Just like numerous other apologists for Islam who have no other option than to resort to fallacious tu quoque arguments to defend the indefensible, the fact that the video was titled "Slavery in Islam", thereby the topic of discussion between them was of slavery in Islam seems to be lost on REASONINFUSION. Read the entire exchange between them and decide for yourself if Blackmore refused to condemn slavery carried out by the Americans.
Today I came across a new video by REASONINFUSION addressed to both me and Blackmore. Like his replies to Blackmore in the debate that I previously had the displeasure of viewing, it consists mostly of fallacious, overtly racist, and convoluted nonsense. So I won't be deconstructing it as thoroughly as I usually do when I reply to others, but I will do him the courtesy of replying to some of his false assumptions about me and the questions he posed to me. Blackmore's response can be read here.
"Some of the slaves brought over from Africa to America were brought over on The Good Ship Jesus." [1:11-1:18]
And throughout America's history of enslavement, a lot of those innocent Africans were sold to the whites by African Muslims, who also happened to trade in white European Christians. The Arab slave trade pre-dates the European slave trade by almost a thousand years and is still going strong in places like Sudan, Yemen and Mauritania where they often explicitly use their Islamic beliefs to justify owning other humans. The number of black Africans enslaved by Europeans is dwarfed by the number of Africans who were enslaved or perished at the hands of Islamic slavers. Unlike in the West, there has never been an abolition movement from within Islam. Even today there are many examples of prominent Muslims, scholars and politicians, who endorse slavery on religious grounds, citing Islam's theology and the example of Muhammad as justifications.
"I assume that this [IslamoCriticism] is a white man, or a white women." [2:15-2:18]
Then he assumes wrong. Anyone who follows my blog would be aware that I'm South Asian.
"Maybe IslamoCriticism overlooked the fact that Blackmore is proud of being Dutch" [2:27-2:32]
No, I haven't overlooked anything. REASONINFUSION is proud of being black, I'm proud of being Bangladeshi, and (according to REASONINFUSION) Blackmore is proud of being who he is. What is wrong with any of that? Black Muslims in Nigeria, Somalia, and so forth, are busy killing non-Muslims, gays, and apostates. Does that make REASONINFUSION any less proud of being black or a Muslim? Clearly not. Is he now going to dig up some dirt on South Asians or the very short history of Bangladesh to use in slandering my ethnicity?
"My question for IslamoCriticism is if he is so well read, how come he hasn't put forth the fact ... that the Dutch were the first people to import black slaves to the new-world" [2:55-3:11]
I never claimed to be "well read". In his racist response to Blackmore, REASONINFUSION notes that he was a philosophy major and the product of parents who also were very educated, and that he knew whites were raping, warmongering savages long before his ironic conversion to a religion founded by a raping, warmongering white Arab. Unlike REASONINFUSION, I have had little in the way of a formal education and both my parents were poor illiterate villagers.
Blacks embracing Islam must be one of the worlds greatest ironies. As I noted previously, I find it offensive when learning of blacks who have converted to Islam. It is as puzzling to me as a Jew embracing Nazism or a black person embracing the KKK. Muhammad regulated the practice of slavery and allowed for the manumission of a slave, but this is by no means an obligation. In Islam the freeing of a slave is like an "indulgence". Therefore, it is seen as a punishment and as a way to atone for previous "sins" and score some brownie points with Allah.
Muhammad's actions perpetuated the existence of slavery by institutionalizing it within Islam. Muhammad was a slave-trader. He not only owned many male and female slaves, but also captured, sold, and, in the case of his many concubines, had sex with them. At times, he actually discouraged the freeing of slaves. He encouraged racism by exchanging two black slaves for one Arab, and even Bilal, the famed "black Muslim", was bought in exchange for a black non-Muslim slave.
Back to the question at hand; REASONINFUSION asks, why didn't I tell my readers the "Dutch were the first people to import black slaves to the new-world"?
This is a ridiculous question that hardly deserves a response, but for the sake of avoiding any misunderstandings, I will answer. I was clearly not writing an in-depth essay, or even a vague summary, of the history of slavery. I was simply introducing a debate between REASONINFUSION and Blackmore discussing slavery in Islam, whilst also pointing out the use of fabricated nonsense by REASONINFUSION. My introduction was a measly 6 sentences in length. How and why would anyone expect me to cover such a thing in such a short space? There is an appropriate time and place for everything, but discussing the Dutch in an introduction to a debate on slavery in Islam is not it.
A more salient question would be, why didn't REASONINFUSION tell his readers about the Dutch slave trade? Even after Blackmore told him he was a Dutch, REASONINFUSION continued in his use of tu quoque against America. So basically what this boils down to is the fact that REASONINFUSION is mad at me for his own incompetence. The guy can't even use logical fallacies effectively.
"How come he [IslamoCriticism] has not critisized Blackmore for being proud of being Dutch " [3:19-3:23]
I have already partly covered this above in my response to [2:27-2:32]. I would also add; unlike REASONINFUSION, I'm not a bigoted racist. There is a big difference between religion/ideology and race/ethnicity, something that he fails to grasp. I criticize Islam because it is a religion and political ideology that is inherently racist and promotes such abhorrent things as owning other humans. As far as I'm aware, Blackmore is not a slaver, and humans do not have a hereditary "slaver gene" that holds the descendants of people from a country that partook in such barbarity, as responsible for their past actions. If there were such a gene, then the blacks in America would be just as guilty because it was African Muslims who sold many of their descendants to the whites.
"Why are you [Blackmore] so proud of being Dutch when your people were the first white people to bring slaves to America?" [3:55-4:00]
Why is REASONINFUSION so proud of being Muslim and black, when the Muslim Arabs and then the Muslim Africans who converted were enslaving black Africans long before the Europeans?
"And to IslamoCriticism, how about spreading your criticism? How about some Dutch criticism and some American criticism and some white criticism and some Christian criticism?" [4:29-4:39]
REASONINFUSION clearly has not read anything on my blog, otherwise he would be aware that I often criticize white racism, especially that of the racist BNP.
If that isn't clear enough for REASONINFUSION, let me make it a little clearer; racism and slavery are both disgusting things. I condemn anyone who is racist or has ever owned, bought or sold another human being. Someone who is capable of doing such a thing is not worthy of being classed as a human. In my eyes, they are sub-humans worse than pigs.
F--k all the Americans, Dutch, Europeans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and anyone else who has ever owned, bought or sold another human being, or has discriminated against anyone for their race or caste. F--k the slaving and raping founding fathers of America, and f--k the white fat slaving bastard known as Muhammad.
Now can REASONINFUSION condemn racism and the owning of human beings in the clear-cut, jargon-free fashion that I have? Of course he can't, because that would mean he'd have to condemn that fat, white, slaving bastard known as Muhammad, someone who actually bought more slaves once Allah "empowered him" with his message. Obviously that message did not include erasing the abhorrent institution of slavery. Allah was too busy outright banning comparatively harmless activities such as gambling, alcohol, and even noble practices such as adoption, in order to accommodate situations in Muhammad's life as they arose.
"Stop hiding behind a moral ethic that we know you do not live according to, nor do your parents or grand parents. Where is your record for civil rights? [...] Do you work on the behalf of non-whites? I doubt that very seriously." [4:38-5:17]
I'm not hiding behind anything. Where I'm from, it's extremely offensive to bring ones parents into the discussion in such a derogatory manner. Nevertheless, I concede the fact that they'll both probably die as Muslims is a shameful thing, considering how our ancestors were Hindus who were slaughtered in the millions by Islamic imperialists.
As for caring about what happens in Africa, I love Africa and care very much for the wellbeing of black Africans. Human life began there, so, in a sense, we're all Africans. This alone should fill the Africans with pride, I know it would me.
Finally, as I've already mentioned, I speak out against many things on this blog, elsewhere on the net and more so in my life, this includes speaking out against racism amongst the whites.