I'm not sure if Emre_1974tr is actually lying. From his posts he seems to have pretty much invented his own fan-version of Islam and convinced himself that is the truth, and anything or anyone that contradicts his version is either a liar, misinformed or deluded. The fact this his version of Islam is not aligned with everyone else following the religion never seems to fire a neuron.
An admittedly cursory bit of research here suggests that the Quran is probably a bit better on the subject of slavery than the Old Testament is, but not by leaps and bounds. Different standards seem to exist between Muslims, potential Muslims, and others. It makes clear that freeing slaves is a good thing to do, including the act of doing so, at least one worthy slave at a time, as a religious gesture that would be pleasing to Allah; and that slaves should be treated well. The general take seems to be that abolition would be a good thing, and manumission of slaves a good thing to do, and advocates time-limited contracts, but it stops well short of actual abolition, and the history of Islamic governments outlawing slavery within their own countries is not that good. I don't think either the Bible or the Quran provides a basis for racial slavery, so Islam might have an edge here owing to the racial diversity of its followers, but I think it has more to do with the diversity of the practitioners than with the texts they interpret and so often corrupt to suit their purposes.
One can always make the case that things have to be done gradually, and that the prevalence of slavery in the pre-Islamic world was such an integral part of social practice that it would have been jarring or disruptive simply to abolish it, but that contention pretty much requires a second-rate god who doesn't have the presence or the power simply to say "now hear this!" and make it stick. The God of the Abrahamic religions just doesn't seem to have it in him.
I will leave speculation on Emre's character to others, though I wonder if among the myriad inventions of the Turks one might number self-delusion.
I asked and didn't get an answer, but some of what Emre_1974tr says suggests alignment with a version of Islam that is at odds with the interpretation of, oh, about a billion other Muslims.
Long story but about 50 years ago a movement began that insisted on following the Quran only, and not other traditions that had sprung up since, or that existed when the Quran was "revealed," or that were the result of legal rulings, anecdotes about Muhammad's life etc.
A major impetus was the reasoning of an Egyptian biochemist who had emigrated to the U.S. He did his own translation. That was fine. He said he discovered that the number "19" was a recurring theme, and cited computer analysis. That was OK. But then he said a certain verse violated the (divine) pattern. It concerned the longstanding declaration of faith ... "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet."
The clause about Muhammad, he said, was a Satanic corruption. That was not so fine.
Then he came to believe that he himself was God's final messenger, sent to purify Islam of Satanic (or simply manmade) corruptions, and wrote letters to the entire Saudi royal family telling them they were all going to hell (according to a source close to him).
THAT got him murdered.
***
There are many competing, searchable translations of the Quran online. Does the Quran require women to cover their hair in public? As far as I know, it does not. (It's not a very transparent document.) Out of flawed memory I will cite a verse beseeching women to "cover your ornaments with your headscarves." "Ornaments" meaning boobs, not bangles. One Quran-only sect pegged the meaning as, roughly, "Modestly cover your breasts with a loose blouse." But did the verse
presuppose a woman was wearing a headscarf? She very well could have been, under pagan, Jewish or Christian practices, but did the Quran explicitly require it? These were the legalistic sorts of quibbling.
This legalism permeates many religions. And based on varying global fashions, it's easy to see that there are thousands of ways to observe modesty. But this sect wasn't controversial due to quibbles. It trashed one of the most beloved verses in the Quran as a Satanic corruption.
ETA: I don't know where Emre_1974tr is coming from, if he was ever affiliated with the sect I'm talking about. It splintered after the murder, and it was a splinter to begin with. Many religions follow this pattern and it generates a ton of suffering. It's not hard to make the argument, as you (bruto) have, that religion itself is a wrong turn. Does it *ever* serve a purpose beyond indoctrination, domination, control? Maybe? I don't know?
