Malaysian Muslim man marries 11-year-old Thai girl

Not really. Muslims invaded spanish, spanish expulsed muslims and all people they thought they worked with the muslims, it included the jews. Muslims caused that by invading spain.

Lol. Not in the other way ? That's one of the most ridiculous statement I ever red on this forum. It's rather the other way. Muslims started to agress christian by destroying the northern christian kingdoms, they invaded spain, they besieged Toulouse, raided Italy and plundered Rome, and there were hundred of years of those raids. That's were the flags of Sardinia and Corsica come from, a severed arabic head, that's one of the oldest flag of Europe, coming from all the raids commited by muslims.
They invaded the Byzantine empire, they invaded Constantinople and a lot of eastern europe countries, they continued to raid Europe and european ships for centuries (barbary slave trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade), enslaved people in eastern Europe. Muslims were constant agressors of christian and absolutely deserved everything they got, either, the reconquista, the crusade or the colonization. Who started to attack ? Muslims who started to invade christian kingdoms. Who started to raid ? Muslims who raided christian kingdoms to take slaves.
But by the way, you will claim that it was "nice" invasion, "nice" slave trades at the opposite of the mean european invasions.

I won't deny that Bush administration caused one of the biggest disaster of the last decades. The american army caused a lot of death, but the centuries old shia/sunni muslims conflicts too a lot of death in the iraqi conflict. Bush isn't responsible for this conflict, because it started as soon their prophet was dead. Ali was murdered during its prayers, its says a lot about the morale standarts of the first muslims.

Most of people don't care of your conflict, and Israel is a more interesting trade partner than Palestine.

Two wrongs doesn't make a good and I don't care that much of the iraqi war. I have family in my country, not in Iraq. The one who are trying to killing my family is muslims.

There is a lot of christians countries, jewish have a religion closer to Islam than christianity, you share the same disgust for pork and taste for circumcisians christians don't care.
South america are among the most violent countries yes, if we consider homicide rate.
The only thing you are trying is to whitewash the genocide commited by ISIS or the bangladi or Indonesia and muslims in a general way. That's pathetic. You're argument is contestable because both muslim and christian countries have very various situations.
South america have the highest homicide rate, Bangladesh commited one of the most recent genocide, so that can put them on the head on the list violent countries, USA have a problem with violence even if their homicide rate is moderate. You take all christian and muslims countries as a block when they have various situations.

 

You seem to lack skills in general. You claimed something.... but refuse to source this with a link.
So I got nothing but to rule this as you spreading fake news until you do.

She's an Islamofobe. So... that aint a credible source one bit.

 

You're an idiot. She was born and raised in a muslim country when they were killing Christians.
She is very reliable.

BTW, If you are looking for a muslim source, dream on, they don't admit to anything.

Watch this from a highly educated scientist.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...266161EA0C5458868E1A266161EA0C54588&FORM=VIRE

 

anyone who learns Islamic text will hate the religion, unless they are a psychopath.

You are babbling with zero knowledge of the religion.

If you want too argue, please learn something of the topic.
Denying what you are unaware of, and screaming islamophobe to anything you don't want to hear,
Is just plain ignorant.

 

You're just making it all up. They ethnic cleansed anybody who refused to become Christian, by the edge of the sword. It has nothing to do with who worked for who previously.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Christians/Jews blowing up entire countries full with Muslims today. Your rant is nothing more than distracting that Christians/Jews do what they always have been doing: violently oppressing others.

The West invaded about the entire WORLD, buddy.
That makes them the worst of the worst.

He most certainly was responsible for the safety of the civilians when he occupied Iraq.

You're just deflecting to the point that Christians/Jews are attacking Muslims for centuaries and not the other way around.

You're just deflecting to the point that Christians/Jews are attacking Muslims for centuaries and not the other way around.

You're just deflecting to the point that Christians/Jews are attacking Muslims for centuaries and not the other way around.

That makes them the same people,.. not some different subgroup.

I already sourced that from Spain, to Palestine, to Iran,... nobody was forced to convert. That makes it fake news. There was no "wiping" out.

Nothing like what the Muslims did.

All you got is taxes, and even THAT is what I debunked.
I sourced that you were able to avoid that with ease.

Of course they did. I gave you examples of how they did that in Europe and in North to South America. It's all one and the same... through violence.

And that makes him and the US responsible for what happened. Don't invade if you don't want to be responsible.

It is, when you aided him. And Saddam was aided by the west to massacre his own population. That's among reasons why the US is the biggest sponsor of terror.

The US sponsors the Jews to ethnic cleanse the Muslims. That makes it your business. That's among reasons why the US is the biggest sponsor of terror.

Pfff. You're just coming up with excuses why Europeans should be nazi's.
How about you go pick up a history book and find out how bad being a nazi is, and it's not excusable.

Totally irrelevant to the point of: GWB killed far more children than Muslims. Get real. Don't want to die,.. than don't invade. Your words.

That's not proving that claim one bit.

No you did not. Here let me debunk this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesibius: His other inventions include the hydraulis, a water organ that is considered the precursor of the modern pipe organ, and improved the water clock or clepsydra ("water thief").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Xing: It was the earlier Chinese inventor Zhang Heng who was the first to apply hydraulic power (i.e. a waterwheel and water clock).

approximately 5 million African slaves were bought by Muslim slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert between 1500 and 1900.

European slave trade was more than twice as big.

And you added your fake interpretation from that quran, and I debunked that with a source.

Yes really. Otherwise you can not have that idea that the world owes the Christian west for it's electricity and cars and such,... since everybody else invented that stuff too.

 

[QUOTE="


And you added your fake interpretation from that quran, and I debunked that with a source.


[/QUOTE]

Fake interpretation, hmmm, I missed that one.
You don't know Islam well enough to debunk anything.

 

A well known scholar like El Karadawi or Zakir Naik ?



I want to point out Zakir Naik is a liar, He tells people what they want to hear, I catch him in lies all the time.

An interesting point is that Robert Spencer has a standing invitation to him for a discussion.
He has refused.,He refuses Dr Nabeel Qureshi, in fact he refuses any Islamic scholar.
Hell, I would like to meet him on stage, and I'm not a scholar, but I know my way around the religion enough to argue with the best of them.

I would love for an Islamic scholar, or at least someone who knows the religion to bump heads with on here, but all will refuse.

No Muslim who actually knows the religion, will dare face someone else who knows about it. They like to snowball the ignorant west.

 

Historical and biblical experts estimated the age of Mary when she delivered Jesus to be between 12 and 14.Nothing has changed much on the last 2000 plus years??

 

In the Bible, no age is given for either of them. We do not know.

Any tradition that pretends to know their ages is late and unreliable. These traditions were usually fabricated to follow a political agenda.

It is a fact that Mary had passed puberty yet not reached menopause because she became pregnant. Also, it was illegal for a girl to be legally married before she was 12 years old or to live with her husband before she was 12.5, and Joseph is described as a “righteous” man; so we assume that he followed the cultural norms and that Mary was at least 12.5 when she moved in.

Mary was still alive when Jesus was 33. This does not tell us much about her age, since in theory she could have given birth at 40 and been still alive at 73. However, it’s a hint that she was most likely younger than that.

As for Joseph, there is a hint that he was at least 20 by the time Jesus was born because he made the customary sacrifice of two pigeons.

It was culturally normal for young men to be married in their late teens; and a wide age-difference between spouses was disliked. So perhaps Joseph was barely 20. But of course there can always be exceptions to the cultural norm, so that is not a reliable guide

 

No. Muslims invaded spain, spanish expulsed muslims, as simple as that.

You will countersays yourself in some few lines. First your rant that christian/jews (judeo christianity is a recent invention, before jews and muslims were closer allies) attacked muslims, when I have shown that muslims attacked and agressed us for centuries, raiding our coast, and when we striked back giving to those miserable a fair counter, you start to whine. You tried to rewritte history, erasing centuries of islamic agression against the west.

Yes because when muslims were slaughtering hindus in Bangladesh or Indonesian they were full of love.

Or just the strongest. Gengis Khan wanted to rule over the world, Tamerlan wanted to rule over the world. None of them succeed. And what says the quran ? Fight until all religion is to Allah. There were people in every culture who wanted to rule over the world. We were many times in position of vast technological superiority, that's explain that.

I don't like Bush. He is a war criminal, but no he isn't responsible for the shia/sunni muslims conflict, he isn't responsible for all the terrorist attacks in Iraq, but he is responsible of removing Saddam Hussein who was the only able that to happen.

And I proved you were wrong and then you cried "That has absolutely nothing to do with Christians/Jews blowing up entire countries full with Muslims today.". It's about today when it's better for you ? Muslims attacked us for centuries, I proved it and quoted it. Muslims attacked us for centuries, raided us, and enslaved us. That's the muslims who started the conflict with us and attacked us for centuries, not the other way.

And I don't ****ing care of the deeds of Bush. I see simple math : no muslims, no terrorist attacks. Belgium weren't involved in any war, they had terrorist attacks, spain had a minor role in Iraq war and years after the war ended they had terrorist attacks, Sweden weren't involved in the iraq war they had terrorists attacks. Poland had a minor role in the Iraqi war but refused muslims on their territory, and they have no terrorist attacks. The math is simple, no muslims = no terrorist attacks.

No, that show they were a different people before arabic invasion.

You're mixing up everything, I'm speaking of their language who disappeared and you speak of conversion. Doesn't change that invading people to make them pay the jizyah and second class citizens isn't freedom of religion, but an apartheid system. It seems you're against apartheid when it fits your interest.

Yeah yeah, muslims invaded tons of countries, enslaved tons of people, racketed the remain population, imposed their leaders, and they're nice guys. What Bush did is less violent that what muslims did. Because when Iraq was invaded, people died, like in every war, but no iraqi were enslaved by the american and the iraqis didn't had special taxes. And I consider Bush as a moron for having invaded Iraq, it says a lot what I think of the muslims you whitewash constantly.

With ease ? By forcing people to be dragged in the army to be forced to die for your califs ? You're calling that with ease ? $
Furthermore, about Jizyah, it was over taxation, it's basically racket :
Lewis states there are varying opinions among scholars as to how much of a burden jizya was.[106] According to Norman Stillman: "jizya and kharaj were a "crushing burden for the non-Muslim peasantry who eked out a bare living in a subsistence economy."[107] Both agree that ultimately, the additional taxation on non-Muslims was a critical factor that drove many dhimmis to leave their religion and accept Islam.[108] However, in some regions the jizya on populations was significantly lower than the zakat, meaning dhimmi populations maintained an economic advantage.[109] According to Cohen, taxation, from the perspective of dhimmis who came under Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes".[64][page needed] Lewis observes that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some, even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt, preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.[66] Montgomery Wattstates, "the Christians were probably better off as dhimmis under Muslim-Arab rulers than they had been under the Byzantine Greeks."[110] In some places, for example Egypt, the jizya was a tax incentive for Christians to convert to Islam.[71]

The importance of dhimmis as a source of revenue for the Rashidun Caliphate is illustrated in a letter ascribed to Umar I and cited by Abu Yusuf: "if we take dhimmis and share them out, what will be left for the Muslims who come after us? By God, Muslims would not find a man to talk to and profit from his labors."[111]

And here is the pact of Umar :

• The ruler would provide security for the Christian believers who follow the rules of the pact.
• Prohibition against building new churches, places of worship, monasteries, monks or a new cell. (Hence it was also forbidden to build new synagogues, although it is known that new synagogues were built after the occupation of the Islam, for example in Jerusalem and Ramle. The law that prohibits to build new synagogues was not new for the Jews, it was applied also during the Byzantines. It was new for the Christians.)
• Prohibition against rebuilding destroyed churches, by day or night, in their own neighborhoods or those situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
• Prohibition against hanging a cross on the Churches.
• Muslims should be allowed to enter Churches (for shelter) in any time, both in day and night.
• Obliging the call of prayer by a bell or a kind of Gong (Nakos) to be low in volume.
• Prohibition of Christians and Jews against raising their voices at prayer times.
• Prohibition against teaching non-Muslim children the Qur'an.
• Christians were forbidden to show their religion in public, or to be seen with Christian books or symbols in public, on the roads or in the markets of the Muslims.
• Palm Sunday and Easter parades were banned.
• Funerals should be conducted quietly.
• Prohibition against burying non-Muslim dead near Muslims.
• Prohibition against raising a pig next to a Muslims neighbor.
• Christian were forbidden to sell Muslims alcoholic beverage.
• Christians were forbidden to provide cover or shelter for spies.
• Prohibition against telling a lie about Muslims.
• Obligation to show deference toward Muslims. If a Muslim wishes to sit, non-Muslim should be rise from his seats and let the Muslim sit.
• Prohibition against preaching to Muslims in an attempt to convert them from Islam.
• Prohibition against preventing the conversion to Islam of some one who wants to convert.
• The appearance of the non-Muslims has to be different from those of the Muslims: Prohibition against wearing Qalansuwa (kind of dome that was used to wear by Bedouin), Bedouin turban (Amamh), Muslims shoes, and Sash to their waists. As to their heads, it was forbidden to comb the hair sidewise as the Muslim custom, and they were forced to cut the hair in the front of the head. Also non-Muslim shall not imitate the Arab-Muslim way of speech nor shall adopt the kunyas (Arabic byname, such as "abu Khattib").
• Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads' forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastrians to wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.
• Prohibition against riding animals in the Muslim custom, and prohibition against riding with a saddle.
• Prohibition against adopting a Muslim title of honor.
• Prohibition against engraving Arabic inscriptions on signet seals.
• Prohibition against any possession of weapons.
• Non-Muslims must host a Muslim passerby for at least 3 days and feed him.
• Non-Muslims prohibited from buying a Muslim prisoner.
• Prohibition against taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
• Prohibition against non-Muslims to lead, govern or employ Muslims.
• If a non-Muslim beats a Muslim, his Dhimmi is removed.
• The worship places of non-Muslims must be lower in elevation than the lowest mosque in town.
• The houses of non-Muslims must not be taller in elevation than the houses of Muslims.

It was not only taxes, dhimmis were considered as second zone citizen and constantly humiliated by muslims. Some can be understood (for the pig), but for instance : "prohibition against riding with a saddle". Seriously ? And the obligation of wearing some specific clothes, I knew some guys in the 40s, and their leader loved islam, they had the same customs about jews.

I agree they converted people with the sword but they didn't converted everybody, and I already show that you were wrong.

I'm not american, and Bush invented false reasons to invade Iraq, making american believe that S.Hussein had mass destruction weapons, they were deceived to make them enter the war, making the only responsible the Bush government who invented the false proves.

Proves. And it's funny, Saddam Hussein, a muslim leader, with his muslim army kill people and who his responsible ? The commander ? No. His army who executed his orders ? No. It's the common citizen of USA or Europe who had 0 responsiblity. Welcome in the fabulous world of notme where murderers are not responsible of their murders.

I'm not american, so clearly not my business.

 

@notme

I don't say they're nazis, but recent history have shown a simple fact : accept muslims in your country, and they will start to plot against your country and kill people randomly. Refuse any muslims in your country, you may be will be called a nazi, but you won't have any terrorist attack. That's the way Poland and Hungary choose, with success.

GWB is a war criminal but even for that I'm not sure. 1 million people died in Iraq, and potentially 3 million people died in Bangladesh, 250 00 people died in eastern timor, and it's examples among other and Islam is on the run for centuries, so no, fake news, which doesn't make neither muslims or bush better. If you says on the entire history of muslims, you're wrong for sure. If you says on the decade 2000-2010, yes probably. But you just proved that Bush is a moron. You have other well known fact to state ?

I don't see where wikipedia got their claim, because the shems of the chinese and the greek one had obviously gears and that greeks invented gears engines : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
but what they says about your arabic inventors
The first geared clock was invented in the 11th century by the Arab engineer Ibn Khalaf al-Muradi in Islamic Iberia; it was a water clock
It's a water clock too. Which make still the european inventors of the mechanical clocks, or fully mechanical clocks if you prefer. Replacing the need of water or mercury in clocks. So I'm right, the european invented mechanical clocks, when arabs used mercury or water clocks.

Yes, by a very simple fact, the europeans were the first to do a circumnavigation, which show at least they were the best navigators of this world. Not considering that european were the first to discover antarctica too. Furthermore, polynesian did short travels. And if most polynesian have a heavy tendancy. Arabs who had a heavy access to the atlantic coast were unable to discover the americas.

And the championship of being dishonnest was won by you. Because not only you take only the bought african slaves, when muslims captured too african slaves (which aren't bought by definition), and you don't consider that they raided countless people on the southern europe coast but you took the estimation you prefered, that's not the only estimation on this page, and you know it, you cut the words where it give only one historian name, and you cut all the other estimations which are the double of this number. And beyong that, you take the number only between 1500 and 1900 when this slave trade lasted from the 8th century to 1962 when Saudi Arabi abolished slavery.
European slave trade lasted 3 centuries, islamic one lasted for 11th century almost 12 and a lot of muslim countries got their slavery laws abolished by the european colonization. It's true for Algeria, Morroco, Zanzibar and much more countries.
Some total estimations from the page I shared, are around 14 millions of slaves taken by the arabs, if not 18 millions. The source for european are more precise than the arabic one and we know there were 12 millions slaved taken, there is no big debate about the numbers. So arabs are the biggest slave traders. Congratulations.

You debunked nothing. I quoted that muslims want to kill my family, and you quoted a source saying "it doesn't says to kill christian", big problem : a big part of my family isn't christian and are polytheists. So muslims want to kill my family. And you're still acting as if my family is christian. Anyway, even for the christian part of my family, I'm not willing them to pay the jizyah.

Not really. Incas invented some mathematic concepts, and didn't took it from other people. The world got electricity, photography and cars, not because they invented it by themselves, but because they copied the invention from westerners, which isn't a problem. Incas didn't copied their math and their astronomy from the summerian they never met. And europeans didn't copied their high blast furnace and printing from chinese, because they had almost no contacts with those people at this time.
Are you claiming that the incas magically travelled to the sumerian and got their mathematic from them ? How do you call that process that is creating from nothing you already know something new. Mmmh, sounds the definition of invention.

 

We have the exact opposite problem worldwide with white women of European ancestry who are marrying way too late in life in their 30's and 40's.Part of the reason we are a dying breed.

 

They have to support, and educate their children, The abusers of the system, don't.

 

yes.. you're making this "spanish expulsed muslims and all people they thought they worked with the muslims" up.
The Visgoth ruled spain before the Muslims showed up. They were hardly Christian or Spanish. And the Catholics than by the edge of their sword just ran everybody out of Spain who wasn't Christian. It had nothing to do with Jews working with Muslims. And that makes them Christians the worst of it all. Your entire point is mute, while the utter brutality of Christians stands.

At no point at all do you even defend that Christians/Jews blowing up entire countries full with Muslims today has to do with Muslims raiding the coasts of Europe.

The general point is that the Christian/Jewish west has been far more violent and been like that all over the globe, unlike Muslims.
But now you bring up Bangladesh and Indonesia... nope.. the first spread was peaceful. It took centuries of preaching before it even became a majority. Bengalis are stimply converting by the 1000's a year. And it's still going on.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Islam-come-to-Bangladesh
The spread of Islam in Indonesia is unknown. So again.. you spread hateful fake news, buddy.

All you do is distracting away from the point that it's that Christian/Jewish west slaughtered around the most while oppressing most of the world.

Nope. The US is fully responsible for public order as the occupying force.
That is the law.

Dude it is the other way around. Christians and Jews have been converting people by the edge of their sword before the Islam was even born. And that is even besides your flaw to hold Muslims of today responsible for what happend 1200 years ago. Such an argument is utterly nuts.

Only because it doesn't fit your agenda. Oh boohoo. He is just 1 president out of many who slaughtered Muslims who did nothing wrong.

I see zero difference between pagan Celtics who converted to Christianity and Sumerians and Babylonians converting to Islam.

I already debunked this so hard.

The Christian/Jewish west violently oppressed about the entire world. It is nothing compared to what Muslims did.
And to whine your way out, you compare the entire history of Islam with GWB. lol

They weren't forced to be in their army. They were exempt of the army and instead payed that taxes, until the fulfilled what Muslims did. What you do is spread fake news. And do you even read what you quote? lol

However, in some regions the jizya on populations was significantly lower than the zakat, meaning dhimmi populations maintained an economic advantage.[109] According to Cohen, taxation, from the perspective of dhimmis who came under Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes".[64][page needed] Lewis observes that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some, even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt, preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.[66] Montgomery Wattstates, "the Christians were probably better off as dhimmis under Muslim-Arab rulers than they had been under the Byzantine Greeks."[110] In some places, for example Egypt, the jizya was a tax incentive for Christians to convert to Islam.[71]

oh they did convert people like that. Loads of European wars have been fought between the different Christian fractions.

And so the Christian/Jewish west caused a war for no reason. All the people who died under the US occupation is also on their hands. Don't like the responsibility? Don't invade and occupy.

I told you that the USA fully supported Saddam Hussein in a military way to unleash his WMD war. And your argument totally leaves that out, to claim the US is innocent. lol

It's all part of that violent Christian/Jewish western culture that you belong to. The argument that the US, a Christian/Jewish country is the biggest sponsor of terror stands.

But I did, and you're responding to "And that is besides the rather big amount of nazi supporters in the US. Germany is no stranger either. Greek got plenty as well."

You again are comparing what GWB did with what Muslims did over the centuries. Let me remind you AGAIN that Chrisitans/Jewish west have violently oppressed about the entire world. Muslims did not do that.

I don't care about YOUR interpretation... it still says that the Arab invented the first geared clock. No doubt about it.

That's absolutely not proving a thing.

Baloney. The Transatlantic slave trade lasted 300. And that alone was 12 million slaves. During and beyond that timeline the Muslims took 5 million. And for your argument to stick, you're just leaving out that the medieval times of Christian Europe was full of slaves, while you do at it for the Muslims. You also leave out the massive amount of slaves the Christian/Jewish west captured in the far east and North to South America. As if you did not know that black slaves were imported, because if the Christians/Jews did not slaughter those indigenous people, or got killed by a disease, they got slaved to death in most cases.

I gave you 2 sources that debunked your claim... where you dumbly tried to interpreted 1 sentence out of an entire book, and claimed to know what it meant. Utterly and utterly ridiculous to keep on pretending you know best. lol

Fake news
The Roman empire had contacts with China.

 

There is a common sense issue with the "slaved to death" part. In Africa, or Muslim countries, where slaves were plentiful, just a conquest away, I am sure they were slaved to death.

In America, and other countries where you had to buy your slaves, they were like cattle, and kept pretty healthy, so they could produce.
Yes, I am sure there were filthy rich landowners who could waste 700 dollars and watch their slaves die, but for most, there was some healthcare, and in many cases lived better than many free whites.

 

Gross, and it should be illegal. We can't do much about foreign countries, but we should start by eliminating child marriage in the US.

"Statistics released by the Pew Research Center show that nearly 5 in every 1,000 15–17 year olds in the United States are married.[18] Child marriage is generally more common in the southern United States.[18] The highest incidence of such marriages per thousand is in West Virginia, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, California, Tennessee, and North Carolina.[19]

Unchained at Last found that between 2000 and 2010, more than 167,000 children were married during that period.[20] They found that only 14% were between two children marrying each other[21] and that in most of the cases it was girls marrying men aged 18 or older, and at least 31% of these marriages were to a spouse aged 21 or older.[20] The youngest were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001 and the youngest groom was an 11-year-old who married a 27-year-old woman in the same state in 2006.[21] Based on the correlation between population and incidence of child marriage, they estimated that nearly 248,000 children were married in the US during that time.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

Buy slaves,.. because the indigenous population got massacred. And I already sourced that Arabs hauled in like 5 million slaves, while Christians/Jews did 12 million during the same time period.

 

There is no record of the Arab or muslim slaves, however the Christians and Jews bought them from muslims.

 

Fake news
https://medium.com/the-history-buff/slavery-in-medieval-italy-cb189ae45933
Records show that the Venetians were supplying Italy with Muslim slaves as early as the eighth century.

You go source that one.

 

Read your article before you post it,

 

I don't have time those last days to answer you, I can't take anymore one half hour to answer you, and I will answer you only on that passage : here is the passage you quoted to base your "5 millions slaves"

So it's doesn't take consideration of the time between 700 and 1500 or between 1900 and 1962, basically, you take in consideration only around 40 % of the timeline of arabic slavery.

Furthermore, it's only about african slave trade , it doesn't consider the barbaric slave trade or the slav slave trade. So you take in consideration only one of the slave trade. At the opposite of the atlantic slave trade, the muslim one wasn't targeted on specific countries.

Furthermore, most slaves of the europeans were trade. The kingdom of Dahomey sold around 5 millions slaves alone, and the president of both Ghana and Benin apologized for the role of their ancestors in that slave trade. The fact that european had more slaves don't mean that the european were more mean or something, it mean they were richer.

"David Richardson has concluded that the profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of domestic investment in Britain."

And you forget a couple of slave trades :
The power and influence of these pirates during this time was such that nations including the United States of America paid tribute in order to stave off their attacks.[17] Supplies from the Black Sea appear to have been even larger. A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that a little fewer than 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the Caucasus obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700.[11]

Pirate raids for the acquisition of slaves occurred in towns and villages on the African Atlantic seaboard, as well as in Europe. Reports of Barbary raids and kidnappings of those in Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, England, Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, and as far north as Iceland exist from between the 16th to the 19th centuries. It is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves in Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli during this time period. The slave trade in Europeans in other parts of the Mediterranean is not included in this estimation.[15]

So the total slave trade of arabs between 1450 and 1900 would be more around 8,5 millions people.

I won't discuss on which slave trade was the more horrible, I won't compare a slave in the caraibs being whipped and get one of his hand cut and a young man kidnapped and castrated to guard a harem for the pleasure of a horny turkish man.

Both slave trades were horribles.

The European will start to end slave trade first however, with the Vienna congress in 1814 where many european countries agreed to end the atlantic slave trade and those countries will end slavery in their homelands and in their colonies in the following decades.

 

I did... and it says... there are records of Muslim slaves.
So much for your claim.

 

I know that. And that timeline of Christians doing that transatlantic slave trade is only from 16th to 19th century.
That leaves out everything between the year zero till the 16th century.

And so during that same time period of 15th to 19th century I sourced that Jews/Christians were twice as bad.


It really aint so that Muslims always had slaves, and Christians/Jews only at the 15th century. That's fake news.

 

Every group of people on earth, at one time or another, had, or were, slaves.

 

The muslim religion covered such a vast territory, northern, and western Africa, all the way to India, with most groups not even speaking to each other, except when they were killing each other, and taking slaves, there is no way any record can be taken.