I deny the necessity to discuss rights of slaves in the context of religion[...]
I have some questions : when you talk about "21 century morals" surely you talk about YOUR morals, because if we look at how prisoners of war are treated even today that's objectively worse than what Islam says about POW. ISIS has nothing to do with theology, it's not that hard to understand their actions cannot be justified by the teachings of Muhammad.
The only way to become a prisoner of war would be to attack Muslims, tell me how the civilians in Iraq and Syria are attacking DAESH ? I already showed you how this news for example is against the teachings of the Qu'ran, why do you still think that DAESH gives a shit about theology ?
According to accounts written by Muhammad's followers, after the Battle of Badr, some prisoners were executed for their earlier crimes in Mecca, but the rest were given options: They could convert to Islam and thus win their freedom; they could pay ransom and win their freedom; they could teach 10 Muslims to read and write and thus win their freedom
In pursuance of Mahomet’s commands, the citizens of Medîna, and such of the Refugees as possessed houses, received the prisoners, and treated them with much consideration. “Blessings be on the men of Medina!” said one of these prisoners in later days; “they made us ride, while they themselves walked: they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”
I think I read somewhere that DAESH trying to revive slavery because it's a sign of the end of the world, so yeaahhhhh..
It's a fact that they follow theology. It's not just their own, it's beyond just ISIS. They didn't start it, they emerged from it.
Imagine you're in Middle-East, you're part of the Iraqi insurgency, it's obvious the US cannot defeat the insurgency without nuking the region, you want power. What do you use as a catalyst to take over the region ? They say that they are Muslims because it's easier to recruit people, I already showed that you that they do not follow Islam and by that I mean that their actions not only contradict the Qu'ran but also the rules of the Caliphate. If Islam didn't exist they would use whatever lowest common denominator.
And they have that prerogative. And if they ruled the world, that Islam [...]
Well yes, but my point is that why should you blame Muhammad for that when they don't follow his teachings ? How is giving priority to the Qu'ran over chinese whispers that were canonized for political reasons cherry picking ? If anything, Qu'ranists (I'm not one by the way, I just don't follow hadiths contradicting the Qu'ran by default) are the true fundamentalist. And it is not about "true" Islam it's about showing the flawed logic people like DAESH are using, do you know that some Buddhist justify the murder of innocent civilians with interpretation of their scriptures ? No ideology is safe from stupidity and malicious leaders.
I think the most alienating thing to do to humans is to dehumanize them.
You can criticize Islam as you want after we dealt with DAESH and Middle-East is less awful, is this too much to ask? People spouting baseless accusations (the level of discrepancies when we are talking about Islam is extremely high, gee I wonder why) are alienating Muslims and helping people like DAESH. If you really cared about fighting DAESH you wouldn't do exactly what they are expecting from you.
My religion is fine, schools of thoughts based on unreliable reports and chinese whispers might have issues yes I agree with that.
By conquerors like Muslims in the name of Islam, so I can pay Jizya and be subjugated, if I'm lucky? Yes.
Do you complain about paying taxes to your government ? Jizya is not an additional tax on non-Muslim, non-Muslims are not obligated to follow the teachings of Islam and don't have to pay the same rate. Jizya was never supposed to be a burden on non-Muslim, I recommend you to read about early Caliphates. Besides being taken prisoner is not systematic and you must attack Muslims who did nothing to you before that, why would you ?
For something to be hijacked it has to be something specific in the first place
We have a nice thing called a "methodology", it's pretty cool. Islam was pretty specific, punishment in the Qu'ran is pretty specific, the sunnah is pretty specific (5 pillars of Islam), the rules of the Caliphate are pretty clear and well documented. Anything else was based on reports and chinese whispers centuries later and most of them were forged for political reasons. It's not that hard to understand and you didn't answer the question, why is Muhammad responsible for stuff written centuries later without his authorization. As I said, you cannot explain why we SHOULD have interpretations without circular reasoning and appeal to authority.
Don't you find it funny how most of the bad stuff in Islam is coming from obscure reports and interpretations and out of context quotes of chinese whispers ? Are you sure you're a man of logic and reason ?