Does Mehdi Hasan Think Islam Is A Mental Health Issue?

Mehdi Hasan is an Islamist – someone that expresses support for Islam, politically. He is an active apologist for Islam.

He is also rather sparing in his criticism of Islamic extemists. It’s not that he never criticises them, it’s that his criticisms appear to be one of two kinds, possibly both:

Where the outrageous atrocity of an Islamic terrorist incident is so extreme, it would be remiss not to criticise it. I find Mehdi to be an insincere person on the whole, but without evidence to the contrary I have to accept he’s sincere in his opposition to these extreme cases of Islam.
He feels he must make some criticism, to avoid being seen as supportive by his omission of any comment. You can only ignore Islamic terrorism so much.

One of Mehdi’s ploys is to complain about how little criticism of ‘far-right’ attacks there is. Or, more specifically, he wants to know why when some perceived ‘far-right’ attack happens they are often attributed to the ‘mental health’ of the ‘far-right’ perpetrator, and not labelled as terrorism. In many cases he uses the ‘far-right’ label when there is no connection to any political cause, and he is using this as an opportunity to expand the number of ‘far-right’ incidents he can point to – an aspect of his insincerity and duplicity.

He then wonders why most Islamic terrorist attacks are labelled as terrorism, and not the result of ‘mental health’ problems.

He attributes this difference in blame as a result of Islamophobia.

Let’s address the labels he uses, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘far-right’.

Islamophobia as Racism – The term ‘Islamophobia’ was invented, it is said, by the Muslim Brotherhood, as a means of making Islam seem like a race, so that it can compete with ‘antisemitism’ as a form of racism – and that’s certainly how many non-Muslim politicians use it (shout out to the race baiters of UK Labour). The problem is, Islam is not a race. Many white Muslims from the West joined ISIS, so how can white critics of Islam be racist towards those Muslims. When some of the most vociforous critics of Islam are ex-Muslims, of the same ‘race’ as their Muslim families, it makes the charge of racism look a little foolish.

In fact Islam is specifically not a race by design, and theoretically is not a racist religion – anyone can become a Muslim. The principle of non-racism is about the only redeeming characteristic of Islam – though even that can be questioned, not only by looking at the words and acts of Muslims, but also of Mohammed. So that raises the question of how can opposing Islam be racist?

Not is opposing Islam a phobia.

So the cry of “Islamophobia!” by Mehdi and other apologists for Islamism is a dishonest means of deflecting attention away from Islam and towards its supposedly racist critics.

Far-right – This is an odd one. Because Islam is a far-right political ideology: it’s ultra-conservative, homophobic, misogynistic, endorses slavery, demands the death penaly for apostasy, blasphemy, adultary and other non-crimes, and the Quran has prescriptions for beheading and chopping off of limbs. How on earth can Islam not be considered far-right?

In Mehdi’s 2017 article, “The numbers don’t lie, white far-right terrorists pose a clear danger to us all.“, he said the following:

Compare and contrast: Islamist terrorists are depicted as wild-eyed fanatics driven to kill by their religious faith or ideology, while far-right terrorists — be it the shooter of two Hindus in a bar in Kansas in February, or the killer of nine black worshippers in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, or the murderer of six Sikh worshippers in a temple in Duffy’s own state of Wisconsin in 2012 — are almost always “mentally ill.” After the recent double murder in Oregon, it didn’t take long for Portland police spokesperson Pete Simpson to announce: “We don’t know if [the suspect] has mental health issues.” (Isn’t it weird how we Muslims seem somehow immune to “mental health issues”? Mashallah.)

OK, fine Mehdi, all terrorists suffer mental problems, so all Islamic terrorists are wide-eyed fanatical mental cases. What makes them so mentally unstable? Islam. They cite Islam when they commit their attacks. They do it for Allah. They can often quote from the texts of Islam to justify their attacks.

This ‘mental health’ issue is not restricted to Islamic terrorists. How many times have we seen enraged mobs of Muslims rioting? Many rioted over Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, and many more wanting to hang Asia Bibi. Are they mental cases too? Maybe Mehdi is right, Islam causes mental illness.

It won’t be the first time that religious fanaticism has been considered a mental health problem. So, what is it about religions, Islam in particular, that makes it so appealing to the mentally ill? Or, what is it about Islam that makes otherwise stable people go off the rails, become so insensed by the ‘insult’ that people commit towards Iaslam that makes these Muslims think they should kill someone?

It’s not restricted to acts of public terrorism on strangers, or mobs of offended and enraged Muslims. Many an ex-Muslim will attest that their families have theatened to kill them for leaving Islam. So devout are these Muslims that they think their own children should die for leaving Islam! That sounds pretty mentally deranged to me.

There does indeed seem to be something unstable about a religion that promotes death over life. Many Muslims will tell you themselves this is so:

The Death Cult – We Love Death As You Love Life – This is what Muslims say, in their own words. When you read what they actually say, you come to understand why dying in a terrorist attacks isn’t a big deal. Now, Mehdi might come out with the usual excuse, “It’s a sin to commit suicide in Islam” … well, maybe, if it’s a pointless death, but not if it’s considered an act of martyrdom in a justified battle against Jews, Christians or infidels. Mehdi is a Shia Muslim, and it’s the Shia Muslim clerics of Iran that popularised suicide bombing … so, who is Mehdi to disagree with the clerics of his religion?

The Numbers Don’t Lie – Oh Yes They Do

Mehdi tries to pull the wool over your eyes with figures from the USA, “since September 12 2001”.

Why do they always choose figures “since 9/11”. Why not including 9/11? They do it because by ignoring 9/11 it makes the deaths from Islamic terrorism look much smaller. Why not choose since 31st December 1999 – i.e., why not start counting for the 21st century?

The duplicitous Mehdi Hasan, skipping 9/11, gives us these figures (his article was in 2017).

Yet the numbers don’t lie — even if the Islamophobes do. “Since September 12, 2001,” noted a recent report prepared for Congress by the Government Accountability Office, “the number of fatalities caused by domestic violent extremists has ranged from 1 to 49 in a given year. … Fatalities resulting from attacks by far-right wing violent extremists have exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists in 10 of the 15 years, and were the same in 3 of the years since September 12, 2001.” Imagine that.

The report continues: “Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far-right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).” That’s a margin of almost three to one.

What Mehdi neglects to tell you here is that Muslims amount to less than 2% of the US population. So how about multiplying his Islamic terrorist attacks by 50 for a pro-rata comparison with everyone else in the USA.

It’s also rather convenient that Mehdi focuses on the USA, where the number of Muslims is relatively low, when Islamic terrorism is a world wide theat – even in “Muslim lands”. Yes, Islamic terrorism poses a top security concern in most Western nations, and in many Muslim nations too.

Mehdi Being Mehdi

It’s not unusual for Mehdi Hasan to twist words to suit his own Islamist agenda. Many other people have noticed.

Here he is pretending a comparison of Islam and Nazism is supposed to be excusing Nazism rather than criticising both.

Special pleading for Islam …

Failing to criticise Islamic terrorists …

More special pleading – Mehdi has no problem with the vile messages in the Quran, but complains when anyone bad mouths Islam …

Getting blood from a stone is easier than getting Mehdi to criticise Islamic terrorism …

For this next example, you may have heard that Mehdi has distanced himself from these opinions. However, you should know what Taqqiya is in Islam:

1-Taqiyyah, according to Ithna-`Ashri Rafidis, means presenting outwardly something that is different from what one believes inwardly, as an act of religious devotion. 2- Taqiyyah, according to Ahl as-Sunnah, is something to be resorted to when one has no other choice, and it is an extraordinary measure to be used only in times of extreme necessity. For more, see the detailed answer. What is Taqiyyah

These were Mehdi’s views, but now he claims they are not …

Bear in mind, Hamas removed their explicity antisemitic end-times antisemitic quote, “Oh Muslim, there is a Jew behind me come kill him.” from their second charter … nobody believes they don’t still mean it. What makes you think Mehdi doesn’t still hold his views privately? Does he now deny that these passages from the Quran are applicable? This is a tricky one when the Quran is supposed to be the inerrant world of Allah … isn’t is blasphemous to not hold the same views as Allah?

So, Mehdi do you really want Islam to appear as an insane psychotic death cult mental problem, or not?

Here’s a guide to terrorists for idiots: https://ronmurp.net/2016/03/31/a-guide-to-terrorists-for-idiots/.

Which Far Right? White Spremacy or Islamic Supremacy?

There has been an attempt by successive UK governments, as well as ‘progressive’ activists and press, to boost the narrative that White Supremacism’s “far right” terrorism is a greater threat than Islamic Supremacism’s terrorism.

This post looks at that narrative, why it is an inadequate perspective, and then covers a Channel 4 programme from 2022 that tries to put the freighteners on the public, with the help of some dubious characters. The programme makes fair points about a particularly nasty group of racists, but the agenda of the participants in the programme becomes clearer with a bit more background information.

Which Far Right?

The first slight of hand here is the name, “far right”. Historically in the West we have distinguished far right and far left by the nature of the dominant politics: Fascism is far right, Marxism is far left.

But where does Islam and Islamic extremism fit into this? Well, by Islam’s own definition it is far right: ultra conservative, highly political (Sharia), misogynistic, homophobic, brutal punishments … it has more in common with Fascism than Marxism.

This becomes more obvious when we look at the history of Muslim Palestinians during and after WWII. There was a Muslim SS division. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in Germany during the war, encouraged Hitler to exterminate Jews rather than let them expel Jews to Palestine. Many Muslim Palestinians have made it clear they supported Hitler’s ‘solution’ and that they intend to finish the job.

The Fastest Growing

With a majority white non-Muslim population, the UK certainly has a greater potential for growth in white supremacist ‘far right’ terrorism, but the figures don’t match up. This Guardian piece from 2019 tried to pull a fast one: Fastest-growing UK terrorist threat is from far right, say police

What the headline neglects to tell you is that in the article the Islamic extremism remains the far greater risk to the UK. The ‘fastest rising’ claim is based on a very low starting point.

Racism In The UK

While we’re concerend with white racism here, it’s important to point out that there is plenty of non-white racism in the UK. Darcus Howe made the Channel 4 documentary in 2004, primarily about racism in the UK Asian community towards bglack people.

In 2004 Darcus Howe investigated the changing face of racial politics in Britain, predicting trouble ahead for Britain’s ethnic population. In this authored film, he travelled the country expressing his views on a netherworld of unreported violence and prejudice, not between blacks and whites, but between Britain’s increasingly divided ethnic minority groups.

There are a few clips of the programme online:

This is another topic in itself, so here we’re only looking at white racism.

Channel 4 Dispatches: Inside Britain’s Far Right

The title is misleading. The programme puts an under cover journalist into one particular group, Patriotic Alternative (Wikipedia). While I accept much of what the Wiki page has to say about the group, care needs to be taken when considering who is criticising them.

This 2022 Channel 4 Dispatches programme is mostly a good one, exposing a specific racist far right group.

The racial aspect of “white replacement theory” is stupid. It not only racializes the problem, it makes it too easy to oppose a genuine active replacement theory: the Islamization of the West … which has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the problems of Islamic extremism.

The main subject group, “Patriotic Alternative” is one that should be monitored. It may put on a face of simply protecting white culture, but from the programme we can see that there are definitely racist aspects to the movement that could turn violent. The Wiki page makes specific claims abut Neo Nazism links to the group.

The Three Stooges of Islamic Apologetics

However, the programme is tarnished by the use of Nick Lowles, Julia Ebner, Dame Sara Khan.. They are all known for their opposition to anyone criticising Islam – they declare such people far right, whether they are or not.

Lowles (of Hope Not Hate – you see their banners at all the trendy marches, even pro Hamas marches) is the one that produced this false claim that there were reports of acid attacks on a Muslim woman. Not a black women, not a far east woman, … not even an Asian women (Asian Christian?). No, a Muslim woman. It’s important to make sure that Muslims are under attack because for the left, Muslims are a (convenient) protected minority. The point being that the anti-Islam was a significant factor following the Middlesborough riots.

As posted on X

Ebner has been stirring this “far right” labelling of critics of Islam since at least 2017, with lies in her hit piece while at Quilliam .

As with the other two, Khan will not be found criticizing Islamic extremism too much … it’s far more likely that if an Islamic terrorist attack occurs, her first thoughts will be for the violent backlash against Muslims … that rarely happens. Muslims feel unsafe because other Muslims have committed a terrorist attack … perpetual victims.

It’s ironic that the three stooges here focus on the far right, when Islam is far right by design. It’s a conservative political ideology that has Sharia at its core, that if implemented as the governance of a state (Caliphate) would see many of the horrors we see in many Islamic states: homophobia, misogyny, apartheid (dhimmi status), brutal punishments.

In the programme Khan says that although Patriotic Alternative claim to be non-violent, they have the same ideology as far right extremists. … Hilarious. Every moderate Muslim follows the ideology that Islamic terrorists follow – Islam.

So, can we say the same of Muslims that Khan says of PA, “.. the fact that they are promoting the same ideology, the same dangerous anti-non-Muslim narrative (read the Quran) as extreme Islamic terrorists, they are fundamentally helping to create a climate that is conducive to terrorism and violence. The law in this country at the moment is not adequate to deal with hateful religious political ideologies like Islam.“

The Far Left Appear

There is further irony in the programme after Khan’s words, when the PA are delivering leaflets in Rotherham and are attacked by a group of masked men. “PA blame the attack on far left anti-fascists.” … Nick Lowles, do you know anything about that? Bit of a coincidence.

Indoctrination of Children

Ebner is on screen again looking at the ‘educational’ material of PA, which is clearly promoting racist indoctrination.

Indoctrination in Islamic is far greater, as many ex-Muslims will attest. And if you look at how Muslim Palestinians are raised to hate Jews, you might understand the ME troubles more clearly. You won’t find the three stooges covering that indoctrination.

The programme goes on to make legitimate claims about the links of PA members to other more dangerous far right groups. It’s reminiscent of the way we see many ‘moderate’ Muslims in the UK and US have links to more extreme Islamic groups.

Batley & Spen

Along with showing the far right links to people like the killer of MP Jo Cox, Thomas Mair, the programme moves on to the 2021 Batley & Spen by election, where Kim Leadbeater, Jo Cox’s sister is standing.

We hear that Leadbeater won the seat, and much is made of her being the sister of Cox.

The purpose of this part of the programme is to point out the illegal activities of PA in putting out fake leaflets supposedly from a Labour union, and then again with a fake leaflet, mimicing Conservatives, in the constituency of murdered David Amess.

What the programme neglects to mention is that

In Batley a school teacher had to go into hiding because of death threats from Islamic extremist (he’s drawn a picture of Mohammed in class to about free speech).
Amess had been killed by an Islamic terrorist.

I appreciate that the programme was about a specific white racist far right group, but what they don’t say is often significant. It’s a common tactic to deflect from or ignore Islamic extremism: Owen Jones – Missing In Action – The Battle of Batley

Summer Camp

The programme turns next to the summer camp held by PA.

The undercover reported has been invited to their mass national gathering. … About a hundred and fifty people are descending on the Peak District.

That’s fewer than many a single extremist mosque. The programme are certainly continuing to hype up the far right influence in the UK.

The summer camp recording certainly exposes nasty racist ideas. PA is definitely a group of racists. The links to other more dangerous “far right” groups is a legitimate concern. There’s also plenty of evidence on X that this is definitely a hateful group.

Avoid them like the plague.

Sadly, useful programmes like this don’t help, because many non-racist Brits know the three stooges for what they are and that will diminish the imapct of a programme like this.

The BBC made a similar programme.

Sara Khan appears again …

There is no good reason why we should allow hateful extremist groups like PA to operate, and I believe there’s an obligation on our Parliament, on our government, to outlaw the activity of groups like Patriotic Alternative. To not do so I think would be a failure.

There are plenty of mosques and Islamic groups that spout just as much hatred, but aimed at unbelievers, homosexuals, … and Jews (they have that in common).

The Three Dangers

These are the ideologies that threaten the West:

Islam, because it is anti Western democracy and freedom. It is an explicitly far right ideology. While many ‘moderate’ Muslims are not themselves extreme, like Sara Khan they enable extremism by opposing criticism of Islam and trying to pass such criticism off as racism.

White racism, because it is infecting fair criticism of ideologies with racism and conflating ideology and race. It’s stupid, because it alienates so many great non-white opponents of Islam and far left extremism.

Marxism and far left activists and apologists for Islam, like Hope Not Hate, and governments that follow their line of criminalising criticism of Islam.

The Red Green Alliance

The Red Green Alliance is one between the far left Marxists and Socialists, and the far right Islamists, both of which hate Western democracy, free markets and capitalism.

This is why we see such bias from our politicians, press and other media, that pust a lot of effort into demonising people as far right, whether they are or not, and neglect as far as is possible extremists of Islam and the far left.

Woke Ideology – Marxism or Individualism?

The first video is a discussion between Dr. Gadi Taub and @GadSaad, where they talk about Gad’s ideas on the parasitic nature of woke ideologies.

Dr. Gadi Taub challenges the idea that woke ideology is a form of cultural Marxism, and he thinks it is instead based on extreme individualism, because the American left has individualistic roots.

So, Judith Butlers ideas, according to Gadi Taub, are not really Marxist, but rather individualistic, “the self-made man is not the self-made transgendered individual, … and the whole logic is that only I will decide who I am.“

It is inevitably both, and here’s why …

We think of Marxism as a collective ideology. But all collective ideologies, including religious ones, they are made up of the individuals that sign up to them, and the great flaw of collectivism is that the proponents think you can paper over the cracks of evolutionary individualism in humans and make us all the same, working for the cause, like ants. “Be nice!“

What the collectivist ideologues are deluded about is that they think you can rub out the individualism. They can’t. It turns out they are just as nasty in tooth and claw as anyone – they are not very nice.

When they try to destroy the individualism, they end up with two results:

1 – They destroy the soul of the masses of powerless individuals that are forced to comply.

2 – They suffer from factionailsm among the leadership, because individuals have individual and conflicting ideas about what the ideology entails. And those individuals are either: killed or imprisoned, or at best ostracized; or they take power as a new faction, that then destroys the previous faction. It depends on who you can convince to support you … preferably the army.

We have seen this in Russian Communism. And we see it in Islam and other religions. See the second video, “Emo Phillips – Golden Gate Bridge”, one of the best expositions of the problem.

Islam even has a methodology for dealing with it: Takfir.

Takfir is so refined it even has a counter. If you try to Takfir someone’s ass into being declared an apostate, and you are not convincing, or you can’t muster the support, you are Takfired yourself. It’s the sort of paradoxical idea that could only come out of an ideology so full of insane ideas, where it doesn’t seem out of place.

So, woke ideology is based on a collectivist a delusion coming face to face with reality of individualism.

In the American context, we have a hyper-individualism of self-identity, where everyone can possess different oppressed characteristics, and where the collective will support you, no matter how crazy. But … step out of line, slip up and vocalize your marginal oppression over another’s greater oppression, and you’ll find your ass Takfired.

The clue that it’s still a Marxist ideology? The enemies of Marxists are Nazis … and that’s what they’ll call you rather than ‘apostate‘, but it’s the same thing.

Die, heretic!

Shahid Bolsen: Arguing Islamic Slavery Was a Social Service

Shahid Bolsen is a fraud, an apologist for islamic slavery – well, Muslims have to be, since the Quran endorses slavery.

If you point out to ordinary Muslims that the Quran approves of slavery, they may first deny it. Then they will make excuses for it existing at the time of Mohammed, while forgetting momentarily that the Quran is supposed to be the perfect book for all time.

That leaves nothing else for Muslims to do, than to agree with the Quran, that slavery permitted in Islam.

Shahid Bolsen grits his teeth, digs a deeper hole, and tries to tell us that Islamic slavery was basically a Social Service of its time, as well as a great job opportunity, even if for some takers they had to have their testicles removed … but what a benefit system!

The man is a clown of epic proprtions. Don’t let his swathy appearance and impecible English accent fool you. He’s another Zakir Naik.

His video is astonishing. Lies, half truths, and delusions of grandeur: Muslims have no need to flinch on the topic of slavery.

What’s one of the big moral claims of the West? The abolition of slavery, right? They say, “We abolish slavery, while you Muslims still have slavery in your laws today.”

This is as correct as he’s going to be. It’s downhill from here.

Let’s be honest, there are more slaves today than there ever have been. Why? Because power in the US, Europe and elsewhere in the West, power never makes a decision for moral reasons, but only for financial reasons.

This is a lie, and absolute and utter lie. Because the power of the West not only abolished slavery for itself, it helped free slaves around the world, many that were slaves under Islam. And the slavery that does exist is criminal, cross-national, and difficult to police.

What Bolsen is getting at in what follows is that the West has been unsuccesful in its abolishon of slavery, and still engages in it – of course the dark and secretive ‘elites’ are at it all the time, I suppose. And does Bolsen think the Islamic world is immune from sex trafficking and other slavery activities? Or is it that he thinks that sex slavery in the Muslim world is so different, so admirable, that the sex slaves must just love it? Those groomed children across many many towns and cities have nothing to complain about I guess.

Islam is a power system and it makes decisions for nonsense reasons, and immoral reasons. It is immoral to punish apostates and blasphemers with death – Muslims are slaves to Islam, as well as owning slaves when implementing Islamic slave ownership laws. In Islam, this is not accidental but intentional – submission to Islam is slavery.

Now, those financial reasons may coincide with moral reasons, and that’s accidental. Now that’s the case with slavery.

Another lie. The British government in 2015 finished paying off for all the slaves it freed – that was a cost to Britain and the British people. Britain used its finances to pay off slave owners. It also paid for a navy that delivered British power around the world and freed more slaves. Was Britain perfect? No. Did Britain fail in its duty to the places it used its power? Of course. Was it part of a colonial system being employed for financial benefit? Yes. And it could have been all those other things with less expense had it chosen not to abolish slavery. So, Bolsen’s misrepresentation of the abolishion movement is dishonest.

When the moral reasons coincide with the financial reasons that gives you a moral rationale, for what is actually a strictly financial decision, to make it look like you’re altruistic, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Again he lies. There is plenty of documented evidence of the politicians and public opinion in Britain opposing slavery. The irony here is that Bolsen is acknowledging the moral aspect of abolishing slavery, and merely saying our abolition of it was coincidental, not a moral motive. Later, he endorses slavery. So is slavery immoral or not? Bolsen will try to convince you that while Western slavery, for the short time it exists was immoral, Islamic slavery is not.

The emancipation process took place during the civil war, not before it. It didn’t cause the civil war. It was just an economic weapon by the North against the South. That wasn’t a morally driven decision, …

Another lie. If you make a decision for more than one reason it doesn’t mean that any of those reasons are a fake altruistic ones tagged on to the financial one. If that were true, then we could just as easily claim that Muslims never do anything for moral reasons but for the promotion of Islam – lying for Islam is a well known theme, and one he is employing in this video.

… but it allowed them to package their cause as a moral one. They’ve been packaging it like that ever since. Because the truth of the matter is you didn’t abolish slavery, you deregulated it.

Another lie. It was not merely deregulated it was abolished, and the laws about slavery in the West testify to that fact. If Islamic slavery is so great, why is it abolished now in Muslim lands?

You know some historians estimate that up to as much as 90% of the profits that were generated from slave labour and ended up being spent of the slaves themselves, on some plantations, not all.

Another slight of hand. There is no evidence to back up his claims. There is evidence to the contrary. The quote below is from 2023. There are many earlier references.

This article revisits the scholarly debate on the profitability of historical slavery. The article examines the case of the antebellum US South, using slave hire rates as a proxy for the net rent on investments in slavery. It employs empirical data and a more advanced methodological approach to the issue than in previous research. The results suggest that the profitability of slavery was much higher than what most previous research has shown, around 14–15 per cent per year on average after adjusting for mortality risk, but that the return also fluctuated over time. It was on average more profitable for Southern capital owners to invest in slaves than investing in many alternatives such as financial instruments or manufacturing activities in the US South, as long as slavery remained a legal institution.
Revisiting the Profitability of Slavery, Slave Hiring Rates and the Return on Investments in Slaves in the Antebellum US South, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (2023)

Bolsen continues …

Spending on their food, their shelter, their clothing, their medical care and so on. It was in the interest of slave owners to maintain a slaves physical wellbeing, to one extent or another, because it was expensive to buy a slave, …

This is a laughable claim, or it would be if it were not so disrespectful to the many slaves that suffered. What’s more, his same point, were it true, would imply Islamic slavery was not profitable – unless he’s saying Muslims treat their slaves much worse that those in the US South and care so little for them that slaves of Islam are profitable. Well, he actually claims the opposity. So, if Westeren slavery was so unprofitable, and Islamic slavery treated slaves better, what was the financial benefit?

Of course he’s a total liar. The point of slavery is you use other humans as a resource by owning them. It’s the ownership of slaves that is the immoral aspect, not their profitability.

… but you don’t have to spend any of that money on a wage slave.

Well, of course you do, because you have to pay wages so that they can afford to buy clothes and housing. It is true that in some cases wealth and well being of poor white people and black slaves wasn’t so different. But the white people were not owned, they were not the property of someone else. If a poor white person could find a route out of their condition, they were free to leave – as many did. This option was not open to slaves, who were tracked down like wild animals, and brutalised when caught.

It’s a lot cheaper to rent someone that to buy them.

Absolute nonsense. The evidence refutes his lies. When you buy a slave you have them for life. If you buy a male and female slave, both work for you, and their children are yours too, for the whole of their lives, unless they are sold, at a profit.

The demand for a slave is a derived demand, as is that for any productive resource. It is derived from the demand for the output that resource helps to produce. There was an active market for slaves throughout the antebellum period, meaning that slave owners believed the purchase of a slave would prove to be a profitable expenditure, even though that expenditure required a considerable amount of money.3 As we will explain below, at the time the South seceded from the Union, the purchase of a single slave represented as much as $180,000 and more in today’s prices. This was twice the average of 14 years earlier, indicating a sustained growth in the demand for slaves. Economists would say that these observations alone indicate that the profitability of “investing” in a slave was increasing substantially.

Why would a slave have so much value? A short answer is the value of a slave is the value of the expected output or services the slave can generate minus the costs of maintaining that person (i.e., food, clothing, shelter, etc.) over his or her lifetime.4 A quick list of the data that have to be considered in determining the value of a slave’s expected revenue would include sex, age, location, how much he or she is likely to produce (a factor that included a slave’s health and physical condition), and the price of the output in the market. For a female slave, an additional thing to consider would be the value of the children she might bear.

In addition, there is considerable evidence that slaves were worked harder than free labor in Southern agriculture; what slaves could be induced to produce in bondage was greater than what they could be expected to produce with the freedom to make their own choice of labor or leisure.

https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

He is using the fact that free people found themselves subject to unfair employment conditions to equate that to slavery. It isn’t. At all. If another employer offered better wages, the ill treated employees could leave and move on. Slaves cannot.

He is employing a well know rhetorical ploy of Socialists – Newspeak – changing the meaning of words – “wage slave”. The same abuse of words occurs today: Treating criticism of Islam as if it is racism, by employing the term ‘Islamophobia’ – it’s not a phobia to oppose the horrific political ideology of Islam.

He goes on to talk about the standard of brutality towards slaves in the American South. It is true that black slaves in the USA were treated brutally. Slaves in Islam were treated brutally too – and for many more centuries, until 1962 in Saudi Arabia, and 1982 in Mauritania. Why did these two countries abolish it at all if it was so benign?

Conditions for Muslims in Islam have been no better. Look to Saudi and other rich Arab states for how they treat Muslim immigrant workers. Arab Muslims in London have been exposed for using their Muslim house maids as sex slaves. So, Islam has no better a record on slavery than the West, but Islamic slavery pre/post-dated Western Atlantic slave trade. The West has made laws abolishing slavery, while Islam is based on its holy book that not only doesn’t outlaw slavery but endorses it.

In the Muslim world, slaves were more like proteges, like wards.

What an complete joke. Slaves were taken when Islam attacked and occupied other lands. It killed those that resisted and took their wives and daughters as sex slaves. They bought slaves from other cultures, particularly in Africa.

They were not wards, you clown. This is a complete white washing of Islam.

‘slave owner’ had the connotation of custodian, or caretaker, or someone who is responsible for someone else.

OK, so, you won’t mind if I come to your house with a few friends, take your children, and hold them as their ‘custodian’, and use them as slave labour, to own them, for them to be my property, to use your wife and daughters as sex slaves? That’s how ridiculous this man sounds.

Slaves were taken from their homelands, hundreds or thousands of miles away, homelands that no longer existed as independent nations after Islamic conquest. That some of them were valuable to their owners, and achieved status, is no more than a means of coping with and even taking advantage of their predicament. I dare say some slaves had better lives as slaves of Muslims than their lives previously.

But they were still slaves. Owned. The human property of other humans. Does this mean nothing to Muslims?

slavery in the Muslim world wasn’t based on race or ethnicity

So, Islam is a multi-ethnic equal misfortune slave ownership system. It’s still ownership of other humans. And of course there was racism in Islam. Black slaves were treated as less than Arabs. And it continues today. Darcus Howe, the late anti-racism activist of the UK was horrified to find out what British Muslims thought of black people. He documented his findings in the programme “Who are you calling N*****?”

there wasn’t some sick quasi-scientific rationale claiming that they were inferior human beings that’s unique to American slavery.

Another lie. Racism was common throughout the word and with many cultures, and was not unique to American slavery. Many indigenous peoples of he Americas and elsewhere looked on other humans as sub-human.

The one thing that Islam happens to get right (in its theory if not its practice), anti-racism, is ironically self-refuted when Muslims treat Islam like a race and claim it’s racist towards Muslims to criticise Islam; because if that’s true, then Muslims are racist to non-Muslims and Islam is an apartheid system.

In Islam slaves could register cases against their master in court. Slaves in the Muslim world had more rights and more upward Mobility.

Well, Islam had slavery as such a natural institution, with so many slaves, that of course there would be variety in local conditions, but that relied on the whim of the governing body and the owneers of slaves – slaves didn’t get to vote on their treatment of their freedom.

But as for ‘mobility’, this wasn’t unique to Islam – it wasn’t some great Islamic achievement. It was just as normal in the Roman world, where some slaves were freed outright, and others were allowed them to buy their own freedom.

Islam is in the habit of stealing religions, land, people, and cultural ideas, it seems.

But why did Muslims need slaves at all?

Mohammed could have said, “Oh Muslims, release all slaves now and take no more. Wherever you go, free any slaves you find.“

When I’ve put this to Muslims they often repeat what they’ve been told: it would not be economically feasible to free all slaves.

For one, that would defeat the argument that slaves are not as economically viable. If they are not economically viable you’d benefit from a non-slavery society.

But more important, just think what Muslims are saying, when they say freeing slaves is not feasible, or that Islamic slavery was somehow OK.

They are committing blasphemy. They are saying the Almighty Allah could not abolish slavery and and compensate slave owners for their loss (something that the British government managed to do, but not Allah?). They are saying that he could not provide for freed slaves. Blasphemy.

So, how does Bolsen see Islamic slavery?

because we never approached this institution the way you approach that institution, we didn’t do it the way you did it

True. We never went into Africa so capture slaves. We bought them of Muslims and other Africans. Muslims were the experienced slave traders.

So when you went around the world telling everyone how evil slavery is, they didn’t know what you were talking about. The slaves didn’t know what you were talking about because they had not experienced your form of slavery. They had not experienced American slavery.

Look, slavery is something that has always existed and it still exists today, but like with everything else that is part of the human condition, Islam regulated it to ensure that it was practiced morally and humanely, …

And there you have it, the endorsement of slavery, right out of the Quran.

I don’t think it’s the slaves who didn’t understand the West when they abolished slavery, it’s Muslims that don’t understand that making another person your actual property has always been the depth of human depravity, and here we have a Muslim not merely excusing it but telling us how good it was.

This is Islam.

We know that when you deregulated the way that you did, it’s not going to stop, it’s just going to make it even more inhumane and more exploitative than it was before.

Wow! This is pure lying for Islam, so much so he’s convinced himself.

Yes, the world has been a terrible place for many people, and there are ups an downs in every society. But as a general trend the following is certain:

Being a slave is the bottom of any social hierarchy. You are owned. Your life is not your won. You are not free to leave of your own accord. You are required to obey your owner.
An indentured employee is next on this short list. You have agreed to be an employee, on a fixed term contract, but you have not agreed to be a slave. If you become a slave, under the power of a cruel employee, then you have been captured into slavery and you are not longer an employe.
An employee, free to look for work elsewhere, free to leave, whether you find it or not. The freedom to leave is underestimated, even while many in employment may feel like ‘wage slaves’.
An employer, as an owner of a business is clearly better off than his employees. But many businesses are employed by yet others.
Land owning aristorcrats and royalty are at the top of the food chain. This is still so in Islam – unless Bolsen would like to pretend Caliphs where men of the people in some idilic Islamic Socialist state.

… and you can fill in more details or add other levels, but there is clear and obvious improvement as you move from slave to various other staions in life, even if there are cross-hierarchy ups and downs.

I said you have more slaves now than at any time in human history and the United States is the top destination for human trafficking especially for children and for women so you need to stop bragging about abolition you didn’t abolish anything you just made slavery even more lucrative and more brutal than you had already made it and nobody practiced a more brutal form of slavery than you.

Have you noticed the ‘we’ and ‘you’ that he uses to generalise the moral difference he is trying to portray. Well, if 18th century slavery in the USA is the ‘YOU’ of the West, then ISIS is the ‘WE’ of Islam, if you want to play this dishonest rhetorical game.

Now look around your cities, look at San Francisco, look at Detroit, look at the homelessness epidemic that you have. Imagine if those people had the option to be taken in, to be taken under the wing of more well-off people, people who would share their homes share their clothes share their food pay all their expenses take care of their health, look after them, teach them skills, give them training and education, give them a job, a job that would have even less restrictions on their rights and their freedom than someone working today at Amazon or Walmart. Because that’s what slavery was in Islam that’s what regulated slavery looks like taking in the most vulnerable economically deprived people who are going to exist anyway.

This is a delusional and outrageous misrepresentation of Islamic slavery. Is he really suggesting that Islamic slavery was a beneficial social system for the poor? It wasn’t. It’s a lie. Islam didn’t invite poor Muslims to become slaves of the wealthier Muslims. The non-Muslim slaves were captured by Muslims, or bought by Muslims from people who did capture them. Britain and other European countries were raided and people taken against their will, not offered job opportunities in nice warm ‘Muslim (conquered) lands’.

Yes they would be legally bound to that person but that bond goes both ways. There’s a reason why slavery has always existed in human societies, and it’s not because human beings are just barbaric and savage and cruel. Just because that’s the way YOU did it, just because that’s what YOU made slavery mean.

It didn’t always mean that, and it wasn’t always practiced that way. It wasn’t always practiced the way that YOU practiced it. It always has existed in human society because there were always going to be people in society who are especially vulnerable and down and out and they can’t just be trampled on and used and abused.

Again, slavery is not a social institution for the poor. If you wanted a social system you’d provide social service to free people, not demand they enslave themselves to you for the privilege. This whole story is as much fantasy as Islam itself.

Their situation, their condition, their circumstances, have to be regulated and the way people deal with them has to be regulated, and the way to regulate that is to have them connected to someone in society who isn’t down and out. They have to be connected to someone in society who isn’t, uh, deprived and vulnerable; they have to be connected to someone who can take care of them, and from that connection they can get respect and they can get opportunities, and they can move up move up and on in life. That’s the way it was practiced in Islam, completely polar opposite to the way it was practiced in the United States, where if you were a slave you were going to always be a slave and you were treated like a beast of burden that’s the way you practiced it

But that’s not the way ‘WE’ practiced it. When I’m talking positively about slavery you will infer from that that I’m talking positively about the way YOU practice slavery.

Despite YOUR attempt to mind read, you are mistaken. I will infer no such thing, and I don’t think anyone that’s aware of slavery would infer that. What I do infer is that you approve of slavery, the ownership of one person by another, that one person should be the property of another. I also infer that you are lying by omission (as YOU Muslims often do when it comes to the Quran).

To pretend that ANY slave taken by Muslims went willingly for the social benefits is itself an apologetics for the barbaric slavery that it was, ripping families apart, killing those that would not submit, using the young girls as sex slaves, or marrying them and force converting them. To pretend now that this was a benefit is to excuse and approve of the barbarity that was employed to conquer and enslave people that made ‘Muslim lands’ as big as they are.

But let me be clear there’s nothing to say about the way YOU practice slavery except the strongest possible condemnation, but the way it was practiced in Islam there’s nothing wrong with it at all, not a thing wrong with it. So look, I don’t have any hesitation about this issue and no Muslim should. You can’t make me Flinch by talking about slavery.

Wow! Really, wow! I get it, I really do. YOU, Bolsen, are a barbaric individual hiding behind a smug mask of Islamic supremacism, and you are deluding yourself that Islamic slavery was a system for moral good.

Just like with everything, else Islam came and regulated what is a constant reality of The Human Condition to make it moral.

Wow! There you have it. He approves of slavery. He approves of invading other lands, killing those that resist, and capturing the rest, carting them off to Muslim lands, and selling them off to the highest bidder with absolutely no sense of who you are selling them to. YOU are condoning owning people, not providing a social service you clown. THAT is what I infer from what you say, Bolsen.

This man comports himself as if he’s a moral intellectual. He’s an immoral imbicile.

We don’t pretend that it’s something that you can get rid of.

What?! So you shouldn’t try? Well, of course he must think it’s not only not worth fighting, it’s something that should be encouraged to the benefit of all. Why would he WANT to get rid of such a great moral social system? Let’s have more of it then, is that what you are saying Bolsen? Please form an orderly queue for slavery.

There’s always going to be vulnerable people. There’s always going to be people who are subject to exploitation.

That’s no reason for YOU to exploit their vulnerability, and take advantage of them. YOU are totally delusional – though that in itself is no surprise, you believe in Allah.

You can’t get rid of it and you didn’t get rid of it all.

What? By his own logic, Muslims should not engage in charity, because there will always be people that need it, and all this time Muslims have been engaging in charity they did not get rid of all need for it. So, rather than have charity, we should have more poverty! This is the mental gymnastics of Islamic apologetics. This man is the smooth talking Zakir Nik, a total idiot that talks himself into knots.

What you did was make it worse and somehow because perception is reality in your culture you get to pretend like you did something good well.

This is why Islam is incompatible with the West, and with humanity. It’s the apologetics of ISIS enslaving Yazidis.

Tell that to the 20 to 30 000 women and children that YOU traffic every year in the West.

Yes, there are depraved sections of all societies that mean slavery is extremely difficult to eradicate. What we call trafficking now is what Muslims thought was a thoroughly decent cultural service. Bolsen is moronic.

You want to pretend that you’re a form of slavery was everyone’s form of slavery and you like to talk about the Arab African slave trade as if it bears any resemblance to the transatlantic slave trade. Well it doesn’t. Yes there were African slaves in the Muslim World. African slaves who were enslaved in Africa by Africans and sold to the Muslim World along with Europeans along with Arabs along with Persians and plenty of other ethnicities and none of them were treated as sub-human.

Taking someone’s liberty, to own them, for your open benefit, to serve you, IS to treat them as sub-human, you clown.

None of them were regarded as less than human and many of them went on to achieve high positions in Muslim society, positions of high respect and influence and if you want to bring up eunuchs and castration – yes that’s a thing that happened and it happened on route before they reached Muslim lands.

YOU do know that you wanted eunuchs, right? They were bought as eunuchs to serve various purposes. YOU drove the market for eunuchs while pretending it was barbaric to castrate people. And YOUR society did it too, so pretending YOU didn’t won’t wash. YOUR society chops off hands and feet, and you think you can convince us you disapproved of castration? You are lying to yourself.

YOU used to castrate young boys just because you like the way it made them sound when they sing in church.

No, idiot, that was not US, it was the Catholic church. Another insane religion that at it’s worst came close to the barbarity of Islam.

You’re in no position to moralize on this issue. Your perception is not our reality. We can see the way things really are. We can see what you really did. We can see what you’re really doing, and we know our own history and we know yours.

This is Islamic supremacist BS. Muslims are clearly in denial about the reality of their history, which had more in common with ISIS that the Social Services system this idiot is pretending it was.

While the West has its issues, we do at least try to eradicate slavery, even if sections of our societies support it. What YOU are actually saying is that it’s a force for good.

YOU are insane.