As I read the Quran, which parts should I ignore?

[Union]

And yet, the Muslim world embraced slavery, as in bondage slavery, for centuries after all this was written. It was only after the non-Muslim world rejected slavery that the Muslim world was forced to abandon their age old tradition. No doubt, all these good Muslim folks misunderstood the passages you are talking about.

It is amusing to hear that enemies of Islam created these ahadiths. That being the case, why would highly respected Muslims scholars repeat the stories by incorporating them into Muslim lore?

Hadith were created some well hundreds years after the demise of the Prophet which Prophet Muhammad and his companions had no clue of . Hadith are propagated and nurtured by Sunni and Shia Muslim - they created their own Hadith books to suit their own principles .

'Highly respected' Muslims in Shia/Sunni community are debatable . Sunni regard Shia Ayatollahs to be heretics while Shia deem Sunni/Slafi Imams are enemies of Islam . So there you go...

 

[Shad]

Hi there. Yes, I see where you're coming from and I see you do have a point.

Long before those West pressures (and I believe the pressure in such things comes from who owns oil not the West or else so many other things would have become forbidden), the Companion Omar forbade slavery. Omar was a khalif which means he was covered under the verse that allows rulers to bind some laws as society needs it.

No he didn't. Umar was assassinated a slave. If he forbade slavery in his life there is no way for him to die to a slave owned by a Muslim. Read your own history.

 

[icehorse]

The OP has been completely buried by this discussion of slavery. I have to say that this doesn't surprise me. I have - once again - listed my values in this thread. And what I see when I review this thread is various forms of avoiding the question. So again...

What does Islam teach that form the basis of Muslim values and beliefs? I'll give you the first one for free:

- The Quran teaches charity - hooray!

other values?

 

[Shad]

I echoed that , read my post attentively . ALLAH the Al-wise didn't abolish subordination but abolish bondage slavery by announced their freedom .

Yet slavery existed for 1400 years after this so called abolishment, even by Companions which became leaders of the state never made it illegal. History contradicts your post hoc rationalization. You playing loose with terms so that you an push slavery away from history and into theology nonsense. Yet history contradicts your view. Bondage slavery is covered by Maliki scholars and legal.

Showed and discussed already with ample proofs that Slavery is uprooted in Qur'an . Please read the previous posts , revert back if you have refutation about it .

Negative since it has rules for slavery. One does not abolish a practice by providing regulation for the intuition. Especially when a slave is used as a fine for the crimes of the master.

 

[Shad]

That's quite amusing

"Rule Britannia,
Britannia rule the waves,
Britain never, never, never will be slaves!"

Maybe .. maybe not..

Yes it is amusing that a tiny power from a world away made slavery illegal in India while Muslim Empires that had been there for centuries did not.

 

[Shad]

Nope . Both verses are in favor of the slaves' interests and criticizing the masters .

‏16:71 والله فضل بعضكم على بعض في الرزق فماالذين فضلوا برادي رزقهم على ماملكت ايمانهم فهم فيه سواء افبنعمة الله يجحدون

‏30:28 ضرب لكم مثلا من انفسكم هل لكم من ماملكت ايمانكم من شركاء في مارزقناكم فانتم فيه سواء تخافونهم كخيفتكم انفسكم كذلك نفصل الايات لقوم يعقلون

The highlighted parts are in questions posed to the masters of the slaves in a criticizing manner .





Marrying Ma Malakat Ayminukum already qualified them to be the rank of free women ( Muhsineen)

4:24>
والمحصنات من النساء الا ماملكت ايمانكم كتاب الله عليكم واحل لكم ماوراء ذلكم ان تبتغوا باموالكم محصنين غير مسافحين فمااستمتعم به منهن فاتوهن اجورهن فريضة ولاجناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة ان الله كان عليما حكيما

Moreover in numerous other verses Qur'an emphasized the importance of wives , their staunch roles and bond towards the husband and their freedom of choice to handle critical family affairs . Hence marriage itself qualifies a slave to a free woman automatically .



More than that you can bring Bible to justify slavery . However , ahadith are created by the enemies of Islam , hence no wonder you will find ingredients there to go against the teaching of the Qur'an .

Qur'an is against slavery and declared their freedom with very grave tone . Endless efforts can be expected from the enemies of Islam against this claim but this truth can not be changed .

30:28 still has slavery as a normal part of life. There would be no comparison if it was illegal. Likewise having parameters showing a difference between free woman and slave woman shows that you rationalization is incorrect. What about slaves which the master does not marry. You rationalization fails if there is no marriage. Also it shows a difference between free woman and slave just by mentioning the two separately.

I am not a Christian so bring the Bible into does nothing for me or you. I reject the Bible as I reject the Quran. To me it is the same man-made god used to justify existing or new concepts, nothing more.

If the Quran was against slavery like it was against alcohol it was be haram, but it is not. Post hoc rationalization may work for you but it is a fallacy regardless of it's appeal.

 

[Union]

The OP has been completely buried by this discussion of slavery. I have to say that this doesn't surprise me. I have - once again - listed my values in this thread. And what I see when I review this thread is various forms of avoiding the question. So again...

What does Islam teach that form the basis of Muslim values and beliefs? I'll give you the first one for free:

- The Quran teaches charity - hooray!

other values?

Sorry for that . But hold on....

-The Quran teaches freedom of slaves -hooray!

 

[Union]

@ Shad . You are bringing the same arguments which I addressed again and again . You are bringing verses of Qur'an to justify the slavery which went against you .

So I think you made up your mind that I can't change . Enjoyed having discussion with you . Thanks .

 

[Shad]

@ Shad . You are bringing the same arguments which I addressed again and again . You are bringing verses of Qur'an to justify the slavery which went against you .

So I think you made up your mind that I can't change . Enjoyed having discussion with you . Thanks .

The Quran, ahadith and history contradict your views. None of the verses were against me, rather each one supported my position. By providing parameters which differentiate slave from master, freeman from slave it supports slavery as normal. You are just unable to spot the parameters which create this different status. If a slave can be used as a fine for the crimes of the master it is not putting forward slavery is illegal or wrong, it is putting forward a slave is legal property and can be seized by the state as legal property. Just as other objects can be seized like currency, a house, car, etc. People are not fined using illegal objects but legal ones. Hence why drug dealers can not pay their fines off using their products as a momentary asset. This is the difference between something which is illegal and something which is legal.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Umar was assassinated a slave. If he forbade slavery in his life there is no way for him to die to a slave owned by a Muslim.

That's your excuse? You think forbidding slavery gives the right for Umar to take all slaves from their owners who paid to get them?

 

[Shad]

That's your excuse? You think forbidding slavery gives the right for Umar to take all slaves from their owners who paid to get them?

Making something illegal de facto grants the right for a government to seize what is illegal. This is why governments can seize illegal drugs without having to go to court. Your thinking is illogical when taken to a conclusion. Drug dealers by your logic have a right to their illegal property which can not be seized by the government... They are just restricted from buying new drugs. Also the fact that slavery existed for centuries after this fictitious ban furthers my point.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Making something illegal de facto grants the right for a government to seize what is illegal. This is why government can seize illegal drugs without having to go to court. Your thinking is illogical when taken to a conclusion. Drug dealers by your logic have a right to their illegal property which can not be seized by the government...

Yet the government halting importing cars older than five model years did not make them confiscate existing cars older than 5 model years (a law we recently had). Drugs, as in your example, are normally dangerous by nature but cars are normally good by nature. Different subjects have different judgements about them.

 

[Shad]

Yet the government halting importing cars older than five model years did not make them confiscate existing cars older than 5 model years (a law we recently had). Drugs, as in your example, are normally dangerous by nature but cars are normally good by nature. Different subjects have different judgements about them.

Restricting trade is not a ban, it is a regulation. There is a difference. You are also using a specific with parameters in comparison to one which is not. False equivalence fallacy. Cigarettes are regulated to a specific age range, it is illegal for X but not for Y. It is not making cigarettes completely illegal.

The regulation is not of import cars in general but importation of vehicles which are 5 years and older. Importation is the defining parameter along with the sub-parameter of 5 years. It is not banning the vehicle itself but the practice of bring vehicles which fulfill the above parameter. So if someone imports a 10 year old car the government can seize it to prevent it from entering the nations or the owners access to it in the nation.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Restricting trade is not a ban, it is a regulation. There is a difference. You are also using a specific with parameters in comparison to one which is not. False equivalence fallacy. Cigarettes are regulated to a specific age range, it is illegal for X but not for Y. It is not making cigarettes completely illegal.

Cigarettes were allowed for all, then banned for the underage, then in public places. There is no telling if it will not be completely banned one day. Alcohol got forbidden in three stages in Islam, not directly at one, just because it has some benefits to the mass. Even the Quran itself forbade it partially first, not at once in one go. Consuming alcohol is now forbidden in Islam.

 

[Shad]

Cigarettes were allowed for all, then banned for the underage, then in public places. There is no telling if it will not be completely banned one day. Alcohol got forbidden in three stages in Islam, not directly at one, just because it has some benefits to the mass. Even the Quran itself forbade it partially first, not at once in one go. Consuming alcohol is now forbidden in Islam.

I know it was banned in stages. However the fact is these stages were complete and laid out directly in the Quran. It was directly made haram while slavery had no such parameters. There is little division of this issue within Islam on the issue of alcohol . Yet when it comes to slavery there is overwhelm evidence that slavery was legal, 1300 years of recorded history. People may find it horrible now but this is moral relativism injected into the past ie post hoc revisionist history. Your modern views are contracted by historical evidence. So such views are a modern adaption and not a core foundation of Islam in the past.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I know it was banned in stages. However the fact is these stages were complete and laid out directly in the Quran. It was directly made haram while slavery had no such parameters. There is little division of this issue within Islam on the issue of alcohol . Yet when it comes to slavery there is overwhelm evidence that slavery was legal, 1300 years of recorded history. People may find it horrible now but this is moral relativism injected into the past ie post hoc revisionist history. Your modern views are contracted by historical evidence. So such views are a modern adaption and not a core foundation of Islam in the past.

Judgement of slavery or alcohol are not related to core foundation of Islam, they are social secondary laws. They are about society, so they are flexible in concept compared to the basics of Islam. Alcohol was forbidden clearly but the slavery issue was not clear cut, so extra efforts were open for it. Even now some people question allowing alcohol. Like I'm agreeing with those saying slavery is forbidden, I don't agree with those saying alcohol is allowed. Similar thoughts are there about hijab. They could be questioned on certain levels unlike the basics of the core foundations of Islam. Core foundations of Islam know no past present or future, and all Muslims know that. The identity of God can never be questioned for example and all Muslims agree to it.

 

[Sees]

Judgement of slavery or alcohol are not related to core foundation of Islam, they are social secondary laws. They are about society, so they are flexible in concept compared to the basics of Islam. Alcohol was forbidden clearly but the slavery issue was not clear cut, so extra efforts were open for it. Even now some people question allowing alcohol. Like I'm agreeing with those saying slavery is forbidden, I don't agree with those saying alcohol is allowed. Similar thoughts are there about hijab. They could be questioned on certain levels unlike the basics of the core foundations of Islam. Core foundations of Islam know no past present or future, and all Muslims know that. The identity of God can never be questioned for example and all Muslims agree to it.

Brother, you probably don't mean it intentionally but this really makes it seem like slavery is preferable to alcoholic beverages.

 

[icehorse]

I'm going to persist here... The one actual answer to the OP is that Muslims don't believe in slavery - okay, good to know. And, as we've seen, it's not at all clear where Muslims got this bit of moral teaching since it's ambiguous at best in the Quran.

 

[Shad]

Judgement of slavery or alcohol are not related to core foundation of Islam, they are social secondary laws. They are about society, so they are flexible in concept compared to the basics of Islam. Alcohol was forbidden clearly but the slavery issue was not clear cut, so extra efforts were open for it. Even now some people question allowing alcohol. Like I'm agreeing with those saying slavery is forbidden, I don't agree with those saying alcohol is allowed. Similar thoughts are there about hijab. They could be questioned on certain levels unlike the basics of the core foundations of Islam. Core foundations of Islam know no past present or future, and all Muslims know that. The identity of God can never be questioned for example and all Muslims agree to it.

Yet one examine provides clear cut views it is haram while the other had regulations but nothing making it illegal. Especially when there are laws created for how one can become a slave. If you want to avoid questioning the history of Islam and it's social laws have at it hoss. All this does it is promote such views are modern ad hoc rationalizations.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Brother, you probably don't mean it intentionally but this really makes it seem like slavery is preferable to alcoholic beverages.

Nope, I didn't mean it.

Yet one examine provides clear cut views it is haram while the other had regulations but nothing making it illegal. Especially when there are laws created for how one can become a slave. If you want to avoid questioning the history of Islam and it's social laws have at it hoss. All this does it is promote such views are modern ad hoc rationalizations.

Our subject here is not the history of Islam. I'm saying that slavery is now forbidden and you yourself also said that with the Western pressure it got abolished, and that's what counts. The Western expression "by the end of the day" is somewhere between the lines here. If Muslims did not want it to be abolished because it is something important to and of the core foundation of Islam, they wouldn't have.