonic), and what do we have?
    A lot of manuscripts

    A lot of manuscripts that fail to correspond in places and not infrequently contradict one another.  Scholars estimate the number of manuscript variants in the hundreds of thousands, some estimating as high as 400,000.[5]  In Bart D.  Ehrman’s now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[6]
    How did this happen?

    Poor record keeping.  Dishonesty.  Incompetence.  Doctrinal prejudice.  Take your pick.

    None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian period.[7]/[8]  The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ ministry.  But the originals?  Lost.  And the copies of the originals?  Also lost.  Our most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the originals.
    No wonder they differ

    In the best of hands, copying errors would be no surprise.  However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of hands.  During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent, and in some cases illiterate.[9]  Those who were visually impaired could have made errors with look-alike letters and words, while those who were hearing-impaired may have erred in recording scripture as it was read aloud.  Frequently scribes were overworked, and hence inclined to the errors that accompany fatigue.

    In the words of Metzger and Ehrman, “Since most, if not all, of them [the scribes] would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them.”[10]  Worse yet, some scribes allowed doctrinal prejudice to influence their transmission of scripture.[11]  As Ehrman states, “The scribes who copied the texts changed them.”[12]  More specifically, “The number of deliberate alterations made in the interest of doctrine is difficult to assess.”[13]  And even more specifically, “In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes ‘corrupted’ their texts for theological reasons.”[14]

    Errors were introduced in the form of additions, deletions, substitutions and modifications, most commonly of words or lines, but occasionally of entire verses.[15] [16]  In fact, “numerous changes and accretions came into the text,”[17] with the result that “all known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or lesser extent mixed texts, and even several of the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors.”[18]

    In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19]  Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes.”[20]

    In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21]  This doesn’t mean their content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right.  So which books were forged?  Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twenty-seven New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another suspect.[22]
    Forged books? In the Bible?

    Why are we not surprised?  After all, even the gospel authors are unknown.  In fact, they’re anonymous.[23]  Biblical scholars rarely, if ever, ascribe gospel authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.  As Ehrman tells us, “Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”[24]  Graham Stanton affirms, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous.  The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to …’) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[25]

    So what, if anything, did Jesus’ disciples have to do with authoring the gospels?  Little or nothing, so far as we know.  But we have no reason to believe they authored any of the books of the Bible.  To begin with, let us remember Mark was a secretary to Peter, and Luke a companion to Paul.  The verses of Luke 6:14-16 and Matthew 10:2-4 catalogue the twelve disciples, and although these lists differ over two names, Mark and Luke don’t make either list.  So only Matthew and John were true disciples.  But all the same, modern scholars pretty much disqualify them as authors anyway.
    Why?

    Good question.  John being the more famous of the two, why should we disqualify him from having authored the Gospel of “John”?
    Umm … because he was dead?

    Multiple sources acknowledge there is no evidence, other than questionable testimonies of second century authors, to suggest that the disciple John was the author of the Gospel of “John.”[26] [27]  Perhaps the most convincing refutation is that the disciple John is believed to have died in or around 98 CE.[28]  However, the Gospel of John was written circa 110 CE.[29]  So whoever Luke (Paul’s companion), Mark (Peter’s secretary), and John (the unknown, but certainly not the long-dead one) were, we have no reason to believe any of the gospels were authored by Jesus’ disciples

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vv-CX516GI
    Punishment For Adultery

    Proverbs 6:32 ESV / 25 helpful votes

    He who commits adultery lacks sense; he who does it destroys himself.

    Leviticus 20:10 ESV / 16 helpful votes

    “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    John 8:3-11 ESV / 14 helpful votes

    The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” ...

    1 John 3:15 ESV / 8 helpful votes



    “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

    Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 8 helpful votes

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    James 4:17 ESV / 6 helpful votes

    So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

    1 Timothy 3:1-16 ESV / 6 helpful votes

    The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? ...

    Ephesians 1:7 ESV / 6 helpful votes

    In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

    Galatians 5:14 ESV / 6 helpful votes

    For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV / 6 helpful votes

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

    1 Corinthians 5:1-5 ESV / 6 helpful votes

    It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.

    Romans 10:13 ESV / 6 helpful votes



    Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works,

    1 John 2:4 ESV / 5 helpful votes

    Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

    Romans 10:9 ESV / 5 helpful votes



    Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

    Genesis 19:1-38 ESV / 3 helpful votes

    The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” ...

    Revelation 11:1-19 ESV / 2 helpful votes

    Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months. And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. And if anyone would harm them, fire pours from their mouth and consumes their foes. If anyone would harm them, this is how he is doomed to be killed. ...

    Romans 13:9 ESV / 2 helpful votes

    For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

    John 3:16 ESV / 2 helpful votes



    He also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’ So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ ...

    Exodus 35:2 ESV / 2 helpful votes

    Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

    Exodus 22:18 ESV / 2 helpful votes

    “You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

    Acts 25:11 ESV / 1 helpful vote

    If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

    Luke 16:19-31 ESV / 1 helpful vote

    “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6adMcMObzI


    It is naïve to say that Islam is blend of second-hand information about Judaism and Christianity with an inkling of Arab elements in it. It is absurd to suggest that the Prophet, sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ), was cognizant of the two religious systems.
    The concept of prophethood, the memory of Ibraaheem (Abraham) may Allaah exalt his mention as a prophet and founder of the Ka`bah, which the Arabs universally cherished, as well as the rites of Hajj (pilgrimage to the Ka’bah) instituted by Ibraaheem may Allaah exalt his mention were unquestionably from before the time of Jews and Christians. Pre-Islamic Arabs, independent of any Jewish or Christian influence, knew the concept of Allaah as the supreme God. The teachings of Ibraaheem may Allaah exalt his mention found haven in Arabia long before the arrival of Judaism or Christianity and the Arabs were already acquainted with the word ‘Haneef’ as the worshipper of One God.


    The Prophet, sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ), accused the contemporary Arabs, Jews and Christians of having deviated from the original teachings of their prophets and of having degenerated into polytheism. He also rejected what they claimed to be the teachings of their scriptures. So he cannot be misconstrued as having conceived the idea of monotheism from the Judeo-Christian influence.
    The Quran does not maintain that it is teaching a new religion. Instead it upholds and revives the original teachings God has given through all Prophets of all nations. It claims that its teachings are the same as that of Ibraaheem (Abraham), Moosaa (Moses) and ‘Eesaa (Jesus), may Allaah exalt their mention, and speaks about all of them in glowing terms. Since every Orientalist agrees on the fact that Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ), has not read any of the scriptures, therefore, his source of knowledge must be something else.


    The rejection of Biblical teachings about the son or father of god was rejected even in the Makkan Soorahs (chapters of the Quran) long before the Prophet’s migration to Al-Madeenah. Hence, it is not correct to say that these renunciations came about, at the wake of the separation from the Jews and Christians in Al-Madeenah.
    It was impossible to get even a glimpse of monotheism by observing Judaism and Christianity in those days. The practices of these two religious groups were steeped in the most debasing corruption and superstitions, which are vastly removed from monotheism.
    The various reform movements in Christianity, particularly the Cluniac Movement, the Iconoclastic Movement and the Reformation started by Martin Luther bear testimony to the depth of degradation into which the Christians and Christianity of the day had descended. In a way, all these reform movements and the subsequent emphasis on monotheism, in spite of an adherence to the doctrines of Trinity and divinity of Christ are largely, results of the uncompromising monotheism enunciated and propagated by Islam. In other words, it was Islam that influenced the revival movements in Christianity and not the other way around.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzeDA86C2qo
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #87 - April 25, 2017, 08:49 AM

    Allah sent the prophets as a mercy to the slaves and supported them with miracles to indicate the truthfulness of their message. Of all the prophets, our Prophet, Muhammad, was blessed with the most miracles. Al-Isra 'and al-Mi ^ raj are among the many miracles of Prophet Muhammad.
    The miracle of al-Isra 'is confirmed in the Qur'an. In Surat al-Isra ', Ayah 1, Allah said:

    which means: [Praise be to Allah Who enabled His slave, Muhammad, to make the journey at night from Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, which is surrounded a blessed land.] This journey is also confirmed in the sahih hadith. As such, there is scholarly consensus (ijma ^) Prophet Muhammad journeyed in body and soul the night of al-Isra 'from Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsain Jerusalem. Moreover, these scholars indicated the person who denies al-Isra 'is a blasphemer for belying the explicit text of the Qur'an.


    Al-isra And Al-miraj ....... )scenes From Paradise And Fire

    1- On Prophet Muhammad's journey from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa, Allah enabled him to see some of His wondrous creations. Allah enabled the Prophet to see the world (dunya) like an old woman. However, this old woman was wearing a great deal of jewelry, and in this there is an indication signifying the reality of the world.

    2- Allah enabled the Prophet to see Iblis. The Prophet saw something on the side of the road which did not dare to stand in his way or speak to him. What the Prophet saw was Iblis. Originally, Iblis was a believer and lived with the angels in Paradise. When Allah ordered the angels to prostrate (sujud) to Prophet Adam, Iblis was ordered to prostrate to him as well. The angels prostrated to Adam in obedience to Allah, because angels do not disobey Allah. However, Iblis did not obey, and he objected to the order of Allah. He said, "You created me out of fire, and You created him out of clay. How do You order me to prostrate to him?" So this objection by Iblis to the order of Allah was the first blasphemy he committed.

    3- On his journey, the Prophet smelled a very nice odor. He asked Jibril about this pleasant scent and Jibril informed him this good smell was coming from the grave of the woman whose duty used to be to comb Pharaoh's daughter's hair. This woman was a good, pious believer. One day, as she was combing Pharaoh's daughter's hair, the comb fell from her hand.

    At this she said, ""Bismillah. "Pharaoh's daughter asked her, "Do you have a god other than my father?" The woman said, "Yes. My Lord and the Lord of your father is Allah." Pharaoh's daughter told her father what had happened. Pharaoh demanded this woman blaspheme and leave Islam, but she refused. At that, Pharaoh threatened to kill her children. He brought a great pot of water and built a great fire under it. When the water boiled, Pharaoh brought her children and started to drop them into that pot one after the other.

    Throughout all this, the woman remained steadfast to Islam, even when Pharaoh reached her youngest child--a little boy still bosom feeding--but she felt pity for him. At that, Allah enabled this child to speak. He said to his mother, "O Mother, be patient. The torture of the Hereafter is far more severe than the torture of this life, and do not be reluctant, because you are right." At this the woman requested Pharaoh collect her bones and the bones of her children and bury them in the same grave. Pharaoh promised her that--then dropped her into that boiling water. She died as a martyr. The good odor the Prophet smelled coming from her grave is an indication of her high status.


    4- During his trip, the Prophet saw people who were planting and reaping in two days. Jibril told the Prophet, "These were the people who fight for the sake of Allah (mujahidun). "wink."

    5- The Prophet also saw people whose lips and tongues were clipped with scissors made of fire. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are the speakers of sedition (fitna) who call people to misguidance."

    6- He also saw a bull which exited a very small outlet, then was trying in vain to return through that small outlet. Jibril told the Prophet, "This is the example of the bad word--once spoken, it cannot be returned."


    7- The Prophet saw people grazing like animals, with very little clothing on their private parts. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are the ones who refused to pay zakat. "."

    8- The Prophet saw angels smashing some people's heads with rocks. These heads would return to the shape they had been, and then the angels would smash their heads again--and so on. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are the ones whose heads felt too heavy to perform prayer--the ones who used to sleep without praying."

    9- On his journey the Prophet saw people who were competing to eat some rotten meat--ignoring meat that was sliced and unspoiled. Jibril told the Prophet, "These are people from your nation who leave out that which is permissible (halal), and consume that which is forbidden ((haram). "This reference was to the fornicators, that is, the ones who left out the permissible (marriage) and committed sins (fornication).

    10- Also, the Prophet saw people who were drinking from the fluid coming from the bodies of the fornicators, (water mixed with blood). Jibril indicated to the Prophet these were the ones who were drinking the alcohol which is prohibited in this world.

    11- The Prophet saw people scratching their faces and chests with brass finger nails. Jibril said, "These are the examples of those who commit gossip ((ghibah). "

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p97c4D2fTqw
    ISRA MI'RAJ
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #88 - April 25, 2017, 02:23 PM

    Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

    In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

    The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

    They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

    They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

    The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

    The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

    The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

    The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

    They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

    All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

    The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

    The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

    In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

    We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

    Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

    Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

    But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

    To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

    Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

    When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

    Let us now take wage-labour.

    The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

    In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

    In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

    And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

    By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

    But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

    You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

    In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

    From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

    You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

    Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

    It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

    According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

    All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

    That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

    But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

    The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

    Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

    But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

    The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

    He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

    For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

    Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

    Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

    The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

    The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

    National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

    The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

    In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

    The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

    Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

    What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

    When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

    When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

    “Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

    “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

    What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

    But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

    The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

    But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

    We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

    The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

    Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

    These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

    Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

    When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

    In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqwedw46pS8
  • Love and compassion
     Reply #89 - April 25, 2017, 07:07 PM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiIoZAdRLVk&nohtml5=False

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvMHtXcKUWw&nohtml5=False

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_TDjfjpkII
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »