I was talking about actual slavery. It was a major part of the spread of Islam. And that part of how it was spread, was so very wrong.
In my opinion, not all slavery is wrong. For example, I very much like the Mamluk -and Ottoman
rule by slave concept. State officials would specifically be bought for that purpose, and report to the Sultan, who would himself be the son of a slave girl. I do not see what would be wrong with that. Furthermore, you can either abolish prostitution or else slavery, but abolishing both will not work. In my opinion, prostitution is worse. Hence, slavery is the lesser evil. In my opinion, the Islamic point of view explained in the Quran also prefers slavery to prostitution.
Other people do not actually have, among their rights, the right to enforce religious law.
They will, if they can, and which suits me fine. As far as I am concerned, that is just another
WONTFIX agenda item.
... an articulation of the "monopoly on violence" concept as a core concept of modern public law ...
I do not recognize man-made public law. As a matter of fact, I do not recognize any particular kind of man-made law, public or not.
With that being said, I have no problem at all with legitimate use of force being used by agents of the state in service of the public good.
So, you are not advocating a blanket ban on violence? You are absolutely ok with violence as long as it is the result of enough politicking of the type that you like. Fine, but why would anybody else believe in the same preferences? Everybody obviously believes in their own preferences, which can be very different from yours.
Sometimes I agree to violence and compulsion, when it's carried out in a secular manner.
Well, sometimes I agree to violence and compulsion, when it is carried out in a manner that complies with the rules and regulations of religion. You make one choice here, and I make another. There is absolutely nothing surprising about that. Different people simply believe different things.
