Islam don't support any kind of slavery, so kindly don't bring religion in this. What ISIS and other groups are doing is not what Islam said, Islam has strict rules of war, do read how Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W) has fought his wars.
I have no interests in how Muhammad fought his wars several hundreds yrs ago. And neither do generals and strategists of today. No one today were there yesterday. What we have are recorded by observers that for all we know are biased, as the charge of being 'biased' so often thrown today. Back then, the rules of war allowed enslavement of captives. We find that morally offensive today. How about the Muslims ? Guess not.
There is an obvious moral cowardice exhibited in post 21...
...slavery has never left the world its not been renamed into different forms
Source:
Isis brings back slavery : Yazidi girls sold to Isis fighters | Page 2
...Where the commentator tried -- vainly -- to lump all forms of uncomfortable burdens and unwanted responsibilities, no matter how large and small, under the general heading of 'slavery'. In trying so, it is
HE who brought religion into this, as if religion was a minority factor in the first place.
If I voluntarily entered into a contract where days later I feel uncomfortable about the terms of the contract, that meant I am a 'slave' no different than the young girls abducted by IS Muslims fighters and sold into slavery. That the girls received no shares of the purchase price while I received some benefits of the contract -- is irrelevant. I and those girls are equally 'slaves' under our situations.
It is a moral cowardice where the commentator knows that what the perpetrators were doing go against the current norms but he is too much of a coward to come out and condemn those perpetrators. Instead, his kind will always try to create -- not find -- some forms of equivalence. A student loan or a mortgage is no different than physical enslavement. That is the crux of his argument.
If I have a pet dog who in spite him provides me companionship demands that I walks him everyday, that mean I am a 'slave' to the dog. That is the crux of your man's argument.
If I am morally burdened by aging parents in that I have to spend time caring for their physical needs when I could partying it up with hookers, that mean I am a 'slave' to my parents. That is the crux of your man's argument.
After all, another man said it is about 'enslavement as a whole', whatever the hell that mean.
We now have at least two moral cowards who tries to make equal, if not justify or defend, the physical enslavement of young girls with voluntary business contracts.
Congrats to your side of the debate.