 This will be how an ultimate villain behaves, yet this is the man or you guys practically relation. If killing people can sometimes be justified, then slavery can also sometimes be justified. I wouldn't go into the mainstream slavery, that's just okay for you, yeah? You only had two options, you either had to kill or enslave, neither option is good. They're trying to keep their humanity intact. In the pre-modern period, you couldn't have war without slavery any more than you could have war without weapons and killing. You make a mistake claiming that Sharia is somehow the solution, and this is what I'm exposing right now, Sharia is not a solution, so let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm talking about slavery, which you are a massive proponent of. As I said earlier, not all Muslims have turned off their compassion switch and they go out of their ways to make excuses, such as how Islam promoted compassion, that it set in motion the world where slavery will eventually be abolished. Yes, it's a completely fabricated claim, I agree with you on that, but at least I can understand that they're trying to keep their humanity intact. In fact, this is the same claim modern day to day, Christian apologists make as well. But you, Akikachu, don't take that approach, because once you have lost all compassion and humanity, it's easier to become a literalist, because Quran literally advocates cruel practices like slavery. I wouldn't go into the mainstream slavery, the idea of treating human beings as commodity. That's just okay for you, yeah? I'm particularly troubled by sex slavery. Islam and Sharia literally allow you to go to a neighboring village, kill their men, and take their women as sex slaves. Who would clean your house a day and do other things at night? Does this not send shivers down your spine? Is this a solution that you were just offering about what human rights, what the core family is destroyed or something? And this is the alternative that you're offering? Maybe it does to James and every other sane person listening to this, but look how cool you are, Akikachu, with the possibility. You might be getting turned on by this practice. Quran allows this in multiple places, such as chapter 4 verse 24, 25, chapter 23 verse 6, 24, 31, and many more. How could this not be wicked and cruel? Ordinary Muslims are troubled by this, and I inquired further. If I can't make you feel for other humans that you intend to take as sex slaves, let's reverse the rules. Let's imagine I and my soldiers raid your village, kill you and your male members, and then take your daughters, wives, even mothers as sex slaves. Your women would not just have to deal with the fact that their husbands and sons and fathers have been murdered, but also the same night they have to deal with having sex with the killers of their fathers and sons and husbands and brothers. Would you be okay with that, Akikachu? Now, can you answer that one? Maybe you can't feel that for other women who are not related to you, but surely, even as a sadist like yourself, could feel that for your female family members. If not, then I can only hope that other men who supposedly follow you don't think like you. Some Muslims say, well, you don't have to rape them as though any woman would like to sleep with the very people who have murdered their fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands. This is not some far-fetched case. This is exactly what happened with Rehana Abint Zaid, whose husband was killed by Muhammad's men after the massacre of Bandit Razer. She refused to marry Muhammad out of respect for her dead husband, but eventually married Muhammad after she got sick of being the slave girl of Muhammad. Moreover, the infamous story of Safiya, when her father, brother, and husband were killed, Safiya was taken as a slave girl, and Muhammad slept with her on the very first night. This was so outrageous that even one of the servants of Muhammad stood guard at the tent. When asked by Muhammad, hey, what are you doing here, boy? Oh messenger of God, this young woman had just been married and you killed her father, husband, and brother. So I did not trust her not to harm you. The prophet laughed and said, good. If we film this, imagined it in flex, every saint, Muslim or not, every saint person would be outraged by this behavior. This will be how an ultimate villain behaves, yet this is the man or you guys practically worship. There's so many such stories. Let's look at this one. Once Abu Saad says after the battle of Banu Al-Mustalik, we came across some captive women. We asked the prophet, if we should drop our load, my load, I mean, seamen, in or we pull out. The prophet says, do what you want. Allah controls the pregnancy. Bukhari chapter four, chapter 138. These captive women were living, breathing human beings. Imagine my soldiers come to me and ask me, oh, general Sultan, whether we should pull out or drop the load in the sisters of so and so we have just killed. And you're worried about the falling fertility rate? This also reminds me when Stalin was told about the mass scale rapes of the German women at the hands of the Red Army. Stalin simply said, they've been through a lot. Let them enjoy. This is literally what Muhammad did. In another instance, a guy by the name of Salama says he captured the prettiest girl in Arabia when he took her back to Abu Bakr, he gave her to him as a gift. So he must have won seven, five, five. Slavery is horrible, but sex slavery is even worse. And this merciful prophet and Sharia enabled it. The reality is to win a war in the pre-modern period, it was all about manpower. The main factor in whether your people would live or die was numbers. So this meant that if you won a battle, you couldn't just let the captives go because they would just regroup and attack you again or join your enemies. So you only had two options. You either had to kill or enslave. Neither option is good, right? But that's just the nature of war. You always have to use violence against the other side. You either kill or enslave. So Harris, you want to criticize Islam and call Islam barbaric for having slavery, but imagine if I asked you this question, do you support using weapons in war? Do you support using guns to shoot people or swords to stab people and kill people? Do you support that? Because all of that is violent. All of that is barbaric. Presumably, you'd say, yeah, of course, I support weapons and killing because how else are you going to fight war and defend yourself? Well, that's exactly the point with slavery. In the pre-modern period, you couldn't have war without slavery any more than you could have war without weapons and killing. In other words, if killing people can sometimes be justified, then slavery can also sometimes be justified. And this is exactly what your friend, apostate prophet, accepted with open arms in our debate last year. Imagine in the future they invent a new technology for war where a laser shoots from space and can directly target any person in the world. And the technology is so precise that there are zero casualties other than the intended target. Then people in this future might look back at our time and say, look how barbaric those people in the 21st century were. Look how barbaric with their tanks and guns and bombs. Would that make any sense? That's exactly what you're doing by criticizing Islam for slavery. You should have just acknowledged that slavery could be completely justified in certain circumstances, which by the way are the circumstances people have lived in for 99% of human history. Now, if you want to argue that Islam requires enslaving people today, I would say that that is not correct. It depends on the Imam. If you read Fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, this is very clear. There's no requirement that people captured in war are enslaved. This is discussed in classical Fiqh books. For example, Bida'at al-Mujtahed by Ibn Rushd in the 12th century, go to Kitab al-Jihad, and he summarizes the position of the four Sunni schools of Fiqh. The Imam has the option to pardon people and forego taking slaves in war. The Imam does not have the option to suspend for example, hudud punishments for lashing, like lashing for fornicators, but taking slaves is one of those issues where the Imam can forego if it's in the best interest of the Muslim community. So in modern times, a hypothetical Imam could exercise this option and still be 100% consistent with the most strict understanding of traditional Islamic law. Now, Harris, since you seem to be ignorant about these details about Islamic law, I'll do you a favor and steal man your argument for you. You could respond to me and say, well, Daniel, fine, slavery could be justified in the past, but now with modern technology, modern weapons, clearly slavery could never be justified. That means Islamic rules regarding slavery are not justifiable in our modern context, which means at least one aspect of Islamic law is obsolete. And if one aspect of Islamic law is obsolete due to modern technology, then why not all of Islamic law? This is actually the argument that a lot of Muslim liberal reformists make, but the response to this is simple. In the past, the low level of technology meant that in order to wield political power, war was necessary, which meant that slavery was necessary. The only difference today is there are bombs, nukes, fighter jets, drones, chemical and biological weapons. So now war is not about manpower. Basically, you have to believe that these new technologies are such a blessing and we're better off because at the very least, no one needs slavery to defend themselves, right? We live in a world of nukes and drones and weapons of mass destruction, so slavery is no longer needed. So the question is, is this actually a better world? Well, the harms associated with modern technologies like nukes and drones and mass surveillance, and you can't go to the bathroom without security agencies constantly monitoring your every move and every communication, these harms are far, far greater than the harms that existed in Islamic slavery. Frankly, these modern technologies are more terrifying. We have to look at the whole package. Which is the better world? One with the constant threat of nukes, nuclear annihilation and constant terrorizing of the world's poor people with trillion-dollar weapons programs? Let's ask the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the Vietnamese children with horrifying birth defects because of chemical weapons like Agent Orange. Let's ask the Palestinian Syrian refugees or children who are being burned alive with white phosphorus. In light of these modern technological horrors, the practice of Islamic slavery actually seems a far better alternative in the context of war, even if it were practiced today. No, slavery wasn't abolished because of the modern-day warfare. Slavery was, the reason that we don't have slavery is because the enlightenment forced us to realize that owning other human beings is not a good idea. Now that is just the outcome of that. A good book I recommend is Lawrence Keely's War Before Civilization. He explains that pre-modern war was primarily about manpower. The side that had the largest army was usually going to win. And if you had too few people, this made you an easy target for a larger group to attack you and wipe you out. This meant that women were very valuable in pre-modern societies because your society's ability to reproduce and build up the population is limited by the number of fertile wombs you have. Keely says, and I quote, although the loss of even a large percentage of males will have no direct influence on a group's demographic fortunes, the loss of organe of fertile women can mean the difference between population decline and growth. This is why Keely argues, all pre-modern civilizations took sex slaves. Again, this was a necessary aspect of war. If you did not take concubines, you were at a major disadvantage militarily because you either take concubines or your people get wiped off the face of the earth. There is no third option. So given that stark reality, yes, taking sex slaves was not only morally justified, it was morally necessary. And really that's enough for the argument, but it's worth noting that the Sharia's rules on concubines and slaves in general are the most humane out of any other civilization. Again, slavery is not supposed to be a fun time, but Islam explicitly gives slaves many rights. They can't be mutilated. They can't be killed. They can't be prostituted for women if she gives birth to her master's baby. The baby is free. And she also is freed automatically when her master dies. These rules ensured that captured slaves very quickly integrated within larger Islamic society, especially after one or two generations. Contrast this with other societies in history that maintain a permanent subjugated slave class based on race or ethnicity, Islamic slavery is not like that. And that's why we see, for example, the Mamluks in the Middle Ages, who were a ruling class of Muslim slaves and the descendants of slaves, some of whom even reached a level of sultans and amirs in the Muslim caliphate as slaves. So the argument is very simple, Harris, but you haven't responded to anything that I've said. All you're doing is gish-galloping.