dalaman:


Where and when did bobrisky say that he is any body's slave for luxury? Where? Show us!

He doesn't have to say it. It's in the "terms and conditions "

He offers up his body and services in exchange for a reward. Others can see those services as disgusting but he gladly sees them as awesome.

hmmmmm

AwesomeJ, buzz me when you're ready

butterflylion:


He doesn't have to say it. It's in the "terms and conditions "

He offers up his body and services in exchange for a reward. Others can see those services as disgusting but he gladly sees them as awesome.

Ogbeni just admit that you lied. Where did bobrisky declare that he is any body's slave for luxury? You can't ahow it and you made it up as usual abi? Continue

CuteMadridista:
The level of dishonesty here is massive haha

Dishonest: It's a same as employer Employee

Honest: A type of slavery has certain similarities between employer Employee

Dishonest: Passing slaves to children and grandchildren is same as a football club loaning a player to another club

Honest: Slaves passed to children has no say whereas footballer not only has a say but the FINAL say

Dishonest: Look how portipher treated Joseph

Honest: Joseph was an exception and moses even had to liberate the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. also moses killed a someone for treating a slave the way the bible allows! they're ignoring that moses killed the guy for beating a slave which seems okay by Yahweh only that the beaten slave was an Israeli


I shall update as we go on lmao!

Even their bible clearly differentiates btw slaves and hired workers.


39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.

This verse clearly shows that there is a difference btw slaves and hired workers. But this or resident dishonest apologist are trying to tell us that we blind.

dalaman:


Ogbeni just admit that you lied. Where did bobrisky declare that he is any body's slave for luxury? You can't chow is and you made it up as usual abi? Continue

As I said, what I am looking at is the context and not the word. Would you not say that bobrisky is currently being subjected to what many find inhuman yet he is enjoying it due to the gratification involved?

There is a thread on nairaland currently where he is bragging about his proceeds gotten from sleeping with a man who happens to be a billionaire and their mutual agreement to keep him a secret (terms and conditions)

Would you call what he is doing freedom or slavery.

butterflylion:


As I said, what I am looking at is the context and not the word. Would you not say that bobrisky is currently being subjected to what many find inhuman yet he is enjoying it due to the gratification involved?

There is a thread on nairaland currently where he is bragging about his proceeds gotten from sleeping with a man who happens to be a billionaire and their mutual agreement to keep him a secret (terms and conditions)

Would you call what he is doing freedom or slavery.

What is inhumane in two men having mutually agreed sex? Gay relationships are legal in many countries so how is that inhumane when same sex relationships are acceptable in many parts of the world?

Many people hide their personal relationships from the public view for many reasons. Dbanj for example has refused to reveal who his girlfriend was till after they got married and he still reveals very little about his wife.

What he is doing to total freedombecause he can do what ever he likes and say what ever he likes. He eve tells people about his relationship with a billionare even when he is living in a country that imprisons people for 14 years for gay relationships. But he is so much free that he is talking about it openly. Ogbeni you have no case.

I'll be here by 8:25pm.

dalaman:


What is inhumane in two men having mutually agreed sex? Gay relationships are legal in many countries so how is that inhumane when same sex relationships are acceptable in many parts of the world?

Many people hide their personal relationships from the public view for many reasons. Dbanj for example has refused to reveal who his girlfriend was till after they got married and he still reveals very little about his wife.

What he is doing to total freedombecause he can do what ever he likes and say what ever he likes. He eve tells people about his relationship with a billionare even when he is living in a country that imprisons people for 14 years for gay relationships. But he is so much free that he is talking about it openly. Ogbeni you have no case.

You always see what you want to see. My comment again below

butterflylion:


As I said, what I am looking at is the context and not the word. Would you not say that bobrisky is currently being subjected to what many find inhuman yet he is enjoying it due to the gratification involved?

There is a thread on nairaland currently where he is bragging about his proceeds gotten from sleeping with a man who happens to be a billionaire and their mutual agreement to keep him a secret (terms and conditions)

Would you call what he is doing freedom or slavery

In the context of this discussion you can be likened to those who find it cool for bobrisky yet in the Same way you can be likened to those who do not find it cool regarding scriptures covering slavery and I am seen as the complete opposite of the above.

Perspectives is all there is. I do not have to agree with you and neither you me. However this does not make either if us liars as you always enjoy throwing the word round.

awesomeJ:

The slavery that the Bible regulates on was basically employment.

Slavery had a governing contract, so does employment, and buying football players. Technically, football players are merely properties of their various clubs, yet they live more comfortably than most folks without such a contract. This should help you get the right perspectives, when the Bible says that slaves were properties of the masters. Doesn't necessarily mean the relationship was inhumane.

Football players are paid huge sums of money and they can even sue the football club they are playing for, terminate their contracts at any point and some of them even earn more than the coaches who are parts of the employment committee. Slaves are not paid salaries.They are muzzled, pierced in the ears and used for all sorts of terrible jobs like animals

butterflylion:


You always see what you want to see. My comment again below



In the context of this discussion you can be likened to those who find it cool for bobrisky yet in the Same way you can be likened to those who do not find it cool regarding scriptures covering slavery and I am seen as the complete opposite of the above.

Perspectives is all there is. I do not have to agree with you and neither you me. However this does not make either if us liars as you always enjoy throwing the word round.

Even from the scriptures, the slavery as commanded was bad so much so that Yahweh warned the Jews not to practice it among each other. They were to do the slavery to others but were warned not to treat their fellow Jews that way.

I just saw this now

awesomeJ:

The slavery that the Bible regulates on was basically employment.

absolutely not! even Yahweh said they mustn't treat fellow Israelites the way they would treat slaves

Slavery had a governing contract, so does employment, and buying football players. Technically, football players are merely properties of their various clubs, yet they live more comfortably than most folks without such a contract.

football players sit and negotiate with the club, they even employ expert agents to make sure their interests are met and they aren't fleeced

The player negotiates a clause upon which his contract can be terminated. they can negotiate that they have the right to leave for peanuts if they're not played for a particular number of minutes or apps

They negotiate bonuses in terms of goals, cleansheets, trophies etc all these don't apply to biblical non Hebrew slaves who's opinion is not sought

if injured, the club takes full care of the player and the club can't beat them to death

also the player's children don't belong to the club, neither do the wives they marry even if the club has a hand in their marrying the woman

This should help you get the right perspectives, when the Bible says that slaves were properties of the masters. Doesn't necessarily mean the relationship was inhumane.

The only perspective I got is that your dishonesty is getting too much to bear

Instead of this your back-and-forth argument why not just compare the rights of slaves in Islam Vs Christianity/Judaism. That way you get a common ground for comparison.
Mind you historians generally regard Islam as the second best thing to happen to slaves, second only to its abolisment finally in the 19th century.
Some rights of slaves in Islam
they have the rights to
1. Live
2. Own property
3. Marry
4. Eat the same type of food as their master
5. wear the same type of cloth as their master
6. Right to buy their freedom
7. Right to practice their religion of choice
8. Once a woman bears a child for her master she and the baby automatically become free people.
9. A Muslim shall never be ensalved
10. Only people who have actively perticipated in waging war against Muslims are liable to be enslaved....

EazyMoh:
Instead of this your back-and-forth argument why not just compare the rights of slaves in Islam Vs Christianity/Judaism. That way you get a common ground for comparison.
Mind you historians generally regard Islam as the second best thing to happen to slaves,second only to its abolisment finally in the 19th century.
Some rights of slaves in Islam
they have the rights to
1. Live
2. Own property
3. Marry
4. Eat the same type of food as their master
5. wear the same type of cloth as their master
6. Right to buy their freedom
7. Right to practice their religion of choice
8. Once a woman bears a child for her master she and the baby automatically become free people.
9. A Muslim shall never be ensalved
10. Only people who have actively perticipated in waging war against Muslims are liable to be enslaved....

there is nothing like second best thing, slavery is simply dehumanization. what is more worst than that. in islam a master can sleep with what his right hand possess even if it against her will. also enslaving captives of war in Islam jurisprudence is regarded as welfare . what kind of welfare is that when you are been denied your basic fundamental right, the right to associate with whomever you wish.

dalaman:


I am not to look at it through your own bias view.

If there is something I dislike is dishonesty. What do you mean by perhaps, when it was clearly stated that they can enslave foreigners and their children for a life time?



How do you this to be true? How did you know that they were not over powered captured and sold? The buyer did them no favor, even Yahweh their God knew that the condition the slaves were in was bad and warned them NOT to do same to their fellow Israeli brothers.



Yes, I would. If you go and buy a person today that is willing to be a slave you will be arrested. You can try it. Go to an open slave market I Libya buy anyone that was sold willingly. Bring him to Nigeria and treat him the way you would a slave openly and see if you won't be arrested regardless of the fact that he willingly sold himself to you.

No where in the bible was it stated that the foreignersgave themselves up as slaves. That is your own making. The people were to buy the slaves is what was written . Why buy something when it is given up for free? You are just trying to spin it and it's just exposing you.

Slavery is bad and the fact that a God was at the center of it all giving injunction on how it is to be conducted says it all.

Quite a long post on misconceived opinions.

1. quote the verse wherein it was stated that every non Hebrew slave must be owned forever.

2. For slaves who were sold by their own relatives, they're obviously better off being sold as slaves. For those captured and overpowered-those taken as plunders of war, they're still better off, because the alternative would have been death for them.

3. You're bringing legality in here, that's not what we're talking. Slavery could be illegal in Nigeria today, but it certainly wasn't I. the world of that time, because, more than anything else, it was labour sales.

4.I didn't say foreign slaves gave themselves up for slavery, I said if a man chooses to sell himself or his relative into slavery, he is the one to blame. Should that be the case, the slave masters would obviously yet pay for the slave contract.

5. You're mistaken, thinking God could ever do anything bad.
Whatever regulations you find in the Bible regarding slavery were mere the labour laws of the time.

dalaman:


Shut up and stop telling lies. Footballers are NOT properties of their clubs. They can terminate their contracts anytime they feel like. Slaves in the bible could not. They are to be treatedas properties. Even their children were to be treated as properties. The relationship was inhumane because according to the bible they were not allowed to own properties, they could be branded, they were not paid any wages etc. They belonged to the master and did what ever the master told them.

Hey, mind your tone there, you wanna be rude, find some place else please.

How would you know slaves couldn't be free? You're just showing your ignorance. Depending on the type of contract a footballer signs, he may or may not be able to leave a football club whenever he wishes, so it was with the slaves of that time. there were those who could be redeemed from the slavery contract. Take note of the fact that the Bible regards the deal as a contract between two parties, wherein labour is traded for money.

Those who didn't earn wages were those who already got their wages upfront in terms of the purchase consideration. Imagine if a firm chooses to sign you up for a job. $20m for 2 years, if the $20m was paid as a lump sum on the day the contract was signed, would they yet have to pay you any more wage?

DeSepiero:


You should rather say that there are similarities in the relationships of Slave/Master and Employee/Employer.
The fact that someone works for me doesn't mean I own the person.

What sort of bible regulations suggests that slavery was employment?

Are you an advocate of slavery? like it happened in Libya.
Is it proper to exchange humans for money?

I have given instances of the kind of relationship that did exist between slaves and masters at those times, I can yet give you much more, all of them confirm the fact that those slaves were merely employees.

Whoever thinks otherwise should dig up any story in the Bible that portrays the slave/master relationship as anything different.
Remember, I said story.
I already gave 2 to support my position, I could give much more.

DeSepiero:


In slavery, agreements are made between slave master and buyer. The slaves opinion doesn't really count.
Whereas, in employment, agreements are made between employee and employer.
Those are two different things.

Not quite?

If a father negotiates the terms of a job he wants to commit his 12-year old son to, would you see it as bad?

Even if he chooses to sign up to terms that the boy is much inconvenient with, do you then blame the employer.
This is a father who has said to the son, "I can't do anything at all to cater for you"
Wouldn't it be a huge favour the employer does to the son?

CuteMadridista:


AwesomeJ is pretending Messi's Children and wives belong to FC Barcelona and when he leaves they'll simply take them away from him and tell him to leave

and if Messi loves his children, he'll declare openly that he loves Barcelona, his wife and children so he then becomes their property permanently

Mind you the above statement, as horrible as it sounds, is only for Hebrew slaves. non Hebrew ones are for life and don't even have the opportunity to make those declarations

Should Messi sign up a contract that sees him renouncing his rights to his wife and children to Barcelona, then legally, he has lost those rights to Barca.

About a slave declaring that he doesn't want to be free, if you could think on it with an open mind, you'd see that it's proof of how comfortable slaves could get with their masters. They were employees basically, and just as folks don't want to leave a good job nowadays, there were slaves who wouldn't want to leave their masters at the time.

Have an open mind to things bro, those folks were employees.

To buttress that, mention a portion of the old testament where any other word was used to describe long-term staff/workers.

CuteMadridista:

Absolutely not! the only payment is between the seller and the buyer so only if the seller decides to have pity on the slave by giving him some change does he/she get something

Bible? Dalaman has already given those verses

You don't know this detail about the payment appropriation do you? You're merely assuming.

Quote that verse again that says all non Hebrew slaves were to forever be slaves.

dalaman:


Not true, contracts do get terminated regardless of clauses. Many players havebeen paid off by their teams and their contracts terminated. Some players refuse to train with their teams and force their teamsto terminate their contracts. Players have a say when they are being loaned out. If they don't want to go no club can loan them against their wish.



Players are not treated as commodities because they have the right to say if they are going out or not. They have a say in what ever transaction they are invovked in and they are heavily paid usually. They are consulted before any move is made. How many slaves or commodities are consulted before they are sold out? According to the bible slaves and their kids can be passed of as inheritance to children of their masters. How many footballers are treated that way. Stop this your yeye silliness abeg.

Where did you get that slaves were not involved in decisions regarding them?

CuteMadridista:


just saw this part you added

absolutely not! the player has the right not to be passed to the other club! if Madrid decides that they want to loan Kovačić to Arsenal and arsenal agrees. Madrid would still have to go to Kovačić to tell him that arsenal want to have him for a year and state the terms. Kovačić, after reading the terms, may still say he doesn't want to leave on loan and would stay at the club or tell the club to find another club for him or say he wants to leave to arsenal on a permanent basis. all these show the kind of final power the player has and nothing can be done without his consent

But non Hebrew slaves has no such right, the owner simply passes him unto his children without his consent and the children passes him unto their Father's grandchildren

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
- Leviticus 25:46

so yeah the difference is huge, stop the dishonesty

Whatever rights the player has is definitely such as had been defined while he was entering the original contract with the FC, if he had signed to terms that didn't give him those rights, maybe due to the attractiveness of the cash, he wouldn't have any such rights.

Meanwhile, if you read that entire chapter 26 of Lev you quoted, the points I have been making are obviously spelt out.
1. A slave gets his payment upfront, and that's equivalent to wages/salary.
2. Slaves could be redeemed by their close relatives.
3. Slaves who prosper could redeem their own selves.
4. Redemption involved returning money to the slave master, in exchange for the slave getting back his freedom which he earlier sold.
5. The calculation of a slave's price was daily wage * number of days in the slavery contract. Doesn't this yet confirm to you that it was basically employment?
Na was for you guys o.

6. God said every Israelite was his own slave. That should make it obvious to you that when he says slaves he doesn't mean those to be subjected to constant inhumane treatments

If the entire chap. 26 is too long, just read from vs 47-55.
But reading the full chapter gives you a broader perspective.

dalaman:


Let's talk about Joseph. Potiphar was an Egyptian and Joseph according to the story was favoured by God and his master treated him well as a result of that favour. He was treated differently from the way slaves were treated because of the favor from God accordingto the story.

The Jews were badly treated by the Egyptians as slaves so much so that Moses was sent to set them free.

Why do you just make silly assumptions?
was it stated that Joseph's exceptional treatment meant inhumane treatment to other slaves?

For the Israelites, it wasn't just slavery that caused their ill treatment. it was a case of oppression, which could have been meted to anyone slaves or not.

Don't Nigerian leaders oppress the masses? is it cos the masses are slaves to them?

And if you read where God foretold Abraham about the israelites stay in Egypt, God said, "they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years". if slavery inherently had oppression, there wouldn't have been any need to say " enslaved and oppressed " it's cos the two are separate things that necessitated the use of both words.
You'll find that statement in Gen 15:13

i perceive intentional lies on this thread, slavery is simply dehumanization and can never be compared to present day employment. how can you compare a human resources manager to a slave master?

Even the name slave is far more derogatory, it's a mental and psychological one. This is case where the master truly believes he's superior and that slaves are his property and outsiders who are alien by origin, while the slaves believes he's no more than a servant, and lives believing he's inferior throughout his slave-hood. slaves do not enjoy the same equality statures with his master.

i think christian should argue on this part, if the biblical instruction on slavery is relative or absolute to society when it was given instead of playing mental gymnastic that is obvious. it will have been more interesting.

vaxx:
there is nothing like second best thing, slavery is simply dehumanization. what is more worst than that. in islam a master can sleep with what his right hand possess even if it against her will. also enslaving captives of war is Islam jurisprudence is regarded as welfare . what kind of welfare is that when you are been denied your basic fundamental right, the right to associate with whomever you wish.

Oga no be me talk am o, na renown historians that are professors in Islam and middle eastern studies.
So in all your cherry picking you ignored dozens of verses in the Qur'an which are commanding Muslims to free slaves on many occasions both as a measure for remission of sin and for reward by God.
Throughout history of slavery in Mankind known history the best time to be a slave is during the early years of Islam and belong to a pious Muslim master. This was proven by Umar Bin Khattab's conquest of Jerusalem. Umar and his personal "slave" rode to the city on a single came by taking turns to ride. By the time they reached outskirts of Jerusalem it was the turn of the slave and when they entered the people of the city mistook the slave as the caliph because he (the slave) was the one riding the camel while the Caliph was on foot. They basically wear the same type of cloth and look pretty much the same.

dalaman:


Even their bible clearly differentiates btw slaves and hired workers.


39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.

This verse clearly shows that there is a difference btw slaves and hired workers. But this or resident dishonest apologist are trying to tell us that we blind.

What do you think that difference is?

It's the difference between a daily labourer (casual staff), and a full-time long term staff.

if all workers were hired workers, then there would be no need to used the adjective hired.

But workers were mainly in two categories then:
Hired(casual);
Slaves( long term)

The casualnes of hired workers is why you don't find much regulations regarding them, other than the fact the they must be paid their wages.

OtemAtum:


Football players are paid huge sums of money and they can even sue the football club they are playing for, terminate their contracts at any point and some of them even earn more than the coaches who are parts of the employment committee. Slaves are not paid salaries.They are muzzled, pierced in the ears and used for all sorts of terrible jobs like animals

Quote a place in the Bible where slaves were treated as animals. you're basically making funny assumptions.

EazyMoh:

Oga no be me talk am o, na renown historians that are professors in Islam and middle eastern studies.
So in all your cherry picking you ignored dozens of verses in the Qur'an which are commanding Muslims to free slaves on many occasions both as a measure for remission of sin and for reward by God. .

i am less concern about those things you wrote up there, my stands is, slavery is a barbaric attitude, thank GOD for civilization. should there be slavery in the first place?, thank GOD we have move ahead... i am not interested in debunking Islam on this thread.

CuteMadridista:
I just saw this now

absolutely not! even Yahweh said they mustn't treat fellow Israelites the way they would treat slaves

football players sit and negotiate with the club, they even employ expert agents to make sure their interests are met and they aren't fleeced

The player negotiates a clause upon which his contract can be terminated. they can negotiate that they have the right to leave for peanuts if they're not played for a particular number of minutes or apps

They negotiate bonuses in terms of goals, cleansheets, trophies etc all these don't apply to biblical non Hebrew slaves who's opinion is not sought

if injured, the club takes full care of the player and the club can't beat them to death

also the player's children don't belong to the club, neither do the wives they marry even if the club has a hand in their marrying the woman


The only perspective I got is that your dishonesty is getting too much to bear

Note that the reference to football players is the fact that you people think the fact that slaves were called properties of their masters, meant they were subjected to inhumane treatments. I gave the illustration, that an ignorant person who hears that clubs sell and loan out football players, would also think that players were treated as commodities and so were experiencing inhumane treatments. Just as the guy who assumes a funny thought regarding player/club relationship is wrong, so are you guys who assume funny thoughts on the slave/master relationship regulated in the Bible.

It was a long term labour contract, everyone including Hebrews could be sold into it. God said if a non Hebrew wants to sell himself as a slave, Hebrews could buy him, but if a Hebrew wants to do same, his fellow Hebrew should rather employ him on a casual basis. Do you know the reason he gave for that?
He said the Israelites were already his own slaves, and so if you want their service, it'd have to be on a non permanent basis.

This should be clear enough right?

vaxx:
i perceive intentional lies on this thread, slavery is simply dehumanization and can never be compared to present day employment. how can you compare a human resources manager to a slave master?

Even the name slave is far more derogatory, it's a mental and psychological one. This is case where the master truly believes he's superior and that slaves are his property and outsiders who are alien by origin, while the slaves believes he's no more than a servant, and lives believing he's inferior throughout his slave-hood. slaves do not enjoy the same equality statures with his master.

i think christian should argue on this part, if the biblical instruction on slavery is relative or absolute to society when it was given instead of playing mental gymnastic that is obvious. it will have been more interesting.

Go read the story of how Abraham's servant got Isaac his wife.
Check out how it was reported that Laban- an heir was all over him. Obviously whom Laban saw was a very big boy, and not just some folk with chronic inferiority complex as you suppose.

Or check out Joseph, he was CEO.

Try, try really hard to come up with one story from the Bible that shows slaves as treated horribly or as animals.

vaxx:
i am less concern about those things you wrote up there, my stands is, slavery is a barbaric attitude, thank GOD for civilization. should there be slavery in the first place?, thank GOD we have move ahead... i am not interested in debunking Islam on this thread.

Of course slavery in whatever form is very bad. This is including corporate slavery you can find today.
You were the one that quoted me trying to argue what I quoted what many learned historians have agreed.
If you were to have come in 7th century, the best thing you could have done was to reduce slavery and make sure their fundamental human rights were guaranteed. You can't possibly do more than what Islam did!
The best thing to happen to slavery to which Islam was agreed to be the second was it's final abolisment as I mentioned earlier. It is important to note as well that the main drive for the final abolisment was as a result of industrial revolution rather than "civilization" as you put it.
If cheap slave labor was not made obsolete by farm machinery, slavery wouldn't have being abolished.
So the only movement to improve welfare of slaves based on a humanitarian compassion was Islam and we'd all be fair to give it the credit.

EazyMoh:

Of course slavery in whatever form is very bad. This is including corporate slavery you can find today.
You were the one that quoted me trying to argue what I quoted what many learned historians have agreed.
If you were to have come in 7th century, the best thing you could have done was to reduce slavery and make sure their fundamental human rights were guaranteed. You can't possibly do more than what Islam did!
The best thing to happen to slavery to which Islam was agreed to be the second was it's final abolisment as I mentioned earlier. It is important to note as well that the main drive for the final abolisment was as a result of industrial revolution rather than "civilization" as you put it.
If cheap slave labor was not made obsolete by farm machinery, slavery wouldn't have being abolished.
So the only movement to improve welfare of slaves based on a humanitarian compassion was Islam and we'd all be fair to give it the credit.

this is indeed an insult for anybody in this category, as i said i am less concern about your findings, slavery was encouraged in the quran and it was also empowered as well to the extent laws concerning how slaves should be treated were imprinted in the quran. which shows slavery itself is an acceptable way of life in the Muslim word. if quran claim to be the final testament of GOD, she could have discourage this dehumanization rather than encourage it. is the allah of 7th century difference from 21 century, remember this rules are divine and not given by primitive 7th century human mind, unless you also agree that allah mind was primitive as at then or was the instruction Muhammad opinion?

The main source of slavery abolishment is the rise of human right which was facilitated by political movement and struggles, the bone of civilization .it was called the age of enlightenment, The abolitionist movements in Britain and America and the revolutionary ideals of the Enlightenment, and the French and American Revolution, all these movements affected change through political advocacy and violent and nonviolent struggle which reshape the world. for example ,France temporarily abolished slavery during the French Revolution but Napoleon resumed it in the colonies after he took power, however the ideals were present and common within the French and American Revolution and the Enlightenment before it begin to affect the thinking of millions of people around the world, therefore the rise of human rights throughout the world cause slavery to seem like a barbaric institution instead of a common practice. industrial revolution just followed up. and lastly if there is anything like cooperate slave, some ideology found in some books can be blamed.

please do not let me debunk Islam. it is OK