Friday, June 03, 2011

the rules of the game, continued

Reading an article at American Thinker, I head to the linked book review and someone reminds us of the following: that while the sin of Washington and Jefferson as slave-owners is a regular part of the current moral autopsy so beloved of progressives, it is not cool to point out that Muhammad was a slave owner.

Slavery remains an uncontested and traditional part of Sharia law. Some Islamic sources encourage (but do not require) manumission. St Paul had the same attitude (see the Epistle to Philemon). But Sharia is divine law and Muhammad, who owned slaves, (including Black ones), traded them and okayed their owners having sex with them even if the women were married, remains the perfect example of humanity.

If I ever own a car again, perhaps a bumper sticker?


Anonymous said...

For I suppose, after all, there's a danger that by interpreting military jihad against infidels, oppression of women, enslaving jihad captives, blowing up the persona of the Buddha, etc is interpreted as real Islam, then the 'warning to the west' interpretation of Islam could be validating those type of things for Muslims.

Anonymous said...

But about bumperstickers, Muhammad at least wasn't a car owner.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...