Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →


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


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

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Love and compassion
Today at 02:08 AM

Yasir Qadhi - Losing My R...
Yesterday at 10:59 PM

Best speakers corner deba...
Yesterday at 10:21 PM

كنت اعتقد انه على ما يرام...
by akay
Yesterday at 06:08 PM

Hizb ut tahrir
Yesterday at 07:40 AM

Did anyone read the Bible...
April 23, 2017, 05:38 PM

The Doctor Who Appreciati...
April 23, 2017, 03:56 PM

My Story
April 23, 2017, 03:56 PM

Need help with an argumen...
April 23, 2017, 03:20 PM

Daisy Chain
by toor
April 23, 2017, 02:42 PM

A man in Chitral accused...
April 23, 2017, 02:05 PM

Unethical/questionable ha...
April 23, 2017, 01:19 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Love and compassion

 (Read 3631 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3« 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.
  • 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 :,(
  • 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.
  • 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 


    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


    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]
  • 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.

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


    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."
  • 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.

  • 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.
  • 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."


    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 - Yesterday at 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.

    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 - Today at 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 - Today at 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.


    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.
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »